User talk:Michig/Archive 21

Articles for deletion/Little Miss Barber
I would like you to take a second look at this AfD, the thrust of those in support of deletion is that the lack of reliable sources that cover it in any detail means it fails WP:V and WP:GNG, however after four weeks the best those supporting retention can come up with is from the author "Additional sources undoubtedly exist, but are likely to be in local archives, not online" (see WP:MUST) or "historic significance, with potential to grow" which totally ignores the sourcing issues and the other one "it would be a pity to lose the information to history" which is bordering on WP:INTERESTING.  LGA talk  edits   09:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that this was a commonly used advertising symbol can be verified as there are numerous adverts and ephemera in existence with it on, so I disagree that it fails WP:V which is the applicable policy. One of these adverts, for example is on the side of a listed building in Walsall, and the local authority listing would be considered a reliable source. The key thing here though is that there simply was no consensus either way after four weeks of discussion. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that you can say that it passes WP:V it existed that bit was never in doubt, but nothing else is verifiable and none of those in support of retention were able to rebuff the argument of lack of sourcing, the weight of the arguments favours deletion.  LGA talk  edits   09:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers! Unforgettableid (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Envelope-Content Splitting
Regarding the deletion of my article, titled "Envelope-Content Splitting", Korin43 uses inflammatory and potentially libelous language when claiming that "Significant portions of the article are lies". For one thing, the claim that "anyone who intercepts the headers can access the email body" is incorrect: access to message content is controlled via an authentication scheme. Simply knowing the pointers to content is not sufficient to retrieve it. Secondly, by using the plural ("Significant portions"), Korin43 is claiming more inaccuracies than the one inaccurately claimed.

Envelope-Content Splitting is a significant, innovative technology and information about it for the public needs to be available through Wikipedia. If there is some content in the article that needs to be changed in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines, I would have appreciated being contacted about it first, rather than finding out from our publicist that the article had been secretly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FractalBob (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing secret about the deletion. The article was tagged with an AfD template and the discussion was visible for any editor to see at WP:AfD and lasted for seven days. Ideally the nominator should have informed the article's creator of the deletion nomination, who in this case was User:Robert Uomini, and as you have not contributed to the article as User:FractalBob there was no way anyone could have known that you had an interest in it via that account. The editors who contributed to the deletion discussion were unanimously of the opinion that the article should be deleted, some for reasons other than those put forward by the nominator. To meet Wikipedia guidelines (and policy) an article about this topic would need to have content that is verifiable through reliable sources, and it would be necessary to demonstrate that the subject has received sufficient significant independent coverage to be considered 'notable'. The relevant guideline is Notability and the applicable policy is Verifiability. The project also requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view, so it would probably be best to wait for someone independent of the subject to write an article about it. I hope that helps. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Kendrick
Hello, Michig. I see you deleted Ryan Kendrick; could you please eMail it to&#32;me because he co-shot the Wild Cub video for Thunder Clatter, and I'd like some more information before I decide whether or not to redirect? Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. I suspect the deleted article may have been about (and by) a different Ryan Kendrick. The content was "The most awesomeist dude ever! :-) Source: Himself". --Michig (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect it is. By the way, what is your opinion of Template:Rda? I use it to request deleted content.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --Michig (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Michig. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Boxing notability discussion
I believe I have a workable proposal for the notability of boxers. Could you please take a look at the Notability discussion. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Michig, thanks for your comments. My concern with world-rankings is their transient nature, and the online availability of retrospective world-rankings, e.g. who where the top-ten middleweights in April 1983? Could you let me have the details of the particular boxers you had in mind when you said they "have had fights on prime(ish) time TV on major channels in the UK and have received plenty of coverage", and I can look to see could if my notability guideline proposal could be tweaked? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A few that spring to mind are Chris Eubank, Jr., Hughie Fury, and Kid Galahad, each of whom has had quite a bit of television exposure and print coverage. There's likely to be enough coverage around of these to satisfy WP:GNG and as these are current boxers there's a good chance we'd find it online. I can think of a few others from a few years ago where coverage may be more difficult to find but who are equally worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Even this guy who hasn't really got above area-level title fights is probably notable enough for an article despite its current state (coverage includes - some is local but there's enough overall to support an article, and bear in mind that the articles from the major British boxing magazines, which cover far more than just title contenders, are not found online). I think this illustrates why a guideline that suggests that a boxer who hasn't at least fought for a national title isn't notable is going to be problematic. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the subject of historical rankings I think this just comes down to verifiability. Some we will be able to verify from sources (reports on fights will often mention a ranking), some we won't. Someone somewhere will no doubt maintain historical lists of rankings. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that Kid Galahad meets my proposed boxing notability guideline for his WBC International super bantamweight title, my intention was that a WBC International title would be considered higher than a British title. If you could let me have a couple of names of boxers from a few years ago where coverage may be more difficult to find, that'd be great. Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to think of any off the top of my head, perhaps because a lot of the boxers that I remember went on to fight for titles. Tyson Fury was easily notable enough for an article before he'd fought a decent opponent, and long before he'd fought for a title, same with Frank Bruno. --Michig (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"AfD is cleanup"
Hi. Since I sent The Bluehorses to AfD, a somewhat bizarre choice given it's a band I actively like and praise, it's made me realise that every now and again (probably about 1 in 100) I've sent an article to AfD when I assume it's notable but can't actually prove it, and know that it gets faster and better results than just posting "I can't find any sources - help" on the talk page or another noticeboard, simply because AfD has higher visibility. Articles for deletion/County of London Plan was another example. I think does it from time to time (see Articles for deletion/Dan Roberts (singer)). I know AfD is not cleanup and you shouldn't really do this, but it seems to occasionally result in a net positive for the encyclopedia. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is for projects to be more effective venues for helping with improving articles. Ideally you would be able to raise this with a WikiProject and get help improving the article. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Brake Lights (mixtape)‎
While you are certainly within your rights to deprod Brake Lights (mixtape)‎, can you improve the article with the "good references" you mention? Without this it is not at all clear how this subject might meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Michig (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Come Now Sleep
I recreated the article per another users request because it is notable with my work.HotHat (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. --Michig (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category for deletion
Hi Michig! Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 25. GoingBatty (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Flint (band)
Where is said coverage? I didn't see it anywhere on Google News. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the Glasgow Herald article is here, NME here, MTV here and there's also this and this from Google News. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird, why didn't any of that come up when I searched Google News? Also, you have a far stricter definition of "merge" than I, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As in not meaning the same as 'redirect'? --Michig (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

BeamNG Page Delete
I'd like to you inform you of wrong doing and why you deleted this page its a very good page and some people would like to know about the game theres a website for it you know http://www.beamng.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.90.136.80 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NMECover19790224.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:NMECover19790224.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the Non-free fair use tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "Click here to 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. Egghead06 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Warlocks
Hi Michig, I know that you have more than enough to do, but I'm always impressed by your cleanup skills. An anon IP has just done an extensive update to The Warlocks, full of florid prose. I am sure you will make short work of it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look later today. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't get a chance - probably won't have much time before the weekend now. --Michig (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how that goes. I wouldn't have pushed it on you if I wasn't hard up for time myself. It's not going anywhere! Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking better? --Michig (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Much, much. much, better. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RA
Hi, I saw that you'd been helping at WikiProject Requested Articles, and I wondered if you had seen the proposal to make the process slicker here. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mohanji - Re-creating a page that has been previously deleted
Hi Michig, I'd like to re-create a page that has been deleted, and have been guided to first contact you as the deleting administrator. I was not sure if I should write here or at the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohanji&action=edit&redlink=1). The page has been deleted for multiple reasons ( A7, G11, G12 ). Now, I'm ready to re-write it backed up with third-party sources, and in a neutral objective way in my own words. Should I go forward, and ask for your guidance please? Let me know. Zlio2004 (talk) 29 October 2013
 * The main issue here has been that there hasn't been evidence that the subject has been written about in reliable third party sources, which is a problem for both notability and verifiability. If you have sources that would address this then by all means go ahead - I can restore the deleted article to userspace for you if you wish. If you would like me to give an opinion on the sources that you have I would be happy to do so - I wouldn't want you to spend time on this only for your work to end up being deleted. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Michig, that would be wonderful. Where can I share the sources for you to check them out and give an opinion? Could I post them here or else where? Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.86.245 (talk)
 * Feel free to add links here and I'll let you know what I think. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Michig, will go forward now and share the sources so you can let me know you opinion if I can now back up the article on P.K. Mohan also known as Mohanji. Official website: [mohanji.org]. General coverage: . The Power of Purity book: . "Kailash with Mohanji" book release media coverage: . Valedictory address by Mohanji at the The Life Positive Expo - 2012 in Mumbai: . Mohanji's Charity organization Ammucare third party sources coverage: . Mohanji as CEO of a Shipping Company coverage: . Mohanji coverage in Serbian magazines: . Please take your time to check the sources and let me know what you think, Michig. Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately these seem to be largely the sources that were identified before the article was deleted. While there may be several sources available on the web, several of those would not qualify as reliable sources. The Daily Excelsior and State Times appear to be acceptable sources, but don't contain much coverage of the subject - two similar articles on the publication of a travelogue, and one about the Uttarakhand tragedy. You would really need to find more reliable independent sources that cover the subject in more detail. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Michig. It's true that some of the sources are before the article was deleted but they are still valid third party sources. Also the new sources are regarding this person's charity activity and book release - is this not enough to post a wiki article on this person? There are a lot less sources for persons like this one  but still they have a place on wiki. What's the catch? Let me know. Thanks Zlio2004 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that they were from before the article deleted but that they were evaluated at the time that the article was deleted and deemed insufficent to establish notability. lifepositive.com is not a reliable independent source, a link to an amazon page doesn't help. Is Mooji notable enough for an article? I don't know. BBC is a good source and that article goes into some depth about him. The fact that we have that article which is perhaps under-sourced doesn't justify other articles being created. If you could find reliable independent sources that discuss Mohanji in some depth, that would be the best course. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I see, thank you for clarifying, Michig. So, both these sources are notable and describe Mohanji in-depth and in many details, but in Serbian language. They must be reliable since they are an online website of a popular spiritual magazine "Sensa" in the territory of ex Yugoslavia. You could use an online translator to read the articles on Mohanji. Second, why is lifepositive.com not a reliable source, it's a well known spiritual magazine in India. Third, how come a book release covered by 4 different third-party sources is not reliable? Fourth, Mohanji and his charity organization took a great part in helping the victims of the Uttarakhand catastrophic floods from July 2013. This was covered in several third party sources as well, is this not reliable? Let me know what you think? Thank you.  Zlio2004 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Those two sources don't look to come from a reliable source, and the articles don't appear to be objective. --Michig (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Michig, I'm sure you're an expert at Wikipedia but you're not giving me sufficient explanation so that I know what kind of sources to look for this article. Why these sources "look" like not coming form reliable sources, and articles are not objective. All of the sources come from not affiliated third party websites. Please explain in more detail. Zlio2004 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Notability. Subjects will be expected to either meet the criteria in one of the subject-specific guidelines or to meet the WP:GNG. The GNG requires significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I doubt that many of the sources that you have identified would be considered reliable but you could always raise them at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a decision from the community on whether they are considered reliable. I think you would be wasting your time with novasvest.com which states "If you practice some of the methods for the development of consciousness, body and spirit, we offer you the option of opening personal pages on the site NovaSvest to your customers faster and easier to find." --Michig (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Michig that's been helpful. I'll raise them at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a decision from the community. If the community finds them unreliable, I'll have to collect more reliable sources. Zlio2004 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mess
The article Dj Wang is such a mess I barely know where to start.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to struggle with articles like this because of language issues (and the results of Google translate) and my lack of knowledge of local sources. In this case it's worrying that none of the prose has any sources and those sources that are there are a mixture of 404s, unreliable sources and brief mentions. Is he notable? Does some decent coverage exist? No idea, but the article as it is is unacceptable - no real evidence of notability and written in a completely unencyclopedic way. I think this is verging on a G11. It might be worth asking at WikiProject_Vietnam in case anyone there can do anything with it. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put it to WP:Articles for deletion/Dj Wang per WP:TNT.-- Laun  chba  ller  22:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert O'Sullivan discography
I don't put original research into my articles, do any of your books reference the information for Ooh-Wakka-Do-Wakka-Day in this article?-- Laun  chba  ller  22:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Official Charts Company source confirms the UK chart placing. None of my discography books includes Gilbert O'Sullivan. Is there anything specific that you need a source for? --Michig (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * B-sides, writer, producer etc. 45cat has the information but I don't think it's a reliable source.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think verifiability can be satisfied here from the record itself, and there are several pictures of it on Google images which confirm the B-side as "But I'm Not", writer as G O'S, producer as Gordon Mills. One image could be falsified (but why would anyone bother?) but several images from different sources should be enough for anyone.--Michig (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Už Jsme Doma
Another suitable case for treatment. User:Popcornduff has posted a POV tag on the article, and one has to agree with that. The overall tone is laudatory and promotional, with occasional twaddle. Also the sources are predominantly primary. Nevertheless it is evident that the band are important in Czech culture and have a long and storied history. Some justidious pruning would be an improvement I think. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always a challenge to sort out articles where there's little English-language coverage. I'll see if I can take a look over the weekend but I'd be at the mercy of Google Translate. --Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even without further sources, the article needs editing for style. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a start but it's almost in 'complete rewrite required' territory. --Michig (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieval of page "Atmaprajnananda Saraswati"
Dear Michig I request to retrieve the page Atmaprajnananda Saraswati.

Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati is a living Indian philosopher, as well as a published author. Her books on the Vedas (most ancient literature in the world) are extensively research-based and are meant for highly educated scholars with scientific temper. The idea of marketing is not there at all because the books have their intrinsic worth.

The article was deleted under G8. But all it's redirects to valid existent targets.

It seems that you are very busy person only i can say kindly go through this matter and still if you think it is not the proper way to represent kindly guide to create the page.

Thank you for your valuable time. --Stallion444 03:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs)


 * This was a redirect to Ātmaprajñānanda Saraswati which was deleted as a result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Ātmaprajñānanda Saraswati where the main concerns were over a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Kidd Creole
You may be interested The Kidd Creole's AfD.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Phoebe Brown
Just to let you know, I've removed the proposed deletion of Phoebe Brown because she passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion #6b. I will admit that it could be better referenced, though.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, what clinched it for me is that Hope passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion #6a.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be referenced, never mind better referenced. None of the members of Hope are individually notable. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...with the exception of Emily Biggs, who is a member of Parade.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Individual notability doesn't include notability that comes from being a member of two groups, as that would just lead to a circular argument. Take away criterion 6 and neither of them is notable enough for an article. They only have articles because they were members of other groups. --Michig (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Put it to AfD and see what others think.-- Laun  chba  ller  22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a redirect to Girls Can't Catch, where her time in Hope is already covered. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. So should we also redirect Biggs to Parade and put Hope back to a section in the X Factor finalists where it was?-- Laun  chba  ller  09:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Hope should be redirected but I'll see if I can find any sources before proposing anything. --Michig (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yellowman
Hi, I notice you reverted my edit on the Yellowman article. I added a ref to slackness including homophobia, as someone suggested in the talk. I also started to improve the Career section, which is currently long and could potentially be broken into sections. I've found a reference of Yellowman speaking against homophobia and created a philosophy section. Let me know what you think. Regards Jonpatterns (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest slackness when it started to dominate dancehall in the late 1970s and early 1980s was largely concerned with sexual-themed 'comedy' as much as anything else (see 12 Inches of Pleasure by General Echo for example - good old fashioned smut rather than anything siniter, as the song titles suggest). Another main theme was gun violence, which was partly commentary on what people were experiencing, which, like the sexual themes, became deejays bigging themselves up with more violent posturing. The violent anti-gay lyrics came later and were not typical of the whole 'slackness' genre. Yellowman was always about humour and turning prejudice against his albinism back on the audience, along with some social commentary and 'roots' themes. Just because an artist has 'slack' lyrics I don't feel it's right to tar them with the Buju/Beenie brush. It's not as if a deejay using one sort of slack lyrics is necessarily buying into the whole package of smut, sexism, violence and homophobia. --Michig (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As said in Slackness talk, thanks for the detailed reply. I think what confused me was when the Allmusic article said he "epitomized dancehall's penchant for "slack" lyrics" and then goes on to list its attributes.  Originally came by the article after listening to mixcloud yellowman-tribute-2013-reggae-mixtape-no3 Jonpatterns (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tamara Kučan
Hi Michig, I have added the references to this article as per notability guidelines and removed the PROD tag. I hope this article will not be deleted. Regards Hitro   talk  13:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of those sources satisfies WP:RS? --Michig (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this will have to go to AfD to let the community decide. --Michig (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added one more reference from Bosnian newspaper, Nezavisne novine. I'll work on this article later in the day. Hitro   talk  14:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Google News archive search
Per your query at Articles for deletion/Roberto Márquez about Google News archive search, check out this archived Village pump discussion regarding the matter. Google is rebuilding the system, and per a Google representative in the discussion, it will be back after several months. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I can see a lot of issues at AfD until they restore the archive. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Yes, it's possible that people won't be finding reliable sources as easily due to this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page IT New York
Hello Michig,

I am wondering where the article failed after I made edits to it on Dec. 26, 2013. I believe the reason it was put up for AfD was something along the lines of 'Non-Notable PR company, with the only sources being press releases.' The company isn't a PR Company, but an IT company, I also removed all of the press release material that was connected to a secondary company (related and affiliated) that IT New York owns. On the subject of notoriety I believe it passes regional notoriety for the work the company does in New York (several references were cited that are not connected or affiliated with the company), but it also has international references from Shanghaiist.com. I also edited out anything that could be vanity or advertising, maintaining what I considered to be a neutral tone (it may not have been up to code, for which I would like to know what I can do to improve my tone).

I am wondering what the process is to get the page undeleted, and what I might do to save this page if in fact all guidelines are being met. If they weren't being met, I would like to know why, and if there is anything I can do edit it further to make it pass.

Thank you for your time, I know you are busy handling many cases. I do appreciate your help in this matter.

Sincerely, Danielle Major talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus from the discussion was that the subject did not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability (see WP:CORP). This requires significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, print magazines, non-self published books, professional news websites, etc.). The sources you added didn't address this issue. 'The Information Age' is a Wordpress blog, 'Eat Yo Beats; is a blog created by the company, the Shanghaist is largely written by Michael Good and doesn't discuss the company in detail, the Market Intelligence Center source is a press release by the company, and so on. To have an article here you will need to find some decent coverage of the company in sources that satisfy WP:RS. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Michig, Thank you for responding so quickly. I will find more sources for this page, then how long do I have until deletion becomes permanent?

Thanks again,

Danielle Major talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not necessarily permanent. There is no time limit. Should you find further sources and wish me to advise on whether they are likely to be sufficient then please let me know. I could also restore the article to your userspace should you find sources and wish to use the deleted article as a starting point. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Michig,

I have found that Michael is not affiliated with the Shanghaiist, and he has only contributed once via the interview. Gothamist, LLC owns the Shanghaiist along with several other blogs. Here is a Wikipedia page about Gothamist that mentions that the Shanghaiist is the company's international Blog. . I also found that two other sources had Wikipedia pages themselves: mrc-productivity is mentioned in M-Power for creating it, Bussiness 2 Community has their own , so I am wondering if these sources might be enough as far as the more well-known sources need to be. The others are less-notable, but mention the company. So I believe I have an international source, along with national, and regional that mention Michael Good and IT New York. Let me know what you think.

I appreciate the time your putting into this matter, so thank you again.

Danielle Major talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We're still lacking significant independent coverage of the company in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC comment
Hi. Would you be interested in commenting at this FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? There's been some inactivity lately, and any input would be greatly appreciated. If not, feel free to ignore this message :) Dan56 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Most of these articles that I look at have obvious flaws but I don't see anything obvious here. I don't have much background knowledge of the topic (other than liking some of Coleman's work) so I couldn't really comment on what might be missing or over/under-emphasized. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dirty Hit
Hi there, you have recently added a reference (without a link) to Dirty Hit, having added the names of the two other founders of the record label, I can find no evidence of this at Companies House online (no details of any founders are listed for Dirty Hit Limited). Please amend as necessary and provide some evidence for the existence of the other two owners or remove the reference to them. Many thanks! Mountain cirque 14:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have just found this companies informaton on Dirty Hit which backs up your addition, and also has one additional director that you hadn't mentioned. http://www.companies list.co.uk/07142835-dirty-hit-limited Mountain cirque 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability
If you have a personal bias against the notability guidelines, and admittedly think that they are "bunk," are you really the best person to be making the call on whether or not something is notable? Perhaps that job should be left up to administrators without such a bias. Just a thought. 76.20.47.0 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I welcome constructive comment here, but this isn't that. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the sources now in the article show that I'm a much better judge than some. --Michig (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallon Drunk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much appreciated. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

De-proding without evidence
Add your material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the prod tag that appears on articles "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." In each case I explained why the prods were removed in the edit summary, and these articles have been added to my todo list for improvement. We're all volunteers here. Learn some manners. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Michig, I should start a new section, but although adding many sources to The Good The Bad satisfies PROD (as you pointed out above), seems a bit early to remove the notability tag per my reasoning Talk:The Good The Bad. Widefox ; talk 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Junipers
Hi there. I've left a comment on Articles for deletion/The Junipers as I don't understand how the sources (that I believe are rather trivial) establish the band's notability. Could you could take a look at it and let me know if you agree? If not, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain how the sources establish notability and if there are any Wikipedia essays or guideline pages you can recommend to explain more, I'd appreciate the suggestion too. Thank you N4 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Marty Thau
Another goner without a reliable death report, although I do trust Stupefaction. I leave it to you to moderate. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a sort of almost reliable source for it here: . But it only states 'we are hearing...' which just sounds like repeating rumo(u)rs. I'll revert until a genuine reliable source is found. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fix. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Bizzare Records
A bit of a mess on the talk page. Remove and semi-protect? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't have time right now to look through all that. Might be able to take a look at the weekend (time very limited before then) - if it needs anything doing before then it might be worth raising it at WP:AN. Cheers. --Michig (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been dealt with now. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Obiwon
Hello Michig, The article Obiwon has been nominated for deletion by an editor, I believe this was too hasty as subject appears to be notable, also the article isn't a new entry. Maybe it requires addition of references but doesn't mean the article be deleted. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks Stanleytux (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh in on discussion?
Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)