User talk:Peridon/Archives/2011/July

Another Messiah
I'm not convinced this one should have been deleted. It's linked from a few other Wikipedia articles after all - why invite somebody to create the article with a red link and then delete it if they do?

I'm puzzled about the requirement for "important or significant". I don't have the slightest idea how to judge it compared to many similar articles about obscure bands in Wikipedia. When I find some music somewhere I often look up the band in Wikipedia: most are there but this one was not.

Finally, the band is apparently significant because it is one of the few to use the Oboe.

Peking Duck (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:BAND. As to the oboe, that wouldn't confer notability as 'one of a few'. Oboes do turn up on unlikely places, as do accordions and whistles (Korpiklaani). Not mentioned in the article, anyway. Redlinks - quite often people just put the brackets round things without checking. Some obscure bands would at first sight appear to have articles for their (self-released) albums - but the titles are the same as something totally different that does have an article. Maybe in this case someone WAS hoping that an article would be created. It was, but failed to show sufficient notability. One interview in Dutch, and a MySpace page. An album that isn't given a title, and seemingly (from the article) wasn't issued. There's no objection to you working on a rerun - on a subpage of your userspace and clearly labelled 'DRAFT' - and asking someone now and then to see if you've got enough to pass. Look at WP:RS for info on references. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They did release the album, but the reference I was using pre-dated it. But if one interview in Dutch is not enough, I'll defer to your judgment. Peking Duck (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's another review here - http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Another_Messiah/Dark_Dreams%2C_My_Child/149204/ but I guess that doesn't qualify as a reliable reference, since it's just some web site. Peking Duck (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

VOSLGA Deletion-
hey Peridon, thanks for Wikipedia for providing such good resourceful library here. Now talking about my posted Resource VOSLGA page about the Visual Oral Switch-Light Guides which is about the interactive pilot training system, which have been widely accepted many Airlines and Aerospace Industries, which include Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340 Boeing B737-200, B737-300, B737-400, B737-500, B737-600, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B747-100, B747-200, B747-300, (Classic and Freighters), B757, B767 CRJ-200, CRJ-700, CRJ-900, CRJ-1000 ERJ-135, (EMB-135), ERJ-140, (EMB-140), ERJ-145, (EMB-145) Challenger CH-604 Gulfstream Citation Learjet.

I m not trying the advertise the company page. I just referred the original developer of this program who invented them. i have nt added the website link on the page. I m trying to let the people and new learner pilots to know about this program. It is not a ad for any company. it will be informational resource for user. if you check you will no where find the similar resource about it. It totally a unique.

It will be appreciable that if you allow this content for public to review. One More Request to rename the page to VOSLGA to VOSLG, as i accidently added the a Behind it. Vinodverma83 (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, it read as highly promotional. It constantly referred to the ease of operation, the uniqueness of the product, and so on and so forth, as a sales brochure would. Also, there were no references to show any notability. Articles should have references that comply with WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Peridon, I will try to rewrite it in effective way to meet your requirements and would try to get references for elaboration about it.Vinodverma83 (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article about Borova Yapı deletion
Hi Peridon, I was creating a new article about "Borova Yapı", which is an international company listed in Istanbul Stock Exchange. The information I entered was not copyrighted material and the format was viable to Wiki rules. But my entry was deleted because it was not "important or significant". Before making the entry, I read all the guidelines of Wiki, checked the Wiki pages of our competitors and added official & governmental web sites as reference. Would you mind telling me how I could change it to make in published? Thanks in advance. Dozkan (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)dozkan
 * Please read WP:GNG, WP:CORP for notability, and WP:RS, which is about the reliable sources you need to use for references. Pages of other subjects might not be good examples - things sometimes are missed by the patrollers... Peridon (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Boys Noize
Boys Noize The Las Vegas Sun recently wrote: "The man behind Boys Noize, Alex Ridha, is one of the most respected electronic artists today." And if you had properly researched whether the subject's article could be reliably sourced you would have found coverage from Wire, Bilboard etc. This article will eventually be recreated because the subject is notable. If your concern was promotional tone you should have removed promotional tone. No point in throwing the cat out with the litter, when that cat will likely return the next day.
 * Please sign posts with ~ . If the article is re-created with proper show of notability, I won't worry. As it was, I deleted an expired PROD: concern was: "Could not find any reliable, independend source. Fails WP:RS. Sources found could all be WP:SELFPUBLISHed or promotional (allmusic.com)". Not my prod. Not my concern. I was just tidying up after no-one had done anything to improve it. I don't live in Las Vegas (and wouldn't want to...). Why should I research the sources that the creator of the article didn't? Why didn't you, while the prod was up, if you're so keen on the thing? Why didn't anyone contest the prod? "If your concern was promotional tone you should have removed promotional tone." Have a go at the person who put the prod on, if you are determined to have a go about an article you don't appear to have edited. Peridon (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. Please restore the page to my userspace, I will remove promotional tone, and move the article (with its edit history intact) back to article space. Cheers.Synchronism (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article about Simon walker Deletion
Hi Peridon

Saw your note about this deletion, I'm new to all this so thanks for the advice. I've created some content and pulled together some more refs. You mentioned a sub page in my user space - how do I create that? thanks Dana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danamanchu (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - Hi Peridon

I've done what you suggested - see Danamanchu/Simon Walker (yachtsman). How do I encourage other wikipedians to check/take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danamanchu (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peridon, all great advice. I'll pass on the draft entry to the admins as you suggest. I must admit that if you hadn't deleted the thing straight away, I wouldn't have bothered to find out how to do things better, so thank you for creating the 'challenge'. dana Danamanchu (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also(!!) should I link back to other wiki entries? For example, the Global Challenge entry ? Dana Danamanchu (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
JDDJS (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion?
It seems that you are onlin, so would you mind deleting this revision as a RD2. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of Daniel Rona article was based on false assumptions
Your deletion of the article on Daniel Rona was based on the assumption that the 4-year-old deltion discussion was relevant. You failed to consider that more information had been provided on Rona including material that made clear that his notability went beyond being a tour guide. You should have allowed a discussion of the article on the merits of its current form and content before deleting it. To delete the article on the assumption that the issues as they had been discussed in 2007 were still relevant seems questionable. This is basically to assume that all the additional background information and sources that I and other had added that did not exist when the article was first deleted were of no relevance. Your deletion should have been done through a regular discussion. To assume that all the information was avalable to the people who did the first discussion and that nothing had changed to change the issues surrounding the notableness of a living person is an unwarrented assumption that makes later wikipedia editors handicaped by the failings of previous editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was based also on the apparent non-notability of the subject. You can seek a deletion review if you wish. The criterion is 'substantially the same' for G4, and to me, there's no more credible assertion of notability than there was before. Others may disagree. Up to you... Peridon (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin B. Coates
As a fan of Kevin B. Coates I was just highly curious as to why the page that I created was deleted. In your user bio you are listed as a fan of heavy metal music, this is rather surprising to me considering the deletion of the page. Is there any advice that you could offer me to correct the article so it may stay up. I realized that I didnt list any references of his accomplishments, which now I know is a HUGE deal, thats my fault there,If I were to do that would the article be allowed. I was also worried that I was writing from a biased point of view considering I am a fan of all of his works, Musical, Writing, and Exc. Im surprised that he hasnt been heard of on here already. Any advice would be appreciated Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.151.131 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin B. Coates
As a fan of Kevin B. Coates I was just highly curious as to why the page that I created was deleted. In your user bio you are listed as a fan of heavy metal music, this is rather surprising to me considering the deletion of the page. Is there any advice that you could offer me to correct the article so it may stay up. I realized that I didnt list any references of his accomplishments, which now I know is a HUGE deal, thats my fault there,If I were to do that would the article be allowed. I was also worried that I was writing from a biased point of view considering I am a fan of all of his works, Musical, Writing, and Exc. Im surprised that he hasnt been heard of on here already. Any advice would be appreciated Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by K4456 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, it was deleted as a load of drivel with no sourcing to show that he even exists, let alone is what is claimed - none of which I can see as showing any notability anyway. As to metal, I've deleted articles about metal bands, and even rescued one about a rapper (who was actually notable - rare thing that...). If this sounds rude, I've had a long day. Being a fan of metal is no indication of notability (not is playing it). If you thing the article had merit, you have my sympathy, and you are welcome to seek a deletion review. I'd advise buying some lottery tickets at the same time - you might get lucky.... Peridon (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Baseball  Watcher  21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail
--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

>--mail--

Why did you delete my page "Ben Jaboki' he is a AFL footballer and has good enough knowlegde about him to write like that why did you delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.161.68 (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the simple reason that Ben Jakobi doesn't appear to comply with WP:ATHLETE - I quote: "his first full season in several years, impressing with Coburg’s reserves". What he did at school is irrelevant. Has he played in first team games in the league? Can you give reliable evidence WP:RS that he does fit the bill? No, at present you can't, you're blocked - and if you are the creator of the article shouldn't be editing here from an IP as you are evading the block again. (Only discovered this halfway through my answer to you. Will leave the thing as it stands. If you get unblocked, it might be of value to you.) Peridon (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

এই হালার পুত
তুই কি করবি আমারে। তোর বিচি আসে কিছু করার? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonyKhondaker (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ইংরেজি মধ্যে লিখুন. আপনাকে ধন্যবাদ৷ Peridon (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDs
Hi Peridon, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't worry me if someone is an admin or not. We're just people, and we can talk drivel or sense like everyone else. Having said that, admins are usually reckoned to have been chosen because they are more likely to talk sense more of the time. Doesn't mean that on any particular occasion they haven't slipped up. I think we do try to be fairer because others will be watching more closely. If I'm taking part in an AfD, I usually look at the article before reading other people's posts. When I read the other posts, I don't always know if an editor is an admin or not. If I'm closing an AfD, I decide on the basis of the arguments. Sometimes, there are loads of people on one side that have never posted before. They are usually given less weight as they are not real members of the project. On the whole, it's whether someone is a regular editor more than whether they have admin powers. There are many regulars whose opinion I value, but who aren't admins. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your points and strongly agree with you. I think the just judegment based on rational arguments is critical for the further development of Wikipeida. Bluesum (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rev Del request
Hi. I was wondering which admin to contact now. Anyways may you please rev del this as it contains personal information. And the same exists on User:MD-ARAFAT_HOSSAIN. Thanks and regards. — Abhishek  Talk 11:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. (Learned a bit there, too... Wasn't as easy as it usually is...) Peridon (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. —  Abhishek  Talk 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just another one. This revision too from the same article has personal info. Please rev del the same. Cheers! — Abhishek  Talk 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Backyard Monsters
It should've been deleted as a G4, not A7. Just thought I'd let you know. -- The Σ talkcontribs 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, do you know who tagged the article as A7? I need to let that user know too. -- The Σ talkcontribs 06:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still failed A7 anyway. This time round, it was tagged by User:Biker Biker who may not have known about the AfD. (I quite often didn't when I was patrolling New Accounts.) Peridon (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bel Air Circuit
Can you reinstate the page (and also its talk page, which did actually have a BBC ref link on it) so I can at least have the chance to add a ref link for this on the main page. It is not "hidden" BTW, it's just not widely known about given the exclusive nature of what they do. Jimthing (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored to User:Jimthing/Bel Air Circuit and talkpage. Peridon (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Road FC
Hi there

I noticed that you have deleted an article on Road FC, based on A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

That doesn't make much sense, since most other MMA promotion articles such as UFC or any other MMA organization out there belong to that A7 criteria.

How come other MMA promotion articles exist, whereas you have decided to mercilessly delete the whole article about Road FC even before it got started? I have also provided sufficient and reliable links to the subject.

Luckyj (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a start. If you think any other of the articles fail A7, please feel free to tag them. If I find them tagged, I will give them due consideration. Other admins will do the same if they find them before I do. There were no reliable independent links in the article other than a list of events, and the accessible reference doesn't show anything much in the way of coverage. A list of events is not an indication of notability - merely an indication of existence. The Yahoo news link also merely indicates existence, and suggests to me in its wording that there is a struggle to gain recognition. How reliable Yahoo news is, I don't know. (Yahoo Answers is notably unreliable...) See WP:RS and WP:CORP. If you can find more coverage, let me or another admin know and we'll give an opinion. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Peridon.

Sorry I'm writing this so late, but I strongly believe that the article on Road FC should stand as there are many MMA fans out there that want to know more about the promotion and its events. I have bunch of other credible links (both Korean and English sites), such as MMA news articles and I don't know whether you can read or understand any Korean but some of the links that I have provided prior to deletion included Korean online-newspaper articles. Yahoo.co.kr news links are not like yahoo answers, yahoo.co.kr news stories are from other credible media sites, so I don't see why you got the impression that those stories were some how not worth being listed on the page.

I would very much appreciate if you could give me an option and re-consider your decision. thanks

Luckyj (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Air Carrier Certificates
The fact that the FAA and DOT award an entity with an Air Carrier Certificate is noteworthy. Air Carrier Certificates are issued only if the FAA deems that doing so is in the best interests of the public and for the common good of the public. An air carrier in the United States holds a unique authority granted by the Federal Government on a limited basis. Treppel (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin B. Coates
I appreciate the advice about my article.. Even though you were quite cynical and very rude. Just because you dont see any worth of an article doesnt make it drivel it just makes you missinformed,or unwilling to reasearch it. However, I do appreciate you at least responding thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K4456 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Made me chuckle...
Your comment at the Robert Padulo afd did. Lady of  Shalott  19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Red Elephant
With significant coverage in two reliable articles, The Red Elephant passed A7. Please reconsider your speedy deletion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 'coverage' means more than two approximately two sentence (OK, three...) mentions in a local paper. You're welcome to ask for an opinion from another admin. Peridon (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The coverage was two reviews from the Tallahassee Democrat. That the sources are local is no reason to disqualify them. I have asked to provide a third opinion. Cunard (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Cunard asked me for a third opinion, so here goes: I think Cunard is correct to assume that the article passed WP:A7. While short coverage in local newspapers does probably not make the article pass WP:N, A7 does not require notability or any coverage at all but the fact that a notable newspaper covered the subject at all makes it "significant" as far as A7 is concerned, thus it fails to meet A7's narrow scope (or its at least unclear whether that constitutes an indication of significance, for which case A7 says it should be sent to PROD/AFD instead as well). Also, as far as I can see, both mentions are behind paywalls, so the coverage might be much larger than the abstract you get to see when clicking the links (although I do not know whether you have an ProQuest account to see them). Imho, you should restore the article and send it to WP:AFD for further discussion. It might just be notable. Regards  So  Why  20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Elephant
If you remove an A7, explain why. Don't just say "detagging". I can't read your mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Preliminary to AfD - by gum, you were in there quick! Or was it an otter? Peridon (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd only just restored it as A7 was being queried. At Articles for deletion/The Red Elephant now. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I slightly refactored your comment...
to make the category a working link. I hope you don't mind, but feel free to revert me if you do. Lady of  Shalott  16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How could I object? So that's what those little dots at the front are for. Hope I wasn't too hard on him... Peridon (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you were. I know he's frustrated, but he does need to slow down a little and figure things out. Lady  of  Shalott  17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirection of Weather cell
I disagree with redirecting Weather cell to Atmospheric circulation. Weather cell is not really a good term for atmospheric circulation, and weather cell could have other connotations, such as storm cell. Personally, I don't see the need for the redirect (and view it as more harmful than helpful), but if you disagree, I can take it to RFD to get more input. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article stood, the contents were already covered in AC. AC talks about weather cells, so I redirected. Up to you. Peridon (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but from a meteorological perspective, that redirect doesn't necessarily make the most sense. I'll take it to RFD and see if anybody else in WikiProject meteorology has any input. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Peridon Thank you very much for setting me right. Sorry to have bothered you. Regs Khani100 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup linkrot - what does it mean?
Hi Peridon Contributors seem to be adding and editing Simon_Walker_(yachtsman) which is great. However, a "Template:cleanup Linkrot" tag has been added - I'm not sure what that means and clicking thru doesn't help me much either. Sorry to bother you, but any ideas? Dana Danamanchu (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. It should be "cleanup-link rot". It is displaying properly now I've tidied it up. What it's asking for is a different form of linking. If you click on the blue link rot link that is in the middle of the template box now, it explains about it and how to help prevent it. (I always have trouble with refs myself - I tend to copy one with all the gubbins in it and change it to whatever I'm putting in. JamesBWatson or Boing! said Zebedee would be able to explain things better than I can if you have problems understanding the link rot thing.) It's not an urgent NOW-or-it's-deleted thing - it's a do-it-and-save-problems-later thing. While I'm on, can I suggest putting vessel names in italics or single quotes (or even both - doesn't cost any more...), and something similar with the book title. Avoids any suggestion that he was sailing a large chemical company, etc. Don't put square brackets around Rhone P, because that would link to the company not the boat. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated
Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the article which you deleted on 14 July 2011 has now been recreated. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:MUSICIAN. Apparently the article creator has created a sockpuppet account to quickly remove CSD templates (a report of this has already been made). You might want to look into this. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Summit Medical Group
I did not believe the page that I wrote contained copyright violations. However, I did a substantial rewrite. I hope that suits. If there are further issues, would it be possible for you to contact me instead of just deleting the page? I'd appreciate it. User:NJmeditor —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, to avoid legal action, copyright violations must be deleted from Wikipedia as soon as possible. -- Σ  talk contribs   23:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Equally unfortunately, it was deleted in June - causing me some problems remembering it.... I can't find a current version. Have you re-created it? Peridon (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just recreated it now. Thanks for the clarification on the need to delete as soon as possible. Hopefully will not be an issue with this version. NJmeditor (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are still using at least some of the copyright text. Look at WP:COPYVIO. Even if you own the copyright, you cannot just import it here without licensing it under the things mentioned in that policy. Read it. Also, look at WP:RS. You need independent reliable sources to back up what you are saying. Your site is not regarded as reliable - just as my site is not reliable when it comes to an article on me. References establishing notability must be more than bare mentions. I'm just off to bed so I can't do much more at the moment. If this goes, don't re-create it in mainspace. Put your draft on a subpage of your userpage - then ask for advice. Most regular editors or admins will be willing to give an opinion. (You can even summon them like genies by using on your talk page and giving a link to the subpage.) We do try to help - we're not a load of protectionists aiming to keep everything out... Peridon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On a note, live help can be accessed by connecting to Wikipedia's help IRC. --  Σ  talk contribs   00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Chagloo
This page was created by some of chagloo's fan. He is not an human being as considered by you but a comic character. He is important and relevant as its first time a contemporary character is created in India. He is depicted as a young boy through online comics and snippets on the website named by his name.

please reconsider your decision.

Manchanda7 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to have done anything with it so far as I can see. Having looked at it, it is not very clear that Chagloo is not a real person, and contains "I am a big fan of Chagloo and want others to know what is he all about." That to me indicates spam WP:SPAM. I would suggest you contact User:Sphilbrick who was the last to delete it. I can see no reason to restore it, despite the mistaken description of 'real person'. A7 covers web content as well as people, so the deletion category is correct. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

wimbledon saints fc
wimbledon saints fc - i dont get why it has been deleted ??
 * Look at WP:ATHLETE. Fully professional clubs have notability. Amateur clubs - especially ones as low as Sunday League - have to prove they're notable with good references from reliable sources. A club founded this year has very little chance of complying with the requirements. There's not all that many amateur football clubs in here. Those that are have a fairly long history, or have come down from being fully professional at some point. Notability isn't lost by coming down in the world, or even by closing. BTW please sign posts on talkpages with ~ which puts your name and a datestamp on like this: Peridon (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DJ_ Many Deleted
I Still Don't Know Why DJ Many Was Deleted When He Has Numerous References And A Official Website www.djmany.com Can You Restore The Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.93.81 (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference links don't appear be independent reliable sources WP:RS, and they are not to discussions or coverage of the subject. Having an official website means absolutely nothing. There seems little of note in the article. He's worked here, he's been there, he's planning this - so? A Tip I Will Give You Is Not To Write Like This On Wikipedia. It looks silly and childish, and doesn't help at all. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free webspace. People get the idea that, because Wikipedia is 'free', they can post anything they want. OK, they can post it, but our patrollers are free to tag it for deletion if it doesn't meet standards, and we admins are free to delete it. When the subject has actually achieved something of note WP:BAND, try again. You'll need to ask an admin, as the title's been protected, which means only an admin can re-create it. Peridon (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
Please see Requests_for_undeletion. – Adrignola talk 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and see my comment there. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Clowns and other circus business ...
Hi, Circus renz is an unnecessary redirect as Circus Renz exists and serves as a possible search term. Since the latter article describes the original Circus Renz, the redirect to Circus Herman Renz is wrong by any account, plus malwritten. Both articles are on the Renz dab page; maybe there should be a separate dab page for the various Circusses Renz (there are at least 10), but the misnomer is something we really don't need. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Herpestes
Yeah whoops my fault. I don't know what I was thinking. I read it yet somehow mistook it for a martial arts academy rather than an actual martial art. I clearly need some sleep. Thanks lol KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Author removed prod so if you'd like to comment here that would be great. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TechyV.com
Dear Admin, I had previously created a similar page and that was also deleted. I have edited it and it it was still deleted. I made sure it was not in an advertising tone. Will you please guide me where I'd gone wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aye.Sadiq (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. First, you have to look at WP:NPOV. Anything that uses 'you' or 'we' is immediately suspected of being spam. (Usually correctly...) Then you have to look at WP:WEBSITE. That gives a good idea of what sort of notability you need to show. And then you should look at WP:RS to see what sort of reliable, independent sources you need to prove it. BTW please sign talk page posts with ~ - saves the bot's little legs running around after people. If you're going to try again, do the reading first, then re-create on a subpage of your userpage with DRAFT at the top. Then get someone to look at it. Most editors or regular editors will give an opinion when asked. Not me - get a fresh one. Peridon (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For explaining block rationale to a user who takes a personal exception to site policy. Much appreciated, Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken deletion
You deleted my user page which had a delete template. I didnt want it deleted I just forgot to take off the template from a page I copied and pasted for sandboxing. Gamewizard71 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted - and tag removed... Peridon (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Grim and Keatsie
Hi, i noticed u made a wiki page about us and u then deleted it. i was just wondering if you could please undelete it. it would be much appreciated. kind reguards. Dominic Polihronos — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEMONIMACHOMASTER (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Dappleyard93 created Grim and keatsie, which was deleted for not showing or even claiming any notability. The best it came up with was that the band was on Youtube, and working on their first album. Neither of these are particular claims to notability here - Youtube viewing figures being considered as reliable as an email advert for Viagra... Can I ask you to look at WP:BAND, and then think if there is any way the band meets it? If it doesn't, then it would be very difficult to show notability. In addition, look at WP:RS, about the reliable independent sources needed to back up claims. Good luck with the band, anyway. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Villyan Bijev
Should probably undelete this page as this person is a professional soccer player who has just been signed by Liverpool FC. See, for example, ESPN article here: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/936910/liverpool-sign-american-teenager-villyan-bijev?cc=3888 and US Mens' National Team bio here: http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/U-18-MNT/B/Villyan-Bijev.aspx 196.219.212.132 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Random interested searcher
 * When he complies with WP:ATHLETE ... There's a lot of players signed by major clubs who for one reason or another never actually play for the club. He's just signed. He hasn't played at first team level. Signing is a step towards notability. It isn't notability. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Road FC
Thank you for your reply on Road FC, Peridon.

Sorry I'm writing this so late, but I strongly believe that the article on Road FC should stand as there are many MMA fans out there that want to know more about the promotion and its events. I have bunch of other credible links (both Korean and English sites), such as MMA news articles and I don't know whether you can read or understand any Korean but some of the links that I have provided prior to deletion included Korean online-newspaper articles. Yahoo.co.kr news links are not like yahoo answers, yahoo.co.kr news stories are from other credible media sites, so I don't see why you got the impression that those stories were some how not worth being listed on the page.

I would very much appreciate if you could give me an option and re-consider your decision. thanks

Luckyj (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always put it up again - someone else might have a different opinion. I am puzzled as to why this is being put on the English language Wikipedia when it is a Korean organisation with no indication of any overseas connection - and no link to a Korean language article on the Korean language Wikipedia. Indian things have a certain need of articles here, as English is the overall connecting language there. Korean has no 'competitor', so surely this article should be there not here. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of DJ Lectro
I contest the deletion of my page, DJ Lectro. "There are a heck of a lot of artists and musicians out there without tons of notability" does not seem like a logical reason to delete a page. Wikipedia is for the public, and you couldn't even give me 10 minutes to update the page and put reliable references up before you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan.shotwell (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that it's best to make the article fit from the word go? Saves hassle. I realise you might not have known about the policies, but you do now and can get it right (if possible). That quote wasn't the reason for deletion. It was a comment. The reason for deletion was that there was no claim to notability. If you can make the article fit the policies, go ahead and post it again - with the necessary alteration to have a claim of notability and references to back it up. See what another admin thinks. "Wikipedia is for the public" - yes. But we have to restrict the content to what is considered encyclopaedic, or else we'd have Herbert the Performing Hamster who entertains visitors to 49 Well St, Swampton. (That's an extreme example designed to amuse and educate...) Peridon (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hi there, there is a new user whom I think is a sock puppet. I have already expressed my concerns to him. My reasons for thinking this is that he created a wikipedia account just over 10 days ago, he edits in a very restricted topic and he really knows how to edit in wikipedia. I might be wrong but that is my impression. What is the procedure for finding out? Thanks Politis (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let an admin know who it is, and why you think it is a sock. Sometimes people decide to start an account after editing as an IP for years, so over-knowledge isn't always a sign. (It's a good cause for suspicion, though...) If it's not being a vandal or making odd edits, pass the info on anyway - some socks behave very well but do things surreptitiously. If it is vandalising, go to WP:AIV. Look at the sockpuppet investigations to find an admin who knows the socks well. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfy request
Greetings! Per the article creator's request on his talk page, would you be willing to userfy Mitchell rob\Mom to User:Mitchell rob/Mom? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bahara, India
Bahara, India was not about the town Bahara, CSD was not met. Please undelete. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

David Tolk request
Hello. I am writing to request reinstatement/undeletion of the David Tolk page that you deleted. The deletion says something about David Tolk not being a significant artist or musician. However, my latest CD, David Tolk Christmas, was ranked #8 on the Billboard New Age Charts for December 25, 2010 along with Jim Brickman, Enya, and Yanni. The link to this chart placement is right here: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/new-age-albums?chartDate=2010-12-25  Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. I request that you reinstate the page along with the reference to the Billboard charting success of David Tolk Christmas. Best wishes, David Tolk Davidtolk (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't even remember deleting it. As the article stood, non-notability was the score. The references showed nothing in that direction - one being to an irrelevancy, and the other two not regarded as reliable or showing anything. I'll put it back for you to add the new ref, and we'll see what happens. (I wouldn't care to express an opinion on the New Age chart.) I'll put a comment to keep patrollers off (I hope - they can be very keen...). Peridon (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've put it at User:Davidtolk/David Tolk. I would advise a look at WP:COI and WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

HELP
HELP

I am being attacked at every angle by MikeWazowski. Today the block came off of my account, so I cleaned up the Discussion page on my account, and he immediately undid it. Everything I post he undoes, even when I simply add references to various different articles. This person has taken personal mission to completely unearth everything I do and accuse me of anything from self-promotion, to sock-puppeting... I am happy to supply my contact details and Identification to prove who I am, and that all of these allogations are untrue; however, I would greatly appriciate anything you could do to stop this incessint harrasment.

The reason I am asking you for assistance is due to your recent notations on my account.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I have to point out that the identification of the two accounts was made by User:Hersfold, who is an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser. As a checkuser, he can see the IP addresses that edits have been made from. It is a very restricted tool that does it, and only the most highly trusted get it. If he says Amie and you were editing from a common IP that no other user used, but that you used different browsers, I will believe him. So, as far as both Mike and I are concerned, there was a close connection. It is extremely unlikely that the Amie account just happened to edit the same places as you from a common IP without a connection, even if it is only that you both use the same IP connection to the net and 'she' works in your office, and even less likely if you both edited from the same hotspot or internet cafe. It is NOT just Mike that thinks you had a sock- or meat- puppet. He seems to have made comment about your matter only on the one occasion since your block expired so I would hardly call that harassment. I would also point out that you are far from helping your case by your actions. Don't forget that while Wikipedia may be new territory to you, it is not so to us. And remember Queen Gertrude's line in Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.". Peridon (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Information Thank you for your information, I am requesting that User:Hersfold rechecks this information, as I too find it extremely unlikely that we would be using the same hotspot; however, I am using BTOpenzone, which is a free public WiFi service here in London. As for the rest, if you were to look further into his edits, and commentaries, you will see that I am clearly being targeted and bated by this individual in clear violation of Wikipedia's Civility policy. Thank you for your time, and again, I would be open to any intervention you would be willing to offer.AKnight2B (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree I am new here, however, I hold a doctorate, and am highly respected by many members of Parliament (all of which I am happy to provide proof) and know how to do research and conduct myself in a civil manner. However, in this particular case, I am at the will of the more experienced and those with authority to correct the situation.  I can only put my faith in you and others to be able to see the amount of frustration this indidual is inflicting upon, not only myself, but also others, according to the edits on his talk page in the past week alone.