User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2017-05

__NOINDEX__

'''If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doree Shafrir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nerdist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Lorca Cohen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lorca Cohen 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/Lorca Cohen 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. User:HopsonRoad 13:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rachel Giese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatelaine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stephen Vladeck for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Vladeck 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/Stephen Vladeck 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bagram Theater Internment Facility sally port.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hamidullah Khan -- a youth held in Bagram.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Hamidullah Khan -- a youth held in Bagram.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * False positive, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toronto flood king atlantic-600x400.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Toronto flood king atlantic-600x400.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another false positive, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Blumin
Hi Geo Swan, I think the reason I nominated it because it was a terrible article, badly written, and it needed to go. When I initially reviewed it, half the references were blogs, some of the others were 404's, and it read like an advertising skit. I put a copyedit and cleanup tag on I think, then left it for a month, and put it into the WP:AFD afterwards. Wikipedia Terms of Use have now changed relating to WP:BLP. BLP articles must now have ironclad verifiability in terms of sources, and the article didn't have it, and the fact it was written more about the ladies companies, rather than her, meant it had to go. It is worth mentioning, that WP Terms of Use no longer accept blatant advertising as it did in the past. That was the reason it was deleted. scope_creep (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, as per the usual convention, I am going to reply at User talk:scope_creep. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Why the big table in my talk page, and why the interest on this particular article, considering it was such a badly written article? I also think it is particularly crass to leave a comment on my talk page regarding my spelling, particularly after a days editing WP scope_creep (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Geo Swan, I never realised that I nominated it for deletion in 2013. When I originally posted it for deleted, I checked the previous Afd and noticed that the previous two keeps were from SPA accounts. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Geo Swan. That clearly explains why you suddenly decided at 16.23 to start looking for the article. As regards your point about the time that take to create an article, the time was spent promoting her companies mostly (>80%), not the lady. It was a clear violation of WP:NOT. If you examine the version history, which I did, you can see that four or five of the editors, are WP:SPA accounts. They are paid shills. The article was created by an advertising or PR/branding company who had a content plan, looking to promote her companies, plain and simple. Certainly there was a bunch of excellent editors who undertook copyedit, category addition, etc. That time is now wasted, not because of the work they undertook, but the nature of the article itself, which was there to promote her companies. Obviously you are going to recreate or bring back the article and that is your right. But if it ends up as an advertising article as before, then I will probably end up putting it into WP:AFD. scope_creep (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to add that during the first Afd, the two editors that voted keep were also SPA editors. scope_creep (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Geo Swan. It is may be the case that the lady is notable, but as I've pointed out before, the article as it was written was about her company, not her. I understand your comments about shills. It is probably quite easy to identify a shill or a paid editor, via their behaviour. Software can be used to easily identify them, it is difficult but not impossible. I think software of that general type is well advanced, in development. I don't know if User:Tammytoons is a SPA account, I don't know, but I don't think so.. Regarding the WP:BIAS reference, regarding the male bias; yip it worries me immensely I have been looking at the Women in Red portal, and the previous WP:BIAS gender gap effort and how it failed.  I'll tell you the reason why I don't like advertising in WP, apart from the fact it is not allowed. It simply serves no purpose, except to drive the virtuous circle. It has no public good. It not like the NHS, or the police, or weights and measures crowd, or consumer rights folk, or the trading standards. All it does is subvert both the Letter and the Spirit of Wikipedia. It is a kind of bluntness, a lack of soul which drives people to spread muck on WP, without concern for anybody reading wikipedia, or Wikipeda itself. scope_creep (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)