User talk:MuffledThud/Archives/February 2009

I wrote this article for my blog
Hi...I wrote this article for my blog, and I have added the words "I, Sherm Cohen, am the author of this article, "Dan Gordon -A Brush With Greatness," and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later." to my blog post at

http://cartoonsnap.blogspot.com/2009/01/dan-gordon-biography-life-and-work-of.html

Please let me know if I need to do anything else to share this information on Wikipedia. Thanks.

Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)
I responded to your comments at the AfD there, but I wanted to address the particular issue with your commentary here. The assertion that I have nominated the article for deletion in order to clear the way for my "own" article is bizarre and greatly lacking in agf. Second, tacking on wp:worldview, as if to imply I afd'd the article just because it's from Botswana, or without researching the notability, is also a big leap of bad faith assumption on your part. I specifically referenced, in the AfD, searches I made in attempting to establish notability using the very same two sources this group has their columns published in, to no avail with either (aside from the columns themselves). I appreciate your belief in the article subject's notability, but going out of your way to assume bad faith is disappointing. user:j   (aka justen)   11:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to assume good faith here. But help me out. Can you please explain why you would WP:Speedy a year-old article, which met none of the usual strict criteria for speedy deletion, rather than WP:Prod it first?  You've been editing since 2004, so it's difficult to believe that you're unaware of the difference between the two by now.  That, coupled with the fact that you then immediately went on to start an article with the name Consumer Watchdog bolded in the intro: was it really so bizarre and lacking in AGF for me to infer that you were bumping a year-old article to make way for your new one? Please correct me if I've overlooked something. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has no verified, reliably sourced claim of notability. And I looked to try to find some myself.  To say it "met none of the usual strict criteria for speedy" is completely inaccurate.  Quite specifically, given the fact that it didn't have a single reliable source, it more than fail a7, and given the way it was written it arguably fails g11, as well.  The age of the article doesn't excuse the situation (or exclude speedy).  Given the fact that not a single individual had made any significant edits to the article in the time since it was written, except the original author (who only ever edited that article, which brings up worrying wp:coi issues), it is, quite frankly, in my opinion, a non-notable promotional article that fell through the cracks.  You can throw around wp:csb, how long I've been editing, or anything else you want, but it doesn't excuse the fact that this article doesn't even come close, as it is, to meeting our criteria for inclusion on the basis of notability.  Please, source the article.  If you can't, it should be deleted.    user:j    (aka justen)   00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not "more than fail a7", and only a few lines read as promotional, which you could easily have removed. Please re-read WP:Criteria for speedy deletion:
 * "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."
 * This is what you should have done, and not attempted to speedy it. If I hadn't removed the speedy tag, an admin would have.  MuffledThud (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you! MuffledThud (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)