User talk:Superbeecat/archive/2008/February

berserkerror08
I fail to see why I was not allow to properly vaildate the existence of the Evan Landi page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berserkerror08 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You created an article in bad faith by creating it WITH a hangon tag. Hangon tags are for disputing a speedy deletion request, not for preemtively delaying one. Moreover, you re-created the article after it was validly speedily deleted, and then added another hangon tag using a sockpuppet IP. It also appears this is a WP:COI, and a mere vanity page, which fails WP:N. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Article was not created in bad faith, is not a vainity page (I am not mr.landi) and the reason for the hangon tag was placed on the page itself stating why it deserves to be there Berserkerror08 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)berserkerror08


 * If this is true, I stand corrected, however, it still failed WP:N and was therefor properly deleted. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i can assure you, i am a geek, not a football star. The player has been discussed in many forums and articles online and in print. He has been accepted into USF and is rated just under the top 100 quarterbacks for his class. Notable enough?Berserkerror08 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)berserkerror08


 * If you can establish notability, by all means do so DURING article creation (reference it when you upload it; have at least a stub's worth of content). If you have reliable sources (articles from major publications, not school newspapers) which satisfy WP:N, I'd be happy to help recreate the article in such a way that it won't be speedied. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * a testimony frm his recruiter

a summary of him as a pick and his future (direct from usf) Versatile athlete that can excel on either side of the ball...Will get look at quarterback and defensive back...Ranked the 107th best quarterback prospect in the country by Scout.com... 2A first team all-state as a defensive back...Threw for 11 touchdowns and scored four times on the ground during senior season...Also had three interceptions and 60 tackles as safety... As a junior Landi was named All-Broward County second team offense after he threw for 1352 yards, with 10 TD while rushing 22 times for 124 yards and 4 TD...Limited amount of play on defense as junior but still came up with two interceptions...Timed with a 40-yard dash as low as 4.7...Also has a 32-inch vertical...In addition to QB duties, also played wide receiver, safety and punter...Multi-sport talent is an accomplished athlete in basketball, hockey and baseball...Holds a 4.0 GPA... Chose USF over Wisconsin and South Carolina. 

Articles in the Sun Sentinel /Sun-Sentinel are available here:

Articles from the Miami Herald Miami_Herald are available here:

(These articles are reproduced in atleast 2 other papers in the state of Florida as well as numerous online news sites pertaining to new college ball talent) 7. Barring injuries, I don't think Evan Landi will stick long at quarterback. Leavitt mentioned him as a safety or receiver -- the latter's a new wrinkle -- and said he wants a shot at quarterback, but they let him know upfront that B.J. Daniels was the guy they were bringing in as a passer. Landi's a first-team all-state safety, with good size at 6-3. I'm sure he's flattered that USF's bio says he was "timed with a 40-yard dash as low as 4.7." He's as versatile a player as there is in this class -- he can punt, and moonlights in hoops, baseball and hockey. 

D.R.A. Computing
Hello, you have selected that our entry be removed. Please explain why you think this is advertising. It is very clear that our entry informs readers what services our company offers, to whom, and some of our company history. Dracomp (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed on user's talk page (twice). COI and notability. Also, recreation of previously deleted article for spam- super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will read through these and response to you shortly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracomp (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now read through Wikipedia:N and draw your attention to the line "A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." - in the table you will find "Organizations & companies" listed as an accepted subject. Dracomp (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And how does it meet the subject specific standard for Organizations & Companies? see Notability_(organizations_and_companies). You simply referenced the fact that it has to meet the standard, you didn't describe how it meets it. The relevant part states "...if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources..." You haven't provided any. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Superbeecat, I suggest it goes without saying that a company that has existed for 25 years will have subject coverage in secondary sources. If the inclusion of a source will satisfy you I will find the most appropriate source, seek permission to include the source, and then alter this entry. Will this satisfy this issue for you? Dracomp (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it does NOT got WITHOUT saying, in fact, to have a wikipedia article, it MUST go WITH saying. All articles must have an assertion of notability, based on secondary sources. This has nothing to do with satisfying me, rather, it is the very core of wikipedia's structure, as clearly stated in WP:N. EVERY article must assert notability for a particular reason, and back it up with sources. That's what the wikipedia is- a collection of information based on reliable secondary sources. You have uploaded an article which reads like advertising copy, is a conflict of interest, and has no assertion of notability, or secondary sources. It's not personal, it's a typical speedy deletion (I see it was speedy deleted already once before for the same reason). - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will procede to find the most appropriate source and seek permission to include it. Obviously we are bound by Australian Law and must seek copyright clearance before refernceing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracomp (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright law doesn't prevent you from referencing secondary sources in all but very, very rare circumstances, such as protecting a trade secret (which would be lousy sourcing). A secondary source for these purposes is likely to be a review, an article, or some such publicly viewable resource, which you would simply link to. This isn't against Australian or any other law. You are simply sourcing a fact, not reproducing a source. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry D. Thiers
If you give me a bit longer than 30 seconds after beginning a stub I can show you its notable. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Watching the new article scroll, I'm about 99.9% accurate in tagging for speedy. If I miss one because the article was uploaded without meeting guidelines, a hangon tag grabs my attention as I watchlist all articles I nom for speedy. It's important to upload at least a stubs' worth of article when creating, otherwise, it may get tagged by newpage watchers. No harm meant. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Superbeecat, I was musing on this overnight - I think watching new pages is ok, but consider this, a new IP (who may in fact be a biologist or some person who is an expert or somesuch), joins and begins editing and you slap a speedy tag within minutes. If this happens to enough people, then there will be the odd person who is antagonised enough to leave straightaway. I'm no sure how much article-building you've done but it can be pretty confronting to suddenly have a speedy deletion tag appear on material you've just produced. Also, if there is a question it may be deleted it can be a real disincentive to keep adding material. My suggestion would be to use some form of notability tag if the material looks at all plausible and keep the speedy for obviously very silly material. To assume that editors produce substantial pages before uploading is a big ask. Many do it when time is limited, eg. phone might ring, someone knocks on the door etc. all this happens to me. I'd question your 99.9% tagging as you've hit both me and Peter G. Werner who is an editor I collaborate with within 12 hours. oops. strike that last bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your constructive criticism, but disagree with the premise. Most basically, if you check my contrib log, you'll see that 99+% of my speedies are, in fact, legitimate. I absolutely do see your point in terms of new editor discouragement, and it is unfortunate - BUT - a new editor is given the tools through a speedy delete message on their respective talk page, to create an article which won't be deleted when it is uploaded. The editor has every chance to add a hangon, say something in the article talk page, add a comment when creating the article, or responding to the speedy proposal on my talk page. There are hundreds (thousands?) of vanity articles created every day meeting speedy criteria, waiting and seeing is impractical when nearly all of them turn out just as suspected. Just about anything is 'plausible' but it's the burden of the editor to upload the article with some very basic requirements. Again, I do see your point, and I'll go as far as saying that I'll monitor new pages more vigilantly for legitimate attempts at an article - but the vast, vast majority of these turn out to be just what they look like. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cox-Zucker Machine
"Context" just means that it is possible for someone who is trying to expand the article to identify what it is about (see WP:CSD) and that is possible here. Hut 8.5 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * hmmm I read that as a tautology. Naming an algorithm doesn't provide context as to what it is. It's like saying Snark is a verb, without defining it. I disagree, but yield to your more senior point of view. Cheers - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If an article just said "X is an algorithm" then yes it could be speedy deleted under A1, but as it says who invented it, where the name comes from and gives external links I don't think it applies here. Hut 8.5 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But the SUBJECT of the article, the algorithm, is not put into context. If I were to upload "Snark is a verb, which derives from the name, Dr. Snark - see also snark.com" I still haven't put the subject of the article into any context. no? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You could identify from that what the subject is though, especially if it had external links. Hut 8.5 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I see your point, at least as far as external links. Noted. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

deleting our page?
it says that you put our page up for deletion because no albums were released and that there are no secondary sources for it? the demo (end of times ep) was released over a year ago and is available for download on www.snocap.com. as for the new album (with pressure rising) it is being mastered and is scheduled to be released mid year and will also be available for download on www.snocap.com along with iTunes.com. so why is it that you want our page deleted?

-Kris (shadowguy76)(miseria) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.78.4 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Snocap is a vanity publisher. I can record myself whistling and sell it on snocap. Please see WP:N. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 07:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

more realiable then?
how about the monterey county herald, the santa cruz herald, the californian, your music magazine, ilovemusicibuymusic.com, stretchtheskies.org, how about a major venue that huge bands have played at over the past 20 years like The Catalyst in santa cruz. we have many realiable sources just like any other band on wikipedia, ya there's tons of them that have a way bigger fan base and have been around way longer, but we have realiable sources and fans worldwide just like them and there is no reason why we can't have our wikipedia page just like they do.

Shadowguy76 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When you upload an article, it must have proper secondary sources, yours did not. Secondly, writing an article about your own band is a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI Telling me that you have reliable sources doesn't cure the article's deficiency. Please move further comments about this to the article's talk / or the aFd page (which appears to be a completely unanimous delete, because nobody seems to be able to find any of these sources.) The websites you've cited are either minor, or nonexistant (stretchtheskies.org? It isn't even operational). The newspapers you've mentioned - have they actually published ARTICLES about this band? If so, PLEASE link me - but do so on the afd page. (- super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Night john
Hi, just wondered why you didn't speedy this article - it seems non-notable/nonsense to me. JPilborough-Leave Message 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because a NN PRODUCT doesn't have a speedy criteria that I know of... not really patent nonsense, just regular nonsense - was being on the safe side. Feel free to change my prod to a speedy if you know better. Cheers! - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)