User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 14

m4uTV article.
Hi Admin,

I am disputing the deleting of this article. I am not using it to advertise but to archive this project. I only started it last night not with all the information yet. My coworkers suggested I use wikipedia to archive and it is a good source. I find this no different from MTV or band bios on these pages besides the time lapse.I am also new to the format that you guys use. I tried normal HTML and that doesn't work appropriatley.

m4uTV is about educating musicians as well as promote them. So this wikipedia would supply a lot of marketing information, tips, and other items related. I probably should have pre written it with the added items. This would be completely a source. Myspace would be better for advertising not so much an encyclopedia.

Thanks for your time.

-Derek —Preceding unsigned comment added by DvCWulf (talk • contribs) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. You may not have bothered to look at some of our introductory material before you posted your article, which might have saved you some time.  Essentially, we have a requirement here that the subjects of articles must be notable.  That is, they must be somehow special or unusual, better than their peers, and that notability has to be documented by someone who is an expert and not connected with the subject.  It is hardly likely that a website that has not yet "launched" could have achieved any notability and, since you are obviously intimately connected with it, anything you have to say about it has to fall under our definition of advertising.  If the website manages to attract the attention of the national news media, by all means come back and recreate the article.  We don't offer the service of "archiving" information about your company; I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if the topic isn't notable, then we won't be keeping articles about it.  I believe you're suggesting MySpace as a venue for advertising your company, and that's probably a better suggestion than using Wikipedia (you might also consider investing in a web hosting service and store information there).  Best of luck with your endeavour.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ultra-speedy Deletion
Several minutes ago, I attempted to write a stub article about HeathenPlaces. As you can see by this red link, it has already been deleted. The issue, is that the article literally did not even exist for one full minute, when User:TrulyBlue nominated it for speedy deletion. When I was attempting to type out my objection to the deletion, and to state my intentions of legitimizing the article within Wikipedia guidelines, you deleted the article; I was not even able to post my objection. It was my intention to contact others who are familiar with the site, so that they also could contribute, thereby removing any sort of monopoly of authorship that I may have had, thereby fulfilling the function of a wiki. I feel that this bombardment of assault against even the opportunity to allow this article to grow, was entirely unnecessary. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to take this up with the Wikipedia community at large, you're certainly welcome to do so; it may be possible to establish some sort of minimum time for articles to remain before they are considered for deletion, and your point will find adherents, I'm sure. By the way, I note by re-examining the article (which I was the first of two administrators to delete) that there was no chance, given what I saw, that the article would have been retained.  So while you're complaining about the standards that are applied to articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion, you may wish also to voice your opinion about this one, this one and this one.  Best of luck with your endeavours.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why you would see such a thing as a battle of some sort. This should not be a warfare involving a person's ability to outleap the pirana-like nay-saying censors that the English Wikipedia is so plagued with. If this is the case, then absolutely all stub-class articles must be deleted, as they, by their very nature, do not meet the requirements to be worthy of "article" status. But if this is the case, then I'll certainly be happy to join your side, and nominate every single stub article for deletion, just as you and TrulyBlue seem to do. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although you may have mistaken my precise function here -- I don't generally tag or nominate articles for deletion, I merely assess the ones that others have so tagged and delete them if I agree with the nominator -- you would be very welcome to join the group of volunteers who assess new pages and tag ones that don't meet our standards. The number of new pages created every day numbers, I believe, in the thousands and everyone's assistance is welcome; I'd advise you to develop a thick skin, though, because frequently people's emotions run high when their cherished ideas run up against our community-developed policies.  I wish you well with your efforts and, should you require any assistance in learning the precise nuances of our policies, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Global partnership center
You deleted this earlier as a copyvio from state.gov. Just letting you know I've restored it per — works of the US Federal Government are not subject to copyright. Hope you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this -- apparently I hadn't taken in the precise source of the originating document where it was listed in the tag. (I must confess it probably wouldn't have twigged with me anyway, because I was only dimly aware of this before your reminder, but there's always the possibility.)  I'll know better next time.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kira Star
This page has been created yet again for the umpteenth time. I think it should be salted, what do you think? --DFS454 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done so -- three recreations is enough for me. Much obliged for the heads-up.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help understanding what exactly was wrong
My page about DJ Yohan-Solo was deleted. I'm an established artist working with several big names. I attempted putting this information into wikipedia to have it promptly deleted. I read through all the guidelines and didn't feel I was doing anything besides from putting up information accurately. Help me understand what I need to do to get the page going.. please, also help me understand why pages like 'dj kool kid' manage to stay online for months even though mentioned as problematic, while mine is removed the same day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohansinthehouse (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. There are a number of reasons why the article in question could have been deleted; for one thing, writing an article about yourself goes against our conflict of interest policy.  The primary reasons, though, are that the article had no reliable sources -- there were no links or citations to third-party experts who could verify any of the assertions in the article -- and that it didn't seem to me to meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC, which I recommend to your attention.  The guidelines at WP:MUSIC are what every musical article is measured against.  By the way, every article in Wikipedia is assessed entirely based on its contents and not how it compares to any other specific article (the "what about X" policy) and so your comments about DJ Kool Kid aren't really useful.  However, I'll have a look at that one too.  If you need further assistance, you might try WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted?, as well as the link to which you were recommended at the top of this page.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For approximately the same reasons, I've nominated the article you mentioned for speedy deletion. Thanks for your assistance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi,

My name is Fred and I have a site that is like no other on the web in which aside from allowing user to upload photo and information about their autos like any other site auto site on the web we allow the user the availability to upload their own video of the car truck or car part. This will allow the user to get a full spectrum of the automobile if the decide they may be interested. The reason why I feel this may be good for inclusion is because it is the first car site that allows users to sell a car, truck or part through an auction or ad with unlimited photos, description and user generated video. Thank You for your consideration and this wonderful website Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binary25 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The article in question did not meet our advertising policies; what's required is reliable sources, or third-party expert opinion, that asserts and confirms the notability of the website in a verifiable way.  Before you move forward, please take a look at WP:Your first article and WP:Why was my article deleted?, which may give you some further information that will help you not waste your efforts here.  Best of luck with your work.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kristiana
Hi, I am confused about 2 things. 1.) My page about Dr. Al Sears was said to be advertising so I corrected it and had 3 other people look it over to take out anything that will give it that type of feel. I resubmmitted it but I don't see any comments from anyone on my watchlist. But the pink boxes are still on the page saying that it is advertising. Can you have someone look at this page for me so I can get critiqued and cleared?

Another issue I posted the Pace program, it was deleted 2 mins after I posted it today. It is 95% different from the intial page you all deleted for "advertising" that I posted. I would like someone to actually take the timt to read and accurately critique it after I have re-worked it before just deleting it. Can you review it and tell me what exactly you think it is selling and why a patent concept that extends our lung- life is not considered noteworthy? This page is a lot less "advertising" than the Tae-bo page by Billy Blanks and yet that is up and running.

Please Advise,

Kristiana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Sears M.D. (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've been blocked. For the record, your article was deleted because it was blatant advertising. Even if you had people look over it, your company has not recieved sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources to be included (see WP:N). You also appear to have a conflict of interest, so you shouldn't really be writing about it anyway.-- Patton t / c 20:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I had a look at the material about Dr. Al Sears -- which immediately gives rise to a strong suspicion of violation of our conflict of interest policy, given your username -- and found the following sentence: "Dr. Sears is recognized in 40 countries for breaking new ground with his concept of Progressively Accelerating Cardiopulmonary Exertion (PACE), a patented fitness program designed to replace standard aerobics and cardiovascular exercise for optimal lung and heart health."  Essentially, that's pretty much the problem with both pages.  That statement needs to be thoroughly documented by reference to peer-reviewed scientific articles that specifically address that assertion, which you must admit has the capacity to make Dr. Sears a lot of money; the fact that those citations aren't present are what is causing people to (rightly, in my opinion) assign both articles as advertising.  Which 40 countries?  Who says so?  And why should we believe them?  The article on PACE -- which, incidentally, I personally deleted because I felt that the copyright symbols sprinkled all over the page were liable to cause major problems with copyright violation for Wikipedia -- does indeed contain references to peer-reviewed science in reputable journals.  The problem is, those articles don't have anything to do with Dr. Pace's work, they merely talk about aspects of what he does, or perhaps are the reason why he began his research in the first place.  "A patent concept that extends our lung-life" is, I think you will agree, a rather startling assertion.  If you look at our policy on startling scientific assertions, you will find that as a general rule Wikipedia requires more, and very specific, scientific citations for such assertions.  If you could manage to re-write the article from scratch without any reference to your own opinions of Dr Pace's work, and put it entirely in the words of quotations from arm's-length third-party experts who assert the notability of his work in a verifiable way in reputable scientific publications, that would go quite a long way towards demonstrating the notability of this work.  Right now, it's spam, and I agree with the person who tagged it as such.  Best of luck with your efforts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Myspace
Which is safer Myspace or Facebook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj1224 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. "Safer" isn't a word I would apply to either of those websites.  Perhaps you could ask your question on the respective talk pages of their articles, if you can clarify it.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shitting in tall cotton]
A7 is not the criterion to use for nonsense. Perhaps you simply picked the wrong button, but in any case what was written there was not nonsense, but the meaning of the phrase (cf. Google, or Urban dictionary). The right thing to have done was transwikify it, since it isnt in wiktionary. DGG (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I didn't actually tag the article as nonsense; that was done by the individual who tagged it in the first place.  For the rest, I appreciate your guidance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just checked Wiktionary and it still isn't there. Were you indicating that you wanted me to transwikify the phrase?  I had rather thought you were telling me that you had taken care of that, since you seemed to feel strongly about what the right thing to do was.  Accounting4Taste: talk 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was expecting you could correct your error and restore the article, since it meets no standard for speedy. If you want to transwikify and then delete on that basis using WP:CSD A5, that's up to you--it would then meet a deletion standard, but if not there it does not meet WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article and removed the speedy tag. Thanks for all the assistance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Secret of Chimneys
The change looks good to me! Do you have any more mapback illustrations for Christie pages?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fab Four (tribute)
Hi Accounting4Taste,

I am wondering if there is anyway to get my page back up? I understand that the first version of the page was lacking the necessary sources and information which is why it got deleted, but I really feel like the 2nd page gave great information and over a dozen verifiable sources that make it a valid Wikipedia article. Before putting the page up I had another admin look at it and was told that it met the requirements of Wikipedia with no problems. Please let me know what I can/need to do to get this page back up. I am willing to work on it more to make it something that belongs on WIkipedia. Thanks.

LindsayG0430 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please restore the article to my sandbox? Thanks.

LindsayG0430 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Accounting4Taste,

I put this article up for deletion review a few days ago and it seems like (from what I understand) people think it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. You can see the discussion here. Thank you!

LindsayG0430 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering what happens now with the article since the discussion is closed. Looks like it should be restored, and you have to do it, right?

LindsayG0430 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I find it a little odd that the administrator who closed the debate didn't restore the article, but I don't mind doing it.  Incidentally, does the article have the title that you want it to have?  I would have thought "The Fab Four (band)" was more in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions.  Let me know what your wishes are.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would like to keep the title the way it is. Thank you!

LindsayG0430 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it seems to have been restored to The Fab Four (tribute). If this is NOT what you want to have happen, let me know; otherwise best of luck with it in the future, and get in touch if you need my assistance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be an article marked for speedy deletion called The Fab Faux which seems rather similar. Let me know if you want some assistance.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fab Faux is a different band and I don't know who runs that page. Please keep The Fab Four (tribute) page there.. that is what I am working on. Thanks for everything... I will probably be in touch.

LindsayG0430 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Master
You b#stard noone has fun anymore. Look at all these people you hurt. Shameful.
 * Thanks for sharing. Encyclopedias aren't particularly meant to be fun; they're for grown-ups to find information.  Please don't re-post your article about your website; it will be deleted again (I've made a note).  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wolfram Alpha page should be reinstated
I left this comment on the deleted talk page, but thought I'd make the point here too. I should add I have no connection with Wolfram Research.

I gather this was deleted since it met Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion "as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

A Google search of "Wolfram Alpha" (which includes the quotation marks) responds with:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,080,000 English pages for "Wolfram alpha". (0.07 seconds)

Any technology which is generating 2.1 million Google hits before it is officially released, must be conceived by many to have significant importance. Whether that importance was expressed in the original article I do not know, as I did not read it.

Stephen Wolfram is not exactly a modest man (he drastically overstated the importance of his New Kind of Science for example), so the importance might not be as great as may be claimed, but if it generates 2.1 million Google hits, I would say Wolfram Alpha is important enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Drkirkby (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

— Agreed. But you should always use quotation marks when searching for a phrase, and a search for "Wolfram Alpha" only yields about 24,300 results. (Still not insignificant!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.27.170 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the article has problems with its reliable sources, I've looked at it again and think you may well be right. I'm going to work with the individual who created the article and will leave him a note at User talk:Lumidek if you're interested in how this progresses. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left notes elsewhere with respect to this material so will only say here briefly that I scooped some excellent sources from the article about the program's creator, added them to the article and restored it. If anyone has any questions or problems with respect to this, feel free to leave me a note here.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Almondz
Hey. I'm kinda new here to wiki so please help me out. Recently, on a blog for a small fanclub for the comic book,' Almondz', I heard that Wikipedia was not allowing somebody to create a page for 'Almonds'. Not only that, but I heard the page he tried to create was erased and the guy was banned. So I was just wondering why this occurred and also, if I might be able to create the page. I see at the top of the page that you say you are busy, but please respond to me soon. Thanks. Uniqueismydove (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)uniqueismydove
 * I'm sorry to say that I had a look for the deleted article under both spellings, "Almondz" and "Almonds", and cannot find any reference that is sufficient to let me find out what you're talking about. If you could give me the user name of the person who was "banned", or the precise name of the page that was erased, that would be helpful; until then, I'm sorry that I can't offer anything further.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, did I have anything to do with this, or did you just pick me at random? Accounting4Taste: talk 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He said his username was 'bringbackhenry'. Well he told me that another administrator told him to contact you but since he's banned, I thought I could try.
 * If you have a look at User:Bringbackhenry's user page, you'll find that s/he was banned for being a sockpuppet of a banned user; that means that the banned user came back and created a new account under the name of Bringbackhenry. Any articles created by a banned user are automatically deleted regardless of their content; however, I had a look at the deleted article and there is no way that this material could ever meet the notability requirements without significantly more in the way of reliable sources than apparently could possibly be provided (if the creator of the comic is avoiding publicity, it's unlikely to have attracted any).  If you're thinking of recreating the article, I would advise against it; if, as seems reasonable to suspect, you're the same user under yet another username, I'd advise against proceeding any further with any contributions to Wikipedia, since the "checkuser" function will reveal your identity and all further contributions will be deleted again.  If there's something further I can assist you with, just in case you're not that banned user, I'm at your service.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, all material on wikipedia must be attributed to reliable secondary sources or it is deemed not to be notable enough for inclusion. This is to prevent people adding things taht aren't true etc.-- Patton t / c 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment -- I gather I wasn't sufficiently clear, which is sometimes the case -- and my congratulations on your recent acquisition of the mop. I expect we shall both keep an eye on the potential for User:Bringbackhenry to return under any guise, and thanks in advance for your help with this.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My recent acquisiton of the mop? lol I'm not an admin. I do intend to run as soon as my current FAc closes though, as it's taking up a lot of my time at the moment.-- Patton t / c 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, would "D'oh!" or "Duh!" be more appropriate? I misread something on your talk page.  Feel free to let me know if/when you run for the mop, I will consider it an appropriate reminder rather than any kind of spam (I don't often remember to monitor RfAs).  Thanks again for your help. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know the guy created multiple accounts. I guess I might be suspected of being him but I'm not so.....yeah. But I mean I do think the comic should still have a page tho. I know fans are making a website. would that be sufficient to use as a source? I don't see wha other source you can have for an underground comic series. Uniqueismydove (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)uniqueismydove
 * I think fansites are specifically mentioned as being not reliable sources, but I could be wrong. Certain underground comic series have achieved sufficient notability to be the subject of Wikipedia articles; the work of R. Crumb, for instance, and heaven knows how many manga, aioi and the like with which I'm not familiar.  Essentially something has to be the subject of expert opinion, published in a reputable source.  Perhaps you should consider finding a different venue for this information; I'm not sufficiently experienced to suggest something, but a fansite might be a good start.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Watchlist

 * I recently was on my wikipedia watchlist and I notice there were points beside the pages I've watched. What exactly does those points mean?--KingRatedRIV (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I might know what you mean by this. When you refer to "points", did it look like (+346) or (-171) or (+2)?  Those represent the number of the characters that were added to or subtracted from the page in the edit in question.  Occasionally, the number is zero.  If this is not what you mean, perhaps you could describe the "points" in more detail so I'll know better how to help you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was exactly what I was talking about. Thanks once again and sorry for not being more specific.--KingRatedRIV (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

About Bobbi Miller-Moro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbi_Miller-Moro Okay, well I see you did a lot of...edits on my page. So, I will clear up a few things for you. I have been adding pages to Wikipedia since around 2004. My husband and I are BOTH producers. You mentioned it is only 'his' film. Here is my IMDB site: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1876523/. Here is 'our' official film site: http://www.morofilms.com/. I have co-produced films with him, and will be co-producing the one's in the future (If you need a legal statement from our company, I will be sure to provide one). I have been the author to all the many sites I have put up on Wiki. Given Wikipedia is about the most complicated site known to the internet. I still have a long way to go to do it 'right', maybe there are classes?

So, I did put up my own site because out of all of my partners, I am the only one that knows how. So, it is a conflict. Fine. My husband will put it up, I'll show him how. As far as unsubstantiated claims, that is 100% incorrect. A simple Google of my name and you will see there is a variety of resources available. As far as the 'award winning part', it is harder, because the awards were won before I even knew I can post anything to the internet. I did not save those memorabilia's, it was a while a go-so fine I can remove those words. I do get Flickr awards continuously-but they may count for nothing. So, I have no problem taking them off.

If you review Maya Angelou's page, you will see she talks about her personal life a lot, why? Because her personal life is what made her who she is. She wrote books about it, she has inspired people because of it, etc. This is what I was thinking when I modeled my page. Since I have written two books, and they are being considered right as we speak by a professional publishing house, and the other book (which I am in the process of writing) has been the result of my life(Like Maya's) and has spawned a portal of communication (Women Without Borders US), and has been the umbrella in which I have reached out to thousands of women in support of their experiences of PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrom), and being a powerful woman in the world. It has been the purpose in which I have launched my current art & illustration exhibits and many articles. Which were not all self published.

I am also the great-great aunt of Hedda Hopper, where if this is insignificant to you-by all means Google who she is. You say my "references are completely ineligible". Strange, because they are completely eligible. If you click on the button while editing, you will see you just insert the link. All my links are viable sources, real, and not for self promotion. It is for what I have accomplished and am continuing to accomplish. I do not have a problem deleting it and having someone else re-posting the entire bio. You also said, "It's not clear that what remains is fact" is unclear to me. Please distinguish fact from fiction in one's own life, especially since there is plenty of referenced material.

As for 'philosophy' you say you 'cleared away the junk'(-my life? lol) I will only request you research Deepak Chopra, Maya Angelou and a host of other well known celebrities in their own right, and see they built their life and how they are seen in the world by their 'philosophies'. Please reconsider your powerful stroke of editing, and I will make adjustments. Thank you, and enjoy the most beautiful place in the world.

Bobbi —Preceding unsigned comment added by TG4M (talk • contribs) 16:01, March 12, 2009

Dear Ms. Miller-Moro: I will have considerably more to say at a time when I have more leisure to say it. In the meantime, please leave my talk page in chronological order from top to bottom, as I've requested at the top. I have also edited the "ref" tag that you used because it was causing the remainder of the page to become invisible; please leave it that way. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just about everything that I want to suggest to you is either covered by, or linked to, the Wikipedia policy page found at Autobiography. Please, before we continue this discussion, read through that set of policies so that you can get a better idea of where I'm coming from.  By the way, I don't ever recall using the word "junk" with respect to any material on the page in question -- can you provide me with a reference, or is this a word that you've introduced to the discussion?  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

David Choi Page
I am trying to recreate the page for David Choi. His page has been deleted several times for a few different reasons. ONe being that the page was blatant advertising. Another because the page didn't have enough sources to back of the information and the facts were thought to be false. Anoth time it was deleted because it was felt he was not a person of value to be placed on the wiki. I have reasearched him and put together alot of facts regarding him. As far as his worth, I think I have put enough things and sources to back them up to prove that. I wanted to message you because since you are one of the people who has deleted his page in the past I was hoping that you might find time to look over the page and see that it is accurate, and well written. This is also my first Wiki page and I read the rules, and formatting information over MANY times before creating the page. Please feel free to make me aware of any issues with the page, as I would like to adhear to all of the rules of the site, while being able share information about this artist. Thank you, Chip MileHighCFI (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'm afraid you're mistaken about me being one of the people who deleted this page in the past, at least not as far as I can ascertain.  It's been deleted five times, but not by me.  (If I did delete it, it was a page under another name, that might be something like David Choi (musician); I have no way of knowing.)  The important point, however, is that the article has been through an articles for deletion (AfD) process, whereby the Wikipedia community assessed the article and decided that it wasn't appropriate to retain it.  (You can refer to Articles for deletion/David Choi for further information.)  That means that, unless the content of the article has changed and now meets Wikipedia's standards, the article will be subject to immediate speedy deletion.  If you want this article to remain, I believe that your only avenue will be to submit it to a deletion review process, and you can find out about that process by clicking on the link.  You should be aware that it's difficult to overturn a previous AfD process, but not impossible; good luck with your efforts.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that no one has tagged the article for deletion, even though it's eligible -- that's encouraging. I am not very familiar with the requirements of WP:MUSIC but that's the standard that this individual will need to meet in order to have the article have a chance of remaining.  I'm not planning on tagging it, since I don't know enough about the appropriate standard.  If the article gets deleted, as it is certainly possible to happen, and you wish to pursue deletion review, let me know and I'll get you a copy of the deleted article.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobbi Miller-Moro
Is up for deletion. --Tom 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Billa 2
I have just addded the one paragraph and its sources about the rumoured Billa 2 to Billa (2007 film). If/when the film is made, it can easily come back as a full-fledged article of its own. And in the meantime, how come no one mentioned that this article already existed as Billa (2009 film)?? Maybe another worth merging??  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

((AUSTINZZ)) Acroterion Deleted all my pages, and I think he should take a chill pill, and stop acting on personal grudges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinzz (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: the article in question, which I also examined, would have been deleted by the first administrator to read it. I think you should find somewhere else to amuse yourself, but if you want to keep going down this road, expect the consequences.  Accounting4Taste: talk 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern
Hi Accounting4Taste. Sorry about your surgery and I hope you feel better soon. Also, I enjoyed reading about your awards--you sound very reasonable so I hope you can guide me to help improve an article I feel is in trouble. I am the person who marked the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern for deletion. I marked it because I have been watching (and added a bit to) the discussion page on that article after looking it up and being surprised by the biased nature of the content. The man was a scientist, controversial to be sure, but the article clearly has a biased that I interpreted as being very negative and not a neutral representation of facts. When I went to check the discussion I saw that I am not the only one who felt this way. There seems to be a single hawk sitting on the article with a passionate focus on coloring the article with a negative spin. My fairness alarm bells went off. The person in question goes under the name 6324 and responds to any objections to his version of the text with personal attacks. Long, emotionally charged personal attacks. Surely that alone is against Wikipedia policy. At any rate, I am not sure the article should exist anyway at this time since, once the innuendos are removed, there may not be enough notability in the work Van Flandern did at this time, the most important and relevent being his work on gravity--not Mars. Perhaps in the future something might be published supporting VF's theories--- elevating its notability status-- but for the time being it might be best to delete the article to spare it from vandalism. Would you mind taking a look at the notes in the discussion (mine are at he very end) and see if you don't agree that the user changing the article has a tone and a focus on this subject that suggests he might not be fit for editing it. Perhaps if that person were blocked a more organic neutral POV would shape the article if it was to remain. I am by no means a regular Wikipedia editor and it took me a long time to get here to you page but I do understand that Wikipedia's mission is help disseminate accurate, fair and clear information. Please help me figure out how to help this article.Csv2009 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Csv2009
 * Thanks for your note, and I'll try to help you in what I think will be the most useful way. I don't think it would be useful for me to intervene personally, mostly because I have a strong bias in one direction and I would soon be hopelessly snarled and unable to act usefully.  What I recommend you do is click on this link: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  That will take you to a page that will enable you to report this matter to people who will act impartially.  I recommend that you read the instructions at the top of the page carefully; they will want you to be terse, and relatively unbiased -- you don't have to make a case there one way or the other, all you have to do is bring it to the attention of people who will examine all the evidence and do what's most appropriate.  If you do this, and you don't feel it works, you can come back to me for more advice; at that point, I'll probably recommend you to WP:Third opinion, which is a somewhat more formal version of the same process.  I should add that I don't suggest you return to me if you simply disagree with the outcome of the first process, but if for some reason you can't get this article to have the kind of attention you're looking for, come back and I'll help you further.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me butting in here - Tom van Flandern is deceased, thus WP:BLP and the related notice board are not applicable here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that had escaped my notice (thank you User:ClovisPt). Since the individual is dead, the "biography of living persons" (BLP) policy doesn't apply.  Hmm... WP:Third opinion might be your best option, but I'll give this some thought and see if I can come up with something more useful for you. Accounting4Taste: talk 01:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article in question and it appears to be quite balanced, with a neutral point of view, although I may be simply ignorant of what's gone on here. Is it currently in a state where you feel you need to do something?  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is a very interesting, and slightly frustrating process for sure. Yes, Van Flandern died fairly recently so I didn't think the biography of living persons page was the right place to go when I was poking around. I have tried changing the article to a neutral POV several times, including today, so you may have read my edit when you attended the page and saw a neutral article. However, it has subsequently been changed back. I realize you must be very busy with this enormous task of editing Wikipedia--and this is really a small insubstantial article to spend much time on, but it really bothers me that their appears to be a single person who has made it his mission to tilt this article to a negative perspective on the guy when he was just a scientist with a unique perspective. If you have the time to bore yourself with the discussion page please do look at the language 6324 uses to talk to anyone who objects to his analysis or tone. He is quick to insult and his retorts are full of made up facts and bogus references. I don't want to engage with him at all, even to refute his arguments, because of the insulting nature of his replies. He is clearly taking this so personally one can't help but wonder what his relationship was with Van Flandern and why he is so keen to sully his reputation after his passing. At any rate I think there should be no place for bullies in Wikipedia. Thank again. Let me know if you have any other ideas.Csv2009 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Csv2009
 * Well, I have to suggest WP:Third opinion. It's worked for me in the past; it brings in one (or a couple) of impartial individuals to mediate and provide guidance as to how the article should be cast, with a strong bent towards Wikipedia policy.  Check it out and let me know what you think.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Marisol (play)
Thanks for working that article. My comment shouldn't have included so many !'s, for that I apologize. As I pretty much only concentrate on reviewing articles up for deletion (long story), I put (what I try to make neutral) notes on the discussion pages based on up to about 5 minutes of research. Without making it sound too adversarial, if the PROD'er is the district attorney, I try to play public defender, leaving the judge (deleting admin) to make the decision (though I prefer jury trials (AfD) generally).

Again, my apologies for my testiness.74.69.39.11 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and thanks for discussing it. My own policy is that I try to encourage people to contribute in areas where they know something, and to simultaneously learn how to do it in a Wikipedian manner, so I sometimes PROD articles where I feel that someone else will know better than I whether or not the notability is there, in the hope that they will learn how to use citations.  But I didn't mind contributing myself, once I was lucky enough to find a mention that demonstrated notability.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of medical educator page
Foss99 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I would like to request un-deletion of the medical educator page. The reason for this was that I wanted to add the page to the Category:Medical websites. I have followed the page templates that already exist in that category to create my page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medical_websites

You can see here that a lot of these pages are very similar in content to the medical educator one I just created. (For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMJ_OnExamination). Therefore if these pages are live and they dont violate guidelines, why does the one I have created? Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks Ben

Foss99 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The article was deleted because it contained no assertion of notability and, more importantly to my mind, because there were no reliable sources that backed up any of the statements.  As you'll note in the article you quoted as an example, the box at the top of that article indicates that there are no reliable sources, and the article is subject to deletion at any moment; that's why yours was deleted.  What would be required is arm's-length, third-party expert opinion that states that this website is somehow better than others of its sort, and that opinion must be verifiable.  If you feel you can provide three or four such references, leave me a note and I'll restore the deleted content to what we call a "sandbox" page where you can improve it with slightly less urgency.  Incidentally, feel free to tag the other article for speedy deletion.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Volt (soft drink)
Could you (or at least whoever can) at least provide me with the article so I can work on it later? I know they quoted Beverage Digest but I don't know if I can find the coverage of that drink there.

I knew one article wasn't a lot, but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with much less content, and no more sources than that.

And if Volt does succeed like they say, I guess I'll have the last laugh. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to oblige; I've placed the deleted content at User:Vchimpanzee/Sandbox. If you need any help with this, feel free to leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I know I'm taking a risk any time I create an artticle, and I knew it was likely going to cause a concern that I only had the one source, but as I looked for others, they seemed to be limited to Facebook and MySpace and other unacceptable sources. I was considering making this an example of new marketing.

If we didn't have risk takers, we wouldn't have Volt. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what happened. I have seen displays and ads on trucks for Vault. As a result, I perceived the drink Volt as being more notable than it was. And now I see an obvious problem with the new drink's potential success, if not a possible lawsuit.

Funny I didn't wonder why I had seen the name so much if it wasn't distributed in my area. That newspaper covers where I go on vacation, not where I live. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notes. I suspect the people at Jolt Cola may also take an interest in this.  In general, and without any reference to this specific situation, for an article about a commercial product in the US I would be looking for some evidence of country-wide notability -- something to demonstrate that it was not just a localized product with only local notability.  I suspect that a test marketing would be better appended to an article about the product's parent company, at least until it rolls out nationally -- however, you know your business best.  Again, let me know if there's something I can do to help you.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The product's parent company isn't any more notable than the drink.

I just read the paper. I drink caffeine-free soft drinks and haven't bought a Royal Crown product in years. Royal Crown's local bottler distributes Volt, so maybe that's a possibility. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Press-start deletion
I was wondering why my page was deleted. Is it because I do not have outside sources citing the site?

I was simply trying to create a page notify users what the gaming site was about, If this is inappropriate I apologize for wasting your time.

Or is it because I did not use the 'in use' tags as I will still adding content. Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks!

(CombatGoose (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your note. Yes, it's because you do not have "outside sources citing the site".  A basic principle of Wikipedia is that articles have reliable sources; independent, arm's-length, third-party experts who assert that the subject has notability in a verifiable way.  This would be, generally, from such things as expert reviewers writing articles in newspapers and magazines.  It's a common misconception that the mere existence of a topic qualifies it automatically for a Wikipedia article.  In fact, we try to only have notable topics and ones that are proven to be notable with reliable sources.  I hope this clears up your question.  If you feel you can provide reliable sources for your article, I'd be happy to place the deleted material into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it with somewhat less urgency than attaches to newly-mounted pages; just leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

=Admin=

Hey sorry to always bug you when it comes to questions and concerns but you happen to be the only admin I know. I happened to come across a question that I've always wondered; how do you become a admin here on Wikipedia?--KingRatedRIV (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, GetJar is the words largest App Store for all phones (not just iPhone), bigger that Nokia, Blackberry stores all together. They delivered over 400M downloads so far. Isn't that significant enough for you guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzv (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I believe the reason the article was deleted twice recently is because it did not have "outside sources citing the site".  A basic principle of Wikipedia is that articles have reliable sources; independent, arm's-length, third-party experts who assert that the subject has notability in a verifiable way.  This would be, generally, from such things as expert reviewers writing articles in newspapers and magazines.  It's a common misconception that the mere existence of a topic qualifies it automatically for a Wikipedia article.  In fact, we try to only have notable topics and ones that are proven to be notable with reliable sources.  I hope this clears up your question.  If you feel you can provide reliable sources for your article, I'd be happy to place the deleted material into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it with somewhat less urgency than attaches to newly-mounted pages; just leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see what your saying. I will be sure to take a look into that page. You dont have to answer this but, how did you become an admin?--KingRatedRIV (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind talking about it, but much of it was not under my control. I had been working with User:Pedro because of something random that had thrown us together; I believe he suggested to me that I might want to become an administrator, and he suggested a few areas in which I might care to work in order that I could demonstrate the breadth of experience that is usually required.  So I started participating in articles for deletion discussions, other requests for administration processes, and other semi-administrative areas.  After a few months, when he was sure I was ready (and when I was sure I was ready), Pedro nominated me, and the results can be seen at Requests for adminship/Accounting4Taste.  I should also say that I believe that Pedro's "coaching" of me is something that has since become less favourably received than once it was -- in other words, some people don't like it and !vote against people who have been coached.  I have no idea why, since it seems a reasonable way to learn how to improve Wikipedia, but that's the way it is.  Note that a crucial part of the process will be that you observe how you have interacted in the past with other users, and the general principles that will guide that interaction in the future.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Sounds like a cool story. I hope one day to become an admin but I know that I still have a lot of work to do to get to that point.  How do you get so many edits?  Do you just search random articles? Or are they given?--KingRatedRIV (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to concentrate on the sort of article that I have knowledge about, or experience with. I started editing by clicking on the "Random article" tag and trying to improve any article I found, but I soon got interested in contributing to areas in which I knew I had something to offer -- like good reference books.  One thing you can do that improves Wikipedia and racks up a lot of edits is "new page patrol".  If you click on "New pages" you will find a list of the most recently created pages; start from the bottom, open them and read them with an eye to the speedy deletion criteria.  If you find something that definitely qualifies for speedy deletion, edit it to insert the appropriate "db" tag ("delete because"), then inform the creator of the page what you've done.  (Once you've added the db tag, there's a section near the bottom that you can copy and that will expand to become the information that the page's creator needs to hear on his/her talk page.)  If, as frequently happens, the creator is a brand-new editor, I like to leave them one of the templated "welcome" messages also.  If I can add three pieces of advice about new page patrol, they would be (1) you're not a traffic cop and you're not punishing people, so don't get pushy; (2) the object of the game here is to get rid of stuff that doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but also to make it possible for people to become interested in contributing useful stuff, so if someone asks you for help, you have to do whatever you can to explain things to them in a polite and friendly way; (3) be very, very sure you know the speedy deletion criteria backwards and forwards, and if you're not sure if a specific article fits or not, leave it untouched.  You asked if articles are "given" -- if you mean, did someone assign me work to do, the answer is no.  But there are various lists around Wikipedia of work that needs to be done, if you look for them.  Most of them are, in general, about helping others to contribute.  So if you don't feel like contributing to the article about your favourite television show, or whatever, just give someone a hand with something.  Hope you find this a source of worthwhile suggestions; if you have more questions, I'll be around.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm not sure why exactly you would want to become an admin. One of the ways people talk about getting access to the admin's toolkit is that they say they have been "given the mop" -- because in very many ways, it's more like being a janitor than anything else.  If I were you, I'd want to be very, very sure that I had the time, energy and motivation to devote to public service before I took up the mop.  Don't get me wrong, it can be very rewarding, but sometimes I feel like it's sucked all the fun out of contributing.  You can have lots of fun here, and contribute many useful things, without having the mop.  I'll also suggest that the absolute worst reason for wanting admin status is because you feel it makes you somehow more important.  Believe me, it makes you the servant of anyone who needs your help; you'll get over the "important" part very, very quickly.  I'm not saying that this is your personal motivation, just that it's something to think about.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see what your saying. I wanted to become an admin so I can use the rollback feature when I see a page full of vandalism.  Your point seems pretty reasonable; being an admin maybe good if you like cleaning up articles but it can also be bad because people look up to you as someone who can help them; something like me asking you questions all the time.--KingRatedRIV (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just granted you rollback privileges. Since this is the first time I've done this, let me know if there's something further I need to do and please, use the feature carefully.  Accounting4Taste: talk 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I really appreciate this. I will be sure to read up more about the feature to ensure I know exactly what I'm doing. I will not use it until I am fully clear on what I'm doing. Once again, thanks for taking the time to clear this up with me. I feel that I have learned a lot from our conversation and hope to be able to have one again in future times!--KingRatedRIV (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Libraries
Thanks for supporting the prod on C.B. "Bud" Johnston Library. The creator has created a whole slew of articles on individual libraries at the university, non of which are notable in their own right. I guess we'll have to take them all to AfD rather than prodding them all. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you (although I think I supported a prod tag for a different library than you suggest), but I wouldn't be too hard on this contributor, who seems to be trying to do a good job of these non-notable pages. I haven't checked to see if there are any other libraries at universities which have a separate entry; I'm not even sure how I would do that.  UWO, however, is AFAIK not among the largest universities in Canada and it's unlikely that each little library would be sufficiently notable as, say, those of Harvard or Oxford.  Let me know if you need any help with any of this.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, wrong library. I'll maybe see about getting around to nominating them later when I have more time (it's such a time consuming process to nominate.) The editor is a good editor, just has chosen a topic that I don't feel is notable. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a little research and I'm actually starting to wonder about this. My own alma mater, University of British Columbia, has a separate page for its library (both the university and the library are larger than UWO's), and a couple of other universities I checked also had individual pages.  Is there any policy anywhere on this that you could point me to?  I'm fairly sure that the determining factor will be reliable sources, but I've never considered this question before.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And Simon Fraser University, with a few thousand fewer students, has no separate article for its library. I'm starting to think that UWO is right on the dividing line.  Any thoughts?  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the size of the university matters, it's the individual notability of the libraries themselves. If they have the world's best collection of X, or oldest set of Y, then that would be a claim to notability. Just being a library belonging to a university, isn't claim to notability in my mine. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From the creator of all those UWO library pages: I'll throw in my thoughts here if that's alright? :Although I am trying to create the Wikipedia pages for each of our (7) main libraries, I can understand your points that there may not necessarily be anything "noteworthy" about the libraries themselves to have them merit an entry. If you would like me to beef up the articles with more information - more references, noteworthy items and noteriaty, I can... although perhaps not for all 7 libraries. For example, our Music Library does have one of the best collections in all of North America so that should fall within the guidelines, however the same may not be said for our Education Library...
 * The project began as an add-on to the University of Western Ontario's page when an entry was created for the Allyn and Betty Taylor Library - which has yet to be deleted. Western Libraries Marketing team thought that all the libraries should have their own entry - an all or nothing approach, thus I came along and began to create the entries. Being new to Wikipedia article creations, I wasn't aware of the finer points of creation (including the notability of a particular topic), so I apologize for all the confusion and kafuffle.
 * If you feel that there is no place for such articles on Wikipedia just let me know why and I am happy to stop re-creating or adding to them and you are more than welcome to delete the pages. :0) No hard feelings.

Callimachus Pinakes (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine, you haven't done anything wrong per say, we're just questioning the notability of the libraries. Articles on Wikipedia need to be notable on their own merits, not just because they are connected to a larger and definitely notable institution, as in this case. Is there anything special about these libraries? Do they house collections of interest that cannot be found anywhere else? Something that makes them special and notable? Canterbury Tail   talk  19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, and I'm happy to hear you want to work with us. It's certainly okay to throw in your thoughts, that's why I alerted you to this conversation.  I think the key element that will determine this is what we call reliable sources.  That is, the opinions of arm's-length, third-party experts that assert that one (or all) of these libraries is notable -- special, unusual, etc. -- in a verifiable way.  So, ideally, a couple of articles in something like Library Science Journal (if there is such a thing) that discuss the specialized holdings of, say, the music library.  You may want to discuss this with your marketing team; the all-or-nothing approach is not what we do here.  We only want notable topics, but we definitely want all of them we can get.  As the other editor noted above, "If they have the world's best collection of X, or oldest set of Y, then that would be a claim to notability."  And the fact that you have the world's best collection of X would have to be documented from a source external to the university.  I hope that helps you; if you want any further explanation or assistance, I'm at your service.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou both Accounting4Taste and Canterbury Tail for your help and encouragement. I have put the question out to the team to see what our next steps are - be it more sources and notability for a library entry or perhaps simply a link out from the UWO entry to the each of the library's respective home pages. (And yes there actually is a Library Science Journal! ) Thanks again. Callimachus Pinakes (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure to be of assistance. If there's anything further with which I can help you, feel free to call upon me.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Western Libraries Marketing team decided to market the Western Libraries by making Wikipedia articles, then these would all be deletable as advertising or conflicts of interest. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if your hypothesis is correct, they would be; whether they should be is another matter. I'd prefer to see if notability can be established during the PROD period, so that Wikipedia could possibly gain a useful article or two.  If you'd like to pursue some other course of action, of course, that's your privilege.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Western is one of the biggest research universities in Canada and Weldon Library is one of the biggest libraries. It has the archives for most of southwestern Ontario in general, the London Free Press, and I believe also Canadian Tire. It's not Robarts Library but it's pretty big. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling from material here and elsewhere that you are intimately familiar with these libraries, possibly as a student/alumnus. I'm sure everyone concerned would be very appreciative if you were to contribute some citations from notable publications that back up your identification of some of the libraries in question being notable and some not (of course, mostly about the notable ones).  Certainly I have no information to contribute from personal knowledge, but I'd welcome your assistance.  Thanks in advance for anything you care to offer.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I spent many years holed up in the stacks there! I've rewritten the article; most of the references come from UWO's website though, if that is acceptable. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pruane2forever
You fricking make it notable. this is an encyclopedia so lets help each other make entries better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pruane2222 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Making it notable is your job.  Good luck with that.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my article about Randy Leonard, Portland City Commissioner
Randy Leonard is notworthy as an elected official in Portland, Oregon USA; also as a former elected Representative to the Oregon State Legislature. Randy Leonard is rumored by prominent local news outlets as running for governor of Oregon in 2010. These attributes of Randy Leonard, individually and collectively make the subject noteworthy.

Wikipedia lists other Portland City Commissioners such as Amanda Fritz and Dan Saltzman. Why these commissioners are noteworthy, buy Randy Leonard is NOT noteworthy is inconsistent on the part of Wikipedia.

Please restore my article. I am upset that it was summarily deleted, because I spent a lot of time on it.

Frank Ray Portland, Oregon USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1ray (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given this a considerable amount of thought and have decided to settle this question once and for all. Thanks for your note and good luck with the articles for deletion process which I'm about to invoke.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've closed the debate as Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - frankly, every time a state legislator is nominated for deletion we get a snowball keep result. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "frankly"; our guidelines say that all state legislators, past and present, are inherently notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help; I wanted the contributor's question to be settled once and for all. I'm afraid I've never been certain which among "state" and "senate" ranks first and second in the American system; it seems to be both, which is a little confusing, but probably the same as the Canadian system must seem to you (MPs and senators are approximately equal, but senators aren't elected).  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)