User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Jul 26

Nomination of Thermal cycling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thermal cycling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thermal cycling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark48torpedo (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

B mi fwend?
[]

Grey Nightmare (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Vandalism
Hi. May you consider getting a "Life" which is a metaphorical term and not actually real in case you don't understand. On the subject of vandalism I'm perfectly fine and don't vandalize. So get your facts right. Also if you disagree we can meet up to discuss this, that is if you have some free time in your busy life. Trust me, I'm more powerful than you in the real world. Just because you spend your life on Wikipedia does not make you in any way an expert. Your edit to Brez93 has been removed as it is vandalism. Please do not do this again. &mdash; Wagg4 (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs
[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

Impossible bottles
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the impossible bottle picture that I uploaded. This image is my property, and I am happy for it to be used on Wikipedia. Apologies if I chose the wrong license type - please could you undo this deletion? &mdash; Impossiblebottle (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback - seems like a hugely convoluted process just to get an image on a webpage, but I'll nonetheless follow your steps. Impossiblebottle (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your story. As far as I can tell, the only image available on the web is this 218px wide thumbnail derived from the 2000px wide version you uploaded. My main concern is that you are actually trying to promote your company. My recommendations are: 1) wait until has commented on this message, 2) get yourself a new user name - your present one looks like a corporate name which is forbidden, 3) upload the image to the Commons - the CC/GFDL licences you applied were perfectly correct, 4) just to be on the safe side, apply &#123;{OTRS pending}} to the file_talk: page and confirm permission by e-mail as explained in this page and 5) restrict your spamming to adding the picture to the article! &mdash; RHaworth  15:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just responding here to follow-up. I agree with RHaworth, that's the best process to use.  The OTRS steps allows a means to verify and log the permissions that would authorize Wikipedia to use the copyrighted content.  It is a bit convoluted, but so is copyright law in general - so these processes have developed in order to protect Wikipedia so as to reduce the risk of having a potential copyright violation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance - I'm still confused as to why the image was deleted. When I uploaded it, I selected the option to say that it was my own work, and that I was happy for it to be used. Did I do something wrong? Impossiblebottle (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not do anything particularly wrong. I deleted it because Barek claimed it was a copyright violation. &mdash; RHaworth 21:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And for my part, I had flagged it as a copyright violation because the license on the image did not appear to match the copyright authorizations indicated by the source file.
 * Also, simply stating that you are the owner and that you release an image is not sufficient in itself ... anyone could claim to be the owner of an image. A means of confirming and maintaining a formal log of such releases is needed so that someone can't pretend to be someone else just to attempt to get any image they want released for public use.  That's why a process is documented that helps in this confirmation.  RHawowrth linked to it above, or you can follow this link: Commons:OTRS#If you need to confirm permission. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

'Til I Can Make It on My Own
Can you please undelete 'Til I Can Make It on My Own? The song's by George Jones and Tammy Wynette, so I have no idea how it got deleted via A9 — it also asserted notability as a number-one single on a major chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ETA: PLEASE CHECK THE REVISIONS before you delete. This was just careless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so I goofed. Sorry. But what estimated time of arrival (ETA) are you talking about and what on earth has it got to do with this matter? &mdash; RHaworth 21:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ETA = Edited to add. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr Praveen Jain Kochar
This page should be immediately deleted and user blocked. This fellow is very persistent and wants to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Refer to one of the previous discussion on this fellow. User_talk:Drmies/Archive_13.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Respect Fighting Championship
Why in gods name did you delete Respect Fighting Championships!?! Take a look at Template:MMA organizations. There are about 100 MMA organisations with nearly identical entrys here on wikipedia. Its about their rulesets, fighters, events, history etc... Why did you delete that one? With a better articel then a lot of otthers? Do you have a good reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Baracus (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * talk page stalker comment The reason given was that "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" this suggests that you didn't provide a credible claim of the importance of "Respect Fighting Championship". Your argument that other stuff exists doesn't mean that you should contribute similar articles. My suggestion would be to work on improving the articles on the other MMA organisations until you are familiar with Wikipedia and its policies. Once you feel you have a strong grasp of editing wikipedia, finding sources and establishing notability then look at the article creation tutorial and work on "Respect Fighting Championship" making sure to provide a credible claim of importance and enough good quality sources to establish notability. --Mrmatiko (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the biggest german MMA promotion, this is a credible claim of the importance i guess... And by the way, i didnt create that articel, it was on wikipedia for quite a while and created by a bunch of people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Baracus (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite having been around for over a year, the article had absolutely no links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Indeed it did not even make much assertion of notability - there was no claim to be the biggest German MMA promotion. I suggest you wait until the AfD discussion for Respect Fighting Championship concludes. A "delete" decision means almost certainly that the organisation is not notable enough for this wiki either. A "keep" decision will not by any means guarantee inclusion here. But if it happens, create a userspace draft with decent, English language references and raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cracking Up by Scott Mendham.jpg
I see you have deleted File:Cracking Up by Scott Mendham.jpg. I would be grateful if you could undelete it as the copyright holders have given me permission to use this on Wikipedia under fair-use and have asked to attribute them as the source. I cannot see that this violates Wikipedia's policies so I cannot understand why you have deleted the image. --Hm2k (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that permission has been given. The text in the image is totally contrary to Wikipedia philosophy - all submissions must be editable. As to the image, this can be obtained from various places on the web, reduced to an acceptable size and uploaded with a fair use tag.
 * You have already been told this by and they have uploaded an image. The text is simply not needed. &mdash; RHaworth  08:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD advice
Hi there, I'm wondering if you think an article like this qualifies for any sort of CSD criteria considering the school exemption from G7. Thanks! N o f o  rmation  Talk 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oh my gosh I am a bonehead! Ati Vawal High School. Thanks :) N o f  o  rmation  Talk 09:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An article like what??? &mdash; RHaworth 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why schools are excluded from A7 - possibly some notion of encouraging "the young" because they may become Wikipedia editors. So the one you quote does not qualify for speedy - but you can still prod it! &mdash; RHaworth 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Filmography pages
Why do you say filmography page is not needed? In wiki people have created filmography pages for so many actors. The pages of those three actors i created are respected actors. The filmography appearing in wiki page of the respective actors is incomplete. i request you to not remove filmography page, moreover in thier wiki page - link to the main article - ie. filmography page can be given.Paglakahinka (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the biography article contains a filmography, why do we need a separate article duplicating that information? If the filmography in the article is incomplete &mdash; expand it! &mdash; RHaworth 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan filmography. This actor just has 180 films to his credit and has a wiki page dediacted to his filmography. filmography pages should be seperate as that can reduce the page/space/length of the biogrphy article. i dont understand why should there be an objection in creating the wiki page for filmography of actors. i would have removed the filmography from biography article and would have given link - the same way as doe in amitabh bachchan's biography. eg- for complete filmography - view -main detail complete filmography(with the link) Paglakahinka (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Amitabh Bachchan is a good example of when a separate filmography is appropriate. But were the ones you created the same? In each case, I suggest you expand the filmography within the bio and seek agreement on the talk page before splitting. Eg. expand the filmography in Jeetendra and ask on talk:Jeetendra whether a sep a rate article is appropriate. When are you going to learn to create wikilinks? &mdash; RHaworth 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of IPE Global
HiRHaworth, I see that you have deleted the page on IPE Global created by me.The reason given in short codes in the deletion summary for the deletion being "A7" for articles that do not satisfy notability,("A7"). I request you to kindly undelete this page as this is of valuable importance and is worthy of being a part of wikipedia. I humbly ask you to undelete the page so that i can prove my points with the help of verifiable external links and data. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preethi31 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The stub you submitted was a very long way from becoming an article. If you can actually supply reliable sources, create a userspace draft and then submit it via AfC. &mdash; RHaworth 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Addiction Worldwide
Hi Roger - I was about to create an Addiction Worldwide page when I noticed that you deleted the page back in October 2009 for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Would it be possible to start a new page for it? If you look at User:Shinyred.laura/Addiction Worldwide you can see the layout that I was beginning to put together on the company. From what I can tell the original person who created the Addiction Worldwide page was not citing valid external links so I have begun compiling links to sources such as Creative Match to ensure this is not a problem again. Thanks for your help! Shinyred.laura (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your advice Roger. Is there any way for me to see what the original article looked like? I am really keen to make sure I don't repeat the same mistakes Shinyred.laura (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry - I have now enabled email Shinyred.laura (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you think about a Wikipedia article, may I suggest that you create a company website with some content! At present your draft article is worse than that deleted after the AfD discussion. The external links are totally unimpressive: a press release and confirmation that you belong to the IPA. By all means keep trying. It may help if you find a "sponsor". &mdash; RHaworth 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read this. &mdash; RHaworth 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * E-mailed. Does suggest anyone in your company? She was responsible for the previous effort. &mdash; RHaworth  08:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Woodstock
Please provide the text for the Wikipedia article you deleted: The Center for Photography at Woodstock. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocpw (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read this. But in fact there is no point - the article consisted of one sentence ripped off from here. &mdash; RHaworth 08:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd
Why did you delete The Angry Video Game Nerd (film)? What were the reason? Everything on that page were official and confirmed information :O &mdash; Luka1184 (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I should have changed the deletion reason - I see no previous AfD discussion. However the article was totally lacking in any sort of references to show that the project even exists, still less that it is notable. &mdash; RHaworth 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated responses
I realize I am not keeping up with my watchlist. I want to thank-you for your response to my two pair of eyes question, which I have just now seen (my bad), and of what to do if someone improperly loads a new image on top of another.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GSFCC deletion
Hi, my wiki article I created yesterday became a victim of speedy deletion! The Global Society for Contamination Control (GSFCC) was nominated for deletion because it was said to be G11: advertising/promotion. I did not believe I was promoting because the GSFCC is nonprofit, no one benefits from its promotion, I was simply creating a article bio for the GSFCC because thousands of people worldwide reference the database for clean room guidelines and information. How can I change the page I created so it is not considered "promotion/advertising"? Thanks! Valutek (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply wait until someone with no COI thinks the society is notable and writes about it. If you persist yourself, do you think that links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources might help and would you agree that &lt;big> five times (!) is rather childish? &mdash; RHaworth 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Umbrage
I've just noticed this. I can understand you disagreeing with what I did in userfying this page - I was in two minds myself - but I think it was discourteous to over-ride me without consultation. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My policy is always "be bold". I have no objection to you restoring the page. I hope you noted that I did e-mail the text - I would not have deleted it if the user had no e-mail address. But I shall try and remember to ask you first if similar circumstances ever occur. &mdash; RHaworth 22:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do when AfD removed from page?
Hey there! I wondered, what happens when someone removes an AfD tag from a page before the issue is settled? Just add it back? The page in question is Mechanization (band). I had tagged for COI and NPOV earlier and then sent to AfD this morning, but found the AfD tag had been removed. Thanks for the help. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-instate the AfD tag and moan at the sinner. Both done for you here. If they persist in removing it, report at WP:AIV. &mdash; RHaworth 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will read up on AIV in case it happens again. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 20:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Pass more
Hi, I was told you proposed the deletion of my page, PassmoreLab. It was labelled as "advert." Could you explain why and what I might do to make it ok?Wen-Chia Chang 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenchiac (talk • contribs) Ok. I understand. I'm going to try to find a sponsor but if I'm able to remove the COI would I be able to keep the page up? &mdash; wenchiac 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestions: 1) your COI seems obvious, get yourself a "sponsor", 2) instead of bombarding us with thirty five ugly links, use cite web to give us no more than six links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. &mdash; RHaworth 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The COI is an attribute of you, it cannot be removed! That is why I say: get someone who demonstrably has no COI to endorse the company as notable. But in the mean time, what about my suggestion to find "more than six links &hellip;"? &mdash; RHaworth 00:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unidive Marine and Edwin Tan
Hi, you deleted the wiki articles on "Unidive Marine Services" and Edwin Tan and the stated reason was that the wiki was "irrelevant". How is information on the largest commercial diving outfit in Singapore "irrelevant"? Singapore is the world's second largest port and so its marine services industry is a huge one. The wiki gave information on the largest player in this industry. It might not be relevant to you, but it certainly is relevant to ship owners, port handlers and transportation/logistics companies as well as the oil and gas industry. &mdash; Archer7319 (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous - nobody used the word "irrelevant" to describe these articles. As even you can see clearly from the deletion log, the reasons in both cases were A7 and G11: a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and spammy language. &mdash; RHaworth 09:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Biodole left you a message about your deletion of William Patrick Monahan on Talk:William Patrick Monahan. I deleted the talk page because it was orphaned, but I thought you might want to read the message left to you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Biodole. &mdash; RHaworth 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pass even more
Hi, are you the one who tagged my page PassmoreLab for removal? If so (or even if not) could you give me some suggestions as to what I might do to have the tag removed? What else can I do to make the page more presentable and Wikipedia-worthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenchiac (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask whether I am the one. What does the edit history say? Why do you repeat your other question when I have replied above? &mdash; RHaworth 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. Didn't realize I already contacted you about this.wenchiac 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenchiac (talk • contribs)

Smart thinking?
Hello RHaworth, I wrote the SMART article because I was told by another administrator that — to be included on the list of marketing research firms — a corresponding article on the company would to be needed, which made perfect sense to me (I am a newbie). Although I am a new contributor, every effort was made to follow Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines. The article was also written in light of other articles linked to the list of marketing research firms. Would you please take another look at this article? Thank you for your consideration. Ler0y (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I took another look. Looks like a sound A7, G11 candidate to me. You could try deletion review. (And please drop that silly &reg;!) &mdash; RHaworth 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another quick look. Before moving to deletion review, I would appreciate your perspectives on specificly why my article is different from other company articles linked to list of marketing research firms on the basis of A7 and G11. I'm grateful for your help. Ler0y (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As to G11, not unduly spammy but still obviously written by someone with a COI. But as to A7 - a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. &mdash; RHaworth 20:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Custom marketing research — as opposed to syndicated or secondary market research — is highly proprietary, confidential (and relatively expensive) to the purchasers of the research – thus, significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources may be an unfair hurdle to cross. Your thoughts on this POV? Ler0y (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So the company is probably not notable enough for a general encyclopedia. &mdash; RHaworth 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingess to discuss. I disagree with you, and am dumbfounded by why less instructive and notable company articles have not been deleted from your encyclopedia. Any insights to offer? Ler0y (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Partly it is a matter of luck and partly it is that notability testing has become more rigorous over the years so the bar is higher for new articles. &mdash; RHaworth 21:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

King James Bible copyright?
Is it even possible to copyright a photocopy of a page of a book in public domain? I'm referring to the image you deleted without discussion, File:ApocryphaKJV.jpg. What do I have to do to get this image on Wikipedia? Make the photocopy myself? Rwflammang (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Upload it to the Commons with a sensible licence tag instead of the ridiculous "only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted" tag that you applied. &mdash; RHaworth 00:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

COVERBIND article deleted
Hello RHaworth, I am attempting to recreate the article COVERBIND that a previous colleague started but did not do correctly. Would you mind allowing me the opportunity to do so? I will include references, additional articles and more relevant information about the technology that is similar to UNIBIND and VELOBIND that is already on wikipedia following the proper policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Stacylstein (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not going to re-instate, if you are going to SHOUT the title. But if you provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, an article at Coverbind may survive. &mdash; RHaworth 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The 4th Reich (film)
Dear Sir, Searching for an article on here i came across an (A10) deletion. As you have explained the article has been duplicated. I have searched for this other article but have failed to find it. I have however found a 'similar' article but that revolves around the idea and books of the 4th Reich.

Could you please either forward me the original text, direct me to the duplicated page or reinstate the article if it was a mistake. Looking forward to your reply and thanks for the effort you have put into wikipedia. Its appreciated. (please forgive any typo's. My keyboard is worse for wear!) Dr RodriguezDr.Sauter-Rodriguez (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So how am I to forward it? Please read this. But to save you the bother, the text is below. &mdash; RHaworth 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 4th Reich is a War/Horror film written and directed by Shaun Robert Smith (born December 28, 1978) due for release in 2011. It stars Jason Flemyng, Sean Pertwee, Tom Savini and Doug Bradley amongst others. Production will commence in Autumn 2010 in Poland & Ukraine. A British regiment is exposed to the consequences of the Third Reich’s disease testing experiments in war torn Europe 1944. The 4th Reich is part of a slate of 4 films funded by Cosmic Gate Films."

Ron Fletcher
I am told via the discussions section on the Ron Fletcher page that you need to re review the article. Can you take a look when you get a chance?? Thanks. Kyriasabin (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like whatever needed doing, has already happened. Although you might mean something else, but I can't work out what. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian Martin
Dear Mr. Haworth - It appears you deleted my page: Christian Martin. May 7th, 2011. I accept that I may not be much more than a notable person but I have appeared in books, won Emmy awards, written newspaper articles, etc. I went to add a link today and the page was gone. Can you please replace it or tell me what sort of noations I need to make to get it back? Thanks Christian   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.177.124 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by IP address. Does not say which Christian Martin. So message ignored. &mdash; RHaworth 21:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for deleting that South Sudan/Archive1 redirect, it was indeed an error for me to copy the page to that locale in the first place (which is why I moved it again). Never went to get it speedied as creator, I should have done that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Foster
Hi Roger. If you get  any  complaints for deleting his page, please see my  talk  page. Cheers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read Thomas' comments on your talk page with amusement. Our paths crossed again immediately afterwards at parabolic window. If you feel like speedily deleting this as an hoax, I will not object. &mdash; RHaworth  08:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mikhail Voronin (fashion designer)
Hello! Do you not think that your deletion of this article was too speedy for an article which was created about two hours prior and comes in two more languages (in Ukrainian and Russian wikipedias)? Its deletion was contested on its Talk page. I think three of four reasons were given why the article should not be deleted, yet you seem to completely ignore them. Why? Why did you not allow more time for the person who created the article to improve it? Kind regards, Invest in knowledge (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The speedy tag had been in place for more than an hour before I deleted the article and you had made no attempt to improve it. The Ukrainian and Russian wikipedias may accept articles totally devoid of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources but this wiki does not. I suggest you develop a properly referenced article in user:Invest in knowledge/sandbox until it is ready for submission. I can let you have the deleted text - read this. &mdash; RHaworth 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hunt Family of Vermont
Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hunt Family of Vermont, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7: Article is about a family of notable people. This would suggest a notability for the family. Please take to Articles for deletion if you think this should be deleted.''' Thank you. Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the fall of Valkyrie .?
I am a member of this band and had ligitimate reason for establishing our wikipedia page i dont see why you should have any reason to delete it. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumarse (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "it is relevant and has been put up as a mark of respect to one of the members who recently died". Relevant is not enough - the subject must be notable and Wikipedia is not for memorials. And in any case your last edit was to replace the content with db-band! &mdash; RHaworth 21:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODs on a generic basis
Hi,

I regularly see you raising PRODs on articles that I have tagged for improvement and these are mostly obvious cases (for example Education campus). You have experience of doing hundreds of these but I am concerned about the habit you have of routinely adding "no evidence of notability" as a rationale. The PROD policy requires that the nominator "provide a clear and non-generic reason" and I do not believe the routine comment you add is sufficient, even for blatant cases. At a minimum I like to say something along the lines of "No evidence of notability with no sources likely to be found in the future based on a GBook and GNews search." this demonstrates that I have done the minimum spadework and makes it an unambiguous case for the deleting admin. I know I am raising a fine issue of interpretation between convention and best practice but I am concerned about how some of our sometimes cryptic routine practices can put off new editors acting in good faith. Any thoughts? Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I consider "no evidence of notability" to be a necessary and sufficient prod reason. I do not get the bit about "non-generic" - you cannot get more generic than &#123;{db-band}} but that is allowed as a speedy delete reason. So why cannot similar generic reasons be used on prods? A comment such as "with no sources likely to be found &hellip;" is pure speculation and adds no useful information. I believe the onus for demonstrating notability rests firmly with an article's author. I have made one concession: I will make the word notability into a link thus. &mdash; RHaworth 12:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have raised the point for clarification at Proposed deletion. Fæ (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect Talk:Tom and Jerry/Comments
They're are the same IP addresses the add nonsense to Wikipedia. They also create talk pages with adding nonsense too. Protect it permanently and only edit by administrators, because it was recreated. -- 99.23.79.75 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Orchestra JB
You seem to be another on wiki that appears to have identity of judge and jury on what is notable and not......who do you think you all are? You all seem to have self inflated egos and think you are too important to do any research on subjects that don't interest you....even those that think they have corrcted pages, get them wrong factually.

Wikipedia has gone way down hill, with people who have too much self importance.

There I was thinking wiki was a deocratic place for all to edit...that is until some other people decide they are the judge, jury and executioner!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torro20092009 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not have to do any research - the onus is very much on the author of an article to provide evidence of notability. If you create a properly referenced draft of your article and submit it to deletion review it will receive careful consideration. &mdash; RHaworth 12:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I've completed the Bryanston films bit before I got your sandbox letter. Thanks for that I'll do that in the future. I just thought the 'hang on' meant you were still working on the articleFoofbun (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sardar Jaff
Hi - you proposed the deletion of this article at here and nothing came of it despite its having been proposed several times earlier on the author's talkpage. This artle is just one of a series of articles by the same author where he uses cut and paste references to justify all. Now someone has proposed deletion of the entire series of articles and I thought you would be interested to comment - here. It might be a case of sockpuppetry or an extensive copyvio. Regards. Mark Dask  16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Council of Jewish Communities
Further to our discussion I have created a draft of a new page for this organisation. Can you let me know if you think it is appropriate? User:Marclivingston/workinprogress -- Marclivingston (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Clothe the rest of those horrible naked URLs and cut out some of the refs to the ScoJec website - they do nothing to establish notability. &mdash; RHaworth 17:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:REFSTART along with WP:CITE/ES and a style example of your choice (I use ) can get you started on formatting the references to be more than plain URLsCloveapple (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Repost, retrieve Eric Stahl Almeida
Roger, I would very much appreciate it if you could retreive and repost the Wikipedia site on my cousin Eric Stahl Almeida who resides in Cuba as an artist. There must be something that can be done as an alternative to deletion for what was created for his work. When the page was first created for the Wikipedia prior to going global it had to pass the criteria which it did with making a few necessary changes. The page was up for almost a year. I realize they were still things needing to be done to the information however it has been difficult getting new and updated information from Cuba. I have been working diligently to get the necessary links to substantiate the legitimacy of his work and what he has been doing in Cuba. The Galleries and newspaper articles that have been written about him and his work make it difficult to be sourced. Upon the notification of the proposed deletion that was on the site I had made what I thought were the necessary changes to the information but apparently did not. The page remained on the site with the errors that need to be corrected. As a personal contributor to the Wikipedia site through articles and donation I understand your policies as it pertains to the site but I assure you that all the information was and is accurate. I am asking for an opportunity to revisit and update to your compliance for his site as to what your policies require. I appreciate any input that you can offer with your experience to help me to achieve what is lacking. Regards, Hector H2kplus (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an "article" or "page" not a site. I will be happy to e-mail you the content - please read this. You want input? I suggest links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? &mdash; RHaworth 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pip Smith
I am creating a page for Pip - he is a well known CEO of 5 companies and has a ridiculously high IQ (172) - have a look when its done and let me know your thoughts. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoagigi (talk • contribs) 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Troop Care (non profit organization)
Troop Care is a non profit organization whose mission is to support the care of troops who serve in the United States military who are currently deployed, and provide long term care for those in need (and their immediate family members) upon thier return. Would you mind terribly to just tell us what we did incorrectly with our post, and how to get the page up and running? By the way, it would be incredibly helpful if you spent some of your time trying to proactively facilitate a way forward for these honest "mistakes" instead of just deleting the page. You seem to have the time. Herb McConnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbmcconnell (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "proactively facilitate a way forward" and "help"? There is a chicken and egg problem: before I can help a new article, you have to convince me that the subject is notable. But in this case, I cannot even see anything to help. There never has been an article called Troop Care and you have no deleted edits so what are you talking about? &mdash; RHaworth 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

X-Micro
This page was an unfinished project, which I started yesterday and was going to continue today. The purpose was to provide information about X-Micro in a concise manner, not to advertise anything. Just to provide information of a medium-sized Taiwanese company, which is also a relatively known brand - though more so some years ago than now. Sourcing this information from the internet is an on-going process. How could the page be rewritten in a way that fits your criteria? And how can it even be deleted even before I was able to react? Val — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taipeitech (talk • contribs)
 * If an article makes no assertion of notability then it is going to be deleted before the author can react. Obviously it will need links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources before it can survive. Also, I assume you have a strong COI so using the "sponsor" route may be a good way of re-instating the article. &mdash; RHaworth 09:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fenerbahce
Hello. I note that you speedily deleted the page Fenerbahçe S.K.‎ (football team). I think what is trying to be achieved is two separate pages for slightly different moieties. Fenerbahçe S.K. is a multi-sport club and so the idea is for Fenerbahçe S.K.‎ to be the article on the club as a whole, with a separate article entitled Fenerbahçe S.K. ‎(football team) to cover the football section of this club. Please see the precedent of Galatasaray S.K. and Galatasaray S.K. (football team). This may not have been done the correct way, which may be why you deleted. I've added a split template on Fenerbahçe S.K.‎, so perhaps things can move forwards from there. Cheers. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to prevent a new article Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team) from being deleted again by mistake. One very obvious error was that no proper edit summary was provided on any of the creations. I suggest creating draft versions of Fenerbahçe S.K. and Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team) so that both can be made live simultaneously. Also provide prominent hat notes on both saying what has happened. Possibly semi-protect Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team) - this will signal to other admins that an admin is involved. (Both the prominent hat notes and the semi-protection to be removed within a few days.) &mdash; RHaworth 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I now have this sorted. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Land Mindz, Inc
I noticed you deleted Land Mindz, Inc, marking it as a page for advertisement. This organization is a nonprofit NGO in the Richmond Area which is deserving of a page in the encyclopedia. It is my belief that the content was purely informational and educational -- not an advertisement. Is it the method of writing that concerns you or the very nature of its existence? Many other 501 (c) 3's have their own pages on Wikipedia created in a similar manner. Please help us out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaeditor (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What concerns us is the total lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. &mdash; RHaworth 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)