User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/April

Hey Steve :)
Someone had setup a WIKI page for me, and it was deleted, but how can I get it restored if I have all my credentials that I can send to you?

Appreciate your time.

Thank you,

Sophia Lin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.172.5 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed your email address to protect you from spammers who will try to harvest it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sophia. I'm at work at the moment, so I'll look at the deleted article tomorrow when I can log in properly rather than on my phone! However, to have an article, the subject (in this case you!) needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and have sources which verify the information. These sources need to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources (see here) and must be independent of the subject (see here for what kinds of sources Wikipedia count as independent). Regards, --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Sophia Lin was deleted as an uncontested proposed deletion, and you are contesting that, I have restored it. However, please not that this does not prevent it being nominated for deletion again - reliable independent sources are required (see my last message) as well as evidence of you meeting the notability criteria.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Welty
Hi Steve,

Regarding this deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Welty

Please reinstate the discussion, I am the author but a very infrequent WikiP user and wasn't present for the discussion. I am willing to edit based on comments to improve the article and notability. From the deletion discussion, I don't understand the deletion result, of the 7 votes there were 4 keeps & 3 delete - this is far from consensus and further from a decision to delete.

The main points for deletion were: "None of the persons who were featured in the Rolling Stone article would have become notable as a result"

I'm not sure what that means.

"The subject was not "profiled in a Rolling Stone article"; he was merely was featured in a composition article about "The American Dream". "

This is not true, the author of this comment apparently did not have the magazine and surmised this from my text in the WikiP article. The rolling stone article on Welty was from a series of articles, but not a composition article. It was about 5 magazine pages long (I will have to dig it out of my stacks if required). The second article was two pages long, also not part of another composition. Again, both articles were specifically about Welty.

"it was a blurb as part of a larger story.

Again, not true.

Christo911 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo911 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at the AfD and it appears that the 'keep"s were refuted by others. I'll look at it properly in the next day or so, and get back to you, when I'm not working! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still feel that the closure was correct given the arguments in the AfD. However, the main issue would appear to be about how much coverage of Welty there was in the Rolling Stone article. Without seeing the article itself (and it isn't available online as far as I am aware, so I cannot verify the content myself), I cannot comment on that - although if what you say above is correct, then there could be 'significant coverage' which is what is required - I'd need to see scans of the article itself to properly judge. Would you be able to scan the article and upload it somewhere (FlickR or somewhere else like that) - we wouldn't be able to use the scans themselves (they are covered by copyright), but it'd be interesting to see them so that we can make a proper decision.
 * I will try to scan the articles - will pictures do (do you need to read the words?)? Christo911 (talk • contribs)
 * If you feel that my closure was incorrect, based on the arguments presented at the AfD, then please feel free to go to Deletion review (DRV) and ask other editors to decide on whether the closure was correct or not. Please note that DRV is not a place for new arguments, it is a venue to discuss a closure which was incorrect based on the arguments at that AfD. If you do go to DRV, please let me know! Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to work with you, assuming the above (scanning articles) is a reasonable next step. Christo911 (talk • contribs)
 * The scans themselves would not be useable as such for the article (they are a copyrighted item - and a sceptic could claim that they have been altered, as they are not on Rolling Stone's own website), but they would certainly help me (and possibly others) to consider the next step. I'm not sure how I would get a copy of the relevant copy of Rolling Stone (which issue/date was it, so I can see if I can find a copy?) to verify the content personally, so a scan would do as a stop-gap measure. Let me know when you have them scanned - I'm working for the next few days, so there's no rush!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The main article is in the 1998 RS 30th anniversary issue, #787, which is also the farewell to Seinfeld issue - a lot of people have kept this one, I'd be surprised if we couldn't find another editor that had it. The second article about Welty is in the RS 2001 year in review issue (Jan, 2002), and although that is the one I based the WP article on, I don't have the issue myself anymore. The "scandal" created by the first article was reported in the NY press, but I don't have access to news archives, I just remember reading it. Christo911 (talk • contribs)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Further to your question above: yes, it would be best if the words were readable on the scans! It's the words we're interested in, how much and what they say about Welty.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore all rules rule
If one of the rules is to ignore all rules, what am I supposed to do?!! Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules does not mean do what you like. It says that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia then ignore it - but how does transcluding an RfA when you haven't discussed it with your nominee and they haven't answered the standard questions improve Wikipedia?


 * If you ever want to be an admin, you really need to understand IAR!


 * Regards, --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 23:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with the RfA, just a general query! Thanks for answering Steve! Wikipedian2 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page (Humanscale)
Hi Phantomsteve, You deleted an entry for Humanscale. I felt it was appropriately neutral and well-cited. The company is very noteworthy and the page was very similar to the company's competitors. I'd appreciate your input on why you felt it was overtly promotional and how it could have been improved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkythecat (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look at that in the next couple of days and will get back to you! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 22:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in responding - it's been a busy week, with this being my first night off in a week! OK, here are my thoughts:
 * I got the impression that the purpose of this was to promote the two chairs. However, the article makes claims of importance ("...supports the user’s body at all points during recline, a first for task chairs. The Freedom chair's other unique feature is its patented synchronous arms, which adjust simultaneously..."). As such, I am going to restore the article, but I do not feel that it meets the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I am going to nominate it for deletion through the Articles for deletion process, which will be explained more on your talk page.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wu Lyf, the band
I noticed that you were the latest Admin to delete this article on a band which, well, fails almost all criteria for notability, but it is notable for that reason. And the way I found out about this paradox was thru this article in the Guardian, which is a reliable source & explains this conundrum. As that article's author explains, "the UK music press has been chasing WU LYF, lured not by what they do know, but what they don't."

Personally, I have no vested interest in whether there is article on this group. (And chances are good that I wouldn't like their music if I ever heard them.) I do have an interest in that Wikipedia makes a reasoned decision whether or not too have an article on this group, so that if (or, according to this article, when) this music group does prove to be notable we Wikipedians have a better answer than for half of us to mumble something about "notability procedures" & the other half to rant about how Wikipedia is going to hell because we are too procedure-bound.

So what should I do from here? The instructions at Deletion review say to discuss any PROD with the responsible Admin first. But if you think that this matter is above your pay grade & we need a consensus on what to do about this one article -- an opinion I can understand, especially since your restore might be overturned with another PROD -- I'd be happy to take it either to Deletion review or some other forum so to bring this to some rational conclusion, even if it is the wrong one. :) Best, -- llywrch (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My initial thought is that it should remain deleted, as they don't meet the criteria for inclusion. However, if you can wait a couple of days, I am off work tomorrow so I can look at this in more detail and then get back to you --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Today (Sunday) family-related stuff kept me from doing anything about this. (Wikipedia would be far more enjoyable if matters here moved at a slower pace so part-time volunteers like us could keep up.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article again, and the coverage (including the Guardian piece), I still feel that they do not yet meet the criteria for inclusion (and no claim to notability was made in the article from what I see). Perhaps when they release their album in the summer, they might meet the criteria for inclusion! However, at the moment, I feel that the deletion was the correct decision. If you feel that I incorrectly deleted the article, then please feel free to take it to Deletion review - if you do, mention this discussion, and let me know!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
I gave my reasons for contesting the deletion of the page Arsenal Dictatorship. Please consider my views and possibly restore the article as I feel it has been unfairly deleted. Sifler (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that the request for deletion was justified. The content was an attack on the persons involved with the board of the club, was unsourced, appeared to be a private rant or research and I see no reason to restore it. If you feel that I was incorrect to delete it, please go to Deletion review. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted speedies
Could I get you to take a second look at the recent speedy deletion noms by User:Nicweber? I believe these should all be restored as I don't agree that A7 applied in these cases. In fact, at the risk of violating AGF, I believe this sudden A7 tagging spree of multiple articles cherry-picked out of a category was very likely a bitter pointy attempt by the user because of Articles for deletion/Brad Weber, which was deleted for lacking notability. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ones he SD nom'd, I declined most and deleted a couple. I think the ones I deleted were suitable for deletion, but if you look at them and decide otherwise, please feel free to restore them!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I restored a couple. Please note, it's not your judgement I'm contesting, I just believe Nicweber was abusing the speedy deletion process. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a warning that further such SD noms could lead to a block. Hopefully, he's thrown enough toys out of his pram now. Maybe he should spend his energy helping his brother's career, so that his brother will meet the notability criteria for inclusion...  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has placed a speedy tag on Hicham Aaboubou again. I can't remove it because I created the article - could you oblige please? JonBroxton (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not been dealt with before, I'll deal with this when I'm home and on my computer in about 10 mins! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 08:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Sizemore
Hi, I'm not sure I understand your BLPPROD on this article, there appear to be sources in the External links section which demonstrate the chap exists and is an editor of a publication, they are just not wrapped in footnotes. I have doubts about notability, but that's a different issue. I've added a citation which probably makes the BLPPROD irrelevant, but thought I'd point this out as many contributors do not see external links as references unless they are labelled as such. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you (Steve) understand what a BLPPROD should be used for. Perhaps reacquaint yourself with the appropriate policy pages. Maybe it was just an accident...? Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a mistake! A BLPPROD is patently inapplicable to that article, and I didn't check the external links properly. I have removed the BLPPROD and changed the BLP unref tag to a BLP refimprove one. Thanks fir contacting me, both of you - we all make mistakes from time to time, and I always welcome being told about mine so that I can correct them, and learn from them! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

next step to having my entry restored/ or re-written, but by whom?
Dear Steve,

my name is Jonathan FeBland. I am a Composer with work published by Universal Edition and released on CD by Meridian Records (UK), Warner Bros (Spain) and Walsingham (Australia).

I have been Composing Music since 1976 and studied at the Royal Academy of Music from 1978 - 1982.

There are a dozen or more musicians on YouTube currently rehearsing my compositions - some have already placed recordings on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/FeBlandMusic

I had an article in Wikipedia since approx. 2006 but it was deleted last year.

Do I simply need to find a friend/contact/colleague who might handle a page for me, or can someone official at Wikipedia edit a new page for me?

I am also involved in other artistic fields:

http://www.febland.net

I look forward to hearing from you or one of your colleagues, Yours sincerely,

Jonathan S. FeBland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.39.125 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, thanks for contacting me. I'm at work at the moment, but I'll look into the deleted article and get back to you tomorrow - it's on my list of about a dozen things I'm looking at tomorrow - it's a busy night off tomorrow! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 01:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Jonathan FeBland was deleted following a discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan FeBland (2nd nomination). Although you are obviously enjoying a certain level of success, the question is whether you meet Wikipedia's criteria (see here and here). The consensus is that you did not. As an admin closing an Articles for deletion discussion, my job is to guage the consensus, which I did. The consensus was to delete the article.
 * I have just looked for your name at Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books and Google Scholar - none of them produce the significant coverage which we would normally expect to see for someone who meets the notability criteria. As such, I feel that the decision was correct.
 * If you feel that I closed the discussion incorrectly, please feel free to take the deletion to Deletion review - if you do, mention this discussion, and let me know!
 * Incidentally, I have removed your email address from this page - all pages on Wikipedia are highly visible, and we wouldn't want your email address to be harvested by spammers!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Steve, I believe a significant error has been made in removing my article and I will therefore follow your advice and contact "Deletion Review". Let me repeat: Universal Edition, Royal Academy of Music, Meridian Records, Warner Bros. My work has also been broadcast on such Radio Stations as ABC Classic FM (Australia), as well as many others. [from JS FeBland] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.39.125 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Response: Speedy deletion declined: Hicham Aâboubou
Notability is not inherited. The league is notable, but Hicham Aâboubou is not. I repeat notability is NOT inherited. Just because someone plays in a notable league does not make them notable. Hicham Aâboubou has very little news written about him. Most of the articles are about the teams he plays on with his name only mentioned in passing. A bio on the team's website written by the team does NOT qualify as a news source. Nicweber (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I responded on Nicweber's talkpage --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)