User talk:Suomi Finland 2009

🇫🇮 Silver medal awarded at the 2010 Olympics! But we WILL get the bronze in men's hockey and also women's hockey. Or I will quit Wikipedia in protest for 2 weeks! :p
 * A bronze for women's hockey. Now it's gold for the men's or I will quit for 2 weeks.  We will win it!  Finland will play Canada and win the gold.  Canada will get the silver. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

F! No gold medal in men's hockey for Finland. I should not have pledged to quit for 2 weeks unless Finland won the gold. However, I do not lie so I must honor my promise. However, if Finland gets the bronze, I will come back a little bit sooner than 2 weeks. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I will edit tomorrow, the 30th of September, though. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I am back Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I edited on November 1st. So there will be a wikibreak starting tomorrow for at least 24 hours. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove redlinks
Please do not remove relinks from the articles, as you did with Alamogordo, New Mexico. Please see WP:REDDEAL, which says in part, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Thank you. --Uncia (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is 1 October. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing about own company
The answer to your question is essentially yes. You are allowed to edit wherever you like, but editing in an area where you have a conflict of interest means that there is a very high probability of such edits being reverted. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, how are you involved with user:Annmarieburnett? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask this question because of your apparent interest in her block and her unblock request; it is unusual for uninvolved editors to become involved as you did, although you are clearly entirely entitled to do so. And my answer is accurate. Edits violating WP:COI are usually reverted, but a decision is made individually on each one. It is possible to create a scenario in which such an edit would not be reverted, but it is unlikely in practice to happen. I remain unclear as to why, if you and user:Annmarieburnett are not connected, the question is relevant to you. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

reflist
Reflist|2 makes the refs into 2 columns, I did it because they were getting a bit long in 1 column. Reflist|3 is three columns.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DRAMAOUT/2
Hey. Thanks for the barnstar, but it doesn't matter if we signed up a few hours late or not... Hope you like it. Nifky ^  10:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Policies
I generally don't keep hard, fast rules when it comes to policies vs. guidelines, but for the most part, I do feel that Wikipedia has become too policy driven as time has gone on. Things like the notability guidelines and essays are easy - they all derive from core content policy, so not only is it unnecessary to make the notability guidelines policy themselves, but doing so could create issues if a core policy were ever to change. Two policies acting against each other would lead to a mess.

I can't say for certain how I would view a policy that is based off a guideline, as I would need to know which policy is being referred to to make an informed judgement. It would also be relevant. Do you have a specific policy/guideline in mind, or is this more of a hypothetical discussion at this point?
 * Interesting. I think WP:BLP1E doesn't restrict articles on people known for only one thing but rather restricts low profile people known for one thing.  Given how much effort is put into writing and rewriting WP:PEOPLE, it doesn't surprise me that the guideline is actually better written than the policy it is based off of.  Cleaning it up should be relatively painless, I'd hope, and could be done via a discussion at WP:BLP.  That said, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if any such effort was met with resistance. Resolute 22:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any harm in discussing it on the talk page of WP:BLP if you feel it is important to reword the section. More eyes from the start would be better, and if the proposed changes are improvements, they should gain support. Resolute 00:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While that certainly is streamlined, I don't think you would get much traction on a change that reduces the verbosity of the section. IMO, the policy page should clearly spell out what is and is not accepted practice, using the guideline page for extra examples and unusual situations.  As such, you will want the BLP page section to be larger than it currently is, imo. Resolute 22:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1958 Major League Baseball All-Star Game
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

hey, hey, thank you! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Galaxy 15
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar guideline
I would love to collaborate on it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Monthly wikibreak
Note: I have a monthly wikibreak. I forgot to start on Tuesday, the first of the month. Therefore, I will start immediately. The minimum length is 24 hours but I could not find the right template. This is not an official block, just a self imposed wikibreak.

__NOINDEX__ Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this:

As to your suggestion of working on Nokian Tyres, alas, I will be busy in the next bit working on articles related to players at the 2010 NHL Entry Draft. Best of luck with that article, however! Cheers, Resolute 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: having just returned from a lengthy (and unplanned) wikibreak, I have to say I think regular (scheduled!) breaks are an excellent idea. I came back refreshed - I hope you do too! TFOWRidle vapourings 17:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nokian
 Intelligent  sium  18:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At mine as well, I think I found some tools for you. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout
Hi! OK, I've caught up with things! You asked me whether I could deliver a userbox to everyone who participated? I think, having given it some proper consideration, that there's probably no need - participants who want the userbox can grab it themselves (though it would be a good idea to advertise the userbox a bit more at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd).

However... there is the small matter of the barnstar for those editors who wish to award one. I'd suggest that you should probably do the awarding, as organiser. I'd also suggest the following editors for the barnstar:

(I also think you deserve a barnstar for organising the event, but I'd suggest that I should probably award that one ;-) )

The barnstar we currently have is for the 2nd Dramaout; I had a go earlier at creating a new one, but I'm an idiot when it comes to images. I can probably manage to upload what I've done to Wikipedia; however, I tried uploading to commons and it turns out I really am an idiot... so I may need your help with that ;-)

What do you think? Does that sound sensible?

TFOWR</b> 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout
<div style="float:; border:px solid ; margin:1px;">

TFOWR suggested this for you.

Non-deleted AfDs
Interesting question. (1) It may have been closed by someone who isn't an admin, and so who can't delete the article. I don't think non-admins are meant to close deletion discussions as "delete" for this very reason, but I've not read WP:NAC recently. If this is the case, ask an admin to have a look at the situation. (2) It may have been closed by an admin who forgot to delete it (it does happen!) (3) It may have been deleted but recreated - check the page logs. The new article may be the same as the old, or different, or (in the case of someone with a common name) about someone completely different. In situations (2) and (3), my advice would be to ask the admin who closed the discussion to check, or if that admin isn't around, any admin. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 09:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Taichiro Morinaga
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jean Sagbo
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I would like to take a week of so wikibreak in the memory of Karen Woo, surgeon, humanitarian in Afghanistan and Thomas Grams, dentist, humanitarian in Afghanistan. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

SGGH, WGGH and WP:COI...
Your comment at ANI made me smile!

A similar thing happened to me recently: there's an editor called, who I've worked with at various articles in the past (Slatersteven is British, I think, but that's not really important). Recently there was an incident in America: Steven Slater. I'd been watching the article for a while, and saw Slatersteven edit it. I posted this as a result ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny! I was just being silly with SGGH and WGGH but WP editor Slatersteven be careful because we now know that he has skipped bail like Christopher Metsos did and has fled to the UK! he he hah ha Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Relax
I'm totally kidding/pretending! Keepscases (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been pretend blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours  You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. This pretend block was a result of an interaction with Keepcases (see above). It begins in 1 minute at 0:00 UTC

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I respect your courtesy
I saw your note to A3RO. I'm not sure why another editor misconstrued it, but I thought it was very collegial of you to weigh in. I don't recall where I came across A3RO, but his block seems a bit strange. Hopefully it will get sorted out appropriately. I'm not familiar with how it all works other than that it all seems to be quite political. Anyway, enjoy the end of your summer and a healthy and prosperous fall. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reflinks
is a great tool, but it fails too. For example, it does not expand most web redirects and links to files (pdf, images and some other formats) - this has to be completed manually. It often puts clutter into titles (mostly a publisher fault though), and it does not properly format the Google books links (puts truncated title, wrong publisher, and nothing else) - I myself prefer formatting google books refs manually as cleaning up after reflinks takes longer time. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GBU-53/B
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Elaine Quijano
Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Taking leave
Ok, hope to see you again soon! J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Idea for you.
You're absolutely right- Wikipedia has had run-ins with this before, and it remains an ongoing problem. Neutrality is one of the very core principles of Wikipedia- but there are people who will do what they can to subvert it. Stories about this kind of thing come up in the Signpost from time to time- ArbCom is normally dealing with something similar at any given moment. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable
The page "Wikipedia:Unreliable reliable source" has been moved to "User:Suomi Finland 2009/Unreliable reliable source". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for misusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Suomi Finland 2009/Canada
User:Suomi Finland 2009/Canada, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Suomi Finland 2009/Canada and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Suomi Finland 2009/Canada during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Oldafdmergedhere


A tag has been placed on Template:Oldafdmergedhere requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<tt> </tt>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay
Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Radio Pooki


A tag has been placed on Radio Pooki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)