User talk:Feminist/Archive 11

CfD closures
Hey! First of all I want to say thanks for closing CfDs, but also please be a bit careful not to close them too early. They shouldn't be closed within 8 days and if you do you run the risk that people start complaining that they didn't have enough time to react. Also, more from a practical point of view, there are many dozens of much older CfDs that still need to be closed, not all of them are very complicated, so you might want to check these too. See the backlog here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Typically deletion discussions can be closed after 168 hours of discussion, and a quorum is generally not required. I will check out the older discussions. SST flyer 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename categories
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Defunct villages by country and subcategories to Category:Former villages by country etc. Hugo999 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not do this
For a contentious article of Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, do not close an AFD as a non-admin. If you do, I re-decide on this and determine "merge and redirect".

If you want to make such decisions, please apply to be an administrator. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whiskeymouth, you don't need a deletion review or an admin to merge and redirect the article. Additionally, you were involved in the deletion discussion so you certainly shouldn't "decide" the result.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The True Cost
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Counter-Strike: Falklands
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't game the system during ongoing dispute
Please don't game the system during an ongoing dispute to which you are involved in order to support your preferred position in that dispute.

You did this at WP:WikiProject Women DIFF to support your removal of WikiProject Women from Talk:Social justice warrior DIFF 1, DIFF 2.

WP:GAME is a confirmed behavioral guideline page. It's nutshell states: "Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden."

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Social justice warrior
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HTC First
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HTC First you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't engage in retaliatory retribution
Please don't engage in retaliatory retribution.

Thank you for withdrawing your bogus Arbitration Enforcement filing at DIFF.

This may have been retaliatory retribution for DIFF -- when I had warned you for WP:Gaming the system less than 24 hours ago.

Please don't engage in this type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior again.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith; this was a mistake on my part, as I confused social controversy in the article and social controversy affecting the article. I will take note of my mistakes and be more cautious when filing requests in the future. Regards, SST flyer 13:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Slay-Z
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Coffee pot

 * If you're going to add images to the POTD queue, please do not notify nominators/article editors. I'll take care of that when I'm scheduling August. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Curious
Curious as to why you thought the first part of this edit was necessary Gnangarra 07:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for IPhone SE
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Airport differentiation
I noticed that you have differentiated cities that have "multiple" airports. I would suggest that you bring this up at WT:AIRPORTS and get a consensus before making any further changes. Thanks! 97.85.118.142 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Surface (2012 computer)
Hi,

Why was this article moved to this name from Surface (first generation)? The Surface isn't necessarily considered a "computer" in a traditional sense, and the Talk discussions never warranted this unexpected move. Please explain your reasoning behind this article move.

 WikIan -(talk) 05:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The old name is ambiguous; it can refer to the first generation of any topic named "Surface". Yes, my move was WP:BOLD, but it is in compliance with WP:PARENDIS. SST flyer 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a long discussion over what to name this article. It was decided because the other names were ambiguous, how is the first-generation Surface tablet ambiguous? The iPad articles use this naming scheme.  WikIan -(talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare iPad (disambiguation) and Surface (disambiguation). "Surface" can refer to far more different topics than "iPad" can, so the iPad naming scheme does not work well with Surface computers. SST flyer 04:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bebe Rexha Nicki Minaj No Broken Hearts album art 2016.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bebe Rexha Nicki Minaj No Broken Hearts album art 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

GAR input
Good article reassessment/Eminem/1 has only gotten "neutral" votes since its initation. Your input is welcome on whether it should be delisted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ain't Your Mama
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD
Hi: I removed the AfD template from Christos Vasilopoulos (diff) after you closed the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Christos Vasilopoulos. North America1000 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Biowars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Biowars. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iago Qnsi (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. ''This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page.'' For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Deadlinks in Margate F.C.
Thanks for this, which was really helpful. Any idea why the tool has flagged a few links as being dead when they're not (see my last few edits)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The tool is not 100% accurate. Guess I whitelisted these false negatives the first time I repaired some links, but forgot to do so during my subsequent edits. SST flyer 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds reasonable. So long as you don't think we need to report a possible bug. Thanks again. That kind of gnoming is really spectacularly useful for content creators. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Universities in Vatican City


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Universities in Vatican City requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen (2nd nomination)
Hi, you did a non-admin closure of Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen (2nd nomination), but as far as I could see no contributor to that discussion pointed out which sources verified the GNG notability of that character. /the AfD nominator. AadaamS (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 97
WormTT(talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for UNC Clef Hangers
User:Alfadur has asked for a deletion review of UNC Clef Hangers. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Emily Temple-Wood
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cox move
Hi. I believe you've made the wrong decision in moving Michael Cox (bishop) to Michael Cox (bishop, born 1945). The debate was still ongoing (latest contribution just today); there is at least one objection to the current title; there is also only one objection (and that's a mild one) to Michael Cox (independent bishop), which also appears to enjoy a lot of support. Please reconsider your decision. Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans
Hey SSTflyer, I was tagged in some comments at the bottom of the page here that were apparently intended to take part in the RM. If you don't mind, before you go forward, let me move the comments up.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The move has gone forward, so I've brought it up with the moving admin. Sorry for the trouble; I wouldn't have bothered with this except I think it will affect the outcome.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your Prince AfD close
There were more than 40 !votes for delete and around a dozen for redirect but you closed it as consensus for redirect. Seriously? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not consider my closure to be inappropriate. "Delete" and "redirect" votes are generally considered to be equivalent in deletion discussions, unless editors specifically recommend not to keep the article history, which is not the case here. I think I have adequately explained my "redirect" closure at the AfD page. Some editors may want to recreate this article when it gains notability. Keeping the article history accessible to non-admins would allow these editors to have something to work with, instead of starting from scratch. Even if this article, together with its history, were deleted, its title would likely be recreated as a redirect. If you want this redirected article, together with its history, to be deleted, WP:RFD is the correct venue. If you want to challenge my closure, you may take it to WP:DRV. Thanks, SST flyer 13:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that it was an obvious, overwhelming delete. And you never addressed that fact.  Which causes me to wonder why.  Hence my comments here.  I have no intention or desire to to anything about your close, I merely wanted an explanation for how you closed it and why in the face of what was a very obvious, different outcome.  -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  14:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I have already explained why I closed this as "redirect" instead of "delete". It is typical to close AfD discussions where there are numerically more "delete" than "redirect" votes as redirect. As long as the user (registered or not) does not specifically view the history of the redirect, deleting an article (together with its history) and redirecting it to a different target has the same effect. In this case, redirecting instead of deleting the article is desired, since this allows the article history to be preserved for interested editors, and there is no benefit (think WP:RD2) to delete the history. I have already suggested other venues such as WP:RFD and WP:DRV, and you refused. If you don't accept my explanation, then don't. Different editors naturally have different opinions, and I don't care. Thanks, SST flyer 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are you being so combative? I asked why, you answered, I commented further stating I disagree with your conclusion, but I stated clearly I have no intention of challenging the close.  You don't need to be hostile about it all.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You disagreed with the conclusion, but you haven't really said why. What harm is the redirect doing, that requires this article to be fully deleted with no history preserved? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My comments in the OP described why. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just saying but I agree with the closure here as the redirect doesn't appear to cause any issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I was actually very impressed by how the AfD was closed. The consensus was that an article on Prince's death is not currently needed. A redirect achieves the same effect, while sending readers to the relevant subsection in Prince's article. Retaining the article history doesn't harm anyone, as the consensus was not that it was poorly written. Kurtis (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for HTTPA
An editor has asked for a deletion review of HTTPA. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Ruud 10:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about a redirect
So I was looking up websites to figure out logos for a future project and when I looked up Kotaku I was KotakuInAction popping up. Clicking on it, it redirected to the GamerGate article. Since you were the one that made the redirect, I gotta ask why? I get it has to do with GamerGate but I personally don't think the redirect is necessary. GamerPro64 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the GamerGate article. I can't see it causing any harm. SST flyer 00:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess. Just thought it was weird seeing it when typing in for Kotaku. GamerPro64  00:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lemonade (Beyoncé album)
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jgr (last name)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jgr (last name) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. noq (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Graud (last name)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Graud (last name) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. noq (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Graud (family name)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Graud (family name) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. noq (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AWB stub pages
You seem to have a problem with AWB at the moment and are creating lots of empty articles that appear as though they should be redirects. noq (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I now see the cause of this problem. The CSV loader does not recognize non-ASCII characters, and is therefore creating redirects to non-existent pages. SST flyer 12:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested G7 deletion for these problematic redirects, because they have no plausible alternative target. SST flyer 12:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, why are you creating large numbers of (last name) and (family name) redirects where the primary topic is already that? What purpose to those redirects serve? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Readers searching for a surname or for a specific person with that surname may not know the disambiguator used for a surname article. Creating multiple redirects using alternative disambiguation qualifiers allows a reader who may be typing e.g. Wilson (last name) to reach the desired article. SST flyer 13:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think there's still a problem with AWB -- it looks like you're creating a large number of pages that are "List of people name XYZ" -- most with one link? <b style="color:#1569C7;">Michael</b> <sup style="color:#FF0000;">(talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Resting bitch face
With seven people 'voting' to keep and seven to delete or merge and the two sides not agreeing on the application and applicability of the WP:GNG, how have we arrived at a 'keep' consensus? Izkala (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I have found the keep arguments to be stronger. Most keep voters have demonstrated how the topic is notable, while most delete or merge arguments simply said that the topic does not warrant a separate argument without explaining why. SST flyer 00:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Izkala (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Interested to know about all the redirects
Hi, how's things? I'm a little curious about all the "List of people named (First) (Last)" - is that something people will commonly search, and how does the redirect help? Happy editing! -- samtar talk or stalk 16:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is a plausible search term, and their creations would be useful. All these creations should survive WP:RFD discussions. SST flyer 16:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair enough, though personally I would imagine people might search more along the lines of people named (First) (Last)? Anyway, keep up the great work, I see you around a lot over the 'pedia --  samtar talk or stalk 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that was a very bad idea - and you should have discussed it with the community first. One Neelix was one more than we needed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of people named Emperor Maximilian
Hello SSTflyer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of people named Emperor Maximilian for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Theother51 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

List of people named Henry Lopes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of people named Henry Lopes. Since you had some involvement with the List of people named Henry Lopes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of people named Henry Lott


A tag has been placed on List of people named Henry Lott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I would like to request that this redirect and 'all redirects listed here be speedily deleted because they were created in violation of WP:MASSCREATION and WP:AWBRULES, because one Neelix is enough and because they are completely useless. I hope that requesting the deletion of all of them here is sufficient and I do not have to make 17,500 different nominations.''

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

List of people named Henry Lord listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of people named Henry Lord. Since you had some involvement with the List of people named Henry Lord redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of people named Henry Lord


A tag has been placed on List of people named Henry Lord requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Speedily delete redirect because it was created in violation of WP:MASSCREATION and WP:AWBRULES, because one Neelix is enough and because it is completely useless.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Traditionalist (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)