User talk:9Nak/2008

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of Geoff Burnet
Hi there, I've turned this into a redirect as you will see. Whether the band itself is notable is a matter for debate! If it poroves non-notable, this redirect can be deleted in due course. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like exactly the right call – and what I should have done in the first place. Thanks for the notification, and next time I'll consider redirecting first. 9Nak (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shaw History
An editor has nominated Shaw History, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure renaming a page should trigger notification, but thanks ;-) 9Nak (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding the speedy delete tag to that bio article a minute ago. I'm still trying to learn all the various tags. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Check out Twinkle for a nice interface that means you don't have to remember all the tags, although it can be dangerous if not used with caution. 9Nak (talk)

Dragonwings
Hi, I declined the speedy on this as it turned out to be an article about an award winning book by an award winning author. Not that you could tell from what it looked like on creation. Cheers, and happy editing! Dloh  cierekim'''  13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is an extraordinary rescue, one I wouldn't have thought possible. Kudos to you. 9Nak (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Stakeholder (general)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stakeholder (general), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Stakeholder (general). Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spencer willock
I have added a speedy deletion request for the article in question since it qualifies on notability grounds. The AFD debates tend to be reserved for articles which are more contentious or which have survived a speedy deletion request.

This is not a criticism, just an observation. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument from me. I was tempted to request a speedy myself, but I'm not entirely comfortable with my understanding of WP:Music, so I was looking for a second opinion. You came, you saw, you opined - problem solved ;-) 9Nak (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Steven Springer
I've contacted the Suffolk County District Attorney, the Spokeswomen for the FBI, and Numerous people in his town. That is where I got my facts from which were posted. Can you point out what was said that couldn't have been? Thank you! NEWS12LI —Preceding unsigned comment added by News12LI (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a firm policy against original research and policy requires strong, verifiable sources when dealing with a living person. These policies exist to protect both Wikipedia and the people who are subjects of entries.
 * In short, the research you did is commendable but can't be the basis of an entry. If you cited (preferably several different) newspaper articles from established and trusted newspapers (and preferably could provide direct links to the articles) that would do nicely, for example.
 * Hope that helps. If not I'm happy to try and answer any other questions you may have. 9Nak (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article Matshediso Mholo
Why is this article being deleted. Isnt the references there good enough?

Please let me know how I can improve it instead of deleting it, because everything in it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm2008x (talk • contribs) 12:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell the article isn't up for deletion. You may be referring to the heavy edit I did on the entry. The one that attempted to bring the entry in line with Wikipedia policies. The one I notified you about, as a courtesy. The one you undid without explanation. Please, *please* have a look at the tutorial and introductory links I left on your talk page. 9Nak (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate!!! I have now read the tutorial, which i had clearly not understood well, and i have edited the atricle to bring it in line with Wiki policies. I am not a rud person, and i didnt mean to be rude. I am getting better with Wiki etiquet. Thanks mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm2008x (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

on possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar
Galonga (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

this is my 1 cent contribution to the possible deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kviar

problem is the company is brazilian, and therefore not known by the administrators (understandably)

however, some of the sources cited (FOLHA DE SÂO PAULO for example) are VERY known newspapers in Brazil

that means that the company DOES have notability

I´d suggest just editing maybe some parts like "At the end of 2007 the company opened its first physical store and started a franchise system", which is kinda pointless

well, there you go: hope it was useful :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galonga (talk • contribs)


 * Please make your comments at the discussion page where the deletion is being considered. Every user is free to add an opinion there, and all votes or comments will be taken into consideration before the matter is decided. It is also considerably easier to discuss the matter there rather than add address individual comments to everyone who has voted, as you have done.


 * Notability is not contagious; being covered in a well-known newspaper does not make the company notable. As best I can tell from the entry and the references there is nothing to set it apart from any other online retailer, so my vote stands. 9Nak (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you conclude a company you can´t know is notable or not? :)
If you don´t know the company (very understandably) as you are not brazilian, and you also not take into account being covered in well known newspapers, then how exactly to you conclude a company is or not notable?

Take for example "Ipiranga", one of the largest oil companies in Brazil: if you search for it you´ll only find a neighborhood. But if someone makes an article you may find is not notable and end up deleting a MAJOR company! :)

Anyways, I´m just making that question out of a curiosity :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.6.16 (talk • contribs)


 * You can find the the notability guidelines for companies at Company. Non-incidental references in reliable secondary sources is a starting point, but without anything to differentiate a company from thousands of others I can't see it as being "worthy of note". Your comments at the AFD talk page noted, I still don't see any argument (from you or any other user) in any forum that the company is indeed notable. 9Nak (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
Concerning the articles I wrote about Jann Schlebusch and Distinctions in Neighbourly Love: Jann Schlebusch is my father, the Adi mentioned in the article was my grandfather. I feel that the article about my father in neccesary, however, if wikipedia has a policy against writing about family members, you are welcome to propose deletion.

Distinctions in Neighbourly Love, however, is not an article about Jann Schlebusch, but a belief held by some conservative calvinists. My father merely contibuted to the theory. --Adi Schlebusch (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying the relationship. Have a look at Conflict of interest (also linked in the message on your talk page). Yes, I dare say that creating an article about your father – and one that cites no sources at that – represents a conflict of interest. As for Distinctions in Neighbourly Love, your father is the only individual (aside from John Calvin, who hardly counts) mentioned in the article. Even if he were not, however, the fact that you created the page would still be a conflict. It appears to promote the interests or visibility of a member of your family; that is just about a direct quote on the definition of a conflict of interest.
 * Please also read SOAP, if you haven't yet, and note that it is official policy, not a guideline. Objective contributions about any topic, including sociology and politics, is welcome. Advocacy is not. And your history on Wikipedia strongly suggests at least a leaning towards advocacy. 9Nak (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment
Hi I'm requesting that ACTH stimulation test to be reassessed for possible upgrade on the WikiProject Medicine quality assessment scale. Thanks, Chrisgj (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that entry looks good. In the months since I've last looked at it you've really improved it beyond recognition. But there are a few relatively small things you can do, that will push it further up the quality scale, I think.
 * Copyediting. The article has a few too many weasel words, even in the intro. In the third paragraph there is "most doctors", "many doctors" and "many patients". Also, see Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), especially the section on "Signs of writing for (other) patients". The entry has exactly that kind of wording at present.
 * Further integration. I don't know whether it is strictly relevant, but have a look at Template:Endocrine pathology. Including a template or navigational box of that nature will further integrate this entry into the broader Wikipedia, which immediately boosts its overall usefulness.
 * These are only suggestions, of course; you are welcome to request reassessment at any time. To do so, go to WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment and add the page to the top of the list. Or drop me a line here and I'll happily it on your behalf. 9Nak (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, most I implemented immediately. In fact I've done a ton of editing today. Since I'm always working on it (as the history shows), I'll wait a couple of months or so before inquiring again as it should be even better then. Thanks Chrisgj (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion, checkuser discussion and oversight
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but stick with it. I think it makes sense.

I saw an article about a Wikipedia AfD discussion concerning a Patrick Treacy in the Phoenix magazine in Ireland last week, which painted a very strange picture. So I did some reading of and around the debate about the entry. Coming to the whole thing with fresh eyes, I think you were duped in the AfD discussion and in the subsequent discussion on your page. Although, there's no concrete proof, there's an awful lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that many of your initial hunches about socks were correct although I think that Brammarb may really have hit the nail on the head here. Patricktreacy came on to your page and said 2 things: (a) he was ignorant of attempts to post the page and (b) that the discussion was the work of a stalker (or possibly a journalist), apparently at work on both sides of the discussion - that's certainly the imprression that the Phoenix got. Does either claim really stand up?

Plausible deniability?

Patricktreacy said he knew nothing about the page. Four things:

1. When Adrianfeane was defending a previous deletion of the page, he said "[Dr Treacy] would like people to be able to reference who is (sic) and to edit the page with any topics they feel appropriate. This doesn't read as anything other than a company acting on the instructions of a client. Adrianfeane might have been mis-stating the position, but why would he bother?

2. If Digino were in the habit of putting up unsolicited pages about their clients, it's funny that Adrianfeane (and Yvonnediggins) have only ever tried it twice, both for the same client. Neither of the Digino people (or the Digino IP) has put up posts for any of their many other clients. Why pick this guy for special treatment?

3. A different company also tried to put up a page on behalf of Patrick Treacy in 2007. Activeonline said "I...have been charged by Dr Treacy to insert the article...into the wikipedia resource. Active Online is currently Dr Patrick Treacy's web design vendor and is performing this task under his instruction." The article was deleted. Again, perhaps this other company was also acting of its own volition and without Patrick Treacy's knowledge, but it would be odd, wouldn't it, for two companies to behave that way and in both cases to incorrectly give the impression that they were acting in accordance with client instructions.

4. Lastly there was another attempt to insert a page on Patrick Treacy's clinic in 2006 in which a user Ptreacy both uploaded images to the article (discussed here ) and participated in the AfD discussion (without signing the contribution). The AfD discussion also suggests that the entry was written by the subject of the article.

Hard to believe, then, that Patrick Treacy had no knowledge this time around. Of course, we have to assume good faith, but sometimes it's harder than others.

Stalkers and socks?

Let's assume, whatever about the provenance of the entry, that there was a stalker. If so, then who was it?

Digino?

It can't have been any of the Digino people, because the stalker would have had to get into the office of Digino (and/or hack into their computers and Wikiedia accounts) to post and edit the entry. Anyway, Patricktreacy seems to say that however misguidedly they acted, the Digino people were on his side. That leaves only four other contributors on the "keep" side.

Jrbelkin et al?

Jrbelkin, Peterjohnohara and Lesliebaumann have to be the same person. The evidence set out on the sock puppet allegation page says it all. Yet if Jrbelkin was a manifestation of the stalker, then why is (s)he the one to out the stalker and why do so using the peculiar phrase "professional stalker"? What sort of stalker would be dim enough to both (a) out himself/herself and (b) categorise himself/herself in such distinctive terms? It also seems odd that as well as outing himself/herself, that this "stalker" (under his/her various names) went to such apparent lengths (judging from the comments on the AfD page) to edit the article only in a way favourable to the subject and to defend the subject. Odd behaviour even for a stalker, whom you might rather expect to vandalise the article, to add critical matter or to attack the subject. It'd be interesting to know what evidence - if any - Patricktreacy showed or told to 9Nak that identified these three as being one or more stalkers. Also, I have an impression of something naggingly similar about the writing style and language of Patricktreacy and of Jrbelkin et al. If Jrbelkin wasn't a 'malevolent' stalker, then it follows just as night follows day that neither were Peterjohnohara and Lesliebaumann.

Fmaple

She can't be an 'aspect' of the stalker because she appears to weigh in so heavily on the side of Patrick Treacy both in the AfD discussion and on 9Nak's talk page discussion (now deleted for oversight) but viewable here:. Her edits are not obviously compatible either with being 'malevolent' or with her assertion here that "I am not related to, do not socialise with, and do not work for/with Dr. Patrick Treacy." While that claim may be strictly true, it feels as if there is some association between them (a connection that was called by 9Nak on the basis of her quite remarkable anger). So, she's unlikely to be the stalker.

And that's everyone accounted for from the "keep" side of the debate, which militates against the contention that it was a "set up" with a single stalker-ish contributor on both sides of the debate (the extreme version of what Patricktreacy ultimately seems to contend). What about the other side then?

Delete side

No evidence against the other side leaps out at me, aside from the suggestion that Brammarb has no previous history outside the topic and a dark suggestion that it was an "Irish" contributor who was the stalker - only Brammarb and Fmaple are identifiably Irish. Oddly, the first allegation about Brammarb was made by Jrbelkin here, which is again an odd thing for him/her to do if both are/were on the same ('stalking') side (as is the fact that Brammarb rats out his supposed alter egos: and ). What's more, Brammarb is the only contributor to be impugned who has gone on to do more editing (of course, some or all of the others are blocked) and nothing (s)he contributed to the AfD discussion or to your talk page seems to have contravened any Wikipedia rules or demonstrate any insider information about the subject (which you might expect from a stalker). That Brammarb was relaxed about the deletion of the page but cagey about Yvonnediggins being the one to courtesy delete the AfD page, in the circumstances of the page's creation and without consensus, is unremarkable as far as I can see. What's more, Brammarb appears to have given a little support to the cause of Patrick Treacy and lastly, if Brammarb knows a little about how to use Wikipedia (and (s)he seems to), why don't any of his/her alter egos?

No other problems seem to have been raised by Admins or by Patricktreacy relating to any other contributor to the delete side. Aside from the number of Brammarb's contributions, it's hard to see anything fishy (and certainly nothing stalker-ish) about them. Nor is there any vandalism of the entry or of the discussions by anyone on the "delete" side, nor even any adverse commentary about the subject himself as you might expect if there was a stalker at work (although there's lots of negative stuff about the article),

The Journalist

The stalker claim also seems to get into further trouble in that Patricktreacy can't make up his mind about whether it was a stalker or a journalist who got in touch with third parties. The Phoenix magazine article about Patrick Treacy states that it (and not any stalker) contacted the "real" Dr Leslie Baumann. Even if a participant in the AfD discussion (rather than someone who came across the page or the discussion without editing) was the one to tip off a journalist, then (s)he would hardly be the first editor to spot the news/entertainment value of a Wikipedia page. It's a novel proposition to say that tipping off journalists makes a person a stalker, especially where the provenance of the article is so prima facie dubious and where Patricktreacy's defence (that there was a multi-faceted bilateral sock puppet conspiracy orchestrated by a stalker) ultimately turns out to be so implausible. It'd be interesting (again) to know in view of the serious allegation whether Wikipedia was shown any hard evidence to confirm that there was a stalker at work in respect of contacts made with third parties rather than a journalist pursuing perfectly legitimate queries about the Wikipedia page.

I see that when you discussed this matter with Tanthalas39 you suggested that Patricktreacy was upset by the activities of a stalker, but there is another logical and simple explanation for why he might be upset by what had happened... In any case, where Patricktreacy has accused multiple participants in a discussion of being stalkers, that's serious stuff, the bona fides of which should be thoroughly tested. My reading is that oversight of all this should necessarily include a checkuser on Jrbelkin, Lesliebaumann, Peterjohnohara, Fmaple as well as Brammarb and arguably Patricktreacy, to rule them out as being any of the foregoing. I'm obviously hampered by not being able to see the original page history itself, but I wanted to throw in my thoughts.

Sorry this is so long, but it's all intriguing and has taken some serious unpicking. I know you may well have some real world information about all this that trumps my reading of it, but it would have to be really something to displace (a) the appearance of both the AfD debate and the discussion on your page, (b) your and Tanthalas39's clearly very strong initial hunches and (c) the apparent incoherence of the allegation of multiple socks of a single stalker operating on both sides of the discussion. I certainly can't see an ongoing basis for a courtesy blanking of the archived AfD discussion, whatever about the somewhat crazed discussion on your talk page. Ginandtonix (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really are interested in all of this, aren't you? Me, I find it all rather less intruiging and dramatic and mysterious. The AfD is closed, the article is deleted and all the actors have left the stage voluntarily or through banning (the occasional brand new account, like yourself, being the exception). That would seem to imply that the show is over – or am I missing something? 9Nak (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mysterious? Nah. Dramatic? Not really either, although some of the contributions to the discussion were fairly melodramatic. Intriguing? Most certainly, but only in a parochial Irish way. It's not every day that one Irish doctor accuses another Irish doctor (albeit, a "failed doctor" is how the mag put it) of "stalking" him and particularly such counter-productively complex stalking. I'm an Irish doctor, so my interest was piqued first by the news piece in Phoenix and then re-piqued by the discussions. Given it's raining where I am and I'm on study leave, so all displacement activities are welcome, I gave it some thought. I used to edit medical and other articles here a bit before I started a new and much busier job last year but when it came to posting the above, I couldn't remember my extremely-clever-at-the-time password (and I'm don't seem to have my user name right either - I thought it was BeefyB but that doesn't seem to exist. It'll come to back to me, I'm sure): hence the new name, but I appreciate that there have been a lot of new accounts at work here. Outside of the local colour of it all and a certain po-faced concern on my part that Doctor A shouldn't be accusing Doctor B of stalking unless there's bloody good evidence (and it was a search for that evidence that led to the above ruminations), I don't think you're missing much. I guess I thought that if editorial oversight was taking place on foot of those sorts of allegations, a curious outsider's forensic view might be constructive. Can't shake the feeling that I've just wasted my afternoon. Thanks for replying though, however wearily and sceptically. Enjoy your weekend. Ginandtonix (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the spectacular unravelling of that AfD and subsequent (surreal) discussion, I stayed out of it and got on with some other stuff. I'd like to know though what the result of oversight was, given that I seem to have been dragged into it somehow (although Ginandtonix's reading of the 'Irish' allegations didn't click with me at the time). You can contact me by e-mail (WP e-mail is enabled for the time being), but it may be that I don't get to hear the result if I didn't request it and if so, no worries. I'd disagree with Ginandtonix about a couple of things but I reckon that's a sleeping dog if ever there was one! Have chosen simpler WP work since and have applied a lighter (but no less reasonable, I hope) touch in subsequent AfDs! Brammarb (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Help please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTH_stimulation_test Hi, could you look over what I did in the section-Interpretation for cortisol stimulation. I added at the bottom-Differentiating ACTH impairment from CRH impairment. Is there a better way for making it a sub topic of--Interpretation for secondary adrenal insufficiency? Thanks Chrisgj (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenophobia in South Africa
Thanks for the heads up. It looks like you did a lot of great work! I'll have a look at it and add comments on the talk page. Thanks. FFMG (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

date format in za
Indeed it does help; it means that za should be treated along with the UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ as a dmy zone for WP articles, no choice. I've already found inconsistencies in za-related articles, though the global choices appear to confirm what you say. Thanks for your response. Tony  (talk)  11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck) Page / Abuse From Seicer
Hello 9Nak, I have noticed your user name at the bottom of countless posts here on Wikipedia, (including a post on Seicer's talk page concerning my truck) so I'm going to assume that you are an administrator of high standing. I wanted to ask your thoughts on the creation of my first page, and specifically, the unprovoked bullying and attacks I have recieved from Seicer after posting said page. Eventually these insults and accusations brought me to the point where I felt forced to drop the topic, but I would like to address some of the comments made by Seicer in the hope that those new to Wikipedia are treated with respect and given the process they deserve.

First of all, referring to a new users first page, and I quote Seicer here, as 'crap' is uncalled for and not very helpful. To address some of his other statements, the reason I initially posted this page was not for promotional or advertising purposes, as this truck is an innovation in the monster truck industry with an all new concept and design. No mere 'hobby', it was created with the input of monster truck veterans and experts in the field, costing tens of thousands of dollars. It was not created and posted on Wikipedia to permorm as a simple 'link' to a YouTube video. It was posted so that those interested in the topic could view the advancements and innovations being made in the monster truck industry.

Your input would be appreciated. Kildare2 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare2 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are banging on the wrong door here. I'm not an admin, just an editor. I'm the one who first tagged that entry for deletion, because I don't believe it has a place on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. And my questions on Sceicer's page was about the technicalities of the deletion.
 * Perhaps more importantly, you really need to have a look at WP:COI and WP:Notability as well as WP:OWN. The fact that you feel hard done by does nothing to change those policies. 9Nak (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Novena darmawan
Hi there! i was just wondering why my page of 'Novena darmawan' has been deleted by YOU?! please can i get a copy of what I wrote back? It took me AGES to write it. I saw that the reason for it being deleted because 'novena darmawan' does not exsist. But that is wrong, 'Novena Darmawan' is a real person, cause that person is a coming to be actress.

So please, put it back up again, and send me a copy of what i have wrote on the article of 'Novena darmawan'.

Thank you Kund Regards,

3-chocolate (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC).


 * I nominated the page for deletion – and an administrator (presumably) accepted that nomination and deleted the entry, because it failed Wikipedia's notability guideline. Like you I do not have access to deleted material. But, as noted on your talk page, you can contact any administrator on this list to provide you with a copy in your user space. But I would strongly suggest that you have a look at the following pages before trying to include it in the Wikipedia mainspace again:

9Nak (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability
 * How to write a great article

Article Call in Europe
Hello! The mentioned below article is nominated to deletion. It was edited some mins ago and there were followed all the instructions and sugetions given to me to show the reasons for its notability (why it's not just yet another cell phone company). Please explane what else should be done? RoundCube1 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the article forward for possible deletion because I do not believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Other editors can now discuss the article here and reach consensus on the matter. What you can do is edit the article to assert notability (and cite reliable sources) and reduce the instances of pure advertising. Have a look at these pages for more information:
 * Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
 * Notability guidelines
 * 9Nak (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

John Leavitt (Ohio settler)
Hello, I agreed with your point on this piece, and have subsequently rewritten it, wikified it and added a new graphic. I'll attribute it to too much turkey, but I wasn't happy with the way it turned out on the first go-round. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll continue to revisit and revise it. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's looking great and makes for interesting reading. The only improvement I can imagine is shoring up the intro to assert notability more forcefully, though I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps by noting the notable family members ("established a family that was influential in early Ohio politics")? 9Nak (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help on this. I agree with your points, and I'll try to do just that. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)