User talk:Phil Bridger/July 2010 – September 2010

Treaty of Mandasor
I have just prodded the contributor for the second time, so hopefully we can get the data to enable a copy to wikisource. I would say that a week is sufficient and that after that you can carry out your deed. Thx. billinghurst  sDrewth  14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvaging
Hi Phil. I'm with you on many of your keeps on here and work you do saving valid articles from deletion but in the case of Deon Taylor the shameless self promotion is evident and shouldn't have been saved from speedy in my view. Articles still require verification and none of thouse sources given provide anything, In fact the imdb link is dead. Now it means a little time wasting is needed to delete this article through an AFD when time would be better spent saving valid articles.... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Zaman Group of Industries
Just saw that. I seemed to have a mental block with WP:PROD yesterday, it wasn't the only daft prod thing I did. I don't think I'm normally that daft. TFOWR 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that prod didn't just happen by magic. It was originally a speedy deletion because of the many issues with the article. TFOWR graciously decided to change from speedy delete to prod on the understanding that the article contributor (who self identified as an employee of Zaman) would find information that they said was soon to exist.
 * The prod notice says If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging  the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page.
 * Since you didn't explain why you object to the deletion (merely suggested that some other people might object) and you haven't improved the article and do not intend to, I am undoing your removal of the prod. I would note that you have made no contribution to the discussion at all, and attempted no discussion with TFOWR on the matter, which leaves me rather concerned that we have an editor displaying such a lack of basic attention to civility, consensus building and encyclopedic accuracy. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but the point is that WP:PROD shouldn't be used where the deletion is contested, which it clearly was here (albeit we're all ever so slightly sceptical as to the editor actually providing sources, but that really isn't the point). If I'd been smart I'd have deleted it as a copyvio and moved on, instead of fixing it up - the history should have shown me that there was one editor with a COI spamming. Regardless, the was inappropriate. TFOWR 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Phil Bridger provided an explanation in their edit summary: "The talk page discussion makes it clear that deletion is contested, so this is not a suitable candidate for WP:PROD". That's good enough for me ;-) TFOWR 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the policy on what makes an objection - particularly the paragraph that states:
 * If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith.
 * → AA (talk) — 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks TFOWR and AA, for replying to Weakopedia. You said pretty much what I would have said, but more eloquently. Weakopedia, you seem to be concerned about consensus-building, so why not use the consensus-based procedure (WP:AFD) if you think that this article should be deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, but thanks
Your summary on this stung, but it made me think, so thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert Cuny
Can you show me where it cites sources? I can see a bibliography, but that's not the same at all. Etrigan (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at what's in parentheses in the article - each one of those is a citation to a book listed in the bibliography with a page number, in the Harvard style. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's citing work that he wrote, not anything that is reliable, are secondary sources, or that talks about him - which is what is required by WP:NOTABILITY. So I still don't see why you removed the PROD when the article is completely unverifiable at WP policy standards? Etrigan (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's citing works by Émile Benveniste and Edmond Faral. Why don't you think that they are reliable, or that they talk about the subject, especially when one of them even mentions Cuny in its title? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because only one is WP:RELIABLE - the Benveniste - and that only backs who he was and what he did, not the essential part - why he was notable. The second is in French (therefore also has WP:NONENG problems) and as far as I can tell in my limited French, is an obituary. Those are not a decent secondary source as far as I'm aware. While he may meet one of the notability criteria in WP:PROF, I can't see from the article which one, or sufficient citing to make a notability assertion WP:VERIFIABLE. Am I wrong? Etrigan (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I really must ask you to read things properly and think things through before trying to argue a point. First, you say that there are no citations despite obvious evidence to the contrary, then you say that the citations are to the subject's own work when the names in the citations are obviously not that of the subject, and now you are arguing on the basis of a misreading of WP:NONENG and a made-up claim that a source published by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres is somehow unreliable because it is an obituary. I don't mean to be nasty, but I simply don't have the time or the patience to deal with every petty-fogging objection that you come up with. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Origina research on TMKOC
Again,Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah is a victim of original research.Can you please restore it back to neutral version and request for full protection?

 Coercorash Talk Contr. 12:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

June Martino
You argued persuasively to keep this article; could you take a whack at putting it into proper form? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the prospect doesn't particularly appeal to me, as the history of McDonald's isn't one of my major interests, but I'll see if I can improve it a bit in the next week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Genesis Transport
An article that you have been involved in editing, Genesis Transport, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

About Maharajah Sir Goday Narayana Gajapathi Rao
Heya Phil,

Yep, the Speedy tag was a mistake. I've made a few tidies, but the article still needs a whole lotta tidying. Are you still interested in working on it?

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Emine Sultan
Why delete the item? Then, all Ottoman princesses will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate this for deletion - I only restored the template that tells readers that deletion is being discussed, and which you removed against the instructions in the template. The discussion about whether this should be deleted is at Articles for deletion/Emine Sultan. Please comment there if you wish to contest deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain cuisine
HI!; Two patrollers supported the tag. The article, in my  third look,the article is still  little more than a dictinary  dfinition and needs at  least  a full  paragraph telling  us a bit  more what  to  expect  from Rocky Mountain cuisine. if you are an expert on it perhaps you  could help  expand the article.--Kudpung (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not an expert, and had no knowledge of Rocky Mountain cuisine before today, but it only took me a few seconds to perform the basic searches necessary to see that this is a notable topic so is not deletion fodder. I suggest that you do such searches in the future before nominating articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edward Dick
An article that you have been involved in editing, Edward Dick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sources
Hi there. Thanks very much for the sources which you provided for this article. Before prodding the article I asked the article creator to provide some sources, but apparently he decided to ignore my message. The article seems good now with the new sources. How exactly did you find these sources? I tried looking for some myself, but all I found were blogspots and other unreliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I used a Google News archive search. This is usually much better than a plain web search because most of the hits returned are reliable sources rather than blogs, download sites etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Meanwhile, I've removed unsourced information from the article (e.g. having studied cinematography in Russia, starting his own record label, being crowned "high chief" etc.). An IP editor seems adamant in having this unsourced info in the article . I've not been able to find sources which back up these claims. Maybe you could? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lu-Yu School
sorry i dont know how to send email on wiki so i will place here, you can delete this message, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu-Yu_Tea_Culture_Institute, they want to delete it, but i think it should not be deleted, you once looked at the tenfu tea college article too, thanks anyway. icetea (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bohaterów Monte Cassino Street
I've declined the prod on this -- I think your improvements are already sufficient to meet the concerns raised, but sourcing would of course be useful! Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Celia Holman Lee
Although as the debate stands there is a consensus to delete, the article was completely rewritten yesterday. I have therefore relisted it, and invite you to revisit it and consider whether you wish to change your !vote. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything But Straight
It looks like you are an Admin. I don't think that the pejorative you used sets a good example for newer editors such as myself. It also looks like you're an inclusionist from your edit history: that's great. For my part I think unverifiable article that can't be improved should be deleted: I don't think I should be criticized for my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Lionel (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rock and alternative music in Iran
About Iranian Rock articel, that's how the article was before, but someone brought back the heavy metal article which is a bad article and and merged it to Iranian Rock, that's Y I tried to delete it, any way Its now ok, thanks. I' going to write a good article about heavy metal in Iran later. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Obama Anak Menteng
Please see my comments at the AFD and visit my rewrite of the article as currently held at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Thank you, -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now in main space
Obama Anak Menteng (film) is the better and more easily sourced of the two, far less likely to ever be sent to AFD, and a merge/redirect to the newer article will preserve the contribution histories of the original artcle.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very mutch for your contribution
You have survived the Anabell López article.You 've find the reference on the INTERNET.I cropped this information from a musical womans's cuban dictionary that are not very knowed ,even in my country.Now I think it don't have more big problems.Anabell is a great cuban singer on her style(popular, traditional) and I think is a good contribution for wiki.Thank you aggain. Sincerely Vicond (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manoj Jha
An article that you have been involved in editing, Manoj Jha, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --me_and (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Contest deletion" in BLPPROD edit summaries
Thank you for supplying references to the many articles that you do, but I don't think "contest deletion" is the correct edit summary to use when adding refs and removing BLPPRODs. BLPPROD is not a contestable deletion - it's a black and white rule that ignores the normal deletion arguments of notability or similar, and simply wants a ref. "Supply reference to remove BLPPROD" would be a better edit summary. When I've tagged articles with BLPPROD, I don't necessarily want them deleted, nor do I want people like you or DGG to go digging for them - I want the article originator to do their job properly and supply a reference. I would love to see "flagged revisions"/incubator style of thing to come into play on EVERY SINGLE new article and simply hold them in a holding yard out of mainspace and google's reach until someone checks that they have a ref. That way BLPPROD would be not required at all. The-Pope (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent deprods
I would appreciate if you would stop stalking my contributions for PRODs to contest, or at least make an endeavour to improve articles when you dePROD them — if I PROD something for lack of references, the least you could do is reference it a little. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you would stop making unfounded accusations of stalking. I regularly scan through the list of proposed deletions and contest those which don't meet the relevant criteria, without even looking at who PRODded them. Could you please identify which article(s) you are talking about? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only one I could find was 1999–2000 Sunderland A.F.C. season, which is probably a bad example because it's getting snow-kept at AFD. But there were several that I found when reviewing articles I PRODded over the past few months. I'll take your word that it's not me in particular (and sorry for the unfounded accusation), but it's frustrating for me when people contest PRODs on the notion that an article can be improved and then several months later, it's still there and still rubbish. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if you were to take the trouble to "stalk" me, and look at my contribution history, you would see that when I contest a PROD tag I always either improve the article or explain in my edit summary why the tag is inappropriate. That applies whether the tagger is new to Wikipedia, an experienced administrator such as yourself or Jimbo Wales himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inno delle Marche
You deleted the prod I had placed on Inno delle Marche, with the reason stated as "contest strange deletion proposal". My reason on the prod was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG". I do not understand what is so strange about my proposal. Click23 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider it very strange that anyone would think that an official anthem of a region is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just by being "an official anthem of a region" does not make it notable. I think the info would be suited in Marche than an article on its own.  Click23 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for giving the Florence House article a chance. I appreciate you helping to make it better. Feetplanted (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My revised signature
Phil,

Here is my revised signature: D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gage Clarke "Speed Deletion"
Phil, I noticed that you made a note in the History section that you'd like to contest the Speedy Deletion of character actor Gage Clarke, who had dozens of roles in early television series. If you have time, could you leave a comment on the Discussion page regarding this? The article plainly should exist but it'll apparently be deleted. MightyArchangel (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On hamlets...
on an editor creating stubs. If he were simply creating stubs that wouldn't be an issue - I've declined speedies on plenty of stubs this editor has created. The problem is that in some case the editor subsequently finds out that the places don't exist, or are duplicates of existing articles. He then seems unable to tag them for CSD, so creates long lists of articles he's created but no longer "needs" and would like deleted. The lists aren't necessarily correct, either (hence me declining to delete - the last time I worked through one of his lists most of the articles were fine, and had been extensively worked on by other editors). If the editor took the time to consider how significant the hamlets were he'd likely discover whether they still exist, whether they're already covered by existing articles, etc. TFOWR 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the hamlets still exist is irrelevant to whether they should be in an encyclopedia. We cover history just as much as current topics. I stand my my comment that your approach is more disruptive to the building of this encyclopedia than Hamish Griffin's. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the hamlets still exist is irrelevant. Indeed. Hence my comment that Hamish's lists are incorrect. It's Hamish requesting that these articles be deleted. I don't very much care whether he stops deciding he dislikes his articles, or he simply stops creating them and leaves the task to someone else. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not stop to think about the reason why this editor has decided to ask for deletion of some of the articles that he has created? It seems pretty obvious that it's a reaction to the hostility that has received from editors such as you ever since he started editing. No wonder we get constant soul-searching about how difficult it is to recruit new editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This was my second interaction with this editor (I think the first was via a helpme tag on his talkpage). I felt I offered encouragement and advice: I pointed out that other editors apparently felt his creations were worthwhile, and I offered pointers to places he could get advice. I don't know why he sought deletion for these articles - possibly you're right and he felt discouraged. I'd hope that I didn't play a part in that, despite declining to delete all but one of his articles. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Help
Dear Phil Bidger, I have created an article, "Imran channa visual artist" it was nominated for deletion, now i have worked on it more and edit it. i need ur help to save my article. because my task is to create articles on pakistani art & artist because there is not enough material on that topic. so every student and art critique need the material n pakistani art and artist. so this is my first article.could u plz help me out to edit my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel
What'cha think? I was able to take the crappy stub that was nominated as this, and turn it into THIS... a decently sourced start class that shows Quintel winning 2 Nicktoons Network Animation Festival awards in 2005 and recieving an Annie Award nomination in 2010. Kinda glad that the redirect was fought over and it ended up at AFD, else I would have never found it to work on. I did good?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)