User talk:Cunard/Archive 4

ok
fair enough I get your drift. However, how would you control the rise of ad-agencies and SEO firms that are blatantly writing wiki articles for not-so established artists/models and actors from Bollywood? I mean ok they have some google traction but those are blog links etc. I'd rather request AfD then keep improving Bios of people which reads like their resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialprof (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took another look at the articles you tagged, and most are not promotional. These biographies have likely been created by fans, not representatives, of these actors. Google News searches for these individuals return multiple sources from reliable news organizations. For example, see Articles for deletion/Juhi Babbar, which is heading for a snowball close. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can cover all notable people, as long as they pass WP:BIO. If you are concerned with the tone of these articles, why not edit them and make them sound less like résumés? Deletion should always be the last approach. Cunard (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe
Members of the nobility are not inherently notable, unless things have changed? Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not inherently notable, but the fact that they are nobility means that they pass A7, which requires only a "credible claim of significance or importance". I recommend that you either redirect these articles to their respective titles (such as Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe to Earl Jellicoe). If these redirections are contested, then feel free to take them to AfD to determine a consensus for each individual case. Cunard (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, ta. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hollmann
Thanks for your help on this speedy deletion.... --DAW0001 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! The article should never have been tagged for deletion. It easily passed the notability guidelines. Nice article! Cunard (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please look again - is it sufficiently referenced?  --DAW0001 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No; this WP:BLP would be better referenced if you used inline citations for every fact in the article. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your guidance.  How is it now?  --DAW0001 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better now. Thanks, OlYeller, for helping DAW with this article. Cunard (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Word. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference question
Yo. I'm working on an article with the subject of the article helping me with some references. There's a number of military type awards that he has won but they're not available online. He has certificates/letters that he can scan in but I'm not sure how to use those unless they're hosted somewhere. Have you ever heard of a solution to a problem like this? I imagine it's not all that uncommon. Maybe upload them as pictures? Ol Yeller '''Talktome 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Got this figured out by the way. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, McConnelly's solution is the best. By the way, I asked to take a look at this article since he is fairly good with finding sources for academics. Cunard (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Thank for helping with the speedy-deletion reversing for T Hariri. I will also be sure to read sources to make better the article. Aboudkokash (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Be sure to add reliable sources to the article or it may be deleted in an AfD debate. Cunard (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Elizabeth
Thanks for helping correct the vandalism of the article in question that was done by 71.36.101.63. I suspect that this topic may be subject to the same problem in the future. Is it useful to enact some sort of temporary block against that IP address as a precaution? Thanks again, Hhtttt (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was vandalized by a dynamic IP, so a block will not be useful because the IP will have been assigned to a new person. I've watchlisted this article and will revert any vandalism that will happen to it. Cunard (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Emiel Pijnaker
Just because the band has an article doesn't mean that one of the members gets one as well. According to WP:MUSICBIO, Mr. Pijnaker needs reliable sources for his biographical notability. Notability is not inherited, even through a band member. Unless you can back up his notability with reliable sources, then his bio has no reason to be there. Unless he's done things notable outside the band, that is. I can't seem to find much, but admittedly, I'm in a lazy mood and am not looking as hard as I could be. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 requires only an assertion of notability, so speedy deletion did not apply to this article. Since Emiel Pijnaker doesn't have independent notability, I've redirected his article to the band's article. Cunard (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your request...
on my talk page has been completed. Regards, Keeper  |  76  03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've merged the content from Lee Wei Song School of Music to Lee Wei Song. Cunard (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not admin
So stop acting like one.--Otterathome (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I came here wondering why he isn't one yet (again), even as a non-admin he is allowed to remove speedy-tags. Please review WP:CSD which clearly states that any "editor who is not the creator of a page may do so [i.e. remove the speedy tag]". Regards  So Why  11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Otterathome, I remove speedy tags because I enjoy hanging out at CAT:CSD. Many articles are wrongly deleted by hasty admins who turn away valuable creators. To minimize the harm of these admins, I try to remove tags before they see those articles. If you have an issue with any of my speedy removals, feel free to bring it up on my talk page. I have been mistaken before. Thanks, SoWhy, for explaining to Otterathome why I, a non-admin, can remove speedy tags. I have remained a non-admin for the reasons I listed here. Also, I wish to remain a non-admin because I have been able to examine the articles at CAT:CSD without having the delete button to distract me. If I had the tools, I may not have stopped to de-spammify Benco Dental. I would have been too busy clearing yesterday's massive CSD backlog. To me, saving one or two articles every day or week is more beneficial to the encyclopedia than deleting 100 unsaveable articles. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is your decision of course but I think that the track record of many admins (including myself) proves that it's perfectly possible to clean up stuff instead of deleting it (I do it routinely every few articles) and I doubt that you would fail to do so just because you could delete them. My personal view is that any established editor with the mop is better for the pedia than without it, no matter whether they only use it once a month or dozens of times a day. And I think you have to agree with me that while saving 1 or 2 articles every day or week is very beneficial that it would be as beneficial to simply get rid of those you encounter that cannot be saved. After all, when browsing CAT:CSD, you will load those articles no matter what. Your current approach is to simply leave them be. The only change if you were an admin would be to delete it instead. And it would allow you to make binding declines, not only removals that can be reverted. But, alas, that is your choice to make. But I want you to know that I for one think you should request the mop nevertheless. After all, having it just allows you to do more, it does not oblige you to. Regards  So Why  16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for kind words, but I must respectfully decline. Having the tools would help clear the CSD backlog, but I dislike being the final decider in the deletion of articles. I have been wrong several times and the wiki would have lost several valuable articles if I had the tools at the time. However big the net positive will be, I do not want any negatives to befall my CAT:CSD patrolling. Anyway, I doubt I would pass right now because of my red-linked, ornately decorated userpage. That's why I prefer both my userpage and WP:RFA/Cunard to remain red-linked. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. Flicko's
I reverted your tag on Flickos, this is a self promotional article authored by the company and has since been blocked for username violitions. Just wanted to drop an fyi. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me about your re-addition of the speedy tag. Yes, the article was self-promotional and deserved to be deleted, but I placed the in use tag on the article for a reason. The article had potential. I have stripped the article of its advertising content and have added multiple reliable sources to it. The notability guidelines should be satisfied now. Cunard (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was possible, Kudos to you for your great effort!Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
No problem, I was stalking my sis's talk page and happened to glance at the article.

Infant professor...now that is amusing!

Happy editing!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was one of my biggest fail moments. Hope you had a good laugh! Cheers, Cunard (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Live On Morning Becomes Eclectic
Well obviously, the creator fixed it. That's what I get for not waiting before tagging. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was perfectly fine when you tagged it for deletion. At the time of your tagging, the article said, "The Bite Back EP is a 2005 EP by The All-American Rejects available only on iTunes." How is that "patent nonsense"? Incorrectly tagging it as such one minute after creation will turn away valuable new contributors. Patent nonsense is "awer38awrh98twp8ahtwp398aw38atw93a", not coherent content that can be understood. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome notice
Thank you. Cheers! :)
 * --VanHelm (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cunard/CSD
Hey! I was wondering if I could use your CSD page where you talk about the candidates for speedy deletions. --Syed Kazim | Talk 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I didn't create that wonderful page. did that. Once you borrow the speedy deletion page, remember to follow the instructions here and give Jonny some Wikilove. Take care, Cunard (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Syed Kazim | Talk 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I also use that banner you have at the top of this page? --Syed Kazim | Talk 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I stole it from who probably stole it from somebody else. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks,, for fixing this mistake which had been there for over a year. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|left|62px]]

Cunard, Syed Kazim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks.--Syed Kazim | Talk 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Garden sessions
Erm, what BBC link? The article merely mentions that they've been compared to the BBC show. It provides no references or sources to back this up, just a link to the BBC page for the show they've allegedly been compared to. Chaotic Reality  06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. The BBC link doesn't mention Garden Sessions. I've done a Google News Archive search on this radio show and have been unable to find reliable sources to establish its notability. I've self-reverted myself to let an admin see if the article should be deleted. Thank you for pointing out my error instead of just restoring the speedy tag. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've been around wiki long enough to know not to restore a removed CSD tag without discussing with the admin who declined originally :-) Chaotic  Reality  11:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not an admin; see here. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tan
Thanks very much for helping our mutual acquiantance get the hookup s/he needed! I felt pretty bad for not really knowing quite who to turn to there, and I'm glad it got some better resolution. - Vianello (Talk) 07:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! I would have helped Tân earlier if I were actively editing last week. Cunard (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Anglethrice
I don't feel there is consensus for that use of CSD.©Geni 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is there no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34 to delete those indef-blocked users' talk pages? Most of the users in that discussion said that db-housekeeping does apply. If you won't delete this page, do you want to bring it to MfD? Cunard (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why it needs deleting. So probably your best bet is to relist it and hope you get an admin who thinks otherwise.©Geni 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted per WP:DENY. Talk pages of indef-blocked vandals should not remain on Wikipedia. Since you are all right with me re-adding the speedy tag, I have done so. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've declined your speedy request on this page as well. I don't see a policy to support the deletion.  If you really want this page deleted, you can probably take it to WP:MfD; a policy change to WP:CSD would also be a step towards what you suggest.  At present, however, there is no criteria for speedy deletion to support your request.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks for the work on Wikipedia.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus at the discussion I linked to above was that the policy allowed deletion of indef-blocked user talk pages under db-housekeeping. Since both Geni and you believe that this user talk page would not be a non-controversial deletion, I've taken it to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Anglethrice. Cunard (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello, I am writing in connection with the Badi Foundation page. I have created new text for the page on its temporary subpage and am wondering if you can reactivate the page using that text? Many thanks. Vicali9 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done what this user asked, and you can find the new copy at Badi Foundation; I'll delete the temporary subpage. If there's something I've done wrong, it's through ignorance and I would appreciate your correction.  Accounting4Taste: talk 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Accounting4Tast. I think you did everything correctly. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubinsko pretraživanje weba
Hello!!!

This article exists on Hungarian Wikipedia here. Quite a similar content.

Thanks

Hitro 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me. It's quite odd I didn't find that page when I did a Google search for this article. Anyway, I've re-added the speedy. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dominique Peyroux
You removed the speedy on Dominique Peyroux stating that he "plays for a notable team". No, he does not - he has only played at junior level, ie, under 20's, as stated in the stub. Not a notable team. The linking of the notable team is entirely misleading.  florrie  00:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This one is pretty borderline. This person appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and I don't know whether this article asserts enough notability to pass A7, so I've re-tagged it for deletion to see what the reviewing admin thinks. If the speedy is declined, the article will be deleted by the prod tag that I placed on it. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, and it has been prodded again. I'll keep an eye on the stub until the prod expires. Cheers,  florrie  02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Michael
Thanks for the help on this page. I'll try to get it updated if it doesn't get deleted before I get a chance to do it. I also have more articles being mailed to me and I should have them early next week. Thanks again for your help.Ap3253 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ap, for collecting those newspaper articles for Andy Michael. I originally thought you were perpetrating a hoax until you provided those references. My apologies for that. I can assure that this article will not get deleted. The sources you have provided show that Michael passes Notability, so there is no reason that this article should not stay. Keep up the good work! Cunard (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my vote on this article based on your detective work. I'm very sorry if you thought I was referring to you as a sockpuppet. I was concerned about the anons weighing in. Again, I am so very sorry about the misunderstanding. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you accused me of being a sockmaster, but thanks for clearing things up. I agree that the IPs at the beginning of the discussion looked suspicious, but I don't think they were purposefully socking. The unsigned signatures would be too obvious to the closing admin. Cheers and have a good break! Cunard (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinensis Tea Company
Hello,

I am an expert in tea testing. I have come across Sinensis Tea Company Products in a tea trade Fair in USA. I am very pleased with their product uniqueness which is unparallel in the tea Industry. So for the benefit of the tea lover I would request you the stop the deletion of this articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish162 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have searched for reliable sources about this company but have been unable to find any. Since this article asserts notability but fails WP:COMPANY, I have taken it to WP:AFD; see Articles for deletion/Sinensis Tea Company. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MuZemike 04:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Camp Hemshekh
Can you please revisit this topic and let me know if you feel that this is no longer a PROD? I think we may have an early consensus as everyone has weighed in on the issue except for you on your initial creation. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me about this discussion. I have closed the debate as keep. Cunard (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Exotic Magazine
Funny thing, it was on my laptop sidebar's to-do list as the next item. I wanted to give it two weeks since the original opening time, so I was going to close it today if consensus was clear (as it is). Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. I hope you close this debate soon because I really don't like the pointless bickering that has been going on for the past two days. Cunard (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just remembered that these are Wikipedians I'm dealing with. I'm confident in my ability to close the AfD as an unbiased admin looking only at the consensus and not letting personal bias get involved, but there are people who would think it ludicrous for me to participate in the debate and close it. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I forgot that you had already opined in the discussion. Yeah, another admin should close it because a dramafest would most certainly occur if an involved admin closed it. Cunard (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's silly, really. I think I'm quite unbiased. I would have had an opinion even if I hadn't commented. Meh, oh well. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object if you closed really obvious AfD debates that you participated in. However, I'm sure scores of others would complain and take you to DRV. That's the bureacracy of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta love it. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hungry: A Mother and Daughter Fight Anorexia
Hi! I've left a note about your DYK nomination for Hungry: A Mother and Daughter Fight Anorexia here: Template talk:Did you know. Thanks! Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that typo! I've fixed it. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A7
Hi - In regard to The Life (2002 film), can you point me to where the guidance says that A7 doesn't apply to films? Thanks. Propaniac (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Life (2002 film) cannot be speedy deleted because it fails to meet any of the speedy criteria. CSD A7 states that this criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." Films do not fall under A7; see here for why. Cunard (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharton
Thanks for the notice on the article. Take care. Dr.K. logos 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regards, Cunard (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your message on my talk page,1 Just out of curiousity, why did you contact me? I don't seem to see you contacting anyone else about a redirect for deletion in the past. I appreciate the star treatment though. Ikip (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified you of the RfDs when I noticed that the nominator of those redirects did not notify you, an involved user. I saw the group of relations nominations after I nominated WP:JARLAXLE for deletion, where I referenced this July 5 discussion. In that discussion, I saw that who created the redirect, WP:GRAWP, admonished the nominator for not notifying him of the discussion. As I scrolled through the WP:RFD, the bilateral relations nominations caught my eye. (I frequently see these contentious discussions at AfD and always avoid them. I noticed that after some of these AfDs have been closed as delete, users who opined "keep" sometimes asked the closing admin to undelete the articles and redirect them to a related target so that a merge could be done per WP:PRESERVE.) Thus, I checked the page histories of these redirects and discovered that you were the last one to edit the pages before the redirects were taken to RfD. Knowing that valuable content could be lost if the redirects were wrongly deleted, I contacted you in the hopes that you could shed light on the matter and hopefully rescue those redirects. I haven't contacted any other contributors about RfDs in  the past because I rarely participate in RfD discussions. I hope this long-winded explanation answers all your questions. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, thank you so much for clarifying things for me. That really was quite helpful, I appreciate it. Best wishes and happy editing. That was very nice of you to contact me.Ikip (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy editing to you as well. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A7 and newspapers
I don't see it written anywhere that A7 doesn't apply to newspapers. Abductive (reasoning) 06:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * talk page stalker reply: A7 clearly says it applies "only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals". Since newspapers are not web content, people, animals or organisations, A7 does not apply to them. Regards  So Why  08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Db-corp/Db-inc applies to corporations, which are organizations, which are covered. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are products, not organizations. They just happen to be produced by an organization that is in most cases having the same name. Regards  So Why  08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Products can be speedied. Db-web speedies websites, which are often products of some corporation, Db-A9 speedies singles, which are products of corporations. In addition, the page clearly was about both the corporation, and the newspaper, and the open-ended Db| is for cases where the nominator says, "this doesn't indicate why the topic is notable," with no restrictions on what topics can be speedied, except schools. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say it but you are wrong. Products cannot be speedied, that's consensus for years now. Only certain products can be, which have explicit mentions (i.e. the websites and musical recordings you mention) but none other. A7 clearly says that it does not apply to "articles about their books, albums, software and so on". Newspapers fall into that category. That the publisher of said newspaper might have the same name is irrelevant for A7. Regards  So Why  09:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What is A7 and why not newspapers?
I noticed your removal of a speedy from Rappahannock News Times and the rational you gave as "removed speedy, A7 does not apply to newspapers". Could you please direct me to an explanation of this, where I might find out what is A7, and why it doesn't apply to newspapers (and what else it does or does not apply to). This is not because I have any interest at all in the article you untagged, but simply part of my growing education as a Wikipedian. Many thanks in advance! -- Ishel99 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 is a speedy deletion criterion listed at Criteria for speedy deletion. Whenever you tag pages for deletion with the templates: db-bio, db-corp, or any of their derivatives (db-company, nn-bio), you are placing these articles in the A7 category of CAT:CSD. Rappahannock News Times cannot be speedy deleted because it fails to meet any of the speedy criteria. CSD A7 states that this criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." Newspapers, magazines, events, etc. fall under the "so on" clause of this criterion. The reason that A7 does not apply to these types of articles is simple: a quote from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34 explains why A7 is so restrictive: "it is hard to tell what constitutes an assertion of notability absent a sometimes awkward boast about how many people are using it or how important it is. Not impossible, just more work and potentially more controversial than CSD is set up for." It's very difficult to gauge whether or not a newspaper passes the notability guidelines, so whenever you find a non-notable one, you should either prod it or nominate it for deletion. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed explanation - I get it completely now! It does seem, though, that some of the newspapers such as Rappahannock News Times which have been incorrectly listed for speedy deletion do fail to meet the criteria of, say, Notability (media) Another candidate would be Orange County Review.  I am not yet confident enough as an editor (don't spend enough time on it) to know what template might be best applied. -- Ishel99 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The best course of action for these articles is to expand and reference them. I have done so with Rappahannock News Times. If you doubt an article's notability, you should nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, make sure that you follow this guideline before you nominate an article for deletion; search for sources on Google News Archive (here). Best, Cunard (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Brewer?
Please see talk:Alan Brewer. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is really complicated. There were two Alan Brewers who were involved with the production of Come Early Morning‽ Since the non-notable Alan Brewer has a short, insignificant filmography, I agree that this article should be speedied under A7. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tony Gauci
Please note that per WP:RELIST, AFDs should generally only be relisted when only one or two people besides the nominator have contributed to the discussion. I have closed this AFD as no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good close. Please note that I relisted the article because the discussion started leaning towards keep instead of delete. These two keep rationales were added after my relist. I only relist articles when discussion is ongoing. However, "no consensus" would have been a good close during the time I relisted this AfD, so thanks for pointing this out and closing it. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Greenplum
I've talked to the user here. Thanks for coming to us with the issue instead of edit warring! Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  06:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with the AIV report. Hopefully, your note will get the message across to Squarles1900 to stop inserting copyrighted content. This was really interesting. I think that's the first time I've been reported to AIV. And Squarles1900 used my original report as a template for their report; it made me laugh when I saw the changes he made to what I wrote. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that; I wasn't sure if it was a joke or something. I had to check the history to see if it was posted by one user trying to pull my metaphorical leg. :P Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  06:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been a heck of a joke. I doubt I could have made that one up! :) Cunard (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Act One, Inc.
Hi, this is the creator of the Act One page; I just wanted to thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag and cleaning up the article, it was my first contribution to Wiki and I'm pretty sure I need some practice.

I wanted to add some additional things to it (faculty/staff listings, that sort of thing), but I'm a little afraid of adding anything that might compromise the integrity of the article-- any chance you could give me some pointers?

Thanks again, ~js1182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Js1182 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Js1182. Great job on your first article! Some important policies for Wikipedia articles are WP:V and WP:Neutral. The faculty/staff listings have no encyclopedic value; they violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That's why I removed them from the article when I was cleaning up the article. Feel free to add other information, but please make sure you cite independent, third-party reliable sources. Also, be sure to avoid peacock terms and stick to neutral language.

Here are some templates to help you cite sources. There are three main templates:


 * cite news : for news websites like CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSN, etc. I normally use
 * cite web : for web pages. I normally use . If anything (such as the author's name or the date) is not on the web page, then you should remove it from the template. The same goes with other elements in this cite web template.
 * cite book : for books. I normally use.

Another good link about sources is Reliable sources, which states that Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Remember to keep this in mind when you are researching an article. Sources from Myspace and most blogging sites are not reliable sources and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. Also, using "third-party sources" means that the article should not solely rely on sources that originate from the company/organization that the article is about.

Your first article also provides some good information about writing decent articles. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Feel free to expand this article. I have Act One, Inc. watchlisted and will modify your changes if you make any edits that violate Wikipedia's policies; I look forward to working with you. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cunard (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with those speedy tags
James Fraser (footballer) was not a G4 report - it was about a completely different person than the article that was deleted, and this one is notable as he has played for his country. Thanks, Black Kite 22:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for declining the speedy; some admins would not carefully check and determine that this was not a G4. I do not have the tools, so I mistakenly guessed that this was a duplicate article. Anyway, I am not convinced that Fraser is notable, so I have nominated this article for deletion: Articles for deletion/James Fraser (footballer) (2nd nomination). Best, Cunard (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian musicians
You should probably add the discussion to the Brazilian notice board, not the Portuguese one - these dudes seem to be from the boonies of Brazil. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right; I've added it to the Brazilian delsort. Thanks for your commments at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Closes
Thanks for the kind words! I, too, wish sources could have been found; at heart, I think keeping articles with even borderline notability is the best thing to do. Of course, that's an opinion I don't let interfere with my closes. Great work fixing up articles and making Wikipedia a better place! However, I'm not really sure that I should allow a duck to keep editing... ;) Anyway, I'm going to go catch up on some sleep before I go on this biking thing. Cheers! Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  06:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Football player article
Thank you for your efforts on the football player Ronaldo article. I was astonished to see an immediate deletion for a talk page. My talk page comment was overly harsh, but the article itself remains poorly written. I am too experienced an editor to get into an edit war, but you can see from the history that I had to repeat the copyedit template. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Sapthemosies, who created the Ronaldo article, has removed the hoax, copyedit and notability templates without any further explanation. What is to be done now? I have placed the copyedit template there twice, but other editors did the hoax and notability tags. I am not going to start an edit war over an obscure and poorly written article, but something should be done as a response. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Sizan De Asies Ronaldo. If this is indeed a hoax or a non-notable person, the article will be deleted in 7 days. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

cunard
i wish to delete it because it was just a article i made for my girlfriend, it had no significance and really won't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldingeliah (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tagged Amy Whitbeck for speedy deletion; it will be deleted by an admin once they find it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaycee Lee Dugard
Hi Cunard, Here at Wikipedia we define vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you have a dispute against an article or citation you should follow the good-faith guidelines. In these guidelines you will find that when you disagree with someone you should "...explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same." If you need help with use of these pages or civilly discussing a dispute before deleting content I'm free to give advice. To prevent people from seeing your action as an act of wiki vandalism please try your best to follow these simple guides. Thank you --SRobbins (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please following Gwen Gale's advice. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy for Unequal treaty
I want it deleted so I can move the mis-titled and mis-capitalized Unequal Treaties to its correct name. Otto4711 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This move could be potentially controversial because the article has existed at this title since 2004. It was moved in 2007, but the move was later reverted. I've started a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Unequal Treaties, where a discussion can be held about what title this article should have. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip A. Burrows
I'm trying to figure out why this page is marked for deletion. Please let me know so that if there are corrections to be made I can make them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paburrows (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip A. Burrows will be deleted for failing Notability (people). Please see also Conflict of interest and Autobiography. I have searched for sources to establish notability but have not been able to find any, so this article will be deleted. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/A.J. Saudin
My own erronoeus assumption was that had already discovered the lead role in Aruba. I found our discussions to well worthwhile. Thank you for your time. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saving border-line articles at AfD. You have greatly improved the quality of Wikipedia through your rescues. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprod
I noticed that 10th century (Hebrew) has been de-prodded. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Prior to my prod, the article had no content, but now, I agree with deprodding of 10th century (Hebrew) because has expanded the events, births, and dates sections. Thank you for notifying me about the deprod. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD
I would like to thank you for the rewrite you did on Robert Titzer's wikipedia page per AfD. I would have been very happy to delete the page, due to the Copyright Violation, but you rewrote it, and for that I thank you. Veraladeramanera (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem! I enjoyed doing the research for this article. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/James L. Cocca
Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework the article and maybe wikipedia will get a new dedicated editor. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Ikip (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I have userfied this article because the possibility of this topic being notable is very high. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I happened to see your conversation at User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt, and thought I would stop by and say thanks again. You really choose the right person to go to, too help fix Ashlie_Atkinson. Keep up the wonderful work! I wish there were more editors like you on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I, too, hope that more editors can rescue articles instead of tagging them for deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you have written template
Have you considered something a little more sophisticated, something similar to: User:A Nobody/awards? Which A Nobody has on his talk and user page. Just a suggestion. If you need help setting it up, let me know, and I can do it all for you. Ikip (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea, but I like the format of my page right now. It lists the articles I have worked on starting from the first one all the way to the most current ones. I only list articles that I have created or significantly improved. If I were to add all the articles that I have saved, that list would be way too long. I already have a DYK page 1, too, so I would prefer for my list of articles to remain in the same format. Thanks for your suggestion and offer of assistance, though! Cunard (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Centuries.
Thanks for your note. I haven't added the tag you suggested as that would imply that I was the page creator. I have bundled them all into the 30th century Afd. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bundling the AfDs. Since you agree that the discussions should be centralized, I've closed the other AfDs as "procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). If you disagree with my closes, feel free to revert all of them. Best, Cunard (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your question re Malia and Sasha redirect
It's because the "anchor" on the page for that section is "Malia and Sasha Obama" without the Ann - the redirect seems to go by the anchor not the section head. (I have no idea why.) Take a look at the edit screen to see what I'm talking about. Thanks for fixing it! Cheers Tvoz / talk 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't notice that that section had an anchor. That would explain why the "Malia and Sasha Obama" link would work. Maybe the anchor head supersedes the section head, so that's why adding the "Ann" wouldn't work? Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears so. It's all murky to me. Tvoz / talk 05:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

aigo MID
You probably didn't create the page Aigo MID but did merge it with the page aigo... what to do about the specs box? Do you care if the relevant specs are placed in the subsection itself and the table deleted? Fleetham (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Thanks for cleaning up the information that I merged into aigo. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Akai Rice
Hi,

You removed the speedy delete tag on Akai Rice saying A7 doesn't apply. The exact same article had already been deleted citing A7 and G11:. I've put the G11 tag on it now. But just wanted to let you know why. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling about this. After reading through the article, I can see that the article is fairly promotional, so G11 applies. I have also searched for sources and have confirmed that this type of rice is non-notable, so I agree with the speedy tag. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it promote? There is no product or company name, no contact info. It's just a plant.ArnikaLA (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Akai's rice-grains are grown and harversted at Akai Ranch, in the wild wetlands of the Mediterranean, Ste-maries-de-la-Mer. It's a magical place protected by the national Park of France where pink flamingos, white horses, and black bulls live ubundant."
 * Phrases, such as the above, indicated that the article was promoting Akai Rice. However, you are right that this article cannot be promoting anything, since there is no product to sell and no company to advertise. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this topic, which is why I have nominated it for deletion. Could you provide relevant excerpts (discussing Akai Rice) from the two books you referenced in the article (Gardening with Heirloom Seeds: Tried-and-True Flowers, Fruits, & Vegetables for a New Generation and Heritage Vegetables)? Also, why is this reference not working? Did you type in that link wrong? If these references provide in-depth information about Akai Rice, I will withdraw my deletion nomination. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1. :"Akai's rice-grains are grown and harversted at Akai Ranch, in the wild wetlands of the Mediterranean, Ste-maries-de-la-Mer. It's a magical place protected by the national Park of France where pink flamingos, white horses, and black bulls live ubundant." this quote is located in the book by Lynn Coulter "Gardening with heirlom seeds"

2. The reason i've been trying to post this article is because we have only little information about it online. Most of the time we have to get it from some specialized books. The trend of growing heirloom plants in gardens has been growing in popularity in America for only the last few year.

3. :"Also, why is this reference not working? Did you type in that link wrong?" I'm not sure. This is my first article on Wikipedia. I had a hard time editing references. I will try to fix it tomorrow. ArnikaLA(talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lack of sources is indicative of this plant's lack of notability. I searched Google Books but have been unable to find anything about Akai Rice. If you copied the information directly from the book without paraphrasing it, it is a copyright violation. Please reword the content in the article. How many sources do you have about this plant? Multiple, nontrivial reliable sources about this type of rice will prevent this article from getting deleted. If you could, would you scan the pages about Akai Rice to your computer, and upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing websites. However, if the coverage are only passing mentions, then the sources will not be enough to establish notability. If the consensus at the AfD is to delete this article, not all is lost. If you are able to find more sources about this article, it can be resurrected. Alternatively, Akai Rice could be merged into another article, maybe the one about heirloom plants. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bethel Woods Center for the Arts
Please note that I have deleted the history of the redirect page Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, but have left the redirect version. Feel free to move it - I'm not convinced enough to put my name on the move. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting the history of the redirect page. I am confident that this is the correct title for this performing arts center (see the center's website), so I have moved the page. Thanks again for deleting the extra revision so that I could complete the move! Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea to move. I am surprised no one thought of this before. At a certain point we had two articles on this center, one on the museum, which might have been obviated had the article been named correctly. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Two articles for one center and then one for a museum in the center? That's a little too much. BTW, thanks for merging Museum at Bethel Woods to this article after Articles for deletion/Museum at Bethel Woods. Seldom do editors who vote merge at an AfD actually complete the merge. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually we had two articles total, which definitely is one too many. Nice as Bethel Woods is. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I counted wrong then. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Linode
Oh, I didn't know that you had to put in a source on the first draft, Thanks. Techman224 Talk  23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Though adding a source is not required, it is best to include at least one independent reliable source in the articles you create. This would prevent the article from getting deleted per A7. This also gives future editors more information to work with. Here are some templates to help you cite sources. There are three main templates:


 * cite news : for news websites like CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSN, etc. I normally use
 * cite web : for web pages. I normally use . If anything (such as the author's name or the date) is not on the web page, then you should remove it from the template. The same goes with other elements in this cite web template.
 * cite book : for books. I normally use.

Another good link about sources is Reliable sources, which states that Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Remember to keep this in mind when you are researching an article. Sources from Myspace and most blogging sites are not reliable sources and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. Also, using "third-party sources" means that the article should not solely rely on sources that originate from the company/organization that the article is about. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! If you have any future problems with speedy deletion or deletion in general, feel free to contact me on my talk page. I will either add sources to save the article from deletion or tell you that the topic is likely non-notable. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fernando Alfón de Ovando
Thanks for doing the research, I was afraid it was going to require sources in Portugese. The articles were tagged because I saw an Afd by the same author (if forget whether with the same nick or his sock) that had contained information that was contradicted by legitimate sources. It is good to know these were real people, but do the sources you found confirm that they did the things the articles state? That's the other reason for the hoax tag - the article being about a real subject, but some of the information possibly being false. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the articles, I can't see anything outrageous enough to indicate that these are hoax articles. Per WP:AGF, I think the sources (even though they are offline) verify the information in the article. Please find the AfD debate you mentioned above, and post it here. Then we can ask the participants in that debate (who may be experts in this field) if these articles are true or not. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a hoax
Hey Cunard, please have a look at Articles for deletion/Sutra I. You'll appreciate another mystery solved, perhaps. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for finding those sources and adding them to the article! Nice rescue. I'm certain that these aren't false positives. By the way, I have also nominated Hazub for deletion as a hoax. Both Sutra I and Hazub were created by and tagged as hoaxes by . I have searched for alternative titles for Hazub (Khazuv and Chatzuv) as you did at Sutra I, but have been unable to find anything substantial. Can you find sources for Hazub, too? Cunard (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, does the pope shit in the woods? ;) I'll give it a try, but if you tried those things already I might not have more success. These kinds of things can be really fun, and thank you for your kind words. It's always difficult if one (idiosyncratic) editor, possibly with their hands on a long out-of-print book, creates stubby articles about things that are hardly common knowledge and then leaves others to clean up the mess. Given (in our case) the problems already posed by the title, I am not surprised it was tagged and then AfDed. Hey, thanks again for your nice words, and see you at the next real or suspected hoax. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the pope shit in the woods? He used to but not anymore; he's been replaced by more competent beings. I notified you about that AfD because it's always better to have multiple eyes on an article that is in danger of deletion than just one or two. I don't think that it's a hoax anymore, but there are major verifiability issues with that article. You deserve the kind words; other editors wouldn't have done the research to see if the article was a hoax. And those who have done the research sometimes neglect to add the sources to the article (I am occasionally guilty of this.). See you at the next hoaxy AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, you readded that stuff from Angelfire on Hazub, with that archive link? When I click that link I get "No archived versions of the page you requested are available." Is it just me? Besides--an Angelfire link...not exactly a reliable source. As you can tell, perhaps, I can be something of a stickler. Send me the next suspected hoax, please: my internet is working again, and I have half a beer left. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. There was a typo in the link I pasted; the correct link is this. The page seems reputable enough; I think it's the closest we can get to verifying the information in the article. This isn't a WP:BLP, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. But if you think it's not reliable enough, feel free to remove the content that is referenced to the Angelfire link. More possible/likely hoaxes. Hmm. Perhaps Ragismo, Faylo, Rocker jacket, or Manipal bug? Cunard (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Re your comment here: Well, I tried my best. There aren't any elaborate hoaxes in CAT:HOAX right now. I was fairly bored when I patrolled it yesterday. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net
Done. Black Kite</b> 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have renominated the article at Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. --Natet/c 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, that is one hard-fought AfD. Have you looked at Bullshido? (Of course you have.) Suffers from some of the same problems. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to deal with Bullshido after this AfD. Discussing both topics simultaneously at AfD doesn't seem to be possible in light of the current discussion. The bad faith allegations that will be attributed to me, as was done at Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination) to Crotalus, will sink the AfD. For context about previous related debates, see Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination) where the keep votes were solely about WP:KEEPLISTING comments, the subsequent DRV at Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4 where the discussion was relisted, and ultimately the deletion of this BLP violation at Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). DGG's delete vote is very significant, since at the DRV, he voted to revise the "no consensus" close to keep. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, McDojo suffers from the same problems as these two AfDs. It was recently kept at Articles for deletion/McDojo, but the "keep" votes were very weak and also implied bad faith from the nominator. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Your comment is unwarranted, but there is no need to discuss that at this AfD." Obviously I think it is warranted and exactly what happened, but I agree it isn't a topic for AfD per se. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing admin was impartial when he closed the AfD. Even though he believed that the website lacked coverage in reliable sources to be deemed notable, he did not close the debate as delete because he believed that there was not enough discussion to form a clear consensus. (Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination) could have gone either way, "no consensus" or "delete", but closed as "no consensus" because he wanted to err on the safe side per WP:DGFA.) Thus, immediately renominating the article is justified, particularly since one of the participants of the previous AfD admitted that the keep votes were weak and that s/he ignored my comments in the previous AfD. Accusing the closing admin of "bounc [ ing things around"] because he didn't like the result and because he is an admin is a gross assumption of bad faith. Please don't make such unjustified accusations, which do not aid in discussing the notability of the article, in the future. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My unfounded suspicion is that he closed it in the way he did because a delete result wouldn't last a second at DrV. So this was the best way to get the result he was looking for.  Hobit (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * could have closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "delete"; either close would be endorsed at AfD. A no consensus close would be endorsed because an argument could be made that there wasn't enough discussion after my delete vote. A delete close would also have been endorsed because the keep votes were very weak, while my delete vote was very compelling. Your "unfounded suspicion" is the result of being uninformed. Black Kite didn't close the AfD the way he did "to get the result he was looking for". The closing admin had no intention of doing anything else with Bullshido.net or Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination) until I asked him to revise his closing rationale to allow another AfD. I am the one who initiated Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), not Black Kite. Since you are questioning the motives of the closing admin, I have asked him to comment here. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This message on your talk page certainly puts this issue to rest. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Crafty
I'm going to assume good faith that his comments on that AfD were meant in good fun. Oh, and if you're not a member of the Article Rescue Squadron you should consider joining.--otherlleft 04:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think he was joking at Articles for deletion/Insight Meditation Society (2nd nomination). If he wasn't that would be a blatant personal attack. The Article Rescue Squadron is a great WikiProject, but I haven't joined that WikiProject or any other ones, mainly because I don't have the time or interest to commit to any single WikiProject. But thanks for the invitation though. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For Dummies
I really do have a problem with using this as a reference and asked for some consensus on the talk page of the article before it was included again. I'm assuming you didn't see that request before you reverted. Some of your citations are excellent, but do you have a problem with leaving that one out and getting some other opinions before using it?--otherlleft 04:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I've removed the reference because The Dummy's probably isn't as reliable a source as the books and newspapers in the article. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hazub and Sutra AfDs
Thank you for keeping me informed. I see both articles were kept due to sources being found. Again, I first noticed the article creator and their sock, when another article by them was shown to blatantly contradict a print encyclopedia. Thanks for your diligence in this area, if I'd found the articles clearly false, I'd have put speedy tags on them, if I'd found sources I wouldn't have tagged them at all. I do still remain concerned based on the article that was deleted, that others of the many articles they created are also hoaxes, whether in whole or in part. Edward321 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the two AfDs that have been closed as keep, I believe that the article creator wrote those articles in good faith. The creator even included sources, such as this one, that verified the information in Hazub. The case you mentioned above may be just an accidental error on the creator's part, not a malicious one. I don't think the other articles should be deleted because they appear to be factually correct. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That source is a defunct website of unknown reliability. Just looking at the website for more famous figures such as Solomon, the website states things that don't seem to be supported by other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia which is now linked to the article.  The Jewish encylopedia doesn't even have an article on Hazub, he's just mentioned in passing in that link, and it only says he was the last exiliarch.  Neither the Jewish Encyclopdia nor the Seder Olam Zutta article appear to support the information given.  Seder Olam Zutta says the last exiliarch "lived at the end of the 8th century", which disagrees with the Hazub article by about 200 years. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of them are hoaxes, first of all; they are articles about subjects that, according to the sources we dug up, existed. Mar-Zutra III is, beyond a doubt, I think, notable. The other one, Hazub, that article is on really shaky grounds. I believe the sources, as flimsy as they are, prove that this is not a hoax, and if so, then he is notable--if Cunard is correct in saying that princes are automatically notable. The problem is that a lot of the available sources have appeared in print and aren't digitized. Plus, my Hebrew sucks: I have no doubt that there will be some Hebrew sources available online. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the subjects did not exist or that they were not notable. But as the hoax tag says "It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."  Most of the Hazub article is not supported by any reliable source and it blatantly contradicts Seder Olam Zutta, as I have already mentioned.  An article can be about a real subject and still have false information, sometimes deliberately false information added to it. Edward321 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove the content in Hazub that contradicts Seder Olam Zutta. Would this solve the problem? Cunard (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the work on Starfall (website)
that was a frustrating experience thanks for your help. 121.222.37.68 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem! Starfall is a valuable website and belongs on Wikipedia because it has been covered in multiple reliable sources. By the way, would you remove this sentence you placed on your userpage? It is a personal attack on the admin who deleted Starfall. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

help?
Dear Cunard,

Sorry to be a pain...I really appreciate your patience! I obviously don't know my way around Wikipedia.

I see the hangon instructions but I've no clue how to follow them. (I thought I might have gotten it right my second try?)

Plus the big red speedy delete box seems to be gone...does that mean the page is okay for now?

Apologies - and thanks -

PinkCiao

PinkCiao (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whim W'Him is safe from speedy deletion right now, but it may be deleted in a deletion debate if no reliable sources are found to establish its notability. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Houston
Have a look at Marcus now. I hope the article is a bit more balanced than it was. Can you tell I was pissed? I guess I'm a hothead too. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you were pissed; the article was a BLP that not only plagiarized, but it also was a negatively-written BLP nightmare. I still don't understand Colorado's "combustible backfield coach"[2] Eric Bieniemy, then a "hothead" in his rookie year,[5] caused a regional stir in 2001 when he called Houston "Markeesha."[6] (concerning phrase highlighted in bold) How is that directly related to Houston's life? It seems like an attack on Eric Bieniemy. Cunard (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad DRV comment
By looking at the admins contributions, and the fact the admin didn't agree with their own close, what I said appears to be very likely. Yes, it may have been said in a blunt way, but there we go. I'm glad you dislike such comments and feel the need to complain about them. So if you spot anymore of my comments that you find a bit too blunt, do tell.--Otterathome (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could be correct, but we should AGF that the admin read through the AfD. Perhaps NuclearWarfare read through multiple AfDs and gauged the consensus before closing them all. I've heard Juliancolton say that in many of the AfD discussions that he has closed, he follows the discussions as they enfold. To allay your concerns, I have asked the closing admin to comment here. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, I open up about 3-5 AfDs from the log, read through them all and then close them. I find that to be a far more efficient use of my time. Occasionally, I do follow AfDs throughout and then close them, like Julian does as well, though this is not something I did for this particular AfD. I actually discussed this AfD with Juliancolton over Skype (We communicate regularly through Skype, as we are both part of Wikivoices) for far longer than a minute, which you are free to ask him about. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare, thanks for explaining. Otterathome, would you strike out your unwarranted comments at the DRV? Cunard (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cunard is entirely correct, Otter; your accusation against NW was baseless and unfounded. I know many admins who choose a set of discussions, follow them for their duration, and close them when appropriate. Just because you happen to disagree with the result doesn't mean the closing admin was wrong in his decision. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if I was wrong then why was the closing statement statment a simple "no consensus"? So I'm either wrong or the closing admin was being lazy/did a vote count. So from the evidence I can see, what I said seems more likely.--Otterathome (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins are in no way required to provide descriptive rationales; in fact, most admins choose not to. It is in no way an indication that the closing admin was "lazy". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Route 85
This hook, which you accepted in good faith, is problematic. See Talk:New Jersey Route 85. --NE2 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error. I know little about this highway, so I mistakenly accepted the hook. My apologies. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

COI?
You're not a dodgy dojo are you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Don't you remember this reply? I tend to debate a lot in AfDs. ... Well, now that you mention it, maybe I do have a COI with Bullshido.net. I also probably have a COI with Jody Dunn because of the eager discussion I had at Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Oh, also, how can a martial artist begin his journey of perfection without first becoming a boy scout? I clearly have a COI with 1st Cathays Al Huda because I was too ardently defending my vested interests at Articles for deletion/1st Cathays Al Huda. No independent user would bother to spout such loads of TLDR; would they? Now that I have divulged all of my personal interests on Wikipedia, would you care to share some of your own? ;) Cunard (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to distuingish any one acronym in this wall of text. :) But the main thing is that I'm "winning" and you're "losing" at the DRV, so all is well on the Wiki. :) First you go after karate muckraking websites and now it's gelaterias in Maine? Where will it end. I could have sworn you were an inclusionist... You haven't been hanging out with Bongomatic have you? I'm banned from editing many of the subjects I'm interested in, but I still have California eateries, Dutch architects and pork. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that wall of text, I wrote:


 * Sigh. You're "winning" in the DRV because most of the "endorse" voters are giving weak arguments just as they did in the AfD. No one has been able to prove why IAR applies to this article. Can you? Going after gelaterias in Maine? You can blame DGG for successfully rebutting my "keep" rationale. When I am presented with unrefutable arguments, I tend to acknowledge their rationale and strike out mine. Unlike some people who tend to stick stubbornly to their poor arguments even when the said arguments are blown away like so much sand in the wind [and are revealed to be nothing more than whirling eddies in a strong current"]. :P Yes, Bongmatic can be very corrupting to the mind: Articles for deletion/Elmwood (band). Cunard (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That gelateria just so happens to have very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. Keep Always being right saves my having to alter my votes. :P But occasionally I may tweak one or two of them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me the sources and I will flop back to keep. If the sources you found are as insignificant as the ones you mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), I will definitely stay at neutral and may even thinking about joining the dark side. For now, I am comfortable with staying at neutral. I love gelato, so I would probably have a COI if took a position in the debate. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo District
This is Serbian Propaganda

check Kosovo to see what I am talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

write some sources about this Existence of this Districts

International Sources

there are NONE

Bring back the tags until you find sources

and i assure you will not find any --   LONTECH    19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This district appears to exist per this Google Books search. The tone of the article can be resolved through normal editing. If you still believe that this is a hoax, feel free to take this article to WP:AFD. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe existed during Milosevic Regime But dont exist anymore

check kosovo http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html--   LONTECH    22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link. First, notability is not temporary, so the fact that Kosovo district existed and has received coverage in reliable sources means that it is notable. Second, your link proves that Kosovo district exists; see here. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje is not a District it is MUNICIPALITY check Kosovo_Polje--   LONTECH    04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. I have asked, the creator of Kosovo District, to weigh in on this discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. the map of districts on the gov website, Kosovo district is the one where it reads Косовски округ.--Avala (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a big problem because i cant find this map (district) on credible International Organizations such as UN,OSCE,EU etc the map you provided adds Kosovo as part of republic of serbia while it is not part of it so this is PROPAGANDA

I would add kosovo government map but i think OSCE is more credible institution and i cant find this district there http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13982.html--   LONTECH    11:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to differentiate districts of Kosovo per the Govt of Serbia and per the Govt of Kosovo. Intl organizations can choose which division they'll use but they are not the ones deciding.--Avala (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Govt of Serbia and per the Govt of Kosovo - this dont make any sense Government of Serbia don't control kosovo anymore If this district existed from 1990 till 1999 during milosevic regime its ok but dont exist anymore If you think sill exist list any International source not Serbian Propaganda. --   LONTECH    05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have moved this discussion to Talk:Kosovo District. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist)‎
Nice catch on the prior AfD. <span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> ttonyb (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found the AfD after looking at the copyvio notice at User talk:Ian.thomson. The CorenSearchBot message linked to http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/JohnToddWikipedia.htm, a copy of a Wikipedia article that was last modified in August 2007. With this information, I returned to the article, clicked View logs for this page, and voilà, I saw FT2's deletion rationale. Since the version at illuminati-news.com was tagged as being similar to the current article, I'm confident that this qualifies under db-repost! By the way, great job in your CSD work. I used to remove your speedies very frequently, but now I rarely do so because you know the CSD policy very well. And I usually only do so because I've found some external information, such as news articles from Google News Archive. I have your talk page watchlisted, too, and consistently see your insightful advice to new users. Keep up the good work but don't burn out! Best, Cunard (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)