User talk:Davewild/Archive 7

Articles for deletion/Celia Holman Lee
In view of your rewrite, I have relisted this debate and invited those who have contributed to revisit it and consider whether they wish to change their !vote. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/4Troops
09:42, 17 July 2010 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted "4troops" ‎ (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Hey Dave. Can you please justify this deletion? I added the page stub after seeing their show on PBS. A Google search for 4Troops returns "only" one Million results. Not enough significance? Wikipedia culture suggests you tread lightly. Creating is difficult, deletion is easy. Err on the side of caution! Chris (Cwagner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwagner (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, wikipedia requires that articles on music groups assert in the article why they are important or significant - such as by charting in a recognised chart, coverage in reliable secondary sources or by winning awards. The article as written contained no explanation of why this group was significant so per the Criteria for speedy deletion the article was deleted - wikipedia gets lots of articles created on non-notable music groups every day and so if the article does not show why it should be kept it will be deleted.
 * You are welcome to recreate the page but it needs to explain why the group meets the WP:MUSIC notability guideline - preferably cited to reliable secondary sources such as newspapers or journals. The number of google hits is not an argument for keeping a page - please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for an explanation of why. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective effort. People build articles together. So someone may initiate an article with a Start or Stub and then others build on that. Jimmy Wales describes this as "Wiki Magic". You can read about it in my article on Innovative Content Creation. Speedy deletion of an article defies this logic. Further, Speedy Deletion should only happen in cases of an obvious lack of notability. Hence, instead of overzealously deleting, anyone could have done a simple search and would have found the number of Google hits, would have found the report on them on CNN, and on ABC News. They are not the Rolling Stones and I am not a fan of theirs, but they are noteworthy. And I am a Wikipedia supporter and am gravely concerned when its principles are undermined. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS is an ongoing discussion. It should not be used as an argument to justify deletion (see the article).

Please undelete the 4Troops page. I cannot undelete it as I am not an administrator. (Cwagner)


 * I have restored the article to your userspace at User:Cwagner/4troops. You can improve it there and/or move it back to main article space (but if it is moved back to mainspace as currently written then it is highly likely to be speedy deleted again by someone else). Davewild (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have recreated the article based on the copy you sent back to me. (Cwagner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwagner (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A little recognition...

 * Thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom local elections, 2007
Hi, me again,

I've updated your template - it turned out to be quite easy once I'd figured it out. What do you think? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I like the way each section is minimised, which definitely helps keep the size down removing my previous concern over it's size. It could be a good example for anyone who wants to work on a template for the United Kingdom local elections, 2011, as the councils holding elections will be similar (though with a few changes - councils becoming unitaries, changing from holding elections by third to whole council, etc.).
 * The district section still needs completing as there are a lot of district councils which held elecions in 2007 which I never got around to adding to the template. From memory the ones I included were the councils holding elections by third and the first of the councils electing by whole, but stopping after D's or there abouts.
 * The template also could do with being added to all the articles on the 2007 elections (bit of a long job!). If I get time over the next few weeks I might have a go, but if you wanted to that would be great. Anyway nice job on minimising the template. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IP comment
IM REALLY SORRY. I'LL STOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.154.124 (talk • contribs)
 * Please do, there are plenty of ways to contribute constructively. Davewild (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

six
six, there is no six option, I have removed your comment to allow you to make a valid choice, sorry about that, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal you say?
I have been watching the vote page, but I did not even see your proposal. What were you suggesting? CycloneGU (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This difference is what I suggested as an option but it was removed. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zimbabwean parliamentary election, 1995
I am not sure why Template:Zimbabwean parliamentary election, 1995 is not just in the article Zimbabwean parliamentary election, 1995 as a straight table. Is there some chance the template might be used on another article? Jeepday (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The general practice is that many election results are put in a template - see the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates for the many hundreds of such examples - so that it makes the article easier to edit without having all this wikitext in the middle of an article. It makes no difference to the reader but makes editing the articles easier and there is still a link on the article so the template can be easily edited. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Elections in 2006 or Elections in 2005 for instance. When such a list/article if created for 1995 this template would be used on that article. Davewild (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, that makes sense. Jeepday (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Thank you for anti-vandalism work
I appreciate your block of a vandalism only account, just now, Calstar45. Thanks more generally, too, for your contribution to Wikipedia by fighting vandalism. We'd have nothing at all here worth presenting to the world if it weren't for you, and others like you, who defend our content. Thank you! – OhioStandard  (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Davewild (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting my user page :) - Methecooldude (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of curling clubs in New Brunswick
concerning your closing statement, List of curling clubs in Prince Edward Island would have no entries. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "non-notable" entries, just because they are redlinks currently does not mean articles cannot be written in the future. What I was trying to say was that editors should go through and decide if articles can be written and if not the link should be removed as I think everyone in the AFD said should happen. It does not mean the entries themselves have to be removed from the list, which is not a decision for me as closing admin of the AFD. Davewild (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Belen Echandia
This page was nominated for deletion. You decided to keep it, I believe this was a mistake. Please see this page's discussion page for more details. This page was written by a single account with a provable link to this company. This page is written as a blatant advert and doesn't contain anything negative about this company despite its shaky reputation and documented quality problems. I think you considered this deletion on the grounds of the company not being notable. It should have been considered for deletion on the groups of being a blatant advert. Unixtastic (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave,

My name is Jackie Cawthra (username Findingtruths)and I would also encourage you to read the Belen Echandia page discussion for more details. Parafianowicz has no relation to BE at all, other than that his sister interviewed me as the owner of Belen Echandia for the Swedish National Newspaper the Local. She then went on to write a few articles for our magazine as an intern. Lydia is a student journalist at university in Canada. We have met in person twice. Her brother is not related to us, but having read his sister's article and learning about our history he decided to write a Wikipedia page about it. He was doing so at the time for the company for which he works. He contacted me to ask permission to post the logo and a couple of other articles. This is the only contact I have had with Parafianowicz. He is not related to BE, employed by BE, or myself and we have never met in person, or spoken on the telephone. When I checked this morning, which I have done regularly since Unixtastic started his mission to repeatedly flag this page as spam, I saw that another user had made some major edits, adding new sections etc. This user is not known to me. The user name is AuroraHcky. I believe that this is likely to be one of our customers, because when we posted the Wikipedia page a few people did show interest in adding some details.

Neither I, nor anyone associated with Belen Echandia has made any major edits to the page. The repeated attempts by Unixtastic to bring our company into disrepute by suggesting otherwise are disturbing and potentially libellous, since any public user can and will see the comments that he has written at the top of the page. I don't believe that he should state that Parafianowicz is closely related to Belen Echandia without any proof of this statement at all. If he believes this, he should provide evidence and that is impossible, because there is no relationship. I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingtruths (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, The comments by the user Findingtruths are provably false. Please see the claims made by this user on the Belen Echandia talk page. Short version - The page was written by a single user, Parafianowicz and is heavily biased to the point of being a blatant advert. It should ideally be rewritten from a neutral point of view or failing that removed as an advert. This page has been removed as an advert 3 or 4 times now and it hasn't changed in substance since. What do you think? Unixtastic (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to speak for Dave, and with AGF in mind on my part I guess I want to ask: what about this article is so deserving of your attention Unixtastic? Keeping in mind that in my administrative duties I probably delete 20+ articles a day as irredeemably bad advertising, I'm willing to give them some leeway and see if the article can develop.  Therefore it wouldn't be out of the ordinary if I were to keep vigilant on a particular article.  However, with a handful of edits over the years I don't understand your particular focus on this article.  If you want we can continue a discussion on my talkpage so we don't clutter Davewild's talkpage, but I wanted my concerns available to him and to Findingtruths above.  Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read a lot more than I write but I do have a few edits here and there. I don't have any particular interest in this article I just thought it was an advert so I tagged it as such. Someone must have agreed because it got deleted. Soon after it got posted again, so I tagged it again and it got deleted. The same happened a third time. Doesn't it look like an advert to you? Unixtastic (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly note I have restored the talk page history of the Belen Echandia article that was deleted so the comments there are not lost. Secondly, thanks Syrthiss for your comments above and I saw those on Findingtruths talk page. Thirdly I will copy these comments to the article talk page.
 * My reasons for keeping the article are that the AFD to my mind established that this topic is a valid one with enough coverage to establish notability. When considering advertising we only delete where articles are "Unambiguous advertising and promotion" and on "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". When considering the version at the close of the AFD and given the comments in the AFD with only person rasing that as an issue there I could not consider that this was the case. I have looked at the previous versions that were deleted such as this version and I agree that those do meet this criterion and would myself have speedy deleted an article in that condition. When considering the article now and the version I have linked above I consider them significantly different. If articles are promotional but do contain previous versions that are valid or which can be edited to make neutral then editing not deletion is the route we must take.
 * However I agree that the article at the moment is not Neutral Point of View and does need some editing to make it so. Unixtastic if you can source to reliable secondary sources the negative things you mention on my talk page then I would agree they should be included in the article, but as I say they need to be sourced reliably and from my quick searches I could not find anything reliably sourced (but I could have easily missed things). I shall do a few edits myself to try and remove a bit of the more promotional text. If the article keeps getting new editors trying to add overly promotional material to the article then it can be semi-protected, but I don't think that is necessary at the moment. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that it is appropriate to refer to Belen Echandia's "shaky reputation and documented quality problems" here, without proof of this statement. On what basis do you state that we have a shaky reputation and documented quality problems, Unixtastic? Every company has its issues. On that particular sub-forum we happen to have asked to have had any concerns put into one thread on one forum so that any concerns would be contained there and not spread out into other threads. A quick check of all other sub forums of the purse forum will find 1000s more complaints on the bags of other companies than you can find on ours (spread out into other threads, instead of being contained in one), but these are not referred to in their Wikipedia entries. Some examples: Bottega Veneta, Jimmy Choo. I fail to see why this should form the basis of Belen Echandia's Wikipedia entry just because one person, who could be anyone, would like to make them more notable than they are. If this is the case, then every company should have a section in Wikipedia stating "Reputational and quality problems". Belen Echandia bags are produced in small quantities and in an Italian workshop. We have ethical practices. We do not produce in the Far East. A quick check online will find 1000s of complaints against every single company you list on Wikipedia - is it standard to have such things as late delivery mentioned in their Wikipedia entries? And can you prove that these complaints are valid, just because they are on a public forum? Many of them in fact are not. And finally, Unixtastic can you explain to me why you have taken issue with the Belen Echandia entry and not, for example, with this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottega_Veneta It is almost identical and contains FAR fewer references. My apologies for my irate manner but I fail to understand why you have taken such interest in the Wiki entry of Belen Echandia. I am just trying to find out the truth. Thank you Findingtruths (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Please could further comment about this article continue on the article talk page and keep it civil without anything that could possible be considered a violation of No legal threats. Anything further along that line and I shall request an uninvolved admin block that person. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Forums
Hiya Dave,

You may remember the contributions to the Belen Echandia Wikipedia page. The user Unixtastic continues to edit the page in a way that appears only negative. You had advised that the links referring to quality could only be included if he could find a verifiable source; to get around this he has posted a single individual (negative) thread from a forum at the top of external links. Two questions: 1. I guess that there is nothing to stop him doing this? I know I am supposed to assume good faith but he is making it a bit difficult... and 2. Am I permitted as the owner of Belen Echandia to add more links under the external links section, or re-order them? I think our official website should be above that of an internet chat room.

Thank you very much in advance. User:findingtruths (talk) 12.20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have removed some external links and commented on the talk page. Please see the External links guideline as to what should and should not be included there but also bear in mind the Conflict of Interest guideline whenever you edit the article. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:findingtruths (talk) 16.44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This Belen Echandia page reads like an advert so any edit at all will be negative relative to the surrounding text. Dave, you suggested earlier that I should update this page in order to balance it out a bit. Are forums indexes or posts OK for citations? Honest customer reviews are the clearest way to get information on any company. To go off at a tangent would wikipedia disallow review sites like tripadvisor.com or trustedreviews.com ? Tripadvisor is just a forum with a score attached to each post yet it's the clearest source of reliable information in its domain. Unixtastic (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't think any of those would meet wikipedia's rules for what can be used in an article, basically because there is no editorial oversight of them. What can be used would be articles in newspapers, journals, magazines or books etc. I suggest having a look at the Identifying reliable sources guideline which covers what can be used as sources and if you are unsure whether a source can meet the guideline ask a question on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can get comments from uninvolved people on whether a source is appropriate or not. Davewild (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Belen Echandia article nominated for deletion again with this note
Dave, could I ask your advice again please. If there is someone else I can ask please let me know. The below has been posted on a page nominating the Belen Echandia page for deletion (same person/again). The allegations are untrue and not backed up with reliable references. I have wondered from the beginning whether user Unixtastic has some kind of conflict of interest or other reason for wishing to have the Belen Echandia page taken down (I have no evidence of this, other than conduct). I don't want to say too much lest it is considered a legal threat or unfair comment. I have done my best to be civil. I ask this as the owner of the company, not the person responsible for posting the page - since the untrue statements relate to our company. What do you suggest?

"I believe that this page is commercial in nature and should be deleted unless modified and displays alternate opinions. Belen Echandia does not uniquely offer a bespoke service, many handbag designers offer this same service. In addition, I found many exargerations in the page including the notion that Vogue's servers were down because Belen Echandia. In addition, based on the feedback read in the previous note, the writer has an obvious connection to the owner. I am a member of the Purse Forum and Belen Echandia is notorious in their attempts to control content about their product. There were many instances where the owners of the Purse Forum were considering closing the thread dedicated to the product because of the written harrassment from devotes. A quick search will not only display problems with quality and customer service but some members have even stated that if they didn't write postive reviews about the company, they would be prohibited from purchasing.

I agree that this article is advertising not encyclopedic information. The original poster Parafianowicz] of this article was linked to the article subject as proved most compellingly by his/her own statement on the picture submission page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belen_Echandia_Logo.jpg . The text is very highly biased and possibly can't be correct in any case as quoting the real (ex-)customers of this company counts as original research. Most citations are references to interviews given by the company owner in possible violation of WP:SELFPUB. All discussions on this article are dogged by Findingtruths who claims to be the owner of this company. He/She has resorted to aggressive comments, sucking up to administrators, and legal threats to suppress any discussion or improvement of this article. This company is known by ex-customers as using high pressure sales and promising discounts in return for favors. I believe this company is getting customers to update this article with the information it wishes to see here in order to use Wikipedia as free advertising. Unixtastic (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[[User:findingtruths (talk) 12.18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)"


 * I have started a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the situation involving this article. Davewild (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I genuinely did not know that mentioning the word libelous would be considered a threat. I have since read the guidelines and now fully understand what can be written and what cannot. Could I request that an uninvolved editor also take a look at the comments on the Unixtastic's talk page (such as those referring to my mental state) Thanks. User:findingtruths (talk) 11.01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)"
 * Anything you feel relevant you should raise at the thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so this can be resolved. Davewild (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I have done so. findingtruths (talk) 14.07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweetwater Zen Center stub deletion
Davewild, You have deleted the article for Sweetwater Zen Center. I familiarized myself with the notability guidelines, added the Hold On to the article stub code, and explained the notability on the Talk page of sweetwater zen center yesterday. Still, however, you have deleted the page. Please explain in detail how you made this choice. Additionally, I'd like to have the article undeleted. Please explain in detail how this is possible. If this includes merging the information provided from the Talk page into the article, I will need access to that. Bodhisattvajr (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline for organisations says that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The article as written (and I checked what you wrote on the talk page as well) gave no indication of how this organisation could meet this. While the things pointed to on the talk page are worthy they did not indicate significance or importance for Seetwater Zen Center itself, so in my view meeting the criteria for speedy deletion.
 * In order to write an article on this organisation you need to demonstrate that it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources such as in newspapers, magazines, journals and books. If you think you can do this then I can userfy what you wrote originally to your userspace at User:Bodhisattvajr/Sweetwater Zen Center in order to allow you to work on it there before moving it back to the main article space once notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Thank you for getting back to me last month. I have created a spot on my userpage by your recommendation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bodhisattvajr/Sweetwater_Zen_Center Please let me know your thoughts on the page. I very much appreciate your help and focus. Bodhisattvajr (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at your userspace draft and compared it to the previous deleted version. I see you have added the Sign On San Diego reference, which is a start, but I cannot see it as being sufficient to establish notability. I would have a good look at the notability guideline for organisations - Notability (organizations and companies) - to see what sort of coverage is being looked for and add that coverage if it is available. If you disagree then you can move the page to the mainspace but someone else may nominate it for deletion - I personally won't but think it is likely if the article as written is moved back to the article space someone would do so. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Could you please delete this and this per WP:RD3? Thank you. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, first time I have done a revision deletion but it clearly meets the criteria and I think I have done it right:) Davewild (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, and yes it was done right. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 22:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

David Joseph Marcou
I was wondering how many total comments there were on the David Marcou deletion. Sincerely, Dacorbandit (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a discussion on deletion to have any minimum number of editors commenting and sometimes where there are no comments after a long period the debate can be closed even then. In the case of this article you were the only person arguing for it to not be deleted and the debate had gone for over the standard 7 day period so closing as delete was the only outcome available for the closer. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. Sincerely, Dacorbandit (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking advice regarding Tahash
Hi, I see you're an administrator. I'm seeking advice about Tahash. It seems like an out-of-control article with WP:OR, with only one or two contributors such as this guy, writing what appears to be a book, with unencyclopedic content, external links inside the article. Myself and others posted concerns here but without much reaction. So I'm trying to alert administrators to this to see what to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm afraid I know nothing about the topic so I may not be the best person to ask. However I would recommend raising specific concerns on the article talk page. I see you have posted on Michael Paul Heart's talk page, but it is much better to place your thoughts on the article talk page, where specific changes can be discussed. Other editors interested in the article are more likely to get involved when discussion is occuring on the article talk page. Also raising specific issues (e.g. which sections/sentences in particular are original research, which specific external links need removing) is better than general comments.
 * From what I can see, I am sure Michael Paul Heart is editing in good faith and in my opinion there is no admin action which needs taking currently. I notice a very experienced editor (and admin) DGG has today commented on the talk page and I would think he will be helpful in improving the article. Working with other editors such as DGG you are best able to tackle issues.
 * However if after a period discussing on the article talk page (and please it some time), this is getting nowhere then you could put notices at the relevant wikiprojects to get more interested editors involved with the article. Finally the option would be a Request for Comment on the article talk page.
 * Most of what I have suggested can be seen at the Dispute resolution page which gives options for resolving such problems. I hope this is of some help anyway. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Davewild, I hadn't seen the DGG comment, and I looked up the RfC stuff and may use it. I've worked with DGG before and he's sharp so I think his involvement will be helpful. Thanks again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy question on your close of Requiem for a Dream (album)
I'm confused as to why deletion was required in the case of Articles for deletion/Requiem for a Dream (album). I believe I presented a valid alternative to deletion, and I don't see any reason given that the content should have been stricken from the visible page history. Even in the most egregious cases of self-promotion and vandalism, pages are often reverted without the use of admin tools. -- RoninBK T C 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus of every other contributor to the AFD was that the article should be deleted. Given the views that the article content was a hoax, deleting the content before creating a redirect was a reasonable course of action - there is no reason why the previous content needs to be accessed by anyone. If consensus among contributors to the AFD had been to just redirect, not delete then as you say that would also be a reasonable course of action. Neither approach is against any policy, so the consensus among the contributors is the way I followed, as the closer should follow consensus unless there is strong policy based reason why not to. As I said in the close anyone can then create a redirect, which I note someone has done, so the redirect is now in place anyway. Davewild (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not particularly a supporter of the older revision, and I'm not trying to build a DRV case here. In general though, I tend to prefer redirect in lieu of delete as per WP:PRESERVE, and from that standpoint I didn't see a case made that a deletion was absolutely necessary here. Perhaps I should have made that point more clearly during the debate. Thank you however for your time, and for a little more clarity in the deliberation process of an admin. -- RoninBK T C 10:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Coimbatore Cultural Academy
Dear Dave,  I would like to change the content of Coimbatore Cultural Academy and resubmit for possible publishing. where should I submit the article. Is it possible to get a copy of the deleted article. I am really very sorry to post an article against guidelines.

Thanks, CoimbatoreCA (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)CoimbatoreCA
 * Hello, First off I should read the Conflict of interest policy - editing an article where you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged and your username suggests you do have a conflict of interest. There is nothing in the deleted article which is not on the version which is already in your userspace at here. In order for the article to be recreated it would need to be shown that it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to meet the notability guideline - such as articles in newspapers or journals or coverage in books - which have no identification with the academy. I suggest that if you do have a conflict of interest you should leave this article alone and if Coimbatore Cultural Academy is notable someone without a conflict of interest will create it in the future. If you genuinely do not have a conflict of interest then you should edit the version in your userspace at User:CoimbatoreCA/Coimbatore cultural academy to show that it is notable and then take it to deletion review so other editors can see whether notability has been established and decide if it can be moved back into the main article space. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Dave_Stann
Hello Davewild

This is in reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Stann

i am confused why after 5 years on Wikipedia, my article was deleted for lack of notability. I am a professional blackjack and poker player with over 70 episodes of TV under my belt & a published author, as well as a noted authority on gaming. I'd like to help fix whatever issues there are with it so it doesn't keep getting deleted. Can you please advise me on this, or if its in your power undelete it once again. Thanks for your help Hafada (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, in order for the article to be restored, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources would need to be demonstrated. On wikipedia notability means a slightly different thing to what it does elsewhere, I suggest reading Notability, which explains that in order to merit an article a topic must be covered significantly in reliable sources that are independent of the subject such as newspapers, journal, books etc. The contributors to Articles for deletion/Dave Stann did not believe that this coverage was available, so that was why the article was deleted. If you can show such coverage is available then the article could be restored, otherwise it will stay deleted.
 * If you think there is such coverage then I could userfy the article to your userspace (e.g. at User:Hafada/Dave Stann) so that you could work on it to add this coverage in and show that it meets the notability guideline. However I would bear in mind the conflict of interest policy which explains that editing an article where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

yes thank you, i would be happy to provide those secondary sources & references, which include not only the countless magazine articles & book I wrote, but 3 covers of other magazines, several biographical articles & websites on me, and plenty of other online videos & interviews. if you'd like specific URLs i can provide them here for you, or a simple Google search of my name will reveal tens of thousands of entries. Thanks again Hafada (talk) 26 January 2011
 * I have userfied the article to your userspace at User:Hafada/Dave Stann so you can add the third party references sufficient to establish notability. Once you have done so, if the article clearly has the independent significant coverage referenced then you can move it back into mainspace - however be aware if any admin feels the article has not been improved to address the concerns raised in the AFD then they can just re-delete it straight away. If you think the article has been improved to establish notability and want this confirmed before moving it back to mainspace, then you can take it to Deletion review where other editors will review and decide if it has been improved enough. Davewild (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article on British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
Like many editors, I expect, there are times in my life when I do not visit Wikipedia frequently. A couple of days ago I saw that an article I had contributed, which had been revised, and which had stayed in substantiallty the same form for years, had been scheduled for deletion. The only reason I could see that was given was the insignicance of the organization. Not being sure of how to post my disagreement with the proposed deletion, I left the matter for a couple of days and, coming back to Wiikipedia, found it had been deleted.

I believe the reason given was not valid. The organization, while small, has as its concerns the whole of education in the province of British Columbia. Without making invidious comparisons, I believe that other articles in Wikipedia concern organizations whose concerns are not nearly so broad. --Ted HewlettTed Hewlett (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason the article was deleted was because the editors in the Articles for deletion/British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life decided that the article did not meet the notability guideline because it did not have significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources such as newspapers, journals, books etc. Without such coverage articles are always liable to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Mitchell (tennis)
Please can you reinstate this article as player now meets tennis notablity having played in the main draw of the doubles of the 2011 Australian Open KnowIG (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and I have updated the article with that information. Davewild (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article recreated...
Hello there - the Indon article was recently recreated after deletion (you closed the discussion as "delete"). Articles for deletion/Indon It was initially deleted as merely a dictionary definition that wouldn't grow. It was then re-created as a redirect by an editor who's been messing around (unproductively in my opinion) with articles on race in Indonesia.

What's the process with articles that get recreated almost immediately after deletion? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for speedy deletion. One of the criteria for speedy deletion is Criteria for speedy deletion where the concerns raised in the original AFD have not been addressed. I have not deleted it myself as considering I closed the AFD I would prefer a second admin to make that decision. In future if you come across such a case then you can nominate the article under the above criteria for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

tea lore
i put a tea lore definiton under the Tea ceremony article icetea8 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

influence of tea on chinese culture
added section Influence of tea on Chinese culture, to article Chinese tea culture icetea8 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

John Street (Toronto)
Dave, there's a misdirect on your AfD close of John Street (Toronto) and I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it. This edit doesn't end up taking one to the most recent AfD close, as stated in your edit summary, but to the one a year earlier, with a much different result. Could you see what the problem is? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted, the script I use for AFD closures obviously does not handle multiple AFDs well. I have changed the old afd templates to the old afd multi template where the links are now correct. Davewild (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Meath East
I'm doing Meath East, please leave it alone if possibleConquistador17 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward Mermelstein
I have tried to reopen the deletion discussion on this article, and have done just about everything wrong. First, I believe I put the wrong template on the article. Then I unwittingly edited the archived copy of the deletion discussion. I have pretty much made a mess of it.

As you were the admin who handled the case, I am turning first to you. The article in question is one of several that were created by the PR firm 5WPR, operating through a series of sockpuppets who have since been banned. The last deletion discussion failed to arouse any interest, but now there is a slew of editors who want to see this article blown away.

Can you repair the damage I have done, and reopen the deletion discussion properly? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry not much time on here at moment, suggest taking to help noticeboard or to another experienced editor or admin who could assist. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's okay, taken care of. Thanks, sorry to bother you. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

laconia
hello there

i recently tried creating the page for newcastle band laconia but it told me you had deleted the original application in 2008. it would be great if you could help me re-create the page as the band have relevant and credible source links.

hope you can help

scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iniquitygroup (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 1998 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 1998 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 1998 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2000 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 1999 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 1999 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 1999 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2002 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2002 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2002 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2003 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2003 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2003 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2004 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2004 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2004 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2006 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2006 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2006 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2007 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2007 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2007 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tamworth Council election, 2008 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tamworth Council election, 2008 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2008 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fylde map
The image should be displaying correctly - I can't see anything obviously wrong with the coding. The problem is with Mediawiki's thumbnail generation - which do happen from time to time, you can find comments about it in archives for the village pump both here and on Commons.

If your settings are for 800x600 images (the default), then viewing File:Fylde UK local local election 2003 map.svg displays the file at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Fylde_UK_local_election_2003_map.svg/727px-Fylde_UK_local_election_2003_map.svg.png. However, if you look at, for example, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Fylde_UK_local_election_2003_map.svg/729px-Fylde_UK_local_election_2003_map.svg.png (note 729 instead of a 727) it should render properly.

As for fixing it - give it a day or so and see if it resolves itself, if not let me know and I'll see if there's someway to get it to behave.

And thanks for feedback :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are making use of the maps, and doing so systematically (not just doing your specific area of interest :) )
 * However there's a couple points to bear in mind:
 * I got LD colour wrong on the instructions, it should be not #ffdb30
 * If you can put the maps into Category:Election maps of the United Kingdom on Commons, that will help with housekeeping there.
 * Much more importantly, these maps were generated to show the current boundaries in 2010. The ward boundaries are often tweaked, some of those changes are rather more substantial (like the constituency boundaries before last general election). Given that I can't vouch for accuracy for any year apart from 2010, and the further away from that you go the more likely there are to be significant errors. The maps are not even the current boundaries for all districts: The latest version of Boundary-Line tweaks (see the annexe A of the User Guide). I haven't studied the new version yet to see if any of those are major changes, but if so I'll have to upload a new version for 2011.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)