User talk:Starblind/2010

Youth Arts Collective
Hi there, I created the entry for Youth Arts Collective, which was recently deleted. It was my first entry, I apologize for its incompleteness and failure to meet wikipedia standards. I was in process of developing the page, primarily trying to establish the importance of YAC to its local community, which has a long and historically significant tradition as an artist's community. If I can better assert how YAC is significant to the Monterey Bay community, its principles, history and local identity, would this be enough to allow the article to remain up? I know that the organization is associated with a variety of local groups but does not have a lot of links to show for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.216.50 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. While desire to improve an article is always appreciated and encouraged, this topic has much deeper problems than the article being incomplete, and it's pretty unlikely it could be saved just by writing a longer article or saying that it's known locally. Specifically, local clubs virtually never have the sort of coverage in reliable sources that would make an article possible.  We have guideliness for articles on clubs and groups (see WP:ORG), and clubs of entirely local scope rarely pass these guidelines.  In addition, the link you provided shows that this article has been unanimously deleted by AFD (a discussion process where members determine whether an article should be deleted), thus having an article is unlikely in the extreme unless circumstances have drastically changed since then.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I note your skepticism that this article will be replaceable. In future, I will take much better note of the rigors of Wikipedia standards. Will my flawed article jeopardize future efforts to list this organization (which will be made at such time it can more rigorously fulfill the demands of WP:ORG)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.216.50 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't stop you from trying, but yes. If an article is repeatedly re-created, it will be locked by an administrator so that it cannot be created again.  I know 'never say never' and all that, but for this particular group to pass our guidelines it would have to be expanded so significantly in scope and significance that it would, essentially, be another organisation entirely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Miko Lee
Hello Starblind. Can you please tell me why the Miko Lee page has been protected indefinitely? I am a new poster to Wikipedia, so I'm rather unsure as to what is going on with my contribution. How does the page get unprotected? Comment added by Agoodman61  January 26, 2010   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agoodman61 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Miko Lee was protected because the article had been deleted 3 different times by 3 different administrators within the last 6 months. (Note: I wasn't the one who deleted it, so I can't comment on that aspect)  The best way to get the article unprotected would be to write an absolutely rock-solid version in your user space, with every single fact cited to verifiable, reliable sources (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP)  Given that it's already been deleted per consensus by AFD discussion, it might not be possible to restore the article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Self Promotional
This entry, whilst it is protected, should be either altered or marked for deletion. It is heavily self promotional and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparthir (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i am now seriously concerned that this page is self promotional, you're picture is outrageously large and heinously sexual in nature do you want australia to ban wikipedia from the internet just because of your page. take it for the team, get rid of ur page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you don't specify what page or picture you're offended by, so there's not much I can do. Besides, we don't delete things merely for being sexual in nature: like any encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to cover sexual topics.  For more info, you may wish to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Starblind! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Noel Harrison -

Who is STARBLIND? Why are we wasting resources here? Other than his self promoting pictures of license and star stickers, this entry has nothing. Nothing notable about non notable person, I guess. If I take my GIA Diamond Grader's license, and a bunch of Burger King stickers, can I have a wikipage, 1/2 of which is my retarded picture? FAIL! Delete this page, yesterday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banned4Life (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkmarx deletion
Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding. I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike). Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here? A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion. The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements. The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses. (correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads. There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kid Icarus (band)
Hey Andrew, can you please clarify your remark that the band ought to be speedied? I mean, the article says they released three records; would the addition of some "is known for" phrase have made it better? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks to have been closed already, so I guess it's kind of a moot point, but I still don't see any concrete claim of notability in the article. I don't think "Summersteps Records" is a major enough label that simply being signed to it grants automatic notability by association.  Not signed to a notable label, no chart activity, no collaboration with notable artists, etc, etc, etc.  It's not a big deal or anything (deletion is never personal) but I do stand by my vote and would likely vote the same way if I saw the same article renominated. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality
Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I'll check it out right away. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rapido Realismo Kali and Isagani Abon
Hi! Please post your thoughts regarding these two non-notable articles related to Henry Espera. Cheers! User234 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14
Hi, Starblind. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)
Hi, Starblind. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Sharan rani was deleted for the right reason
I have no interest in the article, which was badly written, save that I think the woman was notable and verifiable. Since she is also dead I can't really see how it can have been advertising. May I ask that you revisit your speedy deletion and give it more consideration? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please tell me this isn't a serious request. The text dump was so grotesquely over the top in its promotional tone that it actually read almost like a parody of advertising.  Here's an example excerpt: "The musical genius of Sharan Rani was a brilliant combination of superb artistry and intense soul searching emotions. She played from within, as if in tune with the infinite, blissfully mesmerising her listeners to have a profoundly moving experience."  And it just gets even worse from there, even going so far as to end with a series of testimonial quotes, just like a TV infomercial!!  Of course it's possible to advertise a dead musician, as there's still money to be made in compilation albums, reissues, and so on.  I have no doubt that the subject is indeed a notable and verifiable one, and we will someday have a great article on her.  But this text couldn't have been salvaged without rewriting every single word. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say it was well written? It was dreadful. But we don't delete articles because they are dreadful if the topic is notable and verifiable. Instead we do our best to rip out the crap. I had my suspicions that it had to be a copyvio, but couldn't find out where it was copied from. It is a request, simply.  Your call.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read my response? It was not deleted as "poorly written", it was deleted as unambiguous advertising, which it was.  G11 reads "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.", which describes this text perfectly.  If you want to write a real aricle on the topic, go ahead, it isn't salted or anything.  But blatant advertising is completely unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't get cross. Anyone would think I'd kicked your cat. You said a great deal. I responded to some of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28
Hi, Starblind. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Common sense
Being disrespectful to other Wikipedians as you were in this edit hurts your credibility. The content of your position in that comment also indicates that you don't understand what you're talking about. The creator of the article explained on the article's talk page what his purpose was, and his statement is credible. It is not credible that he did it in order to create web links. The individual authors can post their work on the arxiv, but the conference organizer has no reason to want to do that. Also, Wikipedia is obviously not being used here for promotion, since the target audience is found elsewhere and would not be reached here. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To Michael Hardy: I would like to refer you to this edit. Although I agree with the initial sentiment of your comment (I am referring to the one above, not the linked one), I see the edit I have linked to as more disrespectful. Also, surely it is best to discuss the AfD on the AfD page? Thanks, - m - i - k - e - y - Talk / C 09:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is about statistics and probability, I will give my answer in the form of a statistical prediction. The article in question includes 26 external links and 0 sources (reliable or otherwise).  Using these numbers and applying both the Duckworth-Lewis Method and the Montypythagorean Theorem, I statistically predict a 0% chance that the author has read WP:NOFOLLOW or WP:V and a 100% chance that the article will be deleted no matter how many times you call editors who disagree with you "idiots". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is crystal-clear that the "nofollow" issue is irrelevant here since the article was not intended to influence Google hits, nor to promote the conference. Anyone who thinks promotion was the purpose isn't paying attention. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Atypicals
Starblind,

I am curious as to why the content of Atypicals was recently deleted. The explanation was "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." What exactly constitutes 'importance'? Atypicals is a band that has received exciting attention within blogs, social networking realms, and the audiences of their touring success. The sources range from Cleveland Scene, one of the most widely read nightlife publications in Cleveland, to umstrum, a reputable modern music blog within the electronic sphere, to Midnight Poutine, a popular nightlife blog in Montreal. Can you elaborate on why these may not be 'important' sources?

Thanks, Vinny —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoMega (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I hope a problem didn't result as me hitting 'save page' before actually finishing. There was much more content to add - and I hope the unfinished nature didn't come across as promotional or non 'important'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoMega (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Was looking up a new page that was posted for Eithernism and was wondering why you deleted the page almost as soon as it was created. Sewerjack (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because, as written, it appeared to be a hoax. Not only didn't I find anything to back up the claims in the article, I couldn't even find anything verifying that the topic even exists.  Information on Wikipedia needs to be factual as well as verifible by reliable sources.  You may also want to read WP:NFT, WP:V, and WP:HOAX. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies
As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

addtional sock vandal
User:Msarchibaldisthebest2222222222 related to User:MISSYARCHISCHILL...

Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was beaten to the block this time :) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment
In this thread VP Gender bias.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Starblind. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets
Can you explain how this article is a "how to"? I'd have thought a "how to" is an article that explains how to do something. I don't see anything at all like that. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You really do appear to be unduly confused by this. The whole article describes how to make what the author considers 'interesting' images, as opposed to, as the article puts it, 'ugly' images.  This even extends to the article's tone, which is written in "we do this/we do that" statements. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I explained on the AfD page why I think you're mistaken in the inferences you're drawing from the first-person pronouns. A metaphor is a metaphor; "we" isn't always meant literally. Did you read my comments there? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Holtan Balarver
Hello! You deleted the hoax article Holtan Balarver, which is great, but there is an open AfD on that, Articles for deletion/Holtan Balarver. Can you also close that? Thank you. Joal Beal (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, done! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, I like the color design in "Starblind"! :) Joal Beal (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV possibly of interest to you
I've listed Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero, a discussion you contributed to, at WP:DRV as I didn't think it was correctly close: see Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters
As a contributor to Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Matthew Sussis
I put his essay on the page as a source of crediblity, yet you claim the article lacked that and subsequently deleted it. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymatt729 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, where to even start. I said that the article lacked any claim of notability, not credibility.  It is extremely clear that the article subject does not even come close to passing our biography guidelines.  I strongly suggest reading WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:BA, WP:SPAM, and WP:BLP.  Please do not continue to write inappropriate articles in the future. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of odd remark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ly De Angeles (2nd nomination)
User:JBsupreme wants to delete certain articles about people who were notable at the height of the popularity and usefulness of Usenet; when I defend the use of Usenet postings in certain contexts as being evidence of what those postings said at that time, he goes ballistic, accusing me of having no concept of reliable sources (and besides, Usenet is old hat and therefore should be forever forgotten). He was just doing a bit of trivial wikistalking; no big deal. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ciara Bravo DrV
Could you look at the Ciara Bravo DrV again? It looks like the sources are now likely over the WP:N bar. Thanks Hobit (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is abominably poor for a BLP about a minor child. A terrible DRV decision and I don't support it in any way whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd ''' 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? There would seem to be 3 quite solid sources, one other that has significant biographical information and a bunch of in-passing references. Where do you think the bar should be for a minor? Hobit (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please kindly report in...
Hi, Starblind. Please kindly report in to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III: Black Gold. User:GorillaWarfare and I have a question for you...

Thanks in advance.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The AFD is closed, but I'll comment here. Though as far as I know it isn't explicitly stated in policy, professionally-made, sold-in-stores-in-a-box video games are never deleted at AFD regardless of obscurity and/or commercial failure.  Nominating them is essentially a waste of time, and based my own nearly 6 years of participating in AFD discussions I don't recall a single case where one was deleted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, there is no such consensus, is it? I see. By the way, I did recently delete a couple of such computer games. I don't remember their name but they were porn games and utterly non-notable. Fleet Command (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A discussion to revisit for easy and quick consensus
Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformats
You recently !voted on Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shenell Edmonds
User:Cindamuse made a decent case toward her having the fanbase that meets WP:ENT, but we also have the problem that proving the fanbase is difficult... as fan clubs themselves are never seen as WP:RS, and one has to then find an RS that at least mentions the fanbase. A major problem is that the wording of WP:ENT actually encourages OR, in that it speaks toward fan base and cult following without actually setting criteria for determination of such. Sigh. What I propose is that we agree to a temporary merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig. Reasonable?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look
You recently voted in a Articles for Deletion debate regarding the Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke article. Since your vote, I have completely re-worked the article and added reliable sources to it. In light of this, could you please reword your vote as a response that relates to the re-worked article (whether that be Keep or Delete)? Silver seren C 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

While
While I came here to thank you for your vote in my RfA, I've totally fallen in love with the amazing photograph you've kept on your main page :) My thanks are personally communicated to you. Sincere regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, thank you. I try to take at least one self portrait every day, as a sort of photography practice.  Also, congratulations on your RFA passing! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, it is an interesting photograph, although I wouldn't have dared to say so myself; especially, I wouldn't have dared say "love" with the subject being male... Fleet Command (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha :) Fleet Command, ya right :) Thanks Andrew. Will see you around. Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge backlog of images tagged for speedy deletion
Hello, Starblind.

There seems to be a huge backlog of images that merit being speedy-deleted. See Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. Is there anything you can do? Is there anything I can do? Fleet Command (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Images aren't really in my range of expertise on Wikipedia, the only ones I've dealt with are the two on my user page and that's it. I'd suggest starting a request on the administrator's noticeboard WP:AN, I often see requests to clear backlogs there and it usually gets some attention. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Uptown (film)
Notability is always difficult for smaller independent films, as guideline seems written to address only big budget blockbusters. However, one is allowed to consider that the smaller independent films might only be reviewed by critics specializing in such. Toward that end, I have been spending some time improving the style, tone, and sourcing for Uptown (film). As it was only recently released on DVD, I think we might reasonably expect more coverage in the next few weeks. And though I fully expect the nominator to adamantly disagree, I ask that you revisit the improved article to see if it might at least now be worth sending to incubation. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, why would we expect more coverage in the next few weeks if the DVD came out in July (and wasn't a hit)? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My own experience in such, and yes it is only my personal experience here on Wikipedia from lots of article improvements, is that very often the folks at such places as DVD Talk and DVD Verdict, and many others, take a while to offer reviews, perceived "hit" or not. And since I left this note, I did find and add a review from the Online Film Critics Society... and am still looking.  The uncited mess upon which you first commented has been undergoing a few changes. More in the offing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment at Articles for deletion/Funtasy Island
Based on the co-ordinates in the above article and the image of the eco-park uploaded by the user who created the article I have looked at a satellite image captured this year on google earth and the park almost certainly doesn't exist. Just thought I'd let you know in case this alters your opinion in the deletion discussion. --  role player 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Articles for deletion/Dirge (Transformers)
Over there, you wrote "Keep I'm taking NARW at his word that this is notable, it looks only marginally moreso than the others to me."

In case you never got to read my reply there, I'm not really sure that the subject is notable. My !vote was more of me not wanting to delete yet since it's a significantly less obvious deletion candidate then some others. NotARealWord (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomasukutty
Think thats the first time thats happened (me leaving a block message and going to block only to find another admin has blocked while I was leaving the message). Great minds think alike. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, good call. The typically stupid hoax article was bad enough, but the blocked user also copied another editor's user page as his own, which is an especially nasty thing to do. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Suzanne
I'm not sure Joshua Suzanne was deleted for the right reasons. She is a local icon in New York City, with lots of online media and content. Please do a little bit of research in Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.66.59 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, maybe not. But the article as it was written didn't claim notability in the slightest, just that she owns/owned a used clothes shop. Per your request to "do a little bit of research in Google", here are the Google News Archives results for her name, most of which refer to others with similar names and none of which claim any notability either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamification
This article, Gamification, was re-created after it was deleted. As far as I can tell, it's largely the same as before, but I don't know how to get it re-deleted. Since you re-nominated the deletion and you're an admin, I thought you could help. Thanks! &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the new AfD proposal as malformed until and unless you figure out how to do it correctly, but please don't. It's a clearly notable subject, fully sourced, and not a good candidate for deletion.  The phenomenon is a bona fide new business sector with PhD-level experts, one book and more on the way, a bunch of venture-capital backed businesses, and now a conference.  This is all covered by many sources, including a number of blue ribbon major media articles - they treat it explicitly as a business trend, not a mere buzz word.  More sources are coming out everyday (I'll add a few more, why not?), and the conference is sure to get nationwide coverage.  If this is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia I haven't seen it.  I haven't read the original article so I don't know its shortcomings, but reading the AfD it sounds as if it was largely promotional and poorly sourced.  It was also created before a bunch of recent developments gave the subject greater prominence.  I Created this one from scratch because Wikipedia's lack of coverage on the topic seems a rather significant hole in our coverage of startup technology companies.  Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD/List of C.I.D. episodes
Thanks for giving you opinions at AfD/List of C.I.D. episodes. I just wanted to point out that your quotation that it's "the longest running show in the history of Indian Television" is based on an incorrect source. If you follow the reference given in the article then you will see that it's "the longest running thriller series"; which could mean anything. I'll correct the article now. Thanks again for your input. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  22:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link posted by Sodabottle would seem to confirm that it's the longest-running show, not just thriller. But in either case the show is more than notable enough for an episode list. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But that was just a fluke. The reference supporting your original claim was incorrect. It just so happens that there exists a different reference to support the claim. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Human Dignity
Hi Starblind. What forum would be best for discussing Human Dignity? --Bsherr (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the article, take it to MFD or start an RFC to clarify our policy with regards to basic dignity. But just redirecting a longstanding projectspace page without discussion is unacceptable (and it isn't a valid redirect anyway since BLP is only partly related).  Do NOT do that again. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:BRD. It was a bold edit to determine whether there was any objection. You've reverted it, which is fine, and now we'll discuss it. All of which is completely acceptable. There's no need for imperatives. Also, it's not an article, it's a Wikipdia page. MfD isn't the right venue for an initial discussion of these Wikipedia pages, per its instructions, and I think an RfC is also premature, since it's possible we might reach consensus without it. So I'll begin it as a merge proposal, unless you have another suggestion. --Bsherr (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "perfectly acceptable". Nor is merging with attack page, as the whole point of basic dignity is to address issues larger than attack pages and BLP violations, such as conduct toward article subjects in deletion debates, putting unreasonable demands on article subjects, and so on.  At the time it was somewhat controversial but it's almost universally accepted by the community today. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, could you tell me more about why you're concerned about my employment of WP:BRD? I'd like to try to understand. Regarding the arguments on the merits of the merge, you'll see I've started a talk page discussion, and it would be best to go into those there. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not an excuse to delete an entire page without consensus, and if that's the spirit in which you interpret it it's probably best if you steer clear of WP:BRD entirely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I understand where you're coming from. Starblind, it wasn't my purpose to delete (actually, I redirected, which is distinct) the page without consensus. I made the bold edit to determine if there were objections to doing so, and to identify the most interested persons with whom to discuss the change. That was the purpose. (I assure you there's no need to instruct me not revert your reversion, because the wouldn't be consistent with WP:BRD, of course.) Does that clarify my edit? --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Query: Deletion of the Halopedia article
Hi there Starblind,

I made an attempt to bring this to your attention via email, though I'm uncertain if that was a successful attempt. Anyway: Could you please elaborate a bit on your deletion of Halopedia, that was made October 24? I ask due to the fact that your summary was somewhat confusing because the article cited many news references and media mentions from external news sources, including from bungie.net, the company that introduced and maintains the Halo series. The article format also followed that of several other wikis, examples including Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha, etc.

Thanks and regards,

Nicmavr (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article did not assert notability in the slightest, the closest it came was claiming to be "regarded as relatively accurate and reliable among Halo fans". While I'm sure that's true it also isn't anything which gets an encyclopedia article.  It's also been deleted by consensus at AFD 3 times, so any future re-creations would need to prove that the notability has significantly changed, which does not appear to have happened. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm not going to completely disagree with you here, the last deletion along with the AfD was made over two years ago. Since then there have been numerous Halo events/updates: Two new games, several new books/comics, etc. Along with that comes the sources which have made more than occasional mentions and statements about the site itself. While I can't dig into finding every single one now, I'm mostly referring to those in the now deleted article, as well as older refs like this, which at least to me appear to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. The thing that confuses me the most which you didn't bring up is the similarity of these references in terms of significance; wikis like Wookieepedia for example, have references, of which after checking them out, don't appear to have much difference in regards to "significance of source" from Halopedia's. Links from the companies that make the games/movies, for example, apply to both of these wikis. If there's any reason for me to agree that the overall significance is a bit low on average to other sites, describing it with "did not assert notability in the slightest"... a bit of an underestimation. As I'm aware that this is probably a debate to be said for this; if possible, I'd call to have this given to the attention of a wider audience for gathered opinions (for example, on the article talk page. Given the 2 year gap between the last deletion and yours, a discussion of some sort, in my opinion, should be the least that can be done.

Regards,

Nicmavr (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's just silly, a press release isn't even close to a reliable source. You're correct that the last AFD was years ago, but remember, our standards have tightened considerably since then, and virtually nothing which would have been voted to delete then would be kept now.  There have been new games since then, but (based on the article) Halopedia itself doesn't look to be any more notable in 2010 than it was in 2008, or indeed 2006.  Remember that things do not inherit notability from their subjects.  Since this has been deleted by consensus at AFD three times, and has since been deleted three more times for failing to assert notability, I feel that the community has adequately spoken on this issue.  The usual path to getting a deleted article back is to make a new very, very well-sourced version of it in your user space, but in this case with no reliable sources to speak of I don't see even that being possible in this case. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week
You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry that you showed poor judgment in deleting the Contagonist article. May you realize where you went wrong.

Upon further review of your talk page, it seems as though you have a history of needlessly deleting articles because your high and mighty opinion precludes them from existing. Sorry to upset you, o Infallible God of What Is Right On Wikipedia, but you had to hear it from somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.131.189 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ahem, the "contagonist" article was deleted by Courcelles. NotARealWord (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)