User talk:RHaworth/2017 Jul 05

Emotional Speech Blocks Deletion Syndrome
[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]

NJFX
Hi - I just got a speedy deletion notice and almost immediately after saw that you deleted the page NJFX. I never got a chance to contest the deletion. Can you explain why you thought it was promotional? In over six years, I've never had an article deleted before, let alone speedy deleted. Wikipedia is weak on info about data centers and cable landing stations. I've been focusing a bit more in this area recently, including updating info on Windstream, Tata Communications and Hibernia Networks. Thanks. Timtempleton (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC) The article and business is called NJFX, and I actually did link to the article in my note above. Thanks for restoring it, although from what I've read it appears that NJFX is more commonly used than the draft name you restored the article to, New Jersey Fiber Exchange. Nonetheless I will discuss on the talk page. Cheers. Timtempleton (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In over six years, you have not learnt to provide a link when you talk about an article. Restored. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I reread the article with a fresh perspective and took out a few sentences that could be considered borderline promotional. I just resubmitted. I'm still hoping the nominating editor can tell me what he thought was promotional, if I didn't already delete it, and give me a chance to discuss before deleting. I'll ping him after this. On a side note, it was this specific article being held up in NPP that led me to this project and the submission I made Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal. What do you think of better triage? It's been years since I proposed an article - I normally just write them directly into namespace. Because of the large NPP backlog, do you think it would be faster going forward to just submit article drafts? I have no idea myself which is faster, but I still have some recent articles awaiting patrol, and one was just patrolled and accepted. &mdash; Timtempleton (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Timtempleton, belated addition. As an experienced user, you don't need to bother with draft space. You know to avoid the newbie pitfalls such as starting a stub in mainspace. The reasons I restored to draft space were: a) in case the original speedy tagger was watching, an AfC tag provides a measure of protection against another speedy and b) restoring to mainspace would imply my wholehearted approval of the article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - appreciate the heads up, and keep up the good work. Timtempleton (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

G13
FYI, I see that you have deleted a large number of drafts as G13 when those drafts were never a part of the AFC project--see e.g. Draft:Rats in Boston, Draft:Pierre-Henri Chaudouard, User:TALOOT HUSSAIN/TALOOT HUSSAIN, Draft:Natalie Majala Waldburger, Draft:Late April 2016 Northern United States tornado outbreak, Draft:Jack Callaghan, Draft:Kamboh, Draft:Indian Interdependence Day, Draft:Mary Dsouza (Sequeira). I don't believe this is permissible -- how long has it been your practice? Is it possible to identify and restore affected drafts? &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your statement here suggesting that you have been doing this for years despite the language of G13 itself. &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The statement is at User_talk:RHaworth/2013_Dec_18 ("I allow G13 even if there is no AfC tag."). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As they say in diplomatic circles, I am still considering my response to your message but in the meantime: a) make your link "here" more specific. Remember that you can create a wikilink to a specific section thus. And b) I have restored Draft:Rats in Boston in case anyone else wants to pick it up. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have no particular affection for Draft:Rats in Boston; it's just the article that prompted me to look into this issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Calliopejen1, are you seriously saying that stale pages must be left indefinitely? What annoys me is the total inconsistency of the situation: if a page has an AfC tag it may be deleted after six months even if it was created by an active user. Omitting the tag somehow protects it magically.


 * "Is it possible to identify and restore affected drafts?" I am very surprised that you ask this question. As an admin you know perfectly well that would be possible. Such an execise would also give an accurate answer to "how long has it been your practice?" The approximate answer is: since 2013 or earlier but with the frequency increasing in the last year or so.


 * I am usually willing to action specific requests for the re-instatement of individual drafts that I have deleted. Such a request will be better received if it is accompanied by a statement that active improvement of the page will be done soon. It was to emphasise this willingness that I restored draft:Rats in Boston. A very significant indicator in this area is the number of such requests that I have so far received: approximately zero. Nobody is interested in this stuff.


 * Some the stuff I have deleted could also be deleted with U5: blatant not web host violations. If a page is patently unsuitable for mainspace then it has no place here. But you are probably going to be pedantic and say that U5 only applies in the user: namespace. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that stale pages must be left indefinitely, but I am saying that they may not be deleted as G13. G13 has never allowed the deletion of non-AFC stale drafts, and semi-recent discussions about this have yielded no consensus to extend it to non-AFC drafts, with plenty of opposition to that extension (see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 58; there may be others). I don't have strong personal views about the what the correct policy is here, but that isn't the relevant question here (the relevant issue is that these deletions were out-of-process according to rules developed by the community as a whole). If you want to change the CSD criteria, the place to do that is WT:CSD. If you want to change the PROD criteria, the place to do that is WT:PROD.

I obviously realize that it is possible to identify these deleted pages by looking through every article you have ever deleted as G13 and seeing if it had an AFC tag, but I'm not sure if there is any realistically feasible way of doing this since they apparently go back years. (E.g. were you working off of certain lists to identify deletion candidates and we could check these lists?)

There should be no issue about whether you are "willing to action specific requests"--these pages never should have been speedy-deleted in the first place. And, as you predicted, I will say that U5 doesn't apply, because it doesn't. You are not the final arbiter of whether a "page is patently unsuitable for mainspace" where the CSD do not apply.

Will you commit to not deleting any more non-AFC drafts as G13 in the future? And will you commit to making an effort to identify and restore pages deleted out of process? If so, how will you go about doing this? &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I also see that you deleted (while this discussion was ongoing) the page User:Amanr123 despite the absence of an AFC tag. I agree that this editor probably was not here for the right reasons, but this page does not qualify under G13 and probably not under U5 either (seems like a plausible user page). You also recently deleted as G13 User:Skhaled3/Enter your new article name here, Draft:Shah Syed Hasnain Baqai, Draft:Anushka Sen, Draft:Kunal Choudhary, and Draft:Shah Syed Hasnain Baqai which do not qualify for G13 or any other CSD as far as I can tell. BTW I also see you deleted Draft:Samuel Ebenezer Entsua-Mensah and Draft:Karstein under G13 when they didn't technically qualify for G13 but I agree they should have been speedied for other reasons. &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Calliopejen1, re yours of Jun 23: user:Amanr123 was a simple mistake - I meant to give web host violation as the deletion reason. As to the others, you also need to reprimand the two people who applied the invalid speedy tags. The fact is that if a page qualifies for speedy deletion, I am not overly fussed about what deletion reason is given.


 * Yes the deletions were done from a list but it is generated in real time from the database. So if a page is deleted, it will no longer appear in the list.


 * "Commit to not deleting any more &hellip;". Reluctantly I agree if only to get you off my back.


 * "Commit to &hellip; identify and restore". Why???. It would serve no purpose whatsoever. Convince me that it would serve some useful purpose. Convince me that the original authors will crawl out of the woodwork in droves and continue editing. Convince that others will find these pages and improve them. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Re the second issue, I am not going to invest more of my time here to "convince [you]" to clean up your own mistakes. The deletions were out-of-process and inconsistent with CSD; in my view ignore-all-rules is worst suited to unilateral deletions. But much of the damage that is caused by speedy deletion may already be done in terms of disillusioned contributors etc. Anyways, I am planning to restore at least the few here that are the least bad, so long as you don't intend to accuse me of wheel-warring. &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Calliopejen1, "disillusioned contributors"! The whole point is that for the stuff I deleted, the editors had become disillusioned or left for other reasons at least twelve months before I did the deletion. It was not I who caused them to become disillusioned.
 * But thank you for you response. I certainly will not accuse you of wheel-warring. As a token of goodwill, I have checked my deletions for 2017 Feb 01 through Feb 15 and restored draft:Marla Stone, draft:Nunu Hurt-Doyle and draft:Kristina Shapran. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Tarak Ghosh notability, or lack thereof
Hi RHaworth, I've just been cleaning up an article - Tarak Ghosh created by a new user User:Arnab sen kol. Apparently Tarak Ghosh is an author, and although he has entries on amazon and good reads for a number of self-published books, I'm struggling to find any reliable indication that he'd be notable enough for the english wikipedia. I've left a note on the page creator's talk to tell him to dig up some solid evidence - my inability to do so, may well be because I'm searching in english... When I went to add a note about the notability, or lack of it to the article's talk page, it came up with a message saying you deleted it earlier today. If that's the case, I'm guessing you probably speedy deleted an earlier version of the article as well? Thanks, AntiVan (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop guessing! Use the tools provided! What does the log say? Really, it is speedy material but since you did not apply a speedy tag, I have moved it to draft:Tarak Ghosh. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the log didn't say anything. He'd created it under a different article name Novelist Tarak Ghosh, and I'd helpfully moved it... Thanks for your help. AntiVan (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Didn't say anything". It told you that I had done the deletion so that you did not need to guess that I had done it. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of User page
On 4 December 2016 you deleted my sandbox, saying "not english". You didn't inform me, just deleted the whole page, hoppa, including the whole history. I saw it before, thought for a while: let it go, but I just saw it again and it still frustrates me. I cant believe such thing can happen on Wikipedia. Please act a bit more constructive in the future. At least inform before acting as you did. -- Pimbrils (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You write as though it were gone for good. All you have to do is ask me for the text. Two states restored to nl:Gebruiker:Pimbrils/Kladblok/Engels. If there is anything else that you really need, just ask. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, G7 does not justify speedy deletion in userspace on the basis of page blanking. Nor is the fact that a page is not in English a valid reason to speedy-delete. &mdash; Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for a Better Utah - 1
Dear Sir: You deleted the page I created. The Alliance for a Better Utah affects Utah policy, law, life, and more. They influence on a national level. There is not much known about them. The wiki was intended to get the information out there. I scoured all sources to find information out on this entity. I am not affiliated. I followed the wikipedia example/template of a similar entity, judicial-watch.org (www.judicial-watch.org and also Judicial Watch). I included the organizational information page linking directly to the source at Utah.gov business entity search/verification. I included news links. I included founder's name and board members names. I do not want to advertise for these people and organization. I challenged their claim to fame (is that advertising when you challenge an entity's claim to fame?) I appreciate your twelve years of experience and helping the wikipedia community and the world+ with your voluntary selfless efforts. I want to contribute as well. I endeavored to follow all guidelines. Please help me understand, what in my entry crossed the line from informative to advertising? In this day and age where dark money and purchased for lobbying/special interests can go undetected, information on these lobbyists and special interest groups can be invaluable. The Alliance For A Better Utah needs exposure to the world and to wikipedia. Thank you for your explanation and assistance. Lux-veritas (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Josh Kanter below. If, and only if, you genuinely have no CoI in this organisation, resubmit via AfC. Note that correct capitalisation of the organisation's name will significantly increase your chances of success. Text emailed. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CSB
I saw that you recently deleted this page. I just sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and donated the content. Please advise on next steps to have the page restored. &mdash; Shoffy (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The next steps are simply that you wait until someone with no CoI thinks your school is notable and writes about it here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Though, I'm not clear about your statement regarding COI. Are you inferring my post is a COI? If so, I would be interested to know how this page is presently on Wikipedia and this page is not. Has the page that presently exists gone through the proper channels and donated content? As you can clearly see here that the content of the Wikipedia page and the one I've linked is very similar. Is this a copyright issue? A COI? Please advise. &mdash; Shoffy (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Shoffy, the CoI lies not with the content but with the author. In 2006 you came here to promote your website. Ten years later you come back to promote your organisation. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand the page content isn't the issue but that any contributions I make will be seen through the lens of errors I made over 10 years ago. May I please have the content userfied? &mdash; Shoffy (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Text emailed. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Received. Thank you! Shoffy (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My G5 noms
I nominated an 2 articles and 3 files G5 today. The SPI had a CU which showed no connection. You kindly deleted File:Truck driver 2.jpg and File:Ritesh pandy.jpg which may now need some reconsideration. The article Ritesh Pandey was deleted A7 so his image will be unused even if restored. The G5 deletion rationale may be misleading in future. The article on the movie Truck Driver 2 is unsourced. I'll PROD it. If the PROD succeeds the file will be unused. Thanks, and sorry for the misplaced G5s. &mdash; Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for a Better Utah - 2
Dear Sir, My name is Josh Kanter and I live in Salt Lake City, Utah. I am the founder of an organization called the Alliance for a Better Utah. I recently received a Google alert that a Wikipedia page has been created about our organization. We did not create this page but when I went to find it, it appears to have been deleted by you. I am not much of a Wikipedia user, so I do not know the appropriate protocol but I am hoping that you can share with me either the text of what was originally published, who published it, or why it was deleted. I hope this is enough for you to be able to, and to agree to, respond to me. Thank you for your consideration. Josh Kanter, Jkanter3 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If you had looked but three messages earlier on this page, you would have seen who published it. In a way, your frank declaration of CoI lends credence to the claim of to have no affiliation. You may well know their real identity, if the name does not give you a clue, possibly their handwriting may and I would be very interested to learn your views on whether they are affiliated. As to why it was deleted, the log entry that told you that I had deleted it also told you why. Text emailed. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Messrs: My affiliation is not a secret. My name is Kelly E. James II. I left Canada to move to the States and write, research, investigate, and work to make positive meaningful contributions to the world. I work primarily right now with a group known as Proletariat-Watch that seeks to investigate, uncover and punish corruption. I appreciate Mr. Kanter's work. I want to know more about it. Hence, my research and contribution to Wikipedia by drafting the initial article after I did investigation and citation documentation. Please ask for any further questions. I'm not the worst. I'm learning and trying to improve. Thanks for your guidance. &mdash; Lux-veritas (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Noted. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DJ Jackson
Hello RHaworth. You've deleted my page called DJ Jackson because of copyrights of the text. But it was my own text and own biography. And it wasn't copied from Allmusic. It was taken from my own official website. Is it possible to restore the page DJ Jackson? Best regards, Kerem A. (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks you are notable and writes about you here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Page that encourages misspelling
Hi - Hopefully this is an easy non-drama one for you. I accidentally misspelled Berkeley, California as Berkley, California in an article draft and didn't catch it at first because someone added a redirect for the misspelling, and you can see they're both blue linked. I'd like to delete the redirect page, since if I type Berkley, California in the search box it will ask me if I meant Berkeley, California, and if the redirect is gone the red-link will alert me to fix it. Taken to the extreme, articles could be filled with misspellings that don't show up as such, further propagating bad spelling habits. Here's the page. [] Is there a policy on this? &mdash; Timtempleton (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a policy to ensure future generations can spel corectly :) and, actually, I'd suggest that that's a useful redirect. I swear that Berkeley is one of those words I'm always having to correct myself over!  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It just seems that creating a crutch (the faulty spelling redirect) that has the effect of actually enabling misspellings and incorrect behavior is contrary to the goal of fostering knowledge. Without the prompt of a red-link, I would be unaware of my mistake, and if I was like the ocd "comprised of" vs. "consists of" editor, I could spend my day changing all the Berkeley spellings to the wrong Berkley. Removing the redirect would encourage correct spellings in articles and improve contributing editors' literacy. &mdash; Timtempleton (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Tim, delete Berkley, California? Utterly unthinkable! As Calliopejen1 is drumming into me elsewhere on this page, the letter of the wikilaw must be obeyed absolutely and blindly at all times. Deleting Berkley, California would be a DirtyPo case. But that criterion includes a "recently created" condition and the redirect in question is only 13 years old.
 * Another good reason is that there must be dozens if not hundreds of redirects like this and it would be wrong to single this one out.
 * Feel free to make your proposal at some forum such as the Village Pump but the reply I would give is: it may surprise you to know that there are a lot of people out there who come to Wikipedia just for information and would never think of editing articles. Redirects from typos are provided to help people like that get to the information they want as smoothly as possible. Wikipedia editors are expected to keep their eyes open and notice "redirected from &hellip;" hatnotes. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I see your point about helping users navigate, but there's already a built in tool to help readers entering in the wrong spelling. It's the "Did you mean:" prompt that comes up for searches when there's no direct match. As such, you could argue that the only additional purpose of a redirect page is to forgive poor spelling. And while there may be numerous other redirects, isn't Other stuff exists meant to keep us focused on what we can fix bit by bit? In any case, I'm not really willing to die on the Berkley hill, but instead consoled myself by finding and fixing all the articles that linked to that redirect page. It was a whopping ten! Now, all that's left of our unfortunately Berkely is archived info and sandboxes, and of course the one user talk page - yours - thanks to me. And I'm sure that will be archived one day as well. Cheers. Timtempleton (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't see my point. Having to go via a "did you mean:" prompt is precisely the thing we want to avoid. But stop talking to me - go to the Village Pump and see what response you get. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Teefa in Trouble
Hi! Can you please share the text of Teefa in Trouble, that you have recently deleted? I will try to modify it, and will create page / update wiki after when film's official teaser will release. Thanks! M. Billoo 12:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Text emailed. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Intro and deleted page
Hi Roger, This is Mihai Vilcu, new social media manager at Novozymes. We are represented with a company page at the moment, however, the page for our CEO has not been set up properly and deleted. I understand you are the one I should contact in order to have it reinstated, so we can work with independent editors on adding new content. The page is for Peder Holk Nielsen and has been taken down on August 17th, 2016. Thank you, Mihai Mihainovo (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of it satisfied our established WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  06:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * SwisterTwister, what do you mean?
 * Mihai, the page I deleted started out with "Peder Holk Nielsen er sød" then the author decided he is not a sod and changed it to just "Peder Holk Nielsen". I was impressed with your "work with independent editors" - it shows a better degree of restraint than when Novozymes was edited by an whole string of blatant CoI user names:, , , and.
 * I will strengthen "work with independent editors" to "find an independent editor willing to create the bio". Please read this. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Sedat Sonmez (Businessman)
FYI, this was moved to draft space prior to deletion. I was removing the CSD and inserting the AfC banner when you nuked. The author has made a apparent good faith request to improve the article, and anyway, it's ineligible for A7 in draft space. &mdash; Timothy Joseph Wood  18:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, looking at this page, I'm seeing a lot of not replying at all, or replying in a way that is... a bit abrasive. For future notice, when an NPP reviewer goes to the trouble of moving a page to draft, which takes 1) the review, 2) the author's comment, 3) moving the page, 4) tagging the old redirect, 5) tagging the draft for AfC, and then 6) replying to the author, you know... act like you know your talk page exists. &mdash; Timothy Joseph Wood  00:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I was literally doing that when you deleted it. I had removed it and placed the AfC banner instead, and when I clicked save, I got an error that it had been deleted. Sorry if I wasn't totally clear on that. It was an error of a few seconds, but one that probably could have been resolved if you had been responsive while you were active. The user probably won't ever return, and may not have anyway, but BITE still applies, and when an NPP leaves a note, ADMINACCT probably does too. I understand that you get flooded with deletion comments, but maybe when there's a name you recognize, or a fancy signature that indicates the editor commenting is not a new user, it would be helpful to be responsive. I'm AGF and assuming that when you clicked on it it was still an article and eligible for A7, but page moves can be wonky, and... you know... that's what talk pages are for. &mdash; Timothy Joseph Wood  01:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So why did you not remove the speedy tag when you moved it to draft space? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Be thankful I am bothering to reply - a load of carping over a simple mistake! I agree it was an "edit conflict". &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If RHaworth is giving you the arse over this sort of thing, drop me a note and I'll restore it for you instead. (As for why I popped onto this talk page - CAT:CSD is very big at the moment and I wondered if you were taking a break from it.) &mdash; Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh. Ritchie333, the user has since been blocked as a sock, so it ended up being one of those cases where AGF was unwarranted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do at the time. I'm not harping on a mistake; I assumed it was an honest mistake. There's nothing wrong with that. But an attitude of be thankful I am bothering to reply isn't actually an option.

Just try to be more responsive when NPP swings by is all I'm saying. We put a lot of work into not biting but that kindof has to be a team effort. &mdash; Timothy Joseph Wood  15:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Sedat Sonmez (Businessman)
hello dear admin  deleting an article is very easy you should  help me and guide me to improve that. Sedat Sonmez(Businessman) &mdash; AMIRABBAS3 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey there, wanted to ask about this. Please also see here. I don't see anything that indicates he is actually notable so I am rather confused about the move to mainspace as I see nothing that indicates anything has changed since the other 6 deletions. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  09:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If it gets created again, it should probably be tagged G5, however notable it turns out the subject might be. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the 5th or 6th time it's been created by a sock, already past when we should g5 it :P CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  13:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Meh. Honestly, Chrissymad, my personal criteria for a move to draft space is usually just an apparent good faith request to continue working on the article, even if I think it's unlikely to be notable. Worst case scenario is it gets turned down by AfC a few times (usually an easy two second decline) and eventually goes the way of an abandoned draft. Best case scenario is it ends up being notable and after a lot of work gets published and teaches someone how to edit in the meantime.


 * Anyway, good catch on the socking. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Flit away
Could you please say to me why did you delete, for two times in two days, my article about The International Festival of Literature and Translation (FILIT-Iași)!? Please inform yourself: it is the most prominent festival in Eastern Europe, with such important guests! I really want to mention only three of them, all winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature: Herta Muller, Svetlana Aleksievich and Gao Xingjian. It's incredible: your own lack of culture it's an excuse for deleting an article about such an important cultural manifestation?! I gave you many inline citations, you can watch some videos about the festival on youtube:. You can read also many articles, in the international press, here you find some selected reviews:. I put all of those in the article. So, once again, could you give me an explanation?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldete123 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Lucian, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for those deletions. Could you remove any rights my account has as well? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Abdullah Shaghi
User:Dr. Abdullah Shaghi/Books/By Dr. Abdullah Shaghi, Department of English,Zabid-College of Education,Hodeidah University. Hi, I was about to remove the speedy tag and contest the PROD when you deleted that. Creating user books (consisting of links to relevant articles) in userspace to students seems like a legitimate use. There's precedent for this with the Wikimedia education programs. What are your thoughts? — Guanaco 22:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As PROD tagger: Can you please link the precedent to which you refer? The majority of this user's edits were to his books, and between that and the inappropriate use of talk page for what amounted to self promotion/posting quotes, I'm convinced the user was WP:NOTHERE. Further, in a much more egregious case of the same behavior, the books were nuked and uploader indeffed. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Education program which provides support for educators who want to use Wikipedia as a tool. While I agree he hasn't contributed much directly, I find it counterproductive to outright delete his userspace and make him feel unwelcome. We should instead point him to the education program and try to work with him. The potential for a classroom full of productive editors is worth giving Dr. Saghi a little leeway. — Guanaco 03:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is possible for someone to be making legitimate use of Wikipedia without ever contributing to the "publick" content but I cannot recall seeing such a case. With this user, some of his pages were unambiguous freeloading. For example, this PDF was an exam paper that he had set! But let us hear from the man himself &hellip;
 * Abdullah, assure me that the book pages you created were being actively used and I will gladly restore them. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of you
You know that some peoples have small business. He/She want growth his own businesses because that small not growth.. Because of you interrupt. TomuZ (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Before Roger pops in to say "kindly wait until someone with no WP:COI thinks your organisation is notable and writes about it here", I'll say this : Simply owning a business is no reason to have a Wikipedia article, which explains why we don't and probably won't have an article on Stag Coffee. As our notability guidelines for organisations say : "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is ... No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." If this sounds unfair, well it's at least consistently unfair to hundreds of thousands of people who are in the same position. Also, companies with articles on WP have a hard time controlling any negative information in them - I'm sure Rydon wouldn't be particularly keen to have a Wikipedia article right now as they now have close ties to the Grenfell Tower fire. &mdash; Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorse Ritchie333's comments. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

who you ??
Some people are creating page and you deleted that .. because of you small companies not growth ... Stive A (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You right tommz I agree with u .. Because of that people are small companies not growths .. Stive A (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

District 97
Just a quick head's up, I undid your deletion of this article as I had already declined the speedy nomination, and have changed it to a redirect to Leslie Hunt. I don't know whether that article is suitable for AfD or a redirect itself, and I will have to leave that as an exercise for the reader. &mdash; Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

BoingBoing
Hi, I don't know if you've already seen, but you've been mentioned in a BoingBoing article about deletionists: here, where you were described as a "hemovanadin killer" with "itchy deletion finger[s]". &mdash;  Seagull123  Φ  14:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * and here.[] Interesting comments - not all based on reality, but perception becomes their reality. &mdash; Timtempleton (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * talk:RHaworth/2017 May 18#Looks_like_fame_at_last.2C_RH... old news, boys, old news :)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

ahh, I hadn't seen that &mdash;  Seagull123  Φ   18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem . I only know because I tend to hang out here, in the seedy corner by the bins, on my teabreaks- RHaworth has step over me on his way out to the opera ;)  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  18:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're everywhere, Fortuna, like some teacup-sized jaguar that's always underfoot, shedding on our trouser legs on overturning the plants ;) &mdash; Primefac (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already given my view on BoingBoing's piece from 2017/02/14 here. The piece of 2017/02/16 is similar: cheap journalism trying to create a story when none exists. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Jerome Adams
Hello, RHaworth! You deleted Jerome Adams for A3 27 May 2017. I would recommend that Draft:Jerome Adams be re-evaluated and allowed to become an article. Mr. Adams was just nominated to become the next Surgeon General of the United States. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 20:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Erica Mena
Since you removed the last AFD addition I though that you might like to look at the latest It's probably the same user. (And maybe revdel the IP's later summaries?) Meters (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know why I thought that was an AFD rather than a speedy. Could have dealt with the CSD myself. Anyways, speedy removed, user blocked, summaries rev del'ed. Meters (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Centriciti
Regarding IFCPP International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection. This organization is an educational resource that serves the Smithsonian, National Park Service, and many other recognized cultural institutions worldwide. I'm not sure why you marked it for extra speedy deletion since it's certainly on equal footing to the hundreds of other non-profit membership organizations included in Wikipedia. My impression is that they don't much of a public outreach effort, so I did not easily find many news references to validate it. But I will focus on looking for those next. They are recognized as a peer by similar global organizations such as ASIS. Curious that you deem yourself the sole judge of whether they are noteworthy, but I understand why they might not be top of mind for you personally.

This is not my first Wikipedia submission, but I'm still getting up to speed with the protocols. Presumably I should have sandboxed it first rather than bring it up in mainspace. I might have screwed up the article title by including IFCPP first, I'd like to learn how to correct that if those privileges are available. Please advise and thank you for your attention. &mdash; Centriciti (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The applied policy here is WP:What Wikipedia is not and the article fit within the means that are used to remove contents considered unacceptable here. Also remember that anyone connected to the subject or otherwise similar, is required to see Terms of Use WP:Paid. SwisterTwister   talk  21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With regards to what WP:What Wikipedia is not, I do not see that this article matches against any of those criteria. It was a factual description of a valuable and recognized resource for cultural institutions. I have no affiliation to the organization, but I'm heavily involved in other cultural matters and security, hence my personal interest in including it. Seems to be a relevant topic these days. Centriciti (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sole judge" - ridiculous idea. Even at this stage, you have MrX who spotted it, deemed it non-notable and brought it to my attention. And it is perfectly simple to find other people to judge it. Yes, you did screw up by launching in mainspace without evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Restored to draft:International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection. If it gets accepted, it will have that title and you may create redirect at IFCPP. You could have fixed that by moving the article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the article to draft, as well as for the tips. I will attempt to better substantiate it and submit it for review. Centriciti (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge University Wine Society
Dear Roger, I just saw that you recently deleted the article I created on the Cambridge University Wine Society. I think the article does belong in wikipedia as this society is an official registered society of the University of Cambridge that has been running since 1792 and which have a rich history with a significant number of famous almuni.

Maybe the content or the way it was written did not highlighted the significance of the society. I think that this society organised a number of significant/notable events that have been relayed in the press such as the 350th anniversary of the great diarist, Samuel Pepys and his mention of Chateau Haut Brion (which was the first time someone mention this famous chateau from Bordeaux). Added to that this society is well known in the world of wine and is participating in events which are often relayed in the press notably for the Varsity blind wine tasting match but also its participation to the left bank Bordeaux cup and other wine related events. I hope this message convinced you that this article is indeed useful. Thank you for your time, Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugop777 (talk • contribs)


 * I am an admin, I can see the text of deleted articles so you don't need to quote chunks here. Worse, ugly naked URLs should have been clothed and put in the article not posted here. Restored. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Lizardbones/DRAFT/Marziah Karch
Hi, You deleted User:Lizardbones/DRAFT/Marziah Karch as U5. However, that page is a plausible draft article and would not fall under the scope of U5. The user space draft was specifically created as a result of Articles for deletion/Marziah Karch which resulted in userfication. If this draft is to be deleted, it would need to go through MFD. Can you please reconsider the deletion? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks for restoring. Notability is unlikely but outright deletion was not the consensus. Oh well. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder how long it will be before this article gets submitted or deemed non-notable. Restored to draft:Marziah Karch. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Doug DeMuro Jay Leno's Garage.jpg
Hello 'RHaworth, I am curious as to why File:Doug DeMuro Jay Leno's Garage.jpg was speedily deleted from Wikipedia, when in my explanation I described how it had met all of the criteria for remaining. Thank you. -- AirportExpert (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Learn to provide a link when you talk about a page. I am puzzled by the phrase "his YouTube channel's Wikipedia page": if you are planning to create a separate article here about the guy's YouTube channel – forget it. The simple fact is that fair-use images must be used (fairly) in a mainspace article or they qualify for automatick deletion - read this. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

deleted article 'GKR karate'
Dear R. Haworth, I've no other experience of creating Wikipedia pages than this one, which apparently you deleted Gkr karate. Is it really 5 years ago? If I remember rightly, I didn't publish it but kept it private, intending to edit it up to the point where it was worth publishing. I don't think I realized it could be deleted by an editor. Could I revive it, please - unpublished for now - so I can add to it and eventually publish it? Best wishes, Graham (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Learn: a) to provide a wikilink when you talk about a page, b) the difference between "published", ie. in (article) space and "private", ie. in draft: or user: space and c) how to read your own contributions history! I have emailed you the text of Gkr karate which was the one and only contribution from . Unless they have cleaned up their act significantly in the last five years you should include the criticisms by the naughty dog and McDojo - assuming sound references can be provided. (By the way: only admins can delete pages but "private" stuff can certainly be deleted for a variety of reasons. I have deleted a few hundred myself.) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock & Image
Hi RHaworth, Could you also delete File:The door titles.jpg please as this too was uploaded by ZestyLemons, I've saved the image and source so will reupload however IMHO as we delete articles by socks we should also delete images by socks too, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith Ferrazzi
I saw a deletion discussion for Keith Ferrazzi and voted keep after cleaning it up, and the nominator went to the article and peppered it with hatnotes to influence the voting. Is that allowed? I asked him/her to be specific about concerns so they can be discussed and am not getting that.Talk:Keith Ferrazzi TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  17:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your restoration of Danemann
Hi, RHaworth. I'm not sure I understand your deletion/restoration of Danemann. I tagged it for speedy as spam and because the text came from http://www.obriainpianos.com/page_145.html; you deleted it and restored it, twice, with 43 revisions out of the 50 restored the second time (with the comment "revert to non-spam, non-copyvio"). But my problem is that the way it looks now it's still all spammy, and still looks just like http://www.obriainpianos.com/page_145.html to me. Am I missing something? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

Another post (not part of Bishonen's)
Hi, I was making an article for a nonprofit organization (All Our Kin) that I'm interning at this summer. I'm a Yale student, and the organization is almost 20 years old. Can you explain why you deleted the article? I have to write one, as it is an assignment that I need to complete. And I wanted to ensure that I do it correctly this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtan.towles (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another post, also not part of Bishonen's
All wedgies and related pranks You deleted this under G3: Vandalism. This was an original post and not vandalism. I had no chance to give a reason to not delete the post, because it was marked for speedy deletion and speedy it was. The original/official Wedgie page was mostly describing a 'regular'. In my article, I was going to fit all of the wedgie types I am aware of into one page plus pranks administered along with them. I know the original one had related pranks, but I didn't feel like the pranks listed were connected to wedgies. I was going to make a more connected web of pranks usually done with wedgies and *all* wedgie types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitributoranon (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Newsonlinemarketing
You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Peninsula Distribution LTD - speedy deletion
Hello,

You deleted a draft of an article about Peninsula Distribution LTD for Unambiguous copyright infringement, however we have contacted Peninsula Distribution LTD and this issue has been rectified and we have permission to do the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guffickj (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chloe_%2B_Isabel
Can you please restore this draft? It was not unambiguously promotional and the creator had previously requested it's restoration and had disclosed as per our policies. This is the point of AfC draft space. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I endorse an undeletion. Happy to modify it to remove the guff if necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Criteria for speedy deletion and WP:Deletion policy and Terms of Use support removal of violations of WP:Paid ("on any contributions", and disclosure is necessary) since all of the relevant edit summaries or the userpage did not contain the necessary disclosure each time. Because it was so promotional, it was not improved and therefore shows the promotionalism becomes WP:Disruptive. A second chance for the user to improve and without the necessary actions is enough to show the user couldn't make it satisfactory. SwisterTwister   talk  18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the giant disclosure that was on the top of the draft and their username. They hadn't resubmitted it for awhile and if you took issue with the content (that was not in violation of any policy) you should have taken it to MfD. Merely having a conflict of interest or being a disclosed paid editor does not automatically qualify any content they create for G11. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The contents were clear violations of the three policies I first mentioned. Not only single of the day "Drafts are exempt from deletion", in fact they say it applies to all pages, mainspace or not. Even with disclosure or not, it was clearly material unacceptable in Wikipedia's goals, which is therefore enough. As it says at MfD, contents that were controversial, and advertising is not at all controversial to remove, especially when it showed it was hopelessly promotional after 2 times. Also, again please don't ping. Actually, G11 says exactly that: "anything that would need a fundamental rewrite". FWIW, I would only support an undeletion as long as actually use a Foundation policy about it which is what our own policies adopt. Without it, there's no benefit to an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is standard procedure to ping someone when responding on a talk page that is not their own. You seem unable to understand this policy - they disclosed, no where in this policy does it require every edit to disclose when it is very clear to anyone who can read that they are either a paid editor or have a conflict of interest when the notice is plastered to the top of the page and they are the only one editing the draft and their username clearly also identifies their conflict. Since you seem so keen on Wiki-lawyering: You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways. (emphasis mine). CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The main important thing here is that there's no proof anywhere that Drafts are exempt from speedy deletion yet our 3 policies approve of it, therefore inarguable. SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, please show me where I've ever said that "content in draft space is exempt from speedy deletion criteria." The issue here is not that there's no "proof." The issue here is that you've been disruptive, yet again to the point of being WP:POINTY, bordering on casting aspersions and have been proven wrong after making unfounded accusations and attempting to support a bad argument with policy that directly contradicts what you're saying. Since you seem so fond of quoting WP:NOT perhaps give this a once over: WP:bureaucracy. I also believe you're already familiar with WP:COIN. That's where your accusations of UPE/UCOI belong. It's not what G11 is for. Speedy deletion isn't a punishment for breaking the rules, it's meant to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Primefac that the draft should be undeleted. Is it too promotional to become a live article? Yes. Is it unsalvageable and starting over is easier than improving the draft? I don't think so. Thus the CSD don't apply. WP:NOT doesn't apply because it's clearly meant to be an encyclopedia article about a company. I don't see how the deletion policy is violated by the draft, and SwisterTwister hasn't made a case unless it was meant to be a redundant duplicate of the CSD. Huon (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, not all COI articles are spam. Only 90% of them are. If it is from a paid editor, probably 95%. It's more than a little difficult to fairly pull out of the heap the other 5 or 10%, and when the COI is as blatant as this, and the article as bad as this, and it has been turned down or deleted so many times, and the eventual notability so very borderline, it is probably not really worth our while to attempt to rescue what will never be an article.


 * And the person who tagged the article has no need to make a case for deletion, nor should they be blamed for it--the deletion is the responsibility of the deleting administrator.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree it's the responsibility of the deleting administrator, however since ST butted into my request here, that is why the rest was brought up, since he wrongly implied this was a policy violation. I agree that this may not be notable however I do think G11 was a bad deletion and if there was an issue, it should have been taken to MfD, not speedy since A7 also doesn't apply in draft space and I see no harm in a resurrection to see if it can be adequately made as an article. If not, no harm, no foul and the encyclopedia is no worse off for having it as a draft for a couple of months. I, of all people, am not hesitant to tag spam, but as I said, I do not believe the last iteration of this met that criteria. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  05:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder
Hi again, RHaworth. Not sure if you saw my post above? I still have trouble understanding your deletion/restoration of Danemann. It looks to me like the version you restored is as much a copyvio as the one I speedied. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC).