Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive 2

2016 requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick deletion of Shaykh al-Islam

Hi, I am a new user here and I respectfully do not understand why this page has been deleted. If there is something wrong I have done, I can correct it and make it right. So please, give me another chance! Thanks in advance for your help and understanding. Kind regards.--TheGoldenRatio (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian actors wiki page in trouble

Wikipedia is property to all. Than why the pages of Indian celeb are been deleted. Even after providing many linksof profesional websites please restore Mahika Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18beauty (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are on the wrong Wikipedia. This Wikipedia has never had that article. It was deleted on English Wikipedia. (This is Simple English Wikipedia, a separate site.) If you want to ask about this at English Wikipedia, please go to en:Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Pierre Jovanovic, French Journalist writer

deleted several times by unknown people without any reason. the article of this writer was accurate and true, no illegal contents, this article was deleted from illegal intentions and sabotage --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madovsky (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on the wrong Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Articles by that name have been deleted on English Wikipedia, but I don't see where they ever existed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Sanford and Son

no real reason for the page to be deleted. it was a popular show. Jkl2299 (talk)

The page was deleted because it had been copied from another Wikipedia and not written in Simple English. We would welcome a suitable article written to meet our guidelines. If you would like to try and convert the article, it can be copied in your sandbox, where you can work on it at your leisure. If you need help to do this, ask below.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Donalsonville, Georgia

I need help on editing information on Donalsonville Georgia, I screwed up info on it and need to get it back up and don't know how, need help!--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhodge34 (talk • contribs)

I can not find any record of this article on the Simple English Wikipedia. Are you on the right Wikipedia?--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

War Thunder

deleted under A3 without sufficient time for me to simplify it more. It certainly wasn't a copypaste, and if you think it is don't DELETE it, FIX IT. This is very frustrating having admins delete things WITHOUT EVEN NOTIFYING ME. HarryKernow (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this one. The text in it is almost word-for-word from the English Wikipedia article, although some parts were left out. Only a few words and phrases were simplified, and sentence structure was not simplified. It was deleted about 2.5 hours after creation, which is more than long enough to wait for it to be simplified. An article copied from elsewhere should either be simplified before or immediately after being created, or have a tag on it saying that someone is working on simplifying it. It is the creator's responsibility to do that. Our quick deletion policy allows for immediate deletion of articles that don't follow that policy. I would be happy to userfy this one if the creator wants to work on it there before putting it back in mainspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please put it under User:HarryKernow/warthunder if you can. HarryKernow (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it to the above userpage. Chenzw Talk 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chenzw. @HarryKernow: When you're ready for the page to go to mainspace, be aware that if you move it yourself it will leave behind a cross-namespace redirect. To avoid having that, please either ask an admin to move it for you, or ask for the redirect to be deleted after the move. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Digital Combat Simulator

deleted under G11 "obvious advertising" without being an advertisement. Deleted completely unfairly and without proper review, nobody even tried contributing, instead people just JUMPED for deletion. You can see a similar version here. If you think it's not simple enough, then undelete it and make reccomendations or fix it yourself. If you think it's not notable, go google search it: it's a thriving community and has other wikipedia pages in many languages. The one I wrote in simple was v. similar to the English one, and that one isn't being deleted. In other words, there's no reason for it to be deleted. HarryKernow (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information given in the QD request was "refs are blogs and sources close to subject (vendors)". That might have made the requestor think it was advertising. A better QD option for this would have been WP:QD#A4, the one about not showing notability. I don't see advertising here, although it would need better refs and there are too many things in the other-websites section. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly argue it's not notable. The subreddit has over 6.6k people subbed and grows daily, it's on steam with 2.5k reviews, the forums have hundreds of thousands of posts, and there is a lot of money in the hyper-realistic sim market. If you undelete it I can find more refs, but it was mostly referencing update logs and community announcements on the forums, not blogs, and dev sites with information on the aircraft in question. Most said also comes from officially confirmed information put out by E:D, which along with the third-party devs are really the only ones that can put out announcements like "we are making xyz plane it'll be released soon^TM". Other news sources wouldn't do anything to further confirm it. But alas, I can if you really want to. HarryKernow (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a plus, that reads If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted... and others and I certainly do think it is notable. HarryKernow (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the original QD reason was pushing it a bit, so I have gone ahead to perform the undeletion. That being said, there are two remaining issues in this article:

The claim to notability is not as clear as I would like, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt here considering the nature of this genre.
Whether the game is even notable in the first place: from the general notability guideline, if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article", with emphasis on "independent" here. I don't deny the size of the player base, but it could still not be significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Undeletion does not guarantee that the article will pull through future RfDs, so please work on the issues I brought up. Chenzw Talk 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mercedes-Benz O405

The subject's claim to notability is: "It was the last VöV SL-II standard bus to be made." No matter how weak/questionable this claim to notability is, the claim exists in the article text, so the article can only be brought to RfD instead. Chenzw Talk 11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it had a claim. I restored it. As an admin Chenzw, since it wasn't deleted at Rfd you could have just restored it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind I just noticed you had edited it so I guess you couldn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The New Classics (band)

The page is a notable band that is known in Japan. 2605:6001:E484:1000:4DB5:1D5C:A470:2F3A (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The band may be notable, but the article didn't show the notability. Articles need to show that their subjects are notable. For refetence, the article consisted of one sentence, a discography, and a list of two television appearances. The sentence was "The New Classics is a Japanese hip hop band consisting of Asu, Greg, and Kaz founded in Tokyo, Japan.". --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Restore to User Page

The page "CoNetrix" was deleted by Orangemike on August 19, 2009 for Advertising. Can the page please be restored to a user page so that I can work on it an ensure it follows all rules for posting? (prlandru) — This unsigned comment was added by ‎ Prlandru (talk • changes) at 14:15, 20 July 2016.

I see that that page was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2008, but I don't see a record of it here on Simple English Wikipedia. If it was deleted here, then it's too late for it to be restored. If you want it restored on English Wikipedia, you would have to ask there. I'm sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fiona Graham

Overzealous Auntof6 again, the subject appears in 8 other Wikis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have to read the mind of Auntof6, since she has the ability to delete what she does not like, and no oversight to stop her. She does not tag articles for improvement, she does not seek the opinion of others, she does not notify you of deletion. When you write the article you have to think how will this article please Auntof6. There are too few people here to give proper oversight so it has become a fiefdom. It doesn't matter if you article is already in 10 other wikis. Auntof6 is not looking for WP:Notability which is defined by the objective references, she is looking for something extraordinary that catches her attention, something subjective and hard to define. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, since I am not an admin, I cannot see the article as it existed before. Would you mind explaining to the community what claim to notability was made, and giving one or two examples of the sources that were used to support it? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 07:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, here is the entire content of the article, (the note at the end of the reference was added by User:Macdonald-ross):

Fiona Caroline Graham (born 16 September 1961 in Melbourne, Australia) is an Australian anthropologist who works as a geisha in Japan.<ref name="radioaustralia">{{cite web|last=Ng|first=Adelaine|title=A glimpse into the secret world of geisha|url=http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/onairhighlights/a-glimpse-into-the-secret-world-of-geisha|date=1 August 2011|accessdate=13 May 2013}} ''NB: source does not mention her original name''.</ref>

I'd be interested to know what part of that RAN considers to show notability.--Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, your are forgetting that others agreed with my assessment of your other articles that were deleted. Admins, including me, do not delete pages based on whether we like them. We delete them based on whether they meet requirements for the type of page they are. We quickly delete them if they meet the criteria for quick deletions. This discussion was held the last time you were unhappy about articles being deleted. Tagging articles for improvement, seeking the opinions of others, and notifying users before using the quick delete processes are not required. I'm sorry that you either don't like or don't understand the requirements for showing notability here. If you are that unhappy with me, then start a discussion to clarify the rules for everyone or to remove my admin rights. In any case, stop casting aspersions on me, lest you find yourself accused of personal attack, either here or elsewhere. User:Peterdownunder's warning is still in effect. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need access to the thesaurus of magic words that Auntof6 uses to decide what she finds notable. She appears to have a vision that only superlative people belong in the Simple English Wikipedia. They have to be the fastest, or slowest, have written the longest book, or sold the most books. That is the Guinness Book of World Records. This is not a "personal attack" nor am I "casting aspersions on [you]", it is an accurate description of your behavior here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You just confirmed everything he said by blocking him. You told him "if you are that unhappy with me, then start a discussion" then you deleted the evidence he was collecting on his user page. You seem to be taking any legitimate criticism and bludgeoning it as a "personal attack" then hide the evidence, so that only your side of disagreement remains to be scrutinized. I think he used the word "fiefdom" correctly, I would use the word "authoritarian". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.101.126 (talk • contribs)
- No one has attempted to tamper with evidence, nor tried to "delete" anything, from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). If anyone has an issue with any administrator, please take it up to WP:RFA. I agree with the original deletion. Relevant criteria (QD A4) states: "This includes any article about a real person, ... that does not say why the subject is important." It is not immediately apparent that a non-Japanese working as a geisha makes that person important. Chenzw Talk 13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I did not block the user: that was done by someone else. I personally didn't think blocking was called for yet. I also did nothing to affect any "evidence" of anything: only the user himself has ever edited his user page (at least as of a minute ago when I checked). As for the personal attacks: when a user 1) accuses an admin of acting improperly when that admin follows standard procedures, and 2) tries to make it sound like that admin is the problem rather than the procedures, then yes, that looks personal to me, especially when the complaints are only about that specific user's work. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survivor Series (2016)

I created an article on the upcoming WWE network event, 2016's Survivor Series, but it was quickly deleted. Put simply, I don't know why and I don't think there was anything wrong with creating the article.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about events that have not yet happened are usually deleted. There is a guideline which says that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot make predictions about the future. Usually these sort of articles are more promotional, not encyclopedic. There are no articles under your user name. I will have a look at the logs for articles that might have been created by an IP. Also, when writing a comment, please sign your comment, so that other editors know where to address the reply.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't show because it was deleted: click on "deleted user contributions". It was deleted by Mac for not being simplified enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)7[reply]

Well, I feel someone should have helped simplify it if that's the case. I did my best. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to work on the article to simplify it more, it can be restored to a sandbox in your userspace. Let us know if you'd like that done. You could ask someone to help with it there, but be aware that the help might be guiding you to do the work, not necessarily doing it for you. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors to do take care of all the unsimplified articles that get created here. That's part of the reason we have the quick deletion option that was used to delete this article. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would like that done. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done The article has now been placed on a User subpage where you will be able to work on it: User:User:0737290632t2x273n/Survivor Series (2016). You can always ask for advice on simplifying the article, and it would be best to get an experienced editor to check it before moving it back to the main space.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article was based on info that was confirmed. Regular English Wikipedia has a lot of these articles. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enrique Odria deletions

How can you ask me for money and later have your editor " Taichi " Spanish editor remove or vandalize " Enrique Odria" or any of my pages" tens of articles on newspapers verified sources but this kid has taking it too far. undo his stuff, and make Wikipedia more credible. This is not a game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.22.232 (talk • contribs)

You are on the wrong Wikipedia. Please go to es.wikipedia instead. Chenzw Talk 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asher Kimchi biography deletion, guidance needed please

May I please have some guidance? I posted a page re: Asher Kimchi, one of the world's leading cardiologists. The biography on that page was approved by Dr. Kimchi for publication and was put up a few years ago on the Cedars Sinai hospital staff page.It was flagged for copyright issues... Because it is about him and both Cedars and Dr. Kimchi are fine with publishing it again (and it is an officially approved bio), would it not be OK to publish it here? If not, I will re-write it and resubmit, but the information remains basically the same. Would it be possible for you to give me some guidance on this as well as to allow Auntof6 to repost the page as a draft so I can make whatever changes necessary? Thank you for your help..I am a newbie on here and very much appreciate your help, as I have others I would like to document who I believe have no pages and who are making substantial contributions to the world. --HistoRian49 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a workflow for validating official permission given by your organisation/hospital, so at this time, we are unable to process it even if the original bio has official approval. You will need to re-write the text. I have restored the content to User:HistoRian49/Asher Kimchi for you to work on. Please take care to write about the person from a neutral point of view; Wikipedia is not a place for résumés. Chenzw Talk 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

2015 requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banksia ilicifolia

This article was deleted by an over-enthusiast because it was a 'direct copy and paste' when in fact I spent an hour using the translate tool to translate it into simplified english. If someone had actually read the article it would have been clear it was in Simple English. --Fritzmann2002 28 October 2015

I looked at it, and it did not seem simple to me. There was less information there than in the enwiki article and some words and phrases had been simplified, but there were still many complex words and compound sentences. The translate tool can't really simplify things they way this wiki needs. Would you like the article restored to your userspace so you can work on simplifying it more? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be fine. Thank you. Fritzmann2002 (talk) 29 October 2015 (UTC)

All the same, I doubt I'll be doing much over here after that. It seems there are just too many problems and jurisdictions. It's a great concept, but I don't wish to be part of it. Fritzmann2002 (talk) 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's harder to write in simple English than most people realize. We appreciate it when editors realize it isn't something they want to do after all. We'd welcome you back if you change your mind. I've restored that article to your userspace. It's at User:Fritzmann2002/Banksia ilicifolia.--Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Barnes Wells

I just started this one and already deleted, no tagging for notability, no notification, no AFD review. Do we really need to delete things in the middle of writing them. I admire the zeal in which Auntof6 deletes things, but her track record is not very good. See below and the running list on my user page. There is no clock ticking demanding a started article be perfect before I hit save. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I waited two hours after the article was created before deleting it. Articles should be mainspace-ready when they are created, or else they should be tagged to show that they're being worked on. I reject your statement about my "track record" because it is based on your ideas of how things should be done here, not on our actual processes. As I have said before, if you don't like the processes here, you are free to propose changes. Until and unless they are changed, however, they remain our processes. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you waited two hours! You do realize other more civil options are available to you. You can userfy the article out of courtesy, you can tag it for notability out of courtesy so I and others can work on it, or you can take it to RFD out of courtesy, where more people can look at it. You do not have a good track record. Everything you have deleted that I have written has been restored. You can save a lot of time and drama by the courtesy route. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement is misleading. They were not "restored" in the sense that they were undeleted. They were re-created, and not exactly with the same content either. Chenzw Talk 16:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were cut and pasted back with a few words changed to jazz up the lede, so that it would be harder for Auntof6 to justify deleting them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the claim of notability does not have to be in the lede. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In every case, when I deleted an article that you wrote and it was later recreated or restored, it was kept only because it was improved to show notability. In many cases, if not all, the improvement was done by others, not by you, so I have no reason to think that you would make improvements if articles were userfied. As far as tagging for notability, that rarely results in improvements to articles and I suspect you wouldn't make improvements in that case, either.

"I have no reason to think that you would make improvements" and "I suspect you wouldn't make improvements in that case, either." Yikes, talk about lack of AGF! I asked once, let me ask again: Why wasn't the current lead sufficient? "one of the best known concert singers in New York." That certainly is a claim of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always best if an article is finished when it is created, but if you create one that you aren't finished with, you can put the {{under construction}} tag on it to let people know. (Just know that that tag can't remain there forever.) If there is no such tag, then new page patrollers can only go by what is on the page. If you think that two hours after creation is too soon to quickly delete a page, then ask for a waiting period to be added to the QD process. In any case, please stop complaining when processes you don't like are followed, and instead ask for the processes to be changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about professional courtesy. Please userfy my article so I can continue working on it. It is a ridiculous burden to make someone recreate from scratch. If I add {{under construction}} how long will Auntof6 wait before she deletes them? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you think you would want? I think a week would be reasonable. I also think that during the week (or whatever amount of time it was), there should be effort to improve the tagged article(s) before creating new articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't the current lead sufficient? "one of the best known concert singers in New York." That certainly is a claim of notability. Whats up with that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: There was a credible claim to notability/significance. Further contest should be taken to WP:RFD. Chenzw Talk 03:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) Saying someone was "one of the best" of something is subjective, vague, and fits the definition of puffery if it isn't supported. What made him one of the best? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a credible claim nevertheless. Given the content at its current state, if no one goes to further qualify the claim, it will likely end up at RFD. Chenzw Talk 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

Speedy deleted without notification or tagging for notability, and deleted despite being well referenced and meeting the Simple English Wikipedia standard of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who deleted this, I will not say yes or no. I will just say that the article was deleted because it did not meet our requirement of stating notability in the text of the article. The creator has a different interpretation of this requirement, which I leave to others to evaluate. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Valid deletion, nothing in the article says why the subject is notable. No predjudice against recreation as long as the new article has that information. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, why isn't the first step to tag for notability or to notify the creator that the lede needs to be jazzed up? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that people are too busy to look at the other Wikipedias, or that having an obituary in a national newspaper does not make you notable. I agree that it is ok to delete an article because there is not a superlative claim in the lede. So, when someone asks for it to be restored so that they can fix the deficiencies, why the reluctance? Why demand that they write it from scratch again? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I saw you say you wanted to fix/improve the articles. Before this, it seemed you were demanding them to be restored because you thought they were fine as they were. I am willing to restore them if you are going to improve them, but they'd need to be improved in a reasonable amount of time. How much time would you like before they are re-evaluated? Alternatively, they could be restored to your userspace where you could take your time. Which would you prefer? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the claim of notability does not have to be in the lede. It can be in other parts of the text. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you be polite and just ask me to improve the article, before you delete it, and save a lot of time wasted by everyone. You wrote: "This is the first I saw you say you wanted to fix/improve the articles" maybe you should be asking more questions, and doing less kneejerk deleting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to create problem articles, then they will be deleted. It is your responsibility to ensure they meet our guidelines. It is not our responsibility to continually be reminding you of the guidelines.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So much unneeded drama ... seriously. So much wasted time. Not a "problem article" at all ... just lots of unneeded drama and a lack of courtesy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Benedetta Cappa

Speedy deleted without notification or tagging for notability, and deleted despite being well referenced and meeting the Simple English Wikipedia standard of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who deleted this, I will not say yes or no. I will just say that the article was deleted because it did not meet our requirement of stating notability in the text of the article. The creator has a different interpretation of this requirement, which I leave to others to evaluate. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have pasted the article body below. Deleted articles are visible to administrators in the deleted history.

Benedetta Marinetti Cappa (1897-1977) was an Italian futurist artist ... She was born in 1897 in Rome, Italy. She studied under Giacomo Balla. She married Marinetti in 1923. She died in 1977.
— Benedetta Cappa

For this particular article, it is asserted what the subject does, where and when she was born, who she studied under, who she married, and her year of death. For this article to be considered ineligible for QD A4, the article has to state explicitly why the subject is notable. The fact that she studied under Giacomo Balla (who I understand is a notable artist himself) is not considered to be a claim of notability because notability is not inherited. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "primary sources may be used to prove content in an article. They do not prove the notability of a person." While the cited source is a secondary source, the same principle applies; citing a source itself is not sufficient. The claim of notability must be in the article text. Chenzw Talk 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"was an Italian futurist artist" is her claim to notability. What you are asking is that the lede say that she is an exceptional artist, or a superlative artist. An artist with a retrospective at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan is clearly notable. The references determine notability, not the current state of the article. If you think that the lede needs to jazzed up, then tag it for notability, or take it to AFD, or leave me a message that says "jazz up the lede". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "primary sources may be used to prove content in an article. They do not prove the notability of a person." then said that that: "the same principle applies [to secondary sources]". I am sorry but you just pulled that out of your butt. The notability guideline says: "If a topic has received important coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." A primary source is a birth certificate or a death certificate, everyone gets one whether notable or not notable. Having a birth certificate or a death certificate does not mean you were notable. You can use a death certificate to source a death date and a birth date in a Wikipedia entry. Secondary sources, like an article in the New York Times, an obituary in the New York Times, an obituary in The Economist, only notable people get them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid you misunderstood my intention. What I was trying to say is that you cannot just cite a source in an article and expect the presence of the citation to be the claim of notability. Notability must be claimed within the article. Per QD A4: "if the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion". Furthermore, not all secondary sources may be accepted when evaluating a subject's notability. Such secondary sources include those which are not reliable nor independent, but the reliability and independence of the source is not what is being discussed here. Chenzw Talk 02:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an exercise for you. I wrote: "Benedetta Marinetti Cappa (1897-1977) was an Italian futurist artist." Now show me how you would have jazzed it up to satisfy Auntof6. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without any prior knowledge of the subject, what I would do is mention her contributions as one of the originators of the futurism art movement. In fact, there seems to be an article in the Journal of Modern Italian Studies which mentions her "radical new reformulation of Futurism".

The above will satisfy the criteria of the article needing a claim to notability, and also the notability guideline for creative professionals: "The person is known for starting a significant new concept, theory or technique." Chenzw Talk 02:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about satisfying the deleting administrator or any other editor. This is about meeting the criteria as stated in the deletion policy and notability guideline. The English Wikipedia further elaborates the idea behind CSD A7 (QD A4 over here): "This (the indication of importance) is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." (emphasis mine) Chenzw Talk 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you quoting the English Wikipedia, you all just explained that the English Wikipedia standards have no bearing on the Simple English Wikipedia at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it clearly it is about jazzing up the lede. We have articles on this person in the English Wikipedia, the Deutsch Wikipedia, and the Français Wikipedia, and the Italiano Wikipedia, the only thing missing was a sexier lede to satisfy Auntof6. No article should be speedy deleted when it appears in another Wikipedia. It should given a "notability" tag and the creator notified, and as a last resort be taken to AFD. It should never be speedy deleted. There are 1,000 more eyes on the English and German Wikipedia than there are here. Allowing a speedy deletion for articles like this gives too much power to a single person to shape what readers get to see. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether an article about the same person exists on other Wikipedias is not relevant to this case. The deletion policy on this wiki allows for speedy deletion of an article if the article does not state why the subject is notable. Had it been me, I would have deleted the article for the same reason. If you think that these kind of deletions should not be allowed, the correct place to talk about it is on WP:ST for a review of the deletion policy (which you have done), not here. Chenzw Talk 04:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid deletion, nothing in the article says why the subject is notable. No predjudice against recreation as long as the new article has that information. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the first step to tag for notability or to notify the creator that the lede needs to be jazzed up? And why isn't the second step to restore it when deleted and challenged, so that it can be brought up to code? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand it now. How can I help remove non notable people from this Wikipedia, what is the procedure? What is the equivalent of the speedy deletion tag for those that do not have delete rights? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{QD}}. You can see the various rational that you can use with it on Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shallots

Shallots - constructive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.34.191 (talk • contribs)

That might be possible, but it was a copyright violation and thus needed to be deleted. Please do no simply copy and paste content from other pages to Wikipedia. -Barras talk 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Soul Sessions

Can some one please un-delete the above article so that I can work on it and delete all the unwanted ish? Many thanks 86.131.166.160 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to exist now. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moron

I worked hard to keep this article from being deleted but now it was now deleted! Can I undelete this article? 71.3.137.41 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Chenzw Talk 13:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this article has to be undeleted because it has a meaning. 71.3.137.41 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Can you undelete it now? 71.3.137.41 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page had no encyclopedic content. It appeared to be, at best, a test page. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schematic

I don't think my article Schematic should be deleted. I am a student who has learned about schematics and worked hard in creating this article. If you think this page should be deleted can you please explain why or how I can improve this article. Thanks User:Rus793 and User:Auntof6 thanks for helping! 5df4smscm6 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@5df4smscm6: The only content in the page was a description of who you are and what you planned to write. Neither of those is appropriate on an article page. Since there was no content on the page, the page was deleted. Later it was recreated as a redirect to Electrical circuit. You are welcome to either improve that article or write the schematic article with appropriate content. You might want to work on it in a sandbox under your user account until it is ready to be in mainspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of Omer Tarin

Hello, I would please request from you all, a review of this deletion today. Im sorry that I am not expert with the wikipedia, but I would like to say that firstly, one of the basic aims of this whole site, should be always to try to achieve some sort of consensus, so that the site remains useful for people (especially students) all over the world, since its easier and understandable and a variety of articles is available about people from all parts. Secondly, 'notability' in my opinion, shouldnt depend only on availability of supposedly reliable sources online- many notable people (for example) in this part of the world, dont always have much information about them online, but there are ample reviews and similar works, including secondary scholarly works, published in reputable newspapers, journals, books, and so on, here. Thirdly, in most instances, just simply voting/polling along 'majority is authority' lines, seems sadly a bit arbitrary. This article was, or is, in my view as an educator, a useful one, and served a good and positive purpose, and the subject is beyond doubt a very well know poet and writer from Pakistan. Perhaps, the article could have been shortened or revised and edited to suit Simple Wiki standards? I think that this suggestion was made in the discussion page but wasnt given any serious attention to, and as a result the article was just deleted outright. Surely, we can all work towards a common and positive goal, rather than just imposing our own will/s outright, at all costs? I do realise that this appeal might not be 'technical' as is the general case, but I would like to ask everyone to think about what Ive said please, its just simple sense, and I would request that the article be readded , with possible rewriting or extensive re editing? Thanks to all 39.54.178.133 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)SyedB2015[reply]

Hello IP user. I'm usually one of the first to suggest that an article can be saved if I believe that I can find the sources to support it. In this case, I was unable to locate sources so I didn't say anything. You have indicated above that there are print sources available that would support notability for Omer Tarin. I would suggest compiling a list of those and adding them to this section. There is no deadline -- an article can be restored at any time if material is uncovered that shows the article can be created in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards. While online references are easiest to verify, print references or other "offline" references are acceptable on Wikipedia. Social media and self-published sources are not acceptable for establishing notability. You can read the full standard by clicking here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least tell us which sources specifically support the notability claim for Omer Tarin. For example, is it your national newspaper? Or is it some specific journal article? Some of us have already tried to look up information online, which is usually the first step we take, but as you said (and which I agree with) some information can only be found in print sources for now. At least tell us what these sources are so that we can think about how we can go about this. Unfortunately, now that other editors are disputing the subject's notability, the onus is now on the article contributors (User:Hamneto and you) to show us the evidence/information - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (en:WP:ONUS). As I have mentioned in my original nomination, unauthenticated book reviews (such as on Amazon or Goodreads) by (claimed) subject experts are not acceptable as a reliable source. Chenzw Talk 12:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors/users, hello, I cannot speak for anyone else but as I have already stated on my Talk Page , I must claim the fault for not editing or adding proper sources & etc in this deleted article. It is not really an issue for me, I know that Syed B has also done some later work on it, but the problem remains that many of our reputed writers here, as well as other artists, scholars and so on, are indeed not always covered on Internet sources. However, I do know that in many cases, there are many good Pakistani newspapers (international standard) as well as some few literary journals and similar publications, also reputable/reliable, which have some reviews and articles about these writers. If you look at the list of Pakistani Writers (which I also initiated a long time ago I think) you will note that except for very few (those associated with the Pakistani literary diaspora in the UK , USA, generally) most of these articles are not referenced at all. What to do about these please? As, again, in most cases, there are few or no Internet sources covering them? If you want, I can compile a list of these writers share. I would value your advice. What I was thinking, was to possibly find out reputable reviews and such from our main newspapers and maybe a couple of academic journals , and cite them? How would that work? Look forward to your response(s). Regards Hamneto (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Hamneto[reply]

@Hamneto: Please take the issue of other pages somewhere else, possibly WP:Simple talk. This page is for discussing whether to reverse deletion of pages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helo to all. I m sorry I didnt see or check this page for 2 days, thanks to all for comments and guidance. I think its right, and I will try to add more new poets and writers from Pakistan also when I register. Problem is that I am only able to access my college oNet facilitis at this time very limited, so I am waiting until I can have my own Net at home here. Good wishes. 39.54.193.196 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)SyedB2015[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kennedy Brice

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

This article was deleted because it stated she is not a notable actress and there are no RS to establish her as such and she has only been in local productions that no one has heard of. (RS were provided featuring Kennedy from Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter https://variety.com/t/kennedy-brice/ and over 40 reviews of her performance as the title character of "June" by credible news sources and being named Moviepilot's Horror Fan Favorite Child Actress of 2015 just last month) http://moviepilot.com/posts/3655206?lt_source=external,manual. As for projects no one has hear of... She is the lead in the horror film June (2015 Release Image/RLJ Entertainment with a worldwide release in three languages), she is Molly on The Walking Dead, was Finley Chota on Steven Spielberg's Red Band Society, she plays Dolly Parton's Bully Gloria Sanders in Coat of Many colors that EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET is reporting 15.6 million viewers last Wednesday when it aired and will re-broadcast Dec. 25 2015. She will play real-life kidnapping victim Beth Stauffer (Mary Stauffer's Daughter) on Investigation Discovery's Your Worst Nightmare Jan 6 2016 and StudioCanal just obtained International Distribution rights to "Worry Dolls" (Kennedy is the lead of "Chloe") as reported last week in Deadline. (trade publication) June received an international theatrical run and there are international fan sites devoted to Kennedy. Filmbuff311 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Filmbuff311 (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that the deleted article be userfied to User:Etamni/Kennedy Brice so that I can see if there is anything that can be done with it. I'll be kinda busy the next few days, but should have time to really get into this starting on Thursday or so. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - see what you can do.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking into it. I appreciate your time and attention. 68.16.8.102 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC) If you have any trouble finding RS, please let me know and I can provide you with the links and reviews as well. Thank you!Filmbuff311 (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmbuff311: I've added a new section to the bottom of your talk page. As noted above, I won't really have time to work on this until Thursday or so, but the information I've asked you for on your talk page will help get this rolling. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 14:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Measurement of Australian Gross State Product is being disputed

There is a difference of view and the figures are incorrect with the information being published. SFD (State Final Demand) is the Australian Bureau of Statiststs measure of GDP and GSP. Large differences in each states GSP is being used by another editor which does not match the information published by the ABS. This person is continuously changing this page and using figure which do not match Australian Government information. I want the administrator to investigate and lock the site to stop false publication of incorrect figures that are totally inaccurate. There are large differences in GSP being published by this other editor which do not make any sense. The ABS calcuates these figures over decades and is the only correct way to accurately calcuate this information! Reggieakd (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have never had a page called "Measurement of Australian Gross State Product". Was the article under a different name, or maybe on English Wikipedia? This page is for discussing pages that have been deleted here on Simple English Wikipedia. If you want to discuss information that was deleted from an article, please use the article's talk page. If none of that addresses your concern, please explain more. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

2014 requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

F.C. Lokomotiv Moscow

I had just made this page. It had lacked simplification/conversion. Now I'm asking for the restoration of the article.Fixer88 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoring. The grounds for deletion were WP:QD#A3, unsimplified article from another Wikipedia. The article had been simplified by removing a lot of the text. The text that remained was simple enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Controversial QDs are supposed to be overturned and sent to RfD if they are content-related, are they not? It's hard for anyone other than admins or the creator to weigh in here, as we can't see the content of the article... Gob lin 21:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

I restored it. Not sure it has enough to need attribution but I will add it anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Provisionally - Provided the attribution is immediately put on the talk page. While I would have declined on WP:QD#A3, I would probably have deleted it under WP:QD#G12 Copyright infringement since there was no attribution.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this Deletion Review is the previous RfD is Confirmed.
Administrator note:: The user that brought this Deletion Review has been blocked for Abusing Multiple Accounts. Enfcer (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Q. Richardson

Request for undeletion and semi-protection

The article is based on an notable living person, with reliable sources. I reviewed the previous counts, and I agree that previously conclusion due the non-reliable source that was stated. I have submitted some reliable sources as references. Please see below, discuss, and you have any more concern. Please contact my talk page, thanks!

http://voicechasers.com/database/showactor.php?actorid=14061 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5314171 http://www.tv.com/people/brandon-quantavius-richardson http://voiceacting.wikia.com/wiki/Brandon_Richardson http://www.celebritynetworth.com/view/m/0crchrl/

Nwritter318 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything there that indicates notability. All of those are just database links. What you need are news articles and/or books written about the individual. As far as I can see the original deletions are correct. He does not meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an actor to be notable, he has to have played at least two major roles in notable productions. None of Richardson's roles fit that criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing which indicates notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James Moran (boxer)

Hello. my name is jack and i am very dissapointed to find out that my father who fought for england at heavyweight division in the 1986 commonwealth games (and won gold) has been deleted from my home towns noteable residents, my father gave up most of his childhood to fight for england and became englands bxing captain at the commonwealth games in ediburgh. my fellow peirs in our home town beleive my father (James Moran) should not have been removed from this site and are very confused at how the site claims to provide all knowledge if it is willingg to delete vital history that is important to the smaller audience. thank you for yur time.

Jack Moran proud son — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.235.54 (talk • contribs)

That is because he does not have a Wikipedia article. Only people who have their own article are listed on their home town's article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

2013 requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The clear consensus from the community in this review is that the article was correctly deleted. Notablity has not been proven. The article will remain deleted. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spider International 2

User:Tdfdc/Sandbox (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I'm inviting the original editors who have participated in the discussion and other editors, to review the status of an article "Spider International."

The reason for the review is: The article has changed considerably during the original RfD, yet it might be that the editors didn't review the article again prior to closure of the RfD; the article was updated further after the RfD's completion.

I'm asking to consider 3 counts while rendering a decision:

1) I'm not absolutely sure, if the article fulfills in this moment the notability guidelines, however there is an instance whereby Chenzw have said: *a) That the article can be reinstated if I'll change the wording. *b) Autonf6 have said: "Even if we were to decide that the refs show enough notability,..", and: "If it survives the rfd.." - implying that in his view it might survive, and perhaps satisfies a minimum level of notability; I have demonstrated that the company is indeed International, and is known in Audiophile circles around the world. For example: "Why would PCMagazine in Russia select it's HDMI cable for testing, (and mention it), if it wouldn't be known? It is understood from the article that they wanted to select a known, mid-range cable in terms of price, and compare it to the quality of the unknown, lowest priced brand and expensive brand." The problem of establishing notability lies in that the number of reliable sources is small, because of the nature of the Audiophile field, ei: there are simply too few sources that are dealing with the field.

2) I'm not sure if an article should satisfy all guidelines prior to posting, or an article can be created first and improve overtime. I personally believe in editorial process, and here are my thoughts:

I don't think that an article should be posted only when it is absolutely, beyond any doubts complies with all the guidelines. I believe in collaborative editorial approach, such as an article may not immediately comply with all guidelines, but that can be done over time. I think if the field is narrow, it should not disqualify the article from such an approach.

3) The status-quo particularly about the notability guidelines.

Part 1) To my perception, there is currently a status quo regarding the notability on en.wk. In my opinion there are about 40-60% of the entire en.wk that would have to be deleted because the articles' reference fail to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources. Would you agree with it?

An example is: Lerata village, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lerata. It has got only two references, with one of them broken. It was established in 2005, with several editors attending to it throughout the years. No one of them thought to delete it. I have visited the village in around 2007, and it's just a small local village, less than 500 houses. It will never fulfill the notability requirements. On the other hand, I would be objecting to it's deletion, because it might be useful for readers who are making research, or otherwise interested in a neutral opinion about the subject, and I would actually be inclined to enrich the article. (Please do not discuss the Lerata example as I have provided it purely to demonstrate my point.)

At the same time, would it be an article about a commercial company, as Spider for example, it would surely have been deleted, and is even being QDed with 9 working references. It seems that entries about commercial companies are seen in a negative view by most admin. But I think it shouldn't be so, for the guidelines of Wikipedia allow such articles.

Part 2) Out of pure curiosity, I have decided to test my impression of 40-60%. I did so by pressing "random" on en.wk. Here are the articles I got:

:::*The four examples, please click on show in order to view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Championships_in_Athletics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_1500_metres - 1 reference, to todor66.com website, fails notability requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_14,_Prince_Edward_Island - Got no references, fails notability requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beloved_%281970_film%29 - 1 Reference, may or may not 'potentially' fulfill the notability reqs, fails at present form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconditioning - 3 References, First reference is being actually another en.wk article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGraw-Hill_Encyclopedia_of_Science_and_Technology, that itself got no references. Other two are ISBN references. Even if they are valid, 2 references are not enough to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Though potentially it is most likely complies with the notability requirements, in the current form it fails.

I have repeatedly clicked 4 times on random article button. Tdfdc (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said this before, but notability is judged on the potential for sources. They don't have to be on the page. No editor can confidently say that any of those articles fail the notability requirements until they've actually assessed the coverage of each topic in reliable sources. Quite likely, nobody has challenged the notability of Lerata or any of the other articles you mention because editors have determined the subjects notable after researching their coverage in reliable sources. Once an editor challenges a subject's notability by proposing deletion of its article, then other interested editors will assess it also. If this assessment deems it not notable, as has been done in this case, then it is required to demonstrate otherwise. Osiris (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you will review additional examples, I have tried to assess potential for notability as well. It would be also good to mention, that if references that are presented on the article are lacking, yet the interested editors think that the potential is there, wouldn't they add suitable template? Am I right?

I have added additional references from canada.com, thestarphoenix and financial post, how about them? Tdfdc (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No... What is present on the page has nothing to do with notability. The references used in the article might show notability, or they might not, but there is no requirement for them to do so. It's only during discussions where the subject's notability has come into question that there may be a need to demonstrate it. Like I said before elsewhere, you don't have to actually cite references on your page to show notability. All you have to do is provide them in some form as an argument, or defence, against deletion. You can put them on the talk page, on the deletion discussion page, here... it's all taken into account. The actual citing of sources is only required for verifiability. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Notability whatsoever. All of this is written in that guideline, by the way. It would save time if you read it through (again?). Osiris (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for enlightening me. And I'm sorry that I missed it while reading the guideline. Please note, that my English language ability is though good, isn't perfect.

Taking in account everything you have said, I would rephrase, and say, that 40-60% of all en.wk articles would likely to fail notability defense. Do you agree with my estimation? Tdfdc (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter whether that's the case or not. The notability of a subject doesn't need to be defended until it's questioned. And even then, it's up to editorial consensus. Osiris (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)i[reply]

Well, the way I see the situation from my perspective: You (mostly) and some few other editors didn't like the article initially because it was too promotional, and a description of company. I have agreed about the promotional side, and worked with Autonf6 to address it. However, even though the wording is fine now, it is still an article about a company. That one I cannot change. I can just only appeal to see the article as any other article. I have said, that you may judge the notability not only by me providing concrete references, but also by assessing the potential notability by yourself, am I right? At the same time, I understand that you are not an Audiophile, and it may not be immediately evident to you of how to assess it (please see Assessment section with more one that). It is certainly that you won't find any references on google scholar, because it is a commercial entity, not a scientific thing. (They didn't discover bisons.)

It is certainly that I did find some references. But doing so, I have hinted that your initial determination (Osiris: I couldn't find any references on google) may not be correct. (If I'm not mistaken you have stated that on the RfD).

I'm asking to give the article a benefit of a doubt, so far it is the only one Audiophilic article on simple.wiki; and not to apply stringent criteria, which if would be applied to all en.wk might would eliminate 40-60% of all of the articles.

After all, even though you have started the RfD because of Notability, you have really hinted that you don't like it because it looked like advertising (and Chenzw said it too); and that has been eliminated. As I have worked to comply with that, could we remove the highlight from the article? I believe that the article gets too much opposing from the admins.

We could use even yet another way, the notability guidelines provides appliance of it's conditions "with common sense". Thus, we could agree that Audiophilic field is notable by itself, as to have articles in this field, yet the number of reliable sources are too low, to either easily demonstrate or fail to demonstrate the needed level of notability. So, even if highest level of notability wasn't demonstrated, some level of notability was demonstrated.Tdfdc (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this would not eliminate a chunk of the articles on the English Wikipedia. I've tried to explain this, but obviously I'm not being clear enough. There are differences between those articles and the one we've just deleted:

Reliable sources showing significant coverage are probably available for them. You can't just say that the subjects are not notable because the references on the page don't show it. That's neither a requirement nor is it a persuasive argument. Nobody will agree. I said this above: What is present on the page has nothing to do with notability.
The notability of Spider International has been challenged, editors have looked for coverage in acceptable sources and found it to be insufficient. Now that consensus has deemed it not notable, it is required to demonstrate otherwise if it is to be recreated. You can challenge the notability of any article, including your five examples, but you will always have to follow that process. And it is quite likely that you will be stopped somewhere along the way; either you will find examples of significant coverage yourself, or others will.

The guidelines specific to those articles may also be different to the guidelines relevant to Spider International (WP:ORG). In your last paragraph, you're basically proposing a new guideline to apply to subjects related to audiophilia. Which you can do, but that's another discussion entirely (and one that is unlikely to pass). And Spider International will always be subject to the requirements for companies and organisations.

We'd love some articles on audiophilia here, but an article on a company that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria is far from what we need to get children and English-language learners to better understand the subject. There is no "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to subjects that are clearly not notable. You have found references, but none of the kind that you need (reliable and independent, showing significant coverage). I found trivial mentions and promotional pieces as well, but it's totally irrelevant to us here. Everything else is irrelevant: the expertise of the assessors, how well-known it is among audiophiles, how credible the websites that host their profiles are, the quantity of mentions and listings, whether other articles might meet similar standards... The only thing that we need to talk about is the availability of reliable sources showing significant coverage. You seem to be repeatedly trying to find loopholes, but there are none. Finding sources that match the description in the guideline is the only way. From now on, in the interest of saving time and sticking to the point, I will only be commenting on the sources provided. Osiris (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the additional sources: while I'm sure the websites are reliable, the content you're citing is not independent – it's written by the company itself... However reliable the websites, showing that they host such content is not demonstrating anything of importance. Also, I'm sure you realise this, but the quantity of references does not make a difference. The company's name can be mentioned on a million websites, but mentions and listings are not what editors need to see. Osiris (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added canada.com, thestarphoenix and financial post's. Could you please elucidate, why do you deem that it's written by the company? I haven't perceived it this way at all.Tdfdc (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are the exhibitor profiles. These profiles are written by the exhibitor (the company) itself. This also means that those 3 sources are not independent and actually do not add further value to the article. For participation in CES, citing 1 or 2 sources is sufficient, preferably the official CES website. Chenzw Talk 16:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Osiris implied that it is written by the company itself meaning Spider International.

I have provided links to the original CES site. I would like to add that CES is the "..the world’s largest consumer technology trade show."Tdfdc (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a promotional profile. It's very clearly written by the company... "Our customers", "Our products, "We aim for excellence in everything we do", "Our goal is to turn our customers' dreams into reality." Osiris (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but it was published in respectable sources, right? It is not as much important who wrote it, but who have published it, am I right? Certainly, the respectable sources have verification process, I would assume. And, as I have mentioned, participation in CES that is the world's largest consumer technology trade show brings notability in different ways, such as: if the company wouldn't participate in the CES, I wouldn't be able to bring these sources to your attention.Tdfdc (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is absolutely relevant who wrote it. Content written by the company, or a representative of the company, is not independent. You need to find sources that fulfill the relevant criteria. What trade shows the company has exhibited in has no relevance to the guideline and is not a convincing argument for anything. Osiris (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no attribution in the reliable sources. It is the language that is used that allows you to assume, but just that, assume. Do you hold an irrefutable evidence that it is written by anyone who is working for the company?Tdfdc (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Auntof6

Point 1: My using the phrases "Even if we were to decide that the refs show enough notability,..", and: "If it survives the rfd.." did not imply anything about notability. I did not think the article would survive, but I was giving it the benefit of the doubt.

That is as much as I have stated as well.

Point 2: New articles do not always satisfy all requirements right away. There are some requirements that, when not satisfied, are grounds for deletion, either quick deletion or RfD. One of our main criteria for inclusion, if not the main one, is notability. That is what was questioned about this article. When notability is questioned, it is up to the editor(s) wanting to keep the article to show notability. If that/those editor(s) don't want to do so, why should anyone else?

How can you say that I don't want to do so, whereby that is exactly what I'm trying to do?

And, both editors who are questioning the notability and those who defend it, should exercise AGF in my opinion, as in all other aspects of the Wikipedia, am I right? That would mean, that if some editors do not like the article, because they personally think that the article is 'abusing' the Wikipedia, by using it as an advertising vehicle, they should put away such assumptions, because the overwhelming consensus have clearly and without any doubts to the contrary has allowed to have articles about companies. Therefore, they should treat such article as any other article. And, that would mean, that instead of a dispute between the two sides, there should be an objective discussion. And, that would mean, that the editors who question the notability, should objectively assess the potential of the notability of such a company. (And if they cannot, or they feel that their personal opinions influence their assessment, they should excuse themselves from the discussion, because AGF, which is the core here, cannot be maintained) It wouldn't be fair that three experienced editors would discuss one inexperienced editor into submission, merely because he has failed to find overwhelming sources.

Please see a relevant comment in "Assessment" section.

Point 3: The existence of other articles that may not meet notability requirements has nothing to do with this discussion. We are discussing this one article. I'm sorry it happens to be the article that you created. Be aware, though, that your example of the village is not a good one, because all settlements are considered notable by long-term precedent.

As I have said, please do not discuss the example, I have just given it to elucidate my point of view, and I have written it in the comment to the example.

The existence of other articles may not be relevant, unless it is 40-60% of all articles on the en.wk. Then, it may be viewed as relevant, because it demonstrates status quo.

Also, could you please elucidate the idea of the precedent that you have mentioned? It means that any settlement is excluded from the need to be notable? (Or to demonstrate the notability in case it is being questioned?)

I'd like to add that the fact that a company exhibits at a trade show does not make the company notable, no matter how big or important the trade show is. In fact, the bigger the trade show, the more companies they'd have so it stands to reason that some of them would be smaller and less notable.

I didn't say it should be viewed necessarily as making a company notable. But certainly, it is a contributing factor towards notability at the very least. There are several reasons for that. Firstly, most commonly companies introduce there their innovations, and not ordinary products (they would simply like to sell). Secondly, media and public gets a chance to review the company/products, and, that usually results in publications/reviews/articles about the company/products.

One last thing: you were advised to "invite" the editors who previously commented on the various deletion discussions for this article. Stating here that you invite them probably doesn't do much good. The most honorable way to do it would be to post on each of their talk pages inviting their comment here, being sure to include those on both sides of the discussion. Here is a link to the RfD so you can get their names if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I have asked Osiris to lend a hand in following the correct procedure regarding the review discussion. Kindly review his talk page. Be assured, that if the editors who previously commented wouldn't come here, I would post them a message on their talk pages. I could do that immediately, but I thought there might be a special 'template' for the invitation, so I didn't want not to follow the norms.Tdfdc (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of notability, ie: potential

Editors should assess the potential notability. I was just thinking in this regard, if I wouldn't like an article related to let's say, mathematics, and would like to get it deleted, the only thing I could do, is to question it's notability. So, I would file an RfD on this ground. But prior of doing so, as an editor who follows AGF, I would better try to assess the potential notability of the article/topic, because I wouldn't like to waste time of fellow editors. The question is: Could I truly assess the potential notability of the article in a correct manner, considering that I do not know mathematics? Or, rather, could editors who do not understand Audiophile field, correctly assess potential notability of a purely Audiophilic company? Spider International, besides producing cables, and unlike Sony, which produces TVs for example, produces only Audiophile related equipment.Tdfdc (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need expertise in any subject to assess the availability of reliable sources. It might help, in that you'll know where to look for them, but it's really not essential. It would be counter to one of our main policies to say that only certain editors may judge on this subject and that, based purely on their stated expertise. Osiris (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I would try to do similar review on an article that is about something related to mathematics, how would I know what is counted as a reliable source in mathematicians' circles?? Tdfdc (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources generally remains mostly the same throughout all subjects. See WP:RS for descriptions of what constitutes reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the specific mathematics' subject would be covered in generally know sources, such as The New York Times, that would be so. But if it would be covered in specific magazines, oriented towards mathematicians, I wouldn't be able to know immediately which one of them is reliable, and other nuances I should know in order to render right decision. At least I would have to do research into the world of mathematics. Therefore, I would ask any editor who is trying to assess the potential notability to do such a research into the world of Audiophilic equipment and where/how the article's subject stands there. And then, I wouldn't like to see the discussion as it is now, lacking of AGF, editors opposing me, and I'm defending. It doesn't necessarily should be so.Tdfdc (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Keep deleted. I've said all I need to here. Until somebody can demonstrate a good amount of coverage in reliable sources, then my suggestion is to keep this deleted. I'm happy to comment on any sources that are brought forth (I've given my opinion on the new sources here), but I'm not debating guidelines and loopholes any more. Osiris (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris, we are back to square 1. You are becoming emotional, and you are already starting to state conditions, such as what should be debated. Am I not allowed to elucidate my opinion upon what I see is relevant to keeping the article? I wouldn't like this discussion to deteriorate into conditions, you are wasting my time, not to be unwelcoming and other negative, AGF lacking constructs, especially considering that you have apologized for some of them already. So I would expect you won't be repeating this.Tdfdc (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't set any "conditions"... You are more than welcome to decide what is relevant for yourself, and continue discussing such things with anyone you wish. But I am surely allowed the same liberties. I spent a considerable amount of my time indulging you discussing things that I deem not relevant, and now I have merely stated that I have said all I will on those things and will be sticking to commenting on the merits of the sources from now on. I think that's pretty fair.
Sincerest apologies once again if you've been offended by anything I've said. But as I seem to be repeating myself over and over, and as your new comment below shows that it's been totally ignored, I can't help but naturally feel as though my time has been wasted. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's genuinely how I feel. Osiris (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly accept your apologies. I think its rather natural that a newbie editor who is not perfect in English may need to be repeated some things. I just observe that it shifts/moves you off-balance. Perhaps it would better if other editors who are already discussing this review will carry it on with me?Tdfdc (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted - With all the additional discussion I still don’t see anything new that helps to show "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." That remains the crux of the matter in my viewpoint. The article went through the process of an RfD; a discussion followed and it was determined, by consensus, it did not meet notability guidelines. That was my opinion then and I don't see anything now that would alter the circumstances. Rus793 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned three different points to consider before voting. I think it's unfair to single out one article and to ask it to follow very high standards. If such review process would be applied to every article, we might as well to eliminate 60-80% of the entire en.wk. I would at at least expect the voting editors to leave a comment upon each point that I have mentioned.Tdfdc (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes articles need to show they are notable before being posted. That is one of the criteria to avoid being speedy deleted. As to point #3, your example is actually wrong, it is a town. All towns are notable as they are published all over the place in many things like maps and geography books and government documents etc. Either way, other articles have no bearing on this one. See other stuff exists. I should also note, lack of references on the article doesn't always mean an article should be deleted. However, when it is brought up for deletion then they do need to be provided. -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are taking about Lerata example, it is not a town. It is not really a village. I think it's called sub-village (though some may call it a village.) In any case, I have suggested not to discuss the example that was brought just to illuminate a point.
Other stuff exist, I understand that. I brought this point because I believe it's broader than that, ie: there is currently a status quo. You may dispute this fact, but try to click "random article" button and see the articles that will pop-up. Again, I'm not saying that Spider's article should be here, because 4-5 other articles are similar. But if there is 40-60% of the entire encyclopedia, it is a different story. If the editors will agree that currently there is such status quo, it could help to retain the article.Tdfdc (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted Through all of these ridiculously long winded discussions there doesn't seem to be anything to show that the article is covered in significant detail in reliable interdependent sources. I am also still very concerned about conflict of interest since this editor was asked (paid?) to write this article for the company. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That issue has been already addressed several times. I have pointed out, that if the company would like to ask someone of their own to write the article, or to pay to someone, they could ask someone who is at least a native English speaker to do so. I'm a Russian, and though I do my best efforts to write correctly, I assume that my English grammar, and even the way I construct sentences is far from perfect.Tdfdc (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you did say they asked you to write it. Are you now saying they didn't? -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is relevant. You may review the conversation that has already taken place, if I'm not mistaken in the Osiris' page. I'm not at COI because I'm in no way connected with the company.Tdfdc (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you were asked by them to do it then that makes you connected to the company. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I was specifically asked by them. They have mentioned, that it would be nice if there would be an article about them. I don't think it makes me connected to them, or it can influence my objectivity.Tdfdc (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted per above. I am struggling to see how this company will (at present) fulfil our notability criteria, and in its current state the article can be QD'd under A4. Unless someone can show how the company is notable, it should remain deleted. --Beefball ^Talk 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notable in Audiophile equipment. It is an international company, that originates in Taiwan, and is exhibiting it's innovations in CES 2012 and will exhibit in 2014. The problem of coming with enough references is a result of my own time limits, but more so that many sources are in Taiwanese, another problem is that Google search Spider International produces too many false positives.Tdfdc (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that your claims that the company is notable, international, etc. need to backed up with references. I can read Chinese, so if you are willing to provide me some reliable sources backing up your claim I do not mind reviewing them. But until then, my opinion remains the same. --Beefball ^Talk 19:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review http://www.seal-star.com and elucidate how Spider International is being connected to the company? I'm expecting that it is their name for International operations. Am I right?

Are they notable?
Are there any sources in Chinese regarding Spider International?Tdfdc (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be just a online shop or distributor of Spider International's products. Not an independent source, by any means. Beefball ^Talk 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is not, I haven't taken a liberty to propose it is. But, could you please address other things? And, could you please click on "About" button in the seal-star - when I get it translated by google, it appears that they are mentioning that there is an article about them/products by an "American mainstream newspaper". Could you let us know what article they are referring to?Tdfdc (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are referring to this article. Beefball ^Talk 14:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is it in your opinion an independent source?Tdfdc (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────┘
Yes. (You can look at WP:SECONDARY for the guidelines) But I fail to see how you would intend to use it. --Beefball ^Talk 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For proving the notability of course. Tell me please, is "Spider International" or the translation of it's name into Chinese/Taiwanese yields any coverage in the China's/Hong Kong's and of course in Taiwanese' national press?Tdfdc (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not think that "Mainstreet newspaper" is quite a reliable source. Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor capability to help you look for sources to support your article, and I am sorry for that. You mentioned that there were potential sources, I can help you look through those though. --Beefball ^Talk 19:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me please why do you deem Mainstreet newspaper as not a reliable source?

Could you please translate "Spider International" into Taiwanese?Tdfdc (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you intend to you the source as a citation for, but bare in mind that the article is from a financial newspaper, and written from a subjective perspective. I do not know or believe that Spider International has a specific chinese or taiwanese name. Beefball ^Talk 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that financial newspaper wouldn't be suitable as a reliable reference towards an article about a company? What is the rationale? BTW: It also written that it's a news magazine, and it provides consumer reports as well. It is not a specialized financial-only magazine. en:Thestreet.com#MainStreet.com.Tdfdc (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources discussion

Stereophile

Lets discuss this reference: http://www.stereophile.com/rmaf2010/spider_headphones/index.html. I have come across it while reading Audiophile, and it is listed there. According to en:Stereophile it is "..a monthly magazine that focuses on high end audio equipment, such as loudspeakers and amplifiers, and audio-related news, such as online audio streaming. It was founded in 1962 by J. Gordon Holt."

I deem the article as a reliable source. If someone think that the magazine or the article is not a reliable one, such as being sponsored review, let us review the evidence and discuss it here.Tdfdc (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoythemusic

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ces_2013/part2/. I deem it as a reliable source. Enjoythemusic is being mentioned in Audiophile here in Simple en.wk.Tdfdc (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Survey

Per what Osiris have said (and what should be a norm) "..whatever you come up with during the review will be taken into account." let us have a new survey, as there is a new source Mainstreet newspaper plus Stereophile's and Enjoythemusic's sources remain undecided.

I would expect the editors to avoid revenge editing. I would also expect that the editors who will express opinion that the article should be kept deleted, will provide evidence per each source towards why it is not reliable (no assumptions please without supportive evidence), but I prefer that the opposing editors would instead follow en:wp:preserve.Tdfdc (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Also en:WP:IMPERFECT comes in mind.Tdfdc (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Anyone who disagrees with you gets accused of not assuming good faith, and you discount what they have to say. You also don't get to throw out the entire discussion that has already happened. However, I just looked at the article to see the new source, but I don't see it. In case I missed it among the large number of refs you have there now, could you please point out where it is used? To evaluate the source, we'd need to see the specific text and what fact(s) it is used to substantiate. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely certain that it was said that the references that proof notability may be presented in the discussion that questions the notability or talk page of the article per en:WP:ENV, pinging Chenzw. I would disagree with what you have said in regards to AGF. For example, Beefball disagreed with me, and at the same time volunteered to help. Please note, it's not only important what is one's opinion, it's also important how one expresses it. I prefer if someone disagrees with me, but expresses it politely, than someone who agrees with me, but expresses it impolitely, sarcastically or in negative tone, however sublime it might be.Tdfdc (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per en:WP:N "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.." - Many sources can still be found, that I haven't presented, because of time limitations I have, because of many false positives I get searching for "Spider"(many sources refer to the company simply as Spider without "international" or "cable"), because some reliable sources might be in Taiwanese, and I do not know this language..Tdfdc (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - Articles on Wikipedia must be able to claim/show that the subject is notable. In this case, for the article to be restored, the article must claim/show/mention that Spider International is a notable company, or else the article is quick-deletable under QD A4. The only claim to notability I can see is Spider International's status as a CEA member and its participation in CES 2012. This is a very weak claim (if not a non-claim to notability), not to mention that the sources cited are not independent anyway (from en:WP:ORG: "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people" are not independent sources). I believe that the community has deemed participation in CES (or any other trade show, for that matter) as one of weak significance (in terms of showing notability) because of the large number of organisations involved in trade shows. This could qualify as self-promotion and/or product placement, which is not allowed anyway. Furthermore, from en:WP:PRODUCT: "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right". I am not saying that everything produced by Spider International is not notable (I don't know/can't be sure anyway), but the article in its current state does not seem to show Spider's notability. Chenzw Talk 23:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are assessing actual notability, you might be right. However, shouldn't we decide if an article is being notable based on en:wp:n, ie: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources"? I think I might be mistaken, but isn't notability is not being related to the article's content?Tdfdc (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note regarding QD A4 - "..or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted..")Tdfdc (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Spider International

I think Spider International article should be kept. According to the rules: "Obviously breaking copyright law like a page which is:

Copied from another website which does not have a license that can be used with Wikipedia;
Containing no content in the page history that is worth being saved.
Added by someone who doesn't tell whether they got permission to do so or not, or if their claim has a large chance of not being true;

When tagging a page for deletion using this rule, a user should tell the page's creator first. If the Administrator who deleted the page is told that they may have made a mistake, they should add the content back; if a confirmation e-mail has not been received from the original author of the information, the Administrator should blank the article and add the {copyvio} template."

..I should have been informed first. The article was deleted after 3 minutes after I was informed. That is insufficient time. Tdfdc (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to restore a copyright infringement? That is unlikely to happen. Rewrite it in your own words. The article should also say why people should care about this company. It doesn't look like a notable company, but that's another issue... Osiris (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note my comment on my talk page about that issue. -Barras talk 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now Osiris have deleted my sandbox. Can you please restore my sandbox, so that I can review it? As far as I remember the article wasn't cut & paste. But let me review it and rewrite accordingly, if needed.

And the rules are clear: "When tagging a page for deletion using this rule, a user should tell the page's creator first." - I wasn't told, though I understand I should have been.

"If the Administrator who deleted the page is told that they may have made a mistake, they should add the content back". So, in my opinion it is a mistake, and the rule say: "may have made". So, I would welcome adherence to the rules, if possible. Tdfdc (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were told in this edit to your talk page. As you already acknowledged, "I should have been informed first. The article was deleted after 3 minutes after I was informed." I have checked it for you: while, there are a few differences to the text on the company's webpage, it's still a clear infringement. So no mistake has been made. You're misinterpreting the rules. Read our licensing policy and the terms of use. There is no way we're restoring a copyright infringement. Please rewrite it in your own words. Osiris (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would guess I should have been given some time to fix it. I guess 3 minutes is not enough.

Referring to rules, it says: "if a confirmation e-mail has not been received from the original author of the information, the Administrator should blank the article and add the {copyvio} template."

And, can you please restore the sandbox so that I can review and rewrite it per the rules?

And, please note, that you have admitted that there were some changes done to the text, though initially it was said it was "cut & paste" by Barras on his talkpage: "The content of the submitted page was a plain copy and paste from a copyrighted website." Tdfdc (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sandbox restored (and blanked). Please refer to the page history. However, undeletion of actual article is declined. Chenzw Talk 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you please restore the content of the sandbox? Or explain why it have been blanked? I would like to rewrite upon. Tdfdc (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was blanked because it was a copyright violation. Having copied text like that can cause legal problems for Wikipedia, even in userspace. When Chenzw said "refer to the page history", he meant that you could find the content by looking in the page's history. You can use that as a basis for rewriting the article. However, do not just restore the text the way it was. As you might imagine, there are probably people watching the page now to make sure a copyvio doesn't reappear.

You said elsewhere that you were asked to write this article. That creates a connection between you and the company and could be seen as a conflict of interest. Editing their own text is not likely to produce an article that we would keep. The article as it was was promotional in tone and did not show notability. If you rewrite it, please find some reliable sources that are not connected with the company and are not advertising it. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware of what you have said. I have indeed replied to Chenzw regarding other issues on his talk page. However at this venue I would like to remain within the scope of my undelete request. The article was QD'ed because it was seen as a copyright infringement. But I didn't understand why I wasn't notified first, and why when I have posted that it might have been a mistake, the article wasn't restored. It appears to me, that the rules of QDing 12 provides those rules. I would really appreciate if you, or anyone could explain that. Otherwise, from my side, I'll do my best to follow the rules, and you are welcome to discuss things that are not within the scope of this request in the article's talk page (if that is/will be available) or in my talk page. Tdfdc (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this article does not meet the requirements of QD G12 (which I will neither confirm nor deny), I will deem it to be deletable as advertising (which I have also mentioned on my talk page). Please be advised that if you do not work on the page soon, it may be deleted. Chenzw Talk 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it may be deleted, I assume it had been restored meanwhile? From my side I see it is still being deleted. Yes, I'm willing to work on the article, please give me a few days. And, is there anyone I may be suggested who could help me with editing it? Tdfdc (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Please refer to the page history of your sandbox. Alternatively, a direct link is available here. Chenzw Talk 11:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, may you suggest someone who could help me to rewrite it? I thought the first time when I posted it, I have removed all the advertising slogan and maintained informative and neutral point of view, but I guess it was not enough. Tdfdc (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCart

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to see the OpenCart page restored. Considering it is one of the top 5 free e-commerce applications in wide use today, it seems it should be on wikipedia, based on precedent. I frequently look to wikipedia to research applications I'm unfamiliar with. There are pages for OpenCart's competitors, but not for OpenCart. This is suspicious, as is the effort to have it removed. 68.43.114.243 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close : OpenCart has never existed on Simple Wikipedia. It did exist on the English Wikipedia and was recently kept deleted at a deletion review. I'm closing this as we have never had this article. Only (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want the sandbox mentioned in these two links restored for the reasons given. TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC) https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Auntof6#Reply https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osiris#Reply[reply]

What do you need the edit history for? Haven't you copied everything to somewhere else already? Chenzw Talk 16:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I had made several changes to several articles I had in my sandbox. I may need to go back and retrieve some of the data I deleted. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins have already turned down the request. I see no legitimate reason to undo the deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one did, and they can't give a good argument for turning it down. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's your opinion. The main reason is that it is not a benefit to Simple English Wikipedia to have that page, even in the form of the edit history. That is supported by the fact that the comments at the rfd were unanimous for deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I must have told you like three times now, it's not a page. It doesn't affect Wikipedia at all. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then we have no reason to host it. WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. It was a page. In fact, it was probably one of the largest pages (in terms of bytes) on the wiki; yet, as you say, it had nothing to do with this wiki. You're wasting our time. Osiris (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everything on here is a page, not just articles. A category is a page. A template is a page. A user page is a page. Talk pages in any namespace are pages. Not only was it a page, but it had issues that made it show up in error scans (such as use of content categories in userspace, which is what brought it to my attention in the first place). It was definitely a page. Just because it wasn't in mainspace doesn't mean it didn't need to be used appropriately. --~~
        Here is an example off a no longer used user sandbox. There's no big reason my user sandbox shouldn't exist. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am one of the admins who already declined to undelete the page. I stand by that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the above, you said you had made "several changes to several articles", but I thought you also said that you have already copied the text to somewhere else? You are not being clear here. Chenzw Talk 06:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had made several changes to several articles in my sandbox throught months. It's like the edit history of an article. I might need to go back and see a change. TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Denied - A quick check of the page history reveals most of your edits as additions to the page. Since you didn't delete any content from your sandbox, there is no strong reason for me to restore the page so that you can refer to the edit history. In addition, from WP:USER, "this space (user page) is not meant to keep your version of disputed or previously deleted content forever". You should have known about this and realised that there is no guarantee that your sandbox will remain undeleted. Chenzw Talk 02:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Continued

I wanted to revive this because there is a very simply way to make everyone happy. Just redirect the sandbox to my main page, as is done for someone else here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yerevanci/Andranik&redirect=no. That way it won't really be another page and no one will edit it again. Deleting it is a pretty destructive stance. TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE AS DENIED: This is not a game you get to play over and over again until you get the result you want. Per the four admins above, and now myself, this is denied. Only (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Romanian River articles

These articles were all deleted because they were all deemed not notable even when the English Wikipedia states that geographical features have notability. While I do agree that some things, like the asteroid pages that were also group deleted with this were not notable, I believe that these are because they are all geographical features. Should we not include rivers in Romania and allow articles about cities and towns in the United States? This, to me, is the same thing, both are notable and both are definitely worth coverage on the Wikipedia. Even if the coverage is limited, so long as the coverage is about the topic and can be sourced, then it is notable, yes? All these articles had sourcing and therefore, I think, should not have been deleted at all. Thanks, Razor flame 03:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raxorflame is right. Why would we include another country and not Romania? I agree on restoring those pages. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Receptie, you really should know something about the circumstances and what was in the articles before you express an opinion here. There might be more to it than Razorflame has explained. I myself don't know how we can determine that, though, so I hope a more knowledgeable admin will step in here. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame, when were these articles deleted, and what were the names of them? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfD in question is Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Lists of rivers in Romania. A deletion review was also initiated in the past. I was one of several admins who performed the deletion, and will take a look at the relevant discussions again more closely tonight. Chenzw Talk 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these even restorable four years later? If so, given that there were 3,300 of them, could we restore a small representative sample so we could see what was in them? It could be that a list article would work better if there was little enough info in the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(general observation) This appears, at least to me, to be a very tricky issue to address. Considering:

That the consensus achieved in said RfA dates back to 4 years ago
Not much of that community has remained here now
The discussion at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_103#Minimal city stub? and the accepting of contributions such as these appear to lend weight to the argument for keeping stubs of such nature

...I can only urge that all editors think carefully before commenting on this. This could very well set a precedent for future/existing stubs. I haven't read all the relevant pages/discussions/whatever yet, and I will try to compile a list for everyone's convenience. Chenzw Talk 06:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello Razorflame, hello community. I created or extended a few pages on French rivers, see Somme River or Seine. I know that we are still lacking in other (important) French rivers. I do however think that rather than semi-automatically create stubs of rivers that no one will ever look at, let alone extend, it is better to focus attention: What are the 5-10 rivers in Romania you are most interested in? Get them to a level comparable to Somme River or Seine (takes about half a day, each). With this action, you help the community of this small wiki a lot more than with semi-automatically created stubs (and no, I am not going to have the same discussion about Asteroids, the same reasoning applies).--Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that I want to have the asteroids restored, as they shouldn't be restored at this point in time, and while I agree with you that we should include the biggest rivers in Romania, are we saying that the tributaries of these bigger rivers are not important? To me, they are just as important as the rivers to which they are the tributaries of. Razor flame 19:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the rivers by length, or economic importance: I was saying: take the 5-10 rivers you are most interested in, and write articles about them comparable to the ones I gave for French rivers above. With this you help us much more than providing a large number of autogenerated 2-3 line stubs.--Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-created one-liners will never get my vote of approval. There are well over 10,000 of these in en:Category:Rivers of Romania, and they're simple enough to understand. You could make one for every trickle of water with a name across the globe, it doesn't help our readers in the slightest. In the most recent debate we had over mass-created stubs, at least 10 editors supported either deleting the pages or redirecting them to a more comprehensive list. And that was for settlements; obscure rivers are far less important, since in many (probably most) cases they're of no consequence to any other subject and have far less verifiable information written about them. Let the English Wikipedia be the gazetteer, this wiki should focus on articles that help our audiences understand a topic. I oppose undeletion. Osiris (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: The general notability guideline states that "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists"; even if we refer to en:Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (which has since been demoted from a guideline, by the way), named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist (my emphasis). Furthermore, notability is not inherited - just because River X is a tributary of River Y does not make River X notable. Chenzw Talk 02:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion Personally, I have always believed that one line stubs which cannot and will not be expanded are unencyclopedic. As far as I remember most of these pages just had the statement: "X river is a tributary of Y river" which in my opinion is pretty useless and does not prove notability by itself. A better idea is listing all the tributaries in the article of the main river (which I believe has been done already). If there are some rivers about which we can have an article longer than a single generic line, I'm happy to undelete them, but otherwise, my opinion is the same as it was 4 (?) years ago. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; we already have more than enough useless one-sentence stubs, and there is no reason to expand the stub factory that this wiki has become, particularly for a topic such as this which, being honest, is unlikely to be something our readers will be looking for. -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant pages

A sample of the 3000+ deleted articles. Automatically generated by Special:PrefixIndex:

Hello all. I've read through the articles that were restored, and noticed that the Template:Geobox River was deleted. This is what provided most of the information about the rivers, and without that template also restored, we would not be able to see the articles in their entirety. While I know that a lot of these are likely to remain stubs for a while, I still think that they are notable enough to include in the Simple English Wikipedia. If they've been able to stay on the English Wikipedia for >3 years without getting much scrutiny, then that makes me think that the English Wikipedia community as a whole agrees that they are notable enough to have articles. While I'm not saying that this should be true of EVERY article on the English Wikipedia, especially the ones about the asteroids that I made here a while back, I definitely think that the rivers are things that should be allowed onto this project. The articles will get expanded eventually, and I definitely think that they had enough information at the time to guarantee the notability of them. I understand the trickiness of the situation, and I would like to say this: I definitely think that stubs are what makes the Wikipedia what it is today, and without the stubs, it is kind of like saying that we don't want to provide this information to the general audience because of the length of the articles. Is this the kind of precedent that we want to show for the future? Razor flame 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of {{Geobox}} have been deprecated for a long time. All you need to do is replace {{Geobox River| with {{Geobox|River|. Osiris (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the templae in the undeleted samples above. This should permit to give a full picure about the kind of articles we are talking about. --Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring these for us. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is really do we want to be flooded with mass produced one or two line articles. I have no problem with the notability of any Romanian river, but like Osiris mentioned above, we do not need mass produced useless articles, (on any topic). Razor, spend the your effort and time to write something useful.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion - unneeded, not useful, no one from our potential readers will ever search for Romanian rivers. Better do something more useful. Also, the "articles" give almost no information. No more crappy stubs please. -Barras talk 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of King Charles the Martyr, Royal Tunbridge Wells

Church of King Charles the Martyr, Royal Tunbridge Wells was quick deleted under QDA3, however I think this is wrong as if you check it with the English Wikipedia, you'll notice there were a number of changes to the words to make them simpler. Also, only 30 minuites were given between me being told and the page being deleted which I think is not enough time for me to respond. so I request the deletion to be undone. The C of E (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there were some changes, but the majority of the article was a word-for-word copy-paste. If you like, I can restore the page and move it into your userspace for you to work on, and you can move it into the mainspace once you're done simplifying it. -Mh7kJ (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, or I could just make a cutdown/stub version. The C of E (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one you prefer. -Mh7kJ (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the easy choice and make a stub. The C of E (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blizzard Entertainment

Category:Blizzard Entertainment was recently quick deleted in violation of policy as well as against the demonstrable usefulness of the category. The category was deleted under QD:C1 at 05:43, February 11, 2013. Given the edit stamp of my being notified of the QD request (21:01, 10 February - here), the category was not empty the required 4 days ((with no articles or subcategories for at least four days)). I would also be willing to guess that since En:wp has their matching category interwiki'd to us, we would likely have the link to them, hence the requirement whose only content includes links to parent categories would also not be met.

At approximately 3 minutes before it was tagged as empty, the category had 8 entries:

the main page Blizzard Entertainment -removed at 20:59

the subcategory Category:Blizzard video games with 7 pages. It was also removed at 20:59).

At least 2 more pages currently existing here are candidates for inclusion in the category:

Leeroy Jenkins: Warcraft player turned meme/pop culture reference/in game achievement
Defense of the Ancients: notable Warcraft III mod

At least 10 existing articles fall in this "empty" category. Eight of them were just in there. (If the category wasn't newly made, it is possible that it used to have articles, and more inspection is needed.)

As such, not only should the deletion not have happened in the time frame it did, it should never have happened at all. Categories are for tying information on a similar topic together. We now have an issue with the company being separated from its product (unlike Namco or the major video game companies) and several other issues with content being improperly placed--Creol(talk) 17:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything should have happened it was that Category:Blizzard video games should have been upmerged to this one. That being said now that this one has 4 entries it is good to keep so I restored it. (should note the ones in the subcategory wouldn't count really, just the sub category itself) We do wipe out categories that that have less than 3 entries in it, which this one did. That being said could deleting admins please make sure they check to see when categories are emptied. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lear

I just watched a video of his, he seems to be very involved with topics such as gov. secrets, ufo's, aliens, secret space program and so on. He knows a lot of people done a lot of work, yet when I went to Wikipedia they dint have anything about him, not even his name. What I didn't understand is that I read some articles where they said that he used to have a page but Wikipedia took it down.. huh? What? Now there is so much information out there that I cant get to. censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.130.253 (talk • contribs)

We are not the regular english wikipedia. As far as I know we never had a page on him. Big question though: is he notable enough to be in an encyclopedia? - And no, generally we don't censor; there are many pages which contain visually explicit images. --Eptalon (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]