User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/July

Kassie Tyers
I am just wondering the reason for the page Kassie Tyers being deleted. This artists has noteriaty as I noted on the talk page. Maybe there is some error that I had made in creating the page as I am new to wikipedia. The artists is still interested in having a wikipedia page on her and I am still willing to contribute one. I did alot of work to get the information on here and was also wondering if there is any way to get the research information back that I placed on this page. If there is some way to get the info back and if there is something I can do in the future to get this page on here please let me know. Thank you for your attention. Rees RodgersReesrodgers (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesrodgers (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no specific claim of importance or significance made. There are thousands of Christian singers out there, and most would not meet the notability criteria (Amy Grant, Steve Taylor and the like being the exception rather than the rule!). Before deletion, I did check out the references provided. The Myspace ones I ignored, as these are not counted as reliable. Her own website I also ignored, as this is not independent! The SonRise one shows that she works there, but is a very minor mention (just her name under the list of staff). CDBaby reviews are not counted as reliable as Wikipedia defines it (see here) as anyone can submit a review - there is no editorial control over user reviews; YouTube is also not reliable, as anyone can upload anything there - there is no editorial control over content. Finally, Amazon selling a CD does not make the artist notable. In short, there were no references provided which were independent and/or reliable. I also looked for myself, but the only one I could find at a reliable source was a newspaper article in her local newspaper about her releasing an album - and the majority of the information in that was provided by her "mum and publicist" - so basically self-promotional, and so not independent.
 * You need to demonstrate that she meets the general notability criteria, and especially the criteria for singers.
 * Regarding sending you the information, when I finish typing this, I will see if you have an email associated with your account - if you do, I will send you the last version of the article by email  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you do not have an email address associated with your account! Please do not post your email address here - go to my preferences at the top of the page, and add an email address there. When you have done that, and confirmed the address, let me know and I will send you the text of the page.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on this and your quick response. I will try to find some more reliable and independent sources. I have added my email and would greatly appreciate a copy of the last available page information. Also I'm not sure if I failed to include the billboard.com link or if the link was not credible or quality enough, if it is not a link I can use as noteriety I will disclude it when I find sufficient information to re-submit the page. Thank you again for your fast response and explaination. Reesrodgers (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need to respond to the confirmation email that you would have received before Wikipedia will accept it! Until that happens, I can't use Wikipedia email to send it to you. Regarding the billboard reference, you placed that on the talk page. However, although that shows the album, and the tracks, there is no further information on either them or her - and it confirms that as far as Billboard are aware, she has never charted. All in all, it is not the significant coverage required.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did the confirmation. Thanx for the additional info. and thanks again for getting me that research from the page. If there is some kind of rating system here where I can give you a positive I will be happy to do so as I really appreciate the time you spent on this with me.Reesrodgers (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have emailed it to you. We don't have a "rating system" on Wikipedia - your thanks is the "positive" rating!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I created the article again, this time as a project under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reesrodgers/Kassie_Tyers I have added also to a help page to see if I could get some assistance as I am creating my first article. I am aware these are steps I would have been better taking in the beginning. I was however wondering if you have the time if you could take a look at it and let me know what you think. I believe I have removed all the questionable reference and links and I have pretty much re-written the entire article. I have added on the talk page why I believe it should be included on wikipedia.Reesrodgers (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article was nominated for deletion at AfD. I am adding this comment so that this discussion will not be archived before the AfD is due to be closed, as I refer people here in the nomination  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:Edit Summaries
Hey Steve how ya doing buddy, just wanted to say thanks for putting my gibberish into English. Mlpearc  powwow  02:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm doing just fine thanks! I just thought I'd clarify what you said, as it can be confusing for people to understand, whoever explains it! --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Ideas People Media Page
I would like you to reinstate the Wikipedia page that I created today for Ideas People Media. The reason for deletion was, "‎A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."

As I explained in the entry, Ideas People Media is a new business unit of the Economist Group that sells advertising across over 50 websites. The Economist has been in business since 1843, and this is the first time in its history that it has offered a product which it does not actually produce the content for. I think that is incredibly significant, and worthy of a Wikipedia page. The business unit is already making 6 figure deals with large corporations in the auto, finance, and telecommunication industries. For evidence that Ideas People Media is a division of the Economist Group, please refer to the Economist Group Media website.

http://www.economistgroupmedia.com/products/other-products/the-ideas-people-channel

Thank you,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjimma5 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Economist Group is notable (hence the reason it has an article) but not all of its business units will be independently notable enough to warrant their own article. To have its own article, it needs to meet the general notability criteria (especially the criteria for businesses) itself - with independent reliable sources which show this. New businesses seldom meet the criteria for inclusion, even when part of a larger business. A mention in the Economist Group article should be sufficient at this time.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve,

You said that new businesses seldom meet the criteria for inclusion. I find this statement to be false. Here are some examples of companies that were started in 2009 that have Wikipedia entries:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aardvark_%28search_engine%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clicker.com
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layar

There are even categories on Wikipedia for companies that were started in 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2009 and 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2010

According to Wikipedia guidelines, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Ideas People Media has been the subject of a lot of independent news coverage. Here are some examples:
 * http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/economist-launches-online-ad-net-103642
 * http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=138430
 * http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2010/10/27/the-economist-launches-ideas-people-channel
 * http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/economist-group-ideas-people-channel_b19024
 * http://www.adpulp.com/advertising_to_2/
 * http://www.foliomag.com/2011/economist-enjoys-advertising-rebound-fiscal-2011
 * http://www.asiamediajournal.com/pressrelease.php?id=2727

Thanks for your time.

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjimma5 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James. I never said that new businesses are never notable, just that they seldom are! Looking at those sources:
 * Adweek
 * Almost all of this trade weekly's article consists of what Adweek were told by the company: "Executives said...", "The Economist’s Paul Rossi, managing director, evp, Americas, said..." - I'm uncertain how indepenmdent this article is of the subject
 * Mediapost
 * Another trade publication - and yet another quote from another company person, this time a VP
 * Portfolio.com
 * Another trade publication, published on the same date as both of the previous ones
 * Mediabistro.com
 * A site that publishes blogs for journalists. Same date, same VP, same ideas as the pervious sites
 * Adpulp
 * Trade publication. Quotes from Mediaweek - the day after the other publications (bny necessity, as it's quoting another article which was published the day before);
 * Foliomag
 * Trade publication. Insignificant coverage of this subject ("The Economist launched three new businesses over the past year, including an online ad network called the Ideas People Channel" being the extent of it)
 * Asia Media Journal
 * Another trade journal, with another insignificant mention ("◦In North America, three new Economist-branded businesses were launched during the year: the Ideas People Channel, an online advertising network which now combines 45 websites from different organisations")
 * All in all, I do not think that this qualifies as significant coverage at independent reliable sources. 4 out of the 7 are very similar in content and published on the same day, presumably based on a press release issued that day; one quotes another article; the remaining two are insignificant (as in depth of coverage) coverage of the subject. The fact that 6 out of the 7 are trade-related publications would also cause some to doubt how truly independent they are of the subject.
 * You know what the idea sources would be? Detailed, substantial coverage of this company at publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc - publications which are not involved with the trade, and which are more likely to provide original coverage rather than rehashing a company PR release. Is it possible to find some of those?
 * Incidently, whether other articles exist or not is irrelevant to whether this article exists. It might be that other articles are adequately sourced unlike this one. Alternatively, it might be that they are not, and so they should be deleted. Either way, we are discussing this article. I looked at some of the entries in the 2 categories mentioned above: out of 10 random articles from the categories, 7 appeared to be adequately sourced (such as from the Washington Post), 3 appeared unsuitable for Wikipedia. Of the 3 articles you linked to, 2 of them were adequately sourced (NYT, TechCrunch), weith another which I would consider putting up for deletion unless I could find suitable sources.
 * If you really think that I was mistaken to delete the article, you are welcome to go to deletion review and list it there - if you do, mention this discussion.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really think that I was mistaken to delete the article, you are welcome to go to deletion review and list it there - if you do, mention this discussion.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve,

I am most certainly going to list this entry in deletion review, as I feel that as a security guard and former teacher, you are not qualified to make judgements about advertising and marketing business entries. I also disagree with your assertion that a trade publication is not an independent source. It's not very likely for Ideas People Media to be covered by The New York Times, or Washington Post, as these are direct competitors of The Economist.

Thanks,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjimma5 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I may not be an advertising or marketing guru, but I am capable of looking at sources and comparing them with Wikipedia's "reliable sources" and "independent sources" criteria; I am capable of comparing what an article says about a business with Wikipedia's notability criteria; I am capable of looking for sources myself. As I said above, 4 of the sources were obviously based on press releases (same date, similar quotes); 1 quoted another source, so isn't the source itself; the other 2 did not meet the "significant coverage" required by the notability guidelines. The fact that they are trade puiblications does not mean in and of itself that they are not independent (I actually said it could cause some to doubt how truly independent they are of the subject, I didn't say that I doubted it) - the problem is that the coverage is based on press releases, which are not independent.
 * I also disagree that other media other than The Economist would cover Ideas People Media (obviously, The Economist Group publications are not independent) - "the enemy" still cover notable companies even if owned by their competitors, as it's news. OK, they may use it as an opportunity to compare it with a similar company owned by their Group, but the coverage would still be there. If their group does not have a similar company, I'd argue that they'd be as likely to cover it as not, as they have no reason not to.
 * I look forward to seeing what other editors at Deletion review say. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia is that it is a community - it might be that the consensus is that I was wrong to delete it, in which case a potentially valuable article is kept with the encyclopedia benefitting - which is a "win" for Wikipedia. On the other hand, it might be that the consensus is that I was correct to delete it, in which case an article which does not meet the criteria for inclusion is not present - which is a "win" for Wikipedia. Either way, whatever the consensus is, Wikipedia benefits from having the most suitable articles in it.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Thanks Steve.

James  Jimjimma5 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjimma5 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So-Gnar
Dear Steve, My name is Katie and I am helping with So-Gnar. So-Gnar is a Colorado based Snowboard/Art/Music/Ent. project. We are trying to spread awareness of snowboarding, art, culture and music in Colorado and throughout the U.S. Pat Milbery is a professional snowboarder who is behind this project. Please let me know why the page was deleted and how I can edit it better so it does not come off as an advertisement and will stay on Wikipedia.org. Any information would be very helpful. Thank you for your time and help.

Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatieHan428 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article So-Gnar was deleted as it was promotional in nature. To have an article in Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that the project meets the criteria for inclusion. For the notability guidelines, see here for the general guidelines and here for the guidelines for organisations. The main criteria is that there should be significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the organisation. That means that press releases, the organisation's own website, etc, cannot be used for this. I did have a look for sources, but I could not find ones which were both independent and reliable, or which provided significant coverage. If you can provide some references along those lines, then we can see where we can go from there.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DR
I've apologized for misunderstanding you at the DR of Ideas People Media. I should have known better, for I did realize at the time that your comment in the way I (mis)understood it was out of character for someone who gives advice as carefully as you do.  DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! I saw it, but the section is too large for me to respond on my mobile phone! I understand why you wrote what you wrote, someone looking at the discussion on this page could get that impression! Thanks for apologising though, it is appreciated --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:06, 8 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)

Flight Options
Hello,

You deleted my "Flight Options" page and I would like to request it be re-instated. Flight Options notability is that it was the first company in the history of Fractional Aircraft to offer it's customers shares of previously owned aircraft, as opposed to NetJets who only offered new aircraft. It is significant within the aviation industry, and certainly within the fractional aircraft industry. Additionally, they are the second largest provider of fractional aircraft in the country and frequently cited as experts in the fractional aviation industry in news reports and stories. If Flight Options is deemed not worthy of a page, then so too should be Netjets, Citation Air, Flexjet and any other company page in the industry.

Thank you

Jeff Scheid Scheidja (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff, thanks for contacting me. I see that the article has been deleted a total of four times (twice as Flight options and twice as Flight Options). The reasons for the deletions (which date from April) are 1 x copyright infringement; 1 x advertising-like article; twice that no claim to notability was made.
 * The existence of other articles (or non-existance) does not necessarily have any no bearing on the existance of this article. However, looking at those other articles, Netjets has references from a couple of books and news media; Citation Air does not appear to have an article, and I would argue that Flexjet should be mentioned in the main Bombardier Aerospace article, as there are not currently references - but that mention of it is perfectly valid.
 * It is interesting that the Bloomberg article about Flight options which was published yesterday (which would not be considered as a suitable source in its own right, as it's a "standard announcement" based on a press release) mentions the loan being to buy 'new' jets, and makes no mention about their fleet being previously-owned (it does mention the "second largest in the US" though). The company's website page Our Fleet makes no mention of the fleet being previously-owned. All the other coverage I can find are press releases (or obviously based on press releases), and yet none of those mention the "previously-owned" aspect. As such, I do not see that the company currently meets the General Notability Guidelines (and specifically the guidelines for businesses), and so even if it was to be restored, I would feel the need to nominate it for deletion at articles for deletion.
 * I note that you are the SEO/SEM Manager of the company, and so you have a clear conflict of interest, and this is another reason why you would appear to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.
 * Is there significant coverage of the company at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the company (i.e. not your website, not your press releases, not minor coverage such as a single-sentence mention) that you could point me to? As I say, all the coverage I could find was either press releases, or obviously based on press releases, and so not independent of the company. If you can provide some links to suitable coverage, we can go from there.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I should explain that if the article was nominated for deletion at "Articles for deletion", this would result in a 7-day discussion with the result being made according to the consensus - while by no means a certainty that the article would be deleted, if no significant coverage at multiple reliable independent sources could be found, it is almost certain to be a 'delete' consensus. I thought I should explain that, as what I wrote above could imply that if I nominated it then it would 100% definitely be deleted, whereas it is not 100%, as someone else might find the coverage which is required and which I missed for some reason. --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 10:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi Steve, Thank you for your post. Please note that I never made any edits of any kind to the Corero page as I adhere to guidelines. Again, please go back and check and you will see this to be the case. As well, please review the posts I made to Andrew. I solicited advice and I stated clearly that the company had mistakenly made those posts out of lack of knowledge of wiki guidelines -- I was unaware as I was in the process of joining the company - and that once they knew they stopped. Additionally, please note that I was uncertain in terms of notability if the third party validation would suffice -- the links I listed on Andrew's talk back page -- and asked for his input. Per your post, I was part of the discussion but made no alterations to the page because of the conflict of interest and because of the wiki guidelines which I respect. Please go back and review the page to see that this is the case. Looking forward to hearing from you. Kind regards. 75.244.32.126 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Victor is not an employee of Corero. We use another PR firm -- as you will see on the website. I have used in the past his services for Twitter and to post releases and asked for his advise on this matter within the framework of wiki guidelines. You will note -- I am now looking at the additions -- that there is nothing subjective or editoria. As well, I understand that Wiki is understandably concerned with providing factual, reliable information. If the company meets the notability guidelines and can objectively show this -- and again, we adhered to the guidelines post the initial infraction -- than would the deletion be unwarranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.244.32.126 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for contacting me (although I note that you did so while signed out - you might want to sign in in the future - in this case, I know who you are because of the recentness of my communication with you on this subject!)
 * As I thought I had made clear in my message to you, I am aware of the fact that you have not edited the article under your username - I saw the user name, and found the link to the company, so I thought I'd give you a "heads up" about the conflict of interest guidelines, for future reference.
 * Regarding Victor, again a quick search showed that he has issued press releases for the company and on those PRs he is listed as the media/press contact. Although he is not an employee of the company itself (owning as he does his own PR company), he was certainly employed in the capacity of PR contact as recently as yesterday - so I assume that you have stopped using his firm in the last 24 hours - however, at the time of my statements, what I said was accurate. He clearly has a potential conflict of interest. I have not said that he has edited in a way that is incompatible with Wikipedia, I merely point out that there is the potential to do so.
 * The sources provided so far by both yourself and Victor do not meet the general notability guidelines criteria of multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the company. Press releases (or copy which is obviously based on press releases) are not independent; blogs are generally not considered reliable sources; quotes from company sources are not independent, etc. Even the one source which has been provided which has come closest to meeting the requirements is still seemingly based on a press release.
 * If significant coverage of the company could be provided from multiple reliable sources - which are independent of the company - could be found, that meet the notability guidelines for companies and the general notability guidelines, then the article could be kept. However, as I said, none of the sources provided by yourself and Victor would appear to meet the criteria, and I could find nothing suitable in my searches.
 * Obviously, in your position in the company, you are going to consider your company notable - however, that does not mean that it is notable as Wikipedia defines notability.
 * You need to consider what your purpose in wanting an article is.
 * Is it to make your company appear more important?
 * Is it to impress current and potential clients?
 * Is it to allow people to find out about you with the intention of contacting you to do business with you?
 * If your answer to any of those questions is yes, then your motives for wanting an article on Wikipedia are not the same as Wikipedia's criteria for including articles.
 * If, however, you truly believe that you are notable, and that a world-wide encyclopedia would be really missing an important section if an article about your company, then you have the correct motive - however, you need to ask yourself a further question: would Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta consider that we merit an article? Have you contacted them to ask for your company to have an entry? At the end of the day, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia just like those (and other) printed- and web-encyclopedias. Our purpose is to have entries on truly notable subjects, just like they do.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:10, 15 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)

Oran Wendle Eagleson
I do not think this should be a speedy deletion. It asserts he was a professor at a significant college, which is sufficient to show some degree of importance. In fact, since it says he held a named professorship, he probably meets WP:PROF--the only question would be whether Spellman was an important enough institution for that criterion to apply (I know I have the ability to undelete it myself, but I want to ask you first.)   DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to undelete it, DGG! I was under the impression that he did not hold a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, and so there would be no claim of significance. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given the creator some helpful advice, in particular to use the hangon template. At the time of deletion the article included the fact that this person was "Dean of Instruction at Spelman" which would appear sufficient to avoid a speedy under PROF criteria. At this point they have created a number of articles about academics, several have been raised incorrectly for deletion and we probably could do a much better job helping someone attempting in good faith to create articles about academics (the sort of biographies that are much under represented compared to other categories of BLP). Thanks Fæ (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point! Thanks for contacting me, and I will consider that in the future. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Day One (game)
I do NOT think this should be a speedy deletion. This is a serious game, under the guidance of a serious INCORPORATED Canadian company. There should be no reason why our game should not be allowed on Wikipedia when games like Domain_of_Heroes is allowed and has exactly the same content. The only difference between their wikipedia page and our own is that Domain of Heroes has self written articles posted on gaming online magazines. Rest assured our company is real, our game is taken seriously by our players, staff and employees and we would like a spot on wikipedia to prove how serious we are. What do real companies around here have to do to get a wikipedia page? We have taken your website seriously, used your website in accordance to your regulations and spent hours creating a suitable wikipedia page, only to be deleted and not even allowed to be discussed? DayOneGaming (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To have an article, the game would need to meet the notability guidelines. This includes significant coverage of the game at reliable sources which are independent (so most blogs are out, press releases are out, the developer's own website is out, etc). You say we would like a spot on wikipedia to prove how serious we are - that is not Wikipedia's purpose. We are an encyclopedia, not a "seriousness indicator" (or promotion, as it might be called). Have you contacted Encarta or the online Encyclopedia Britannica asking for them to create an article about you?
 * If you can provide some reliable independent sources with significant coverage (for example, an article about the game, as opposed to a sentence or two), then we can discuss this further.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

We have. As stated by an article posted in MPOGD.com, at http://mpogd.com/news/?ID=8624. DayOneGaming (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few issues here:
 * You keep saying "we" - Wikipedia accounts are for the sole use of one person only
 * Your account name seems to be an "official" one representing a company, which is also not allowed
 * The serious incorporated company you mention does not appear to meet the notability criteria for businesses
 * I can see no evidence that MPOGD meets the criteria for reliable sources. I can find no pages on their website showing that they fact-check and ensure accuracy of the content on the site. I can find no list of their staff which would allow me to gauge whether they were reliable authors, or what editorial oversight there is at the sight. There is no MPOGD or Multiplayer Online Games Directory article (suitably referenced) which would indicate that it is a notable site
 * The MPOGD item indicates that Day One opened just over 3 weeks ago - very few new games that young are notable enough for an article (and those that are would generally have been covered by the mainstream press such at the New York Times, Washington Post, etc, etc or notable gaming publications (i.e. with articles on Wikipedia already). I can find no evidence of this for your game. It would also not qualify as significant coverage or independent coverage, as they are obviously quoting from your own publicity material - so in effect a press release - which is not independent!
 * All in all, I see no evidence of the notability of the company or the game - that single reference does not meet our reliability criteria for sources (also, the notability criteria says that there should be multiple reliable independent sources with signicant, not just one).
 * As your user name is in violation of the user name policy, I will be blocking your account from editing, but I will be leaving instructions on your talk page about how you can appeal this.
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 03:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you! Normally, I have no strong opinions of my own, so I can impartially judge the consensus. In this case, I had formed a strong opinion of my own, and so if I had closed it as 'keep' then I would have felt that was the incorrect decision, if I had closed it as 'delete' then it might have been because I was influenced by my own thoughts, if I had closed as 'no consensus' then again, I would not have felt that was the correct decision about the article! As such, I could not close it impartially! However, I do appreciate the beer :D  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why you deserve a beer. I disagree with your !vote, but I appreciate your honesty and openness. All the best, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD Closure
Re Articles for deletion/Troop 41, it looks like you missed the article that was co-nominated with it. Frank &#124;  talk  00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did indeed (the downside of using an automated script!). I have now sorted it out. Thanks for letting me know  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm....are you sure you think the song's article meets criteria, and that the consensus reflected that? Frank  &#124;  talk  00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops... again, you are right! I'll correct it as "merge". I think I need an hour or so's break!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would keep far longer than an hour :-) Thanks... Frank  &#124;  talk  01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All done correctly this time (I hope!)... Kitchen Nightmares here I come!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Julissamedina
why was my page deleted i simply posted my bio along with ways to find me on the web if desired by the reader is that not the point ????????? i would like my page to be put back.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julissamedina (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I deleted the page because it appeared to be promotional. Wikipedia is not a social networking site (if you want people to contact you, then they can email you through Wikipedia if you have an email address registered in 'my preferences'). Talking in the 3rd person ("J.Medina is ...") is unusual when talking about yourself. Also, the amount of detail is excessive - a simple "I am a radio personality in NYC" would be sufficient for what other editors might want to know!
 * The language used was very promotional ("apart of the world famous Radio Station...", "and the rest is history...", "Fast Forward to today ...", "You can also catch J. rocking a crowd...", etc) which was the main reason why it appeared to be promotional - indeed, if it was an article, it would have been deleted for exactly the same reason.
 * User pages on Wikipedia do not exist to promote yourself and give a resume! For details of your user page's purpose, see User pages - which specifically states that Excessive unrelated content shouldn't be there, nor should Extensive self-promotional material or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia - I trust this answers your question above "is that not the point"! Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 03:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for replying but whats the difference from what i included and the many "artist" "band" "group" bios i find on here ? if i remove all reference of outside contacts will that be acceptable? my bio is my bio the wording is correct the radio station is world famous its a fact! so i cant state facts ? im just confused by all these guidelines ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julissamedina (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on her 's talk page. --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 16:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the check in
The category structure makes no sense to me. I'll find a category..enter it in the proper form in an article. And it comes up red.

In working with the site over the last week, it seems to go out of its way to make things very difficult

Radioray1025 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Categories coming up red is perfectly normal for new categories, especially during previews. I couldn't see where you added a category to an article when I glanced over your contributions, so I'm not sure which article/category you are referring to, so I can't advise you further.
 * Things may seem to be difficult to do sometimes, but that is a result of the powerful features of the wiki software and markup. It could be a lot simpler, but then we'd lose the ability to do a lot of things in wiki!
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:18, 21 July 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) 13:56, 22 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)

Terrible close at AfD
I usually let it go, but I just wanted to let you know that your close at AfD on Lenin's Hanging Order (an article previously deleted in 2010) as "Keep" was absolutely not sustained by the debate showing. Bad call. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I am about to go to work, I do not have the time to write a proper response, so I'll do that either tonight, tomorrow night or on Saturday when I'm off work.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, having had time to look at it:
 * You may not agree with the closure (as someone who wanted it deleted), but that does not make it a "terrible close" - that is close to a personal attack!
 * Yes, it was previously deleted - but that deletion was also overturned at Deletion Review - and the previous AfD had resulted in a 'keep'. As such using the argument 'it was deleted before' is not sufficient to show that the closure was incorrect.
 * The arguments were as follows:
 * For deletion:
 * No historical significance (i.e. lacks notability) and lack of reliable sourcing with significant coverage
 * (Nominator)
 * Article/title is POV violation
 * (you!)
 * Against deletion:
 * Meets notability with suitable sources:
 * ("Biophys")
 * (suggested possibly renaming)
 * (no problem if renamed)
 * All the editors listed above are well established ones with thousands or tens-of-thousands of edits over a period of time ranging from a year to 5 years (apart from XXPowerMexicoXx who has 65 edits over the last 8 months) - so none of them were discounted as SPAs. The consensus was clearly saying that the nomination reason for not agreed with, and apart from the two POV comments, no one else thought that was an issue, despite the AfD being listed for an extra week.
 * If you feel that the closure was completely at odds with the discussion, please feel free to take this to Deletion review, mentioning this discussion. I do not feel that the closure was incorrect, and a long way from being a "terrible close" - unless your definition of "terrible" is where it is not what you wanted!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (no problem if renamed)
 * All the editors listed above are well established ones with thousands or tens-of-thousands of edits over a period of time ranging from a year to 5 years (apart from XXPowerMexicoXx who has 65 edits over the last 8 months) - so none of them were discounted as SPAs. The consensus was clearly saying that the nomination reason for not agreed with, and apart from the two POV comments, no one else thought that was an issue, despite the AfD being listed for an extra week.
 * If you feel that the closure was completely at odds with the discussion, please feel free to take this to Deletion review, mentioning this discussion. I do not feel that the closure was incorrect, and a long way from being a "terrible close" - unless your definition of "terrible" is where it is not what you wanted!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Calvin Medlock
Hi Phantomsteve. I am inquiring regarding your decision to close WP:Articles for deletion/Calvin Medlock as "Keep". As your closing did not provide a rationale of how the participants' arguments were weighted, I am uncertain why the consensus was considered keep when Alex and myself did not see evidence of GNG being met. Moreover, a legitimate concern was raised that GNG expects that multiple sources of significant—not routine—coverage exists, and the discussion to-date only cited a general number of 500 Google hits based on a general search and did not cite specific examples despite multiple requests to demonstrate the non-routine coverage. While there were more !votes to keep, I believe that the arguments simply cited the Google hits without addressing the concerns of routine coverage. Can you discuss your decision to "Keep"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bagumba, thanks for contacting me! While you are quite correct that yourself and Alex did not consider GNG to have been met (Muboshgu's deletion being based on another criteria entirely), the consensus appeared to be basically with Epeefleche. Now, while it was initially based on what appears to be a GHit count almost, Epeefleche's clarification of his viewpoint ("You misread what I wrote. I did not refer only to how many articles mention him. Rather, I referred to "his personal coverage in the 500 articles". Some of course are passing in nature. Others are not. As I wrote above, "his personal coverage in the 500 articles, in aggregate, convince me that he passes GNG, coupled with the other aspects of his career that are delineated in them, including his performance and awards."). While understanding your viewpoint, I felt that there was a consensus in favour of keeping the article.
 * To be honest, it would have been nice if Epeefleche had provided examples that clearly demonstrated that there was indepth coverage of Medlock, but the lack of that does not demonstrate definitively that such coverage does not exist. If I was to be pedantic (perish the thought!), I'd point out that Alex himself said "If you notice the articles that appear with his name in the Google News Archive, you will see that the vast majority of them fall under WP:ROUTINE .... It should also be noted that a large number of the articles mention Medlock only in passing" - which seems to imply that some of them do not fall under ROUTINE or mention him in passing!
 * If I was to be you (i.e. not agreeing with the closure), I'd probably ask Epeefleche (and other 'keep's) to find some significant, non-ROUTINE coverage and add those to the article - and say that if that had not been done in a reasonable amount of time (say, 4 weeks) then another AfD would be opened.
 * The argument was basically "there is significant coverage" vs "there is not" - and the "there is significant coverage" was the consensus here.
 * I trust this explains my judging of the consensus, even though I understand that you disagree with the result. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I do appreciate the challenges you face in closing a discussion.  I'd have been more comfortable with the outcome if the significant coverage sources were cited, and it became an obvious keep or at worst I can look at them and agree to disagree.  Pedantic interpretation of Alex's comments aside, what circumstances might have hypothetically prompted a relisting or a "no consensus"?  While I know I could be told to AGF and assume that significant sources were identified when GNG was cited by the participants, one could also argue that this was in fact a vote (and not a !vote) and legitimate concerns are still outstanding.  And while I could ask for sources by 4 weeks, couldn't a subsequent AfD come back with "there is no deadline", or "keep as before" argument that was often cited in a similiar AfD with non-ROUTINE concerns, Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination). Thanks in advance for the feedback. —Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I'm about to go to work, I'll respond when I get home tonight, tomorrow night or Saturday (when I'm off work!). Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not consider relisting it, as it did not appear to meet the conditions listed at WP:RELIST - both sides used policy-based arguments, the disagreement was over whether the coverage was significant or not! To have closed it as no concensus, I would have needed to see another person who agreed with your stance (Muboshgu's being a different criteria for deleting, and from what I could see, it was effectively countered by the 'keep' contingent) - but as I see it, the arguments on both sides were very close but the 'keeps' just outweighed the 'deletes' - I didn't see it as quite close enough for a "no-consensus" closure (although I would understand an admin closing it as such, as I feel that it is within the realm of admin-discretion).
 * As to giving a reasonable time for significant coverage sources to be added to the article, if I saw an article re-listed after time had been given for such improvement (and let's face it, that is the main issue in the discussion), I would be inclined towards the article being deleted. Yes, people may say "keep as before", but that's always the risk with re-listed a previously kept article.
 * If you wish to take this to Deletion review, please feel free to do so - and mention this discussion. Also let me know!
 * If you take the article to AfD again in the future, let me know - I'd be interested in seeing the discussion, and may well take part myself! Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a similar DRV that I started that you can feel free to comment on. I don't plan on taking this one to DRV as I don't think I will gain any different consensus.  I also doubt if I will take this to another AfD, as more IMO routine coverage has been added, but its always hard to convince others of lack of significant coverage when the article contains many citations, routine or not.
 * You are right, a relist would have been inappropriate after I reread the guideline. I guess I would have wished for a delete based on a rough consensus and poor demonstration of non-routine sources, but would have settled for a no consensus with IMO more emphasis on the strength of discussion in the !votes and less on the actual number votes.  But I can also understand and respect your reasoning.  Thanks for your time and patience. —Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NewVillager
You speedy deleted this page 1 minute after I declined speedy deletion in favour of AfD (which I had tagged the article with and was in the process of writing the nomination statement). The grounds for declining the speedy deletion were that a significant part of the article is about an art installation, which is a topic that is not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. I ask that you undelete the article therefore.

The rationale at AfD I was about to use was "Nominated for A7 speedy deletion by, but a significant part of this article is about an art installation, which are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion (and no others apply). I don't think the subject is notable, but it requires discussion to determine this."

Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! I read that it is "a band and...", and concluded that it met the A7 criteria (or it could possibly have met the criteria as a group or organisation). However, I am happy to restore for AfD purposes!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kichloo band
Doh. You're right: sorry. Gurt Posh (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'm sure that in 30 mins (or whatever it is) it'll look the same, and so can be deleted, but just on the offchance that the user does add some useful content, it's worth waiting an hour from initial creation! Mind you, the editor may still need to request a name change, but that's a different issue!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

re "I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday"
Well, maybe. The page was created as a joke (see the edit summary of the page creation, for instance) and while we don't have a CSD criteria for "joke" it's reasonable to treat trollery as "tests" ("A page created to test... Wikipedia functions"), in this case to test the deletion process itself. It could reasonably have been nominated as "vandalism", or as a "hoax", or in this case (and if you wanted to take it seriously) as an attack page. So that's four criteria right there. But it's not really exactly any of these things, so....

I don't know. We used to have BJAODN, but since that's not allowed anymore, there's no real fun in running these through AfD, so they should probably just be hoovered up. But whatever. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should exist as a stand-alone article - hence the PROD - but as a well-publicised event (I'm in the UK but knew about it courtesy of the Daily Show) I didn't see it as a joke article despite the summary. If the PROD is contested, I'll happily take it to AfD as I believe it should be mentioned in the main article but not have a stand-alone article --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)