User talk:Ubiquity/Archive 3

= Archive 1, created 6/23/2014 = = Archive 2, created 2/11/2015 = = Archive 3, created 2/24/2016 =

Edits you made to James LaPietra's Page
Hello. Are you editing James LaPietra's wkipedia page? I can see that you are reverting edits that were made earlier today. What qualifies you to know of this man's life and to make these changes? I removed untrue information that was listed on him. I do not want it put back on his page.

RosinaLa (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Rosina

Edits to TheBathOutlet.com
I modeled this page after the information on the Apple, Inc page - how can I make it less promotional and more factual than it already is? Any advice is appreciated! Writerlauren (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the details of the page, but your article needs to:
 * Explain clearly why the company is notable. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory.
 * Back your claim up with references to reputable third-party sources (not corporate websites, biz directories, facebook and other self-published things), as per the general notability guidelines.
 * Avoid promotional language ("We're the best!", "You'll love our...") such as might be found in an ad or commercial web page.
 * Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Red Eye Louie's Vodquila
- I am the cofounder of this company and am trying to make a wiki page for this.

I will add the links once I'm completed and fully understand how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are the cofounder, you should not be writing the article, as it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. ubiquity (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

- understood. I will see if a blogger wants to make one up as they have all of our public information and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but let me point out you will still need to meet the General Notability Guidelines. It's not enough to have a homepage and a Facebook page that says your brand is great; you need to have coverage in reputable, third-party sources. ubiquity (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

-- Understood. We are on major news sources online such as daily mail, NPR, telegraph, cosmopolitan, amazon etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Love Literary Agency
Thank you- I didn't know how to delete it and thought that erasing the content would do it. I didn't mean to write an article at all.Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton1978 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Henokiens
Hi there, thanks for the notification! I'll expand the stub in the next couple hours. I think the article is clearly relevant, we already have tons of pieces on similar societies. Cheers, Leo Fischer (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you fixed so many issues, I removed the tags, including the speedy tag. ubiquity (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Leo Fischer (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In Regards to the Article "Bridgenex"
Hello! My article titled "Bridgenex" was deleted for a couple of reasons. I would like to have the information back so I can reference and improve it. Thank you. schiappetta (talk)
 * I only tagged it for deletion, it was actually deleted by admin . She will be able to copy the deleted article to your user space; please contact her. ubiquity (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great thank you! schiappetta (talk)

In Regards to the Article "New Media Narratives"
Hi I am having a bad here. I am the chair of a new program at a very well established school and this is the name of the program. My earlier version got deleted because I used the same wording I used on the program website and someone else said I was promoting a business. Its not a business. Its a program in a school and when I searched for it in Wikipedia, I did not find another page with the same name. This is frustrating for new users. ebk 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebkilroy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, ebk. I tagged your article for deletion because the New Media Narrative certificate is already mentioned in the established article International Center of Photography (the section on The School), and your article provided no references and no new information. If you believe that the certificate is truly notable on its own, please explain why, and provide references by reputable, third-party sources that support this. See the general notability guidelines for more information. ubiquity (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of G11 Template
I removed your csd for Falk Preussner, it seems the page creator intended it to be an afc article, so I have moved it to an appropriate draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. ubiquity (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Anish John Pg References
Hi Ubiquity, I wanted you to please request you to take me off the block list. I have added all references and citations to the "Anish John" wiki-pg, as was your initial complaint. Please understand that I was getting a hang of it and am grateful for your feedback, due to which the needful changes have been made ( which can not be saved unless you take me off the blacklist that you put me on). Look forward to your unblocking/response. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janedoe108 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jane. I would have done it, but beat me to it. You could have done it yourself — the rules of Proposed deletion of biographies of living people permit anyone to remove the tag once a reference has been added to the article. ubiquity (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Anish John
Hi there. Just FYI the BLPPROD on this article has been removed (by who has faster fingers than I do...) thanks to the addition of one reliable source (the Huffington Post article). Its still lacking in the way of proving notability, but it no longer qualifies for BLPPROD. The author was on IRC asking for help and stated they'll be adding more reliable sources. I'll leave it up to you if you want to take to AfD or wait it out a bit. Since it would seem the subject recently won an award, I think the sources might be out there in the world of Indian news. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just saw your above reply. It would seem everyone has faster fingers than me today... Cheers, Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 0159, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I'm OK with the article, as long as there are references, and Huff Post is way better than the typical single reference to imdb. I won't be Afd'ing ubiquity (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riceford Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Root River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dakhira
Per WP:WDAFD, to withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation and sign it. I will then close the discussion as speedy keep. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for insertion of such article
What do you mean by it doesn't meet the criteria? I specifically did this not for the sake of doing it but because I find it important. Please reconsider thank you, and I have attained all this information from the media, ChannelNewsAsia, Straits Times, Chinese Newspapers and etc. If you think that the article has to be deleted, state reasons at my talk page thanksGshq88 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for discussing this with me. Please read the Wikipedia policy article "Notability (events)" and consider for yourself whether you think the outages you describe meet the criteria, and whether it had the depth of coverage required. Anyone who wants to can remove a PROD, so feel free to do so, but unless you explain in the article why the outages were important, and support that explanation with sources, I will open an AfD discussion, because I really don't think the case has been made that these outages were globally notable. Once that discussion is open, you will be able to make your case, and the matter will be decided by consensus. ubiquity (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to go through such extreme? I mean, the coverage is all over the news, and SMRT was gonna invite companies from other countries to inspect our system. So it will turn into a global matter sooner or later. Anyway, unlike my previous upload due to copyright policies, this was solely created by me with the informations from friends and media. So it is important for any Wikipedians to edit that article to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshq88 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you believe that this outage will eventually turn out to be seen as "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" and to have had a "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group," then perhaps you should wait until that has happened. If you believe it already meets these criteria, you should make it clear in your article what that lasting, widespread significance is. To me it seems like just another subway outage, albeit a particularly bad one by your local standards. ubiquity (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NINECHOIRS/ tagged for quick deletion: ServiInutiles
It was after reading several other band wiki-pages that I have attempted such and following your actions cannot differentiate between your 'findings' and what I have read elsewhere.

You state there are several reasons why the page is not qualified for posting. I have attempted to explain about what NINECHOIRS is and how it is non-self-promotional contrary to the model of "bands" and "recording artists".

Is there a problem with quoting co-relations with standing Catholic Church Teachings and Traditions? Does qualifying content in this way constitute 'promotion'.

Please, elaborate a little on your "variety of reasons", or kindly point me to where these reasons conflict with the NINECHOIRS page descriptions and sources.

In response to your tagging, I was only able to delete the content, but not the page title, so as to continue to improve the page in my sandbox. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ServiInutiles (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 July 2015‎ (UTC)


 * You raise several issues here. First, I merely tagged your article for speedy deletion. I am not an administrator, so could not delete the article myself, but in my opinion the article did not explain why NINECHOIRS was notable, or provide any references to demonstrate notability. I also thought the article was promotional, in that it talked a lot about how great NINECHOIRS was (like an ad) without saying anything substantive about who found you notable or why. There was no need for you to move the page to your sandbox (although I think that was a good idea), and the speedy deletion box has a button that allows you to say why you think the article should not be deleted.


 * Second, I agree that there are many wiki-pages for non-notable bands. Feel free to tag them. Or let me know which one you mean, and if I agree I'll tag them myself. Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can list their band own band, or any band they happen to like. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, written about notable things, where notability is defined objectively.


 * When you put an article into the main space of the encyclopedia, it should be ready. It should be well-written, referenced, categorized. It should clearly state why the subject of the article is notable, and support that with references from independent, reliable sources. It should not copy material from other websites or infringe on copyrights. Your sandbox is a great place to work on it while you get all that done. When it's ready, it will be easy to copy back into the main space. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations and clarifications. [2015.07.11] - ... although your discernment of content seems 'supernatural' considering that you have determined that the facts detailing the creative discipline self-imposed by the nature of the NINECHOIRS written content was indeed objectionable -"in that it talked about how great NINECHOIRS was (like an ad) ..." Salvation History and The Angels of God are "great", not this work, that is why it is entirely non-promotional and anonymous. You find 'no place' for a selfless unprecedented music recording ensemble on WIKI, while classifying it "as like" promoted music bands which enjoy reference pages on the Wiki cite. As for me, I believe NINECHOIRS in a one-off, but, the WIKI COI information makes it clear only a 3rd party may write and only those not compensated to do so. Again, thank you. I am not qualified to write about NINECHOIRS, nor is intolerance qualified to misrepresent what is truly great.

Contest the speedy deletion
Hi, you deleted it before i could contest it. I am sure you meant well but this is part of an expansion of Everest history and content. I would appreciate it if you would bring it back so we can have some more opinions on this article. Fotaun (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I did not delete it, I just tagged it. The admin who deleted it was, so please contact him to get it back. He will probably copy it to your user space, where you can work on it for a bit before you put it back in the main space. If this is part of an expansion of Everest history, you should probably say so in the article. As it was, it looked just like a list of people providing services (only one of them notable enough to have their own article), and Wikipedia is not a directory. ubiquity (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this and no problem, I know you were just doing your job. I can see why you saw an issue here, and the main problem was time. It was deleted with probably ten minutes of when I had first made it! Fotaun (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Chuyến bay 706 của Air Vietnam
Sorry for my artical, I wrote it for vi-wiki, and I've just relized my mistake, thanks for the deletion!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Đoàn Hữu Kiên (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Đoàn Hữu Kiên (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Letters of Gold by gabrielsturmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_Gold

This page should not be speedily deleted because we've used exactly the same format, structure and tone as other similar games are using, such as King's Candy Crush Saga article. Any specific items we can remove to make it more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielsturmer (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Gabriel. It's not the tone, per se, it's the lack of notability. The Candy Crush Saga article has 22 references, all about Candy Crush. Your article has three references, and only one of those actually speaks to the notability of Letters of Gold. However, I have to admit that I missed that third reference the first time I read the article. I'll remove the speedy tag, since it looks like you have demonstrated notability.
 * Oddly, the advert tag (which influenced my speedy tag) seems to have been there from the article's creation. Did you accidentally copy it from somewhere? I removed it. ubiquity (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixing Intellectual Property & Technology Forum
Hi Ubiquity, I'm writing so that the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum page may be exempt from deletion. I am the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum Editor in Chief, able to use the Forum's information where and how I see fit. I have not infringed on any copyright by using the Forum's information page as the basis for the wikipedia page entry. You may see the information used on the wikipedia page is the same as the "About" section of our Forum site page, found here: http://bciptf.org/?page_id=30. Please let me know what steps are needed to allow for the wikipedia page's existence. Thanks Baywalker4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baywalker4 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Baywalker. There are a number of issues with what you say.
 * I did not delete your article (I cannot, since I am not an administrator). I tagged your article for deletion, but actually deleted it, so if you want to reinstate it, you need to talk to him. The admins are usually pretty clear when they delete something, but feel free to ask.
 * Neither I nor Randykitty not anyone else can exempt your article from deletion if it does not meet Wikipedia standards. In addition to appearing to be a copyright violation, your article was deleted on the basis of its promotional nature and lack of notability. As I recall, it did not meet the general notability guidelines.
 * If you really are the editor-in-chief, you have a serious conflict of interest and should not be writing this article.
 * Just because you (someone I do not know personally) tell me you are the editor of a publication (an assertion I cannot verify), that doesn't mean you can copy material from that source as you see fit. Please see WP:MYTEXT.
 * You may argue that, given time, you would have supplied appropriate references, changed the tone of the article to make it less promotional and removed the copyright issues, but the main article space is not the place to do that. You shouldn't create new articles unless you are sure they meet wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. You may also want to use the Draft space.
 * Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Alice Frost Blower Tilley
Hi I am not sure if I am adding this message to the correct space, however, I wanted to respond to your speedy deletion request. I have appealed it Alice was a poineer and a feminist and this was a critically important event in women's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth7g (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be, but NONE of that was clear from the article, which, when I saw it, simply asserted a few facts about her life without in any way asserting her notability. Furthermore, the article had no references, and without references a historical article is worthless - how can anyone know whether it's correct, or the author is just making it up? If you want to try the article again, you should start with an explanation of why she was notable, and back that up with references supporting your point. You may feel that, given time, you could have done this, but the main article space is not the place to do that. You shouldn't create new articles unless you are sure they meet Wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. You may also want to use the Draft space. ubiquity (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

James Palm by Beatriceshaw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Palm Hi Ubiquity, Thank you for the administration of the wiki page James Palm. I read your note about deletion of the page because of the lack of references and I've now added references. I wonder if these are correct and the page is now ok, or have I misunderstood your message? I intend to, together with other editors, continue to write the bio on this page. Best regards, Beatrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatriceshaw (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at your page. Biographies of living people must have at least one valid reference, and your article now has three, so you're good. I did make some changes to the article, as follows:
 * I removed the references to LinkedIn. As this material is self-published, it's not usually considered valid, and you didn't seem to be using it to support specific facts but instead just as a pointer, which is definitely not permitted.
 * I removed some references to company home pages because they did not mention the Mr Palm, so were again just being used as pointers to outside web pages.
 * I removed two wiki-links to non-existent articles on Swedish Wikipedia. If and when these companies get Wikipedia articles, you can reinstate the links.
 * I changed the link to the Swedish version of Lund University to the English version. This is English Wikipedia; links should be in English wherever possible.
 * Let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the explanation and the editing of the article. I'll be more thorough and precise in the future. Best regards, Beatrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatriceshaw (talk • contribs) 10:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have added an "Articles" section to your article. Take a look at other biographical entries and you will see this is very unusual. If the articles are about Palm, you should use these sources (references) to provide substance for your own article, and then remove the "Articles" section. If the articles are not about Palm, but perhaps his companies or related things, they don't belong on the page at all.
 * By the way, when you reply to this, or leave a note or a comment ANYWHERE on WIkipedia, don't forget to sign your entry by adding four tildes after it ( ~ ). This will make it a lot easier for people to reply to you, or to know who made which comment. ubiquity (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Wiknic 2015
In one of the previous years you either attended or expressed interest in attending the Frederick Wiknic. I'd like to invite you to come to this year's Wiknic, which will be held on Sunday 2 August 2015 at 12:00 PM at Baker Park in Frederick, Maryland. You can find more information on the events meetup page. Zell Faze (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Italia Independent Group
Hi, thanks for your message. I wanted to explain before resorting to 'contest'. I created the page because it's an Italian holding company listed in the stock exchange and it's the owner of one of the most important sunglass manufaturer in Italy. If there's a way to improve the context, by adding information on stocks and divisions let me now. Jackyska (talk)
 * Thanks for discussing this with me. Please check out the Wikipedia policy on what makes an organization notable. I don't believe that simply being listed in the Italian stock exchange makes a company notable. Being one of the most important manufacturers of sunglasses WOULD make it notable, but currently this does not appear in the article. If you add that, and a reference to a reliable, independent source (for instance, NOT the company webpage) supporting the claim, I will withdraw the deletion tag. ubiquity (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"no context"
I declined to delete DW-6100 as no context, because that only allows deletion of articles where you literally cannot tell what the subject is. Since A7 doesn't cover products, I suggest prod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * When I tagged it there really wasn't any context. But thanks for the explanation. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

William Costin
Could you please re-do your edits on William Costin to reflect that there should still be an AfD template there? Thanks!  Jd 027  (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just noticed that. Sorry. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jobedu
Dear ubiquity, i would kindly ask for the recovery of this page for further reasons. as previously noticed, the page had been deleted due to its performance of advertisement for a certain company. i apologize for that, it was indeed a mistake that should be corrected. i would like to either edit the page here on wikipedia or either receive it from you on my email. as you can see this was a page intended to serve a huge purpose in delivering messages and information on the bedwans and how people support them and belong to them through their creations, whether it was in a business or through creativity. i would kindly politely ask for the recovery of the page or for it to be send to me on my email for future editing and revising .the page was made with a lot of effort and i am willing to double that effort with great dedication and hard work, thank you very much }} you can email it at kalafsara@gmail.com i would love to hear from you as soon as possible :) Sarakhalaf (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sara. I did not delete your article, as I am not an administrator. It was deleted in May by and more recently by . If you want the article restored you will need to contact one of them. Good luck.
 * When you re-work the article, please explain clearly why the subject of the article is notable, and please have reputable, independent references that support what you're saying. I'm sure the organization does wonderful work, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to inform people about the marketplace. I do not remember your article, but since it was deleted twice for being an advertisement, I am guessing that it seemed to much to be trying to publicize its subject, and too little to be trying to document something that had already achieved notability. The difference is sometimes one of tone, but usually one of references. If you do not have reputable, independent sources (such as newspapers and journals) providing coverage of your organization, it is probably not notable by Wikipedia standards. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Chantel Jeffries
Hi Ubiquity, I am still working on the page to make it credible and to site all of the sources. I do have reputable, independent sources such as online newspapers and publications providing coverage of the subject, so I believe it is notable by Wikipedia standards. If I could have more time to work on it, then the article can prove why it is important enough to be included on the encyclopedia. Can you please advise on how I can get more time to work on it? Amandaampr (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amanda. It looks like you tried this article twice, on July 9, when there was a deletion discussion which led to its deletion, and today, when it was speedily deleted by administrator . You might want to re-read the deletion discussion, as it seems clear that the subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards. However, if you want more time to try to demonstrate notability, the thing to do is to create the page either as a private user page (User:Amandaampr/Chantel Jeffries) or as a draft (Draft:Chantel Jeffries). Then you can spend all the time you want on it, and when it is ready, copy it back to the main article space. If you need a copy of the original article to start from, please contact NawlinWiki. ubiquity (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Work Sharp Tools
Hi ubiquity, I've written this article twice now and you keep flagging it for inflammatory and promotion language. I believe the piece is written from a neutral tone. What specifically would you like to see changed in this post so it gets accepted and published? I want to make sure the language is neutral so your advice will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes- User:Rbellinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbellinson (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rbellinson. I see that your article was deleted twice today, by, once for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and once for "No credible indication of importance." It is true that I flagged it, but as I am not an administrator, NawlinWiki must have agreed with my assessment before he deleted the article. I don't recall it in detail, but I think the problem wasn't tone or language so much as lack of reliable independent sources to show that the company met Wikipedia standards for notable corporations. Wikipedia is not a directory; just because your company exists doesn't mean it is notable enough to have an article here.
 * If you think your company is truly notable, I suggest that you explain what makes it notable in the very first paragraph, and back that up with solid references (not the company home page, linked in, Facebook, a directory or a press release). You should also leave out material that does nothing more than list your products and services, as this is essentially promotional. If you want to work on the article outside of the main article space (for example, in Draft:Work Sharp Tools or User:Rbellinson/Work Sharp Tools), I will be glad to take a look at it again. I hope this helps.
 * By the way, please sign your notes with ~, not just with a link to your User page. The full signature you get with ~ is what makes the automatic response notification system work. ubiquity (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Self deletion proposal
Someone else marked it for deletion before me. I marked it to be discussed for deletion. Because it was like I created an article I spent 2 hours writing, and somebody marks it for speedy 2 minutes later, and I'm like WHAT? And I got mad because he clearly didn't spend the time to read it at all. He looked at it for 10 seconds and decided it was to be deleted. I don't like that. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize, but if you write an article with no references at all, you shouldn't be surprised if someone tags it for speedy deletion. That said, you can always respond to a speedy tag. Admins are only supposed to delete the most obvious, non-controversial violators. If your article was speedily deleted in the past, this is a clue that it is very seriously wanting. If you want the article to survive, you should provide some decent references. Otherwise, how can anyone judge notability objectively? You might even be making it all up (not that I'm accusing you of this, I'm just trying to explain why verifiability is so important). ubiquity (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hesham Nazihl
Hi, The referance for Hesham Nazih page been added, can you please remove your Proposed deletion for the page, you can check it, we were still editing it Hishamabdelkhalek (talk) 09:09PM, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to do so. You could have done it yourself, it's not like a speedy tag. If you read the text of the notice, you'll see that anyone may remove it once a single supporting reference has been added. And time is not a problem either, you would have had an entire week to add that reference. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks once more for all the clarification, I am just update our work releated pages as I am not a contributor for other pages. But thanks for the clarification. Totally appreciated. (talk) 11:34PM, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Self Deletion
You wrote:

You are also attempting to write an article about a book of which you are a co-author. Please see Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If your book is truly notable, you won't need to write an article about it, as someone else probably will. ubiquity (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the page about a book that the co-auther wrote. I am not either of the authors. I was the "someone else who probably will"... You are tactless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineman33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my misunderstanding. ubiquity (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Theodore (musician) deletion
Hello, The reference for Theodore (musician) page has been added. Also, I am the administrator of all his media, including his official website, that's why the texts are similar. Can you, please, remove your Proposed deletion for the page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoth (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The page doesn't seem to have changed since I asked for a deletion discussion, except for you trying to remove the notice of the discussion (please don't do this again; it serves no purpose, since the discussion will continue, and it violates Wikipedia rules). Please read the general notability guidelines. You need to demonstrate the notability of your subject with significant coverage from reputable, independent sources, not the subject's home page, youtube pages, facebook entries, or other self-published materials. If you can do this, the article will not be deleted.
 * As far as the use of copyrighted material goes, please see WP:MYTEXT. Aside from the legal issues, the material you quote was from a promotional source, and probably needs significant change before it is suitable for an encyclopedia article.
 * Please feel free to participate in the deletion discussion. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Couples Resorts
What are the variety of reasons? This is vague and I can't possibly fix them without knowing what is wrong.

Nicolerich123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolerich123 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the general notability guidelines. You need to show your subject is notable through significant coverage from reputable, independent sources, not press releases, publicity and promotional material. If you feel that I have misjudged the quality of your references, you can contest the speedy deletion (press the button in the center of the pink tag and give your reasons). I am not the person who makes the final decision. ubiquity (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cablefree deletion
I have looked at similar companies and kept the same idea and they seem to be still listed. Please advise on content and how I can change. Also, there are a few universities who are working on this company and will need references for their articles and information about the company - Do let me know how I can improve content, I'm fairly new to this and have read the guidance but still don't seem to have gotten this correct! &#42;Be the change you want to see* (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible that there are other companies listed in Wikipedia that shouldn't be. If an article does not explain why a company is notable, and does not provide adequate references for verifiability, you may want to start one of several possible deletion processes.
 * As to your own article: I reviewed it using a cached copy, and didn't see a clear assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company exists doesn't mean it should have an entry. What's special about CableFree? How does it differ from the other hundreds of ethernet suppliers the world over? You need to identify this, and then support it with reputable, independent sources - not home pages, directories, press releases, white papers or other self-published materials. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided. Use the tags or template, or the Cite pull-down at the top of the edit window, to include your references in the text, so it will be clear which sources support specific claims. Having eight paragraphs of unreferenced statements, and then a pile of 17 references with no indication of what text they support, is not helpful.
 * You almost certainly do not want to copy material from the company's website, because that material is designed to be promotional, and usually has neither the tone or content required by an encyclopedia. Likewise, although you can link to the company's website, you don't want to include other promotional links like a link to the news page. If readers are that interested in your company, they can visit its website.
 * Finally, as this stuff takes time, please do your work outside of the main space. It looks like you already have a copy of the article at User:Millsbi/CableFree, so work on it here. When an article appears in the main space, it should meet all Wikipedia standards of notability, verifiability and style, and be ready for the review and scrutiny of other editors. If you continue to work on the version in your user pages, I'll be glad to take a look at is as you go along. Let me know if and when you'd like me to look at it.
 * Hope this helps. Good luck with your article. ubiquity (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done as asked and changed content, yet it has been marked for speedy deletion... help &#42;Be the change you want to see* (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was a mistake, and I see someone has already reverted it. ubiquity (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, someone has just marked it for deletion again, is there anything I can change. I've been working on it all day :( &#42;Be the change you want to see* (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, but I think it's fixed now. Sorry, I'm not very confident with all this! &#42;Be the change you want to see* (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see someone else tagged it and someone reverted. Speedy deletions are supposed to be non-controversial, so at this point I would say it no longer qualifies. That said, I think you are still failing to point out what makes CableFree notable. The lead paragraphs say things that could be said about any WiFi provider. Later on in the article I see that they pioneered this and that, and were the first to do such and such. THAT'S notability. Unfortunately, I don't see any references for those items. In my opinion, the article is still mostly a promotional piece about a non-notable company, because there's nothing there to suggest that CableFree has been recognized as notable by anyone but themselves. Whoever is reverting the speedy tags says the company is "reputable", and I have no doubt of that, but "reputable" is not the same as "notable." I personally don't feel strongly enough about this to start a deletion discussion, but if someone does, I think the article won't survive. ubiquity (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Avimeter AVM132
Go ahead; I forgot the / to keep it in my sandbox! I think I've also stumbled on an existing page but my version is now back in the 'box.TSRL (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. ubiquity (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP prod
Sorry for declining. Our blurb clearly states that "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". The article has a source, just not a reliable one. AfD is your best option. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick Delete, DJ Enigma
I left a note or talk about why I wanted the page to stay.. if not, could you just delete it 100% without trace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoopoi (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Whoopi. I am not an admin, so I can't delete your article. I tagged it for speedy deletion because I felt that it didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. If an administrator agrees with me (they'll see your comment too), they will delete it, and that will be end of it. Otherwise, the deletion tag will be declined, and it will stand. In that case I will probably begin a more formal deletion discussion, since neither reference actually mentions "DJ Enigma," and since Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. This will allow interested parties to arrive at a consensus about the article, over a period of about a week. You don't need to take any further action if you don't want to, or you can contribute to the discussion if you like. If you want the article to survive, you should try to find some references that specifically mention DJ Enigma, as opposed to the places where you appeared. These references do not have to be online, so if you had some press coverage and saved the clippings, it's fair to use them as sources. If you decide you DON'T want the article anymore, you can just blank the page, and someone will delete it. ubiquity (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, Jassi Sohal
hello Sir, I'm Create a article on Jassi Sohal. he is famous personality in our community. why are you delete this page? if you need references tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmuhar (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have reputable, independent references (not the subject's own website or facebook page), by all means provide them, not to me but on the page. As the article appears now, it seems very promotional and not very encyclopedic, without a single real reference. If he's as famous as you say, it should be easy to fix this. ubiquity (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Marshall Ferguson (Sportscaster)
Hello there, I am writing you in hopes to receive assistance in citing the above listed page. I am just learning wikipedia and wish not to have the article deleted. I have added a couple citations to show my good intentions as I work on learning the intricacies! Please let me know that my page is safe so I can continue to build it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McMaster-Historical (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To avoid the kind of deletion I was proposing, all you have to do is provide a reference, which you did. I cleaned up the article for you, and removed the second reference, since it didn't mention Ferguson. Wiki-linking to Quinlan is better in any case. Good luck on Wikipedia! ubiquity (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Waves4Power
Hello, I was curious as to the specific reasons why speedy deletion would be necessary. I have gone back and weeded through a few sections that were iffy. I hope I can rectify concerns that you may have. If you wouldn't mind assisting me with this, I would be grateful. I am a student at the University of North Florida trying to complete a project that this is an integral part of. Thank you CourtneyDawson (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Courtney
 * Hi Courtney. The article was deleted (by, not me) because it infringed on copyrighted material from the waves4power website, and because it was basically an ad for them rather than an encyclopedia article. Consider your lead sentence: "Waves4Power is developing offshore wave energy systems - using the free energy in ocean waves to generate electric power." Does that sound like an article you'd read in the Britannica, or like an ad you'd see in a magazine? In general, it's a bad idea to copy from corporate websites, because these are designed to be promotional rather than encyclopedic, and because they rarely maintain a neutral point of view.
 * In your lead, you should explain what the company does and why it is notable. You should back these up with independent, reliable sources -- not company websites, white papers, press releases or other promotional material. If these guys are doing something notable, where is the press coverage? Obviously, waves4power thinks highly of themselves, but who else does?
 * The main article space is not the place to address these issues. If you need time to gather sources and write the article in your own words instead of those of waves4power, work on the article in a draft (Draft:Waves4Power) or in your own user space (User:CourtneyDawson/Waves4Power). If you send a note, she can copy the old article to one of these locations to use as a starting point.
 * Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julián Muñoz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion: Tenzing Travel
Hi there, i wanted to contest the speedy deletion for the Tenzing Travel page. Is the awards page too promotional? Could you please explain why otherwise?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroodylan (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Deroodylan. To me it seems like just another travel agency, without the kind of coverage required by WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I agree, with the awards section gone it seems less promotional, but it still doesn't seem notable, and to me the inclusion of non-notable organizations in Wikipedia is automatically promotional (that is, it's not notable but you're trying to promote it as notable by giving it a Wikipedia article). That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm not an administrator, so we will have to wait to see what one of them says. ubiquity (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, didn't know that Wikipedia was commonly used as a "promotional" channel. Does the addition of international articles or national articles lessen the threat that it's an promotional piece?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroodylan (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Anood Al Obaidly
Hello! I want you to have a chance to revise the page you considered for deletion. I think the page is better now, and not to be deleted. Page of Anood Al Obaidly donalmikel  —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I still think the article should be deleted, and I will explain why in the deletion discussion. But please understand that the proposal for deletion is a discussion. Other people will join in and judge the article for themselves, and a consensus will be arrived at. It will not be any one person's decision. ubiquity (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Secure Trust Bank
Hello, thanks for letting me know. Had I known that would happen I'd have found something else to direct my efforts towards for the past fifteen minutes instead! Cloudbound (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!
@Action Hero: Thanks! In light of this, I hope our little skirmish over Oliver Nias hasn't made me seem churlish. ubiquity (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bank BelVEB
The subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia because of this is just translation of the page : https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katouski (talk • contribs)
 * @Katouski: The article which was deleted, twice, neither indicated the importance of the bank or demonstrated its notability with references. I agree that the Russian article, when translated, would be a useful article. But once an article appears in the main space, it is expected to be complete. Why not work on it at Draft:Bank BelVEB? When it's ready, you can put it back in the main article space. Let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Previous I didn't know, how to create a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katouski (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Another good page to work on stuff before it's ready is a user page. In this case, it would have been User:Katouski/Bank BelVEB. All you have to do to create these is type their names in the search window, and then, when you're told the page doesn't exist, click the link to create it.
 * By the way, since you're new here, I'll also add that, when you leave a message on a Talk or User Talk page, you should "sign" your message by typing ~ at the end. This will create a signature so everyone will know who you are and how to contact you. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do nothing but appeal
I don't think is a suitable behavior to closure my new page while I haven't finished editing it. What I have edited is just a part of the page and have concrete source rather than my own opinion, besides, there are a lot of other things such as his achievements being left. Thanks to your privilege, now I can't continue to editing my page, do you think it's a real man-made obstacle to make the Wikipedia a really encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacspy (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Chacspy: I re-read a cached copy of the article Jin Jianzhong. It said nothing about why the subject was notable, and deserved to be in an encyclopedia. It had no references to demonstrate notability, or to provide verifiability. It was mildly defamatory, talking about how boring he was and providing irrelevant stories about his interactions with students. It clearly did not belong in Wikipedia.
 * I have no special privileges here. Anyone can tag an article for deletion, which is what I did. An administrator - - agreed, and deleted the page. I see you have already contacted him.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for reviewing teachers, or putting up random information about people. If you think Jin Jianzhong is notable, and really belongs in an encyclopedia, write an article explaining why, and citing sources to prove you are not the only person who thinks so. Keep your language and tone neutral. And don't do your work in the main article space. Articles are supposed to be already ready. You can work on the article in Draft:Jin Jianzhong or User:Chacspy/Jin Jianzhong. When the article is finished, you can move it to Jin Jianzhong. But be warned that you will probably be blocked if you come up with another article that does nothing more than complain about his teaching.
 * In the future, it would be helpful if you sign your correspondence with ~, and provide the name of the article you are talking about. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For how much time the deletion tag will remain at the top?
I created a web page but wiki didn't find it important enough and put up that deletion tag. I have mentioned in talk section the importance of the page. I re-created the page but the tag is still there?> How much time will it take to be removed? A website related to the same organization for which I am crating the page is going to be released next month andI really need the page before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinraajsinha (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nitinraajsinha: It is not the same tag. This time, your article was tagged by . Just because your organization exists does not mean it is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a site where any other site may be listed. Unless you can show, with independent, reliable third-party sources, that your organization is notable, the article will continue to be speedily deleted.

Re: Orlando Eye Institute
I will continue working on the article. There is more information to add to both biographies, especially from this source. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article a bit more and posted additional sources on the talk page. Do you still feel the speedy deletion tag is appropriate? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article was deleted, by, before I had a chance to look at it. ubiquity (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll see my comments on the user's talk p., and my talk p.,. here.  DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked him to return a copy of the article to me. I would have preferred the article go through an AfD discussion so I could learn why the article was problematic. COI aside, I thought the article met WP's GNG criteria and I would like a copy of the article so I can continue to work on it or at least save a copy offline for future reference. Hopefully DGG will do me the favor. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think DGG's reasoning was pretty clear, and I totally agree with him. I hope you're not wasting your time. ubiquity (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you agree with him when you haven't seen the expanded version of the article? (Sorry, I don't mean to sound accusatory, I am just curious.) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read what he wrote to you at User talk:DGG. He said "the 2-physician medical group is simply not notable, and no matter how well you write it, it will still not be notable." You could make it less promotional by removing all the fluff in the biographies about why the docs wanted to be eye docs and how they like yoga, but unless these guys are doing ground-breaking work such is HIGHLY unlikely to be done in a private practice (and work which you neglected to mention in the version I saw), I don't think you'll be able to demonstrate notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Here was my thinking: the business has received coverage, as have both founders/partners, who also happen to be married, so I figured a single article could support content related to all three subjects. So often at Wikipedia we are merging content up into parent articles, so I figured the OIE article would be the parent article with info about the company's history as well as the achievements of its founders. Biography articles often have "Personal life" sections that discuss an individual's hobbies, hence why I included the hiking/yoga blurb, since it was applicable to them both. But, I would have been willing to remove the extended "I love being an eye doc" quote and the personal hobbies if requested. Even if I were to also remove the two sentences supported by the U.S. News & World Report directory, which DGG said were problematic, there is still plenty of information about the two founders and the company itself. The medical journals were included as Further reading, in case readers were interested. COI completely aside (I've been around WP a long time and don't need a lecture about COI editing and how it clouds judgement... I recognize that and have been successful in promoting COI articles to Good/Featured status before), I think the founders' careers have been covered by multiple reliable sources and meet WP:GNG criteria. Once I get a copy of the article back from DGG, I will see if there are further improvements that can be made. Thanks again for taking time to respond. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubiquity, I have reposted the article at Draft:Orlando Eye Institute. Truly, I do not mean to be resistant or even disagree with your or User:DGG's decisions. I merely was disappointed by how quickly the article was deleted and I felt as though I did not have time to address specific concerns. So, I am posting in the draft space so that the article can be discussed further and I can learn how to be a better editor. Please do not take offense, and I I would very much appreciate your feedback on the talk page if you have time and interest. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it, but this is a very busy week, I probably won't have a chance until next Monday. ubiquity (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

HostPapa speedy deletion tag
Can you please put a hangon tag on our article after your speedy deletion tag? We understand your concerns and will work to address them; we need 3-7 days to fix. Thanks HPCAgreen (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)HPCAGREEN


 * That's fine, but articles in the main space should be ready, and should meet all Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, tone, etc. Why not move the article to Draft:Hostpapa or User:HPCAgreen/Hostpapa and work on it at your own pace? When the concerns are addressed, you can move it back. ubiquity (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravi Subramanyam
Hi, regarding deletion of this article, i'd like to say that Ravi Subramanyam has featured as an umpire in lot of notable matches which include women's T20 internationals, Indian premier league and Ranji trophy.So I believe should not be deleted.srini (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Douglas Witt
This is an article about my late grandfather who was a martyred missionary to Mexico. There are thousands of people who know this story and I believed that this could be a useful article for those wanting more detailed information. His son, Marcos Witt, has his own wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_Witt) and since individuals and persons such as Jim Elliot have their articles up, I thought it would be appropriate to make one for the late Jerry Douglas Witt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikawg (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mikawg: You could be right (though the fact that the son is worthy of an article doesn't automatically imply the father is). You need to do two things. First, the article really doesn't make clear why you think Mr Witt was notable or significant. You should explain that in the first paragraph. Second, you need to provide references to sources. Sources provide verifiability and demonstrate notability. If you need some time, to gather your references, I suggest you move the article to Draft:Jerry Douglas Witt and work on it in draft mode until it's ready, after which you can move it back to the main space. ubiquity (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Barrion's Restaurant
I agree that this was a deep fried spamburger with a side order of guff, but not beyond copyediting....I've hacked ou the muck I hope & removed the speedy.TheLongTone (talk)

Japan Finance Corporation
Hi Hi Ubiquity, I noticed that you edited Japan Finance Corporation. This article had an "In use" template on it. Kindly do not edit articles that have that template. This is to help avoid conflicts. Zotezangu (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2015 (GMT) In use

Charles Perry (Food Historian) Page edited
Citations have been added for Perry's articles at Rolling Stone and the LA Times. Is this sufficient? RichardFoss (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)RichardFoss


 * Oh, totally! You could have removed the tag yourself as soon as you provided a single reference. However, I did it for you, and also cleaned up a little and provided you with a category. Good work! ubiquity (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello Ubiquity. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Likewise for Adorable Media. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But if it was marked patrolled, that must have been a side-effect of the reviewing template, as I did not explicitly indicate I would patrol them. ubiquity (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Patrolling" means inspecting new pages, regardless of whether you set the Patrol flag. I wasn't paying any attention to whether you'd done that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cecile Emeke page edited
Hi ubiquity, I added references to the Cecile Emeke page you flagged. I hope this works for you. Best, TakeAnEthnicStudiesClass — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeAnEthnicStudiesClass (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's fine. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Marthina Brandt
Now there is some references in the article, is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odirjmm (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. Good work! ubiquity (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Topaze (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgina Emma Buchanan Earl
Please look again.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dmitri Usatov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Edvard Munch's paintings
Are you really sure this edit is correct? The listing is from Gerd Wolls catalogue raisonné, and you removed one of the list items (335) and moved an image from catalogue no. 335 to 331. - 4ing (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself, I wasn't aware of how many different versions of the painting there were. Do you think 334, 335 or both should point to Love and Pain? ubiquity (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think both 331, 334, 335 and 349, as well as 373, 379, 1172-1176 and 1508 should link to Love and Pain. The article is about the motif, not a single painting. - 4ing (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I took your advice. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added low-resolution images of [two more Vampire-paintings to Commons. I leave it up to you to decide whether they should be added to the article. - [[User:4ing|4ing]] (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think, given the fact that the column of images in the article is already longer than the column of text, and the fact that the commons images are linked at the bottom of the page, that I will not add them at this time. I see you added them to the list, so if more information on those specific versions comes my way, I will certain add them then. ubiquity (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Invention
Hi Ubiquity: I would like to send my invention to you for free to verify it is not hoax. Gyrotop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't. I am not interested in using Wikipedia for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. Also, in the future, please put new correspondence at the BOTTOM of the page (this was at the top, but I moved it), and please sign your remarks with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

you think my space top is a hoax, so I like to send one to verify it is not. My invention reveals a new knowledge in physics, encyclopedia is the place for knowledge. People need to play my space top realize the knowledge. I am not familiar with Wikepedia, please help me to do it right. thanks for your respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

why Levitron top is o.k. at WikipeiA, my space top could not stay. tell me the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gyrotop: The difference is that the Levitron article has 10 references, and was not written by its inventor. By now at least four people have told you the same thing, when will you start listening to us? ubiquity (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cautioned the editor who claims to have made a new discovery in physics to read the original research policy. Unfortunately, I think that this editor may need blocking.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's sad but certainly possible. ubiquity (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Halal Tourism in United Arab Emirates
This is a relatively unexplored development trend in the travel and tourism industry which will see a massive rise in coverage within the next few years. Jannah Hotels and Resorts is part of this growth in the UAE, spearheading the way forward for Muslim travelers.

Gslee07 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)gslee


 * When it sees such a rise in coverage, it will be time for a Wikipedia article. The current article does not explain why the hotel chain is notable, and it does not provide references demonstrating notability. As it stands, it appears to be purely promotional. ubiquity (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Traction Wars speedy deletion
Hi,

Concerning Traction Wars' speedy deletion: Traction Wars is an indie (independent) video game project, it is not developed by any form of company or firm but rather by a group of volunteers. I specifically based the article on existing articles of similar projects to avoid speedy deletion (see Project Reality). I have and will edit the article to appear less "promotional". Note that this is my first Wiki article, I have edited several in the past (mostly historical topics) but not created one. Niall Gifford (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for engaging with me on this. The article may not be promotional, but a game that will be released in two years is probably not notable. Please read "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," especially item 5. Do you have reputable, independent sources talking about the future release (and thus attesting to its notability)? All of the stuff in the future tense is dubious, because you really can't be certain these features will be available.


 * Project Reality concerns an existing product, and is a well-referenced article. You'll do well to follow that as a model, but so far you're missing the mark.


 * I couldn't find Traction Wars mentioned in the Awards site you initially cited, but if it has won awards, I guess that means there is some existing version that people are playing? If so, you might want to re-write the article to be about the present version of the system. Either way, you will need better sources than you have so far produced -- self-published sources (such as home pages) are not generally considered good indicators of notability.


 * I appreciate that this is your first article, and it might take you some time to make this a valid Wikipedia article. Why not move your article to Draft:Traction Wars or User:Niall Gifford/Traction Wars while you work on it? This will remove it from the scrutiny of reviewers until you are ready. ubiquity (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

CEO Connection page
Hi Ubiquity, You recently marked the CEO Connection page for speedy deletion and another admin, Casliber, deleted it pursuant to the tag. Although I had written a note to you on the CEO Connection Talk page explaining why I felt that the page should not be deleted, I suspect that Casliber may have deleted the page before you had an opportunity to read. Casliber has been kind enough to userify the page so that I can address any comments. With respect to the original tag, which marked the page for speedy delete as unambiguously promotional, I don’t think the tag is warranted because it is “written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.” (Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION)  The article provides facts about CEO Connection, including when it was founded, the identity of its founders, the services it offers members, and the events it holds. It does not promote the company or its events. However, if there is text that you believe to be promotional, please let me know so that I can attempt to make edits to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. After you marked the article for speedy deletion I also edited it to add multiple independent, third-party cited references discussing its CEO and founder, its events, and its awards. These sources demonstrate CEO Connection’s notability. (WP:COMPANY). I’m eager to work with you to address any of your concerns and remove the speedy deletion tag. Please contact me with any comments. Josserroll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Josserroll. I appreciate your constructive attitude on this. As you surmised, I did not see the note you wrote on the Talk page. However, since you contacted me directly, I have read your comments and the note to you from, and re-read the article as it appears in User:Josserroll/CEO Connection. As Casliber notes, in order for an organization to be the subject of an article in Wikipedia, it must be notable, and both of us felt that that your article lacked adequate proof of notability. Please read "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)", particularly the section on depth of coverage.


 * Analyzing the five references you provide:
 * Press release. Being able to ring the closing bell at NASDAQ is not an objective indication of notability.
 * Promotional. The company is mentioned because it was founded by alumni of Wharton, and the Wharton alumni magazine wants to highlight this.
 * Not about CEO Connection. Just because Nutter (who is certainly notable) was speaking at 2015 CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention doesn't make CEO Connection notable. This article doesn't even mention CEO Connection as an organization.
 * Not about CEO Connection. The article mentions something called CEO Connector, but it's not at all clear that there's a relationship, and even if there were, who is BizBrain and why should we care? Again, this seems purely promotional.
 * Not about CEO Connection. Just because CEO Connection gave Otter an award, and the Coloradoan felt this was worthy of notice, does not mean that the Coloradoan is asserting the notability of CEO Connection. In any case, it looked like a press release. There was not real coverage of CEO Connection, or even of Otter.


 * Relying on the sorts of sources you have here makes the article seem promotional. What you need to do is find sources, preferably from reputable newspapers and magazines, that provide in-depth coverage of CEO Connection.


 * Also, consider trimming back the number of entries in the "External Links" section. An article about an organization may have a link to the organization's home page. But having links to more than one page belonging to the organization tends to make the article appear promotional. See "Links normally to be avoided" for more information on this.


 * I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wallachian Open Air Museum
This page is supposed to be an English version of this wiki article (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala%C5%A1sk%C3%A9_muzeum_v_p%C5%99%C3%ADrod%C4%9B) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikiler (talk • contribs)


 * The page I reviewed was not very well-written (in English), and it was difficult to understand what it was talking about or why it was notable. If you tried translating the article with an automatic translator, such as translate.google, that may have been part of the problem, as I tried to translate the Czech version using google and the result did not make much sense. But I don't believe you had included any references either, so it was really very difficult to see the notability.
 * I did my own research on the web and, although I found a lot of material showing that the museum exists, I didn't see any significant coverage of the museum, or anything indicating it was notable. The fact that there is a page for the museum in Czech wiki does not prove notability. However, I did try to check the references on that page: the first is a dead link, and the second does not seem to mention the museum.
 * If you want to create an English page for the museum, I suggest the following:
 * Start it in Draft:Wallachian Open Air Museum or User:Nikiler/Wallachian Open Air Museum. This will give you plenty of time, and you won't have to worry about someone else tagging it for deletion while you work on it.
 * Find some good references. They do not need to be in English, but they should follow the guidelines I linked above.
 * Make sure it is written in good, understandable English.
 * If you need help with translation, you may want to take one of several approaches described in Translation. But there is no guarantee that someone will be able to help you.
 * I hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Radisson Blu Hotel Shanghai New World
Thanks for reviewing the article. I responded on the article's talk page. There may be an appropriate tag or two to add to the top of the article, but deletion would not be appropriate. The hotel itself is well-known, as is the building's architecture. I ask that you please remove the deletion tag since I cannot myself. And, of course, feel free to replace with appropriate tags. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone got there before me but with the newer references I would have removed it anyway. Thanks for contacting me. ubiquity (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ee: Hedging strategy
Hi. I believe the article "Hedging strategy" should not be speedy deleted as I am still working on it. The topic IMHO deserves a own, separate page, I hope it will become clear soon why. IMHO hedge is supposed to concisely describe the general situation, while my new page is intended to gives a picture on a more general issue, given the fact that the term "hedging" is used in a broader sense including physical commodities and not just financial assets (like in hedge)). I am also planning to highlight the implications for risk management for each strategy. This is important for a general audience since everybody should have the possibility to find out how their (e.g. electricity) prices are calculated. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and I am trying by best to make it accessible for everybody and not just for quants, and I am still looking for freely accessible references. Kind regards, --Hou710 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * . There is already a strategy section in the Hedge (finance) article. Why not expand that? I don't see anything in that article that would rule out talking about physical commodities.
 * . If you insist that this needs an article of its own, and you need more time to find references and to demonstrate that it really is an independent topic, why not work on it outside of the main space, in, for example, Draft:Hedging strategy or User:Hou710/Hedging strategy? This will keep people such as myself from reviewing the article before it is ready.
 * Thanks for talking to me about this. ubiquity (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not know about the "Draft" stuff. Thanks Hou710 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, me again: As suggested I merged my Draft:Hedging strategy with Hedge (finance). How do we get rid of the draft-page now? Thanks! Hou710 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Great job! You improved the Hedge (finance) article, and I think people will be able to find the information on strategy more easily than had it been by itself. As for deletion, most people finish their drafts by moving them elsewhere, which destroys the draft, but you merged yours so that didn't happen. The best thing is probably to blank the page and then tag it with   to request deletion. ubiquity (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of Hampshire Advertiser
No questions but I do like your list of famous people you've met. Here's mine

School
Simon Ings Charles Beeson (director) John Peters (RAF officer) Rhidian Brook Howard Drake

Lecturers
Robert McKenzie (psephologist) Ragnhild Hatton Thomas Nossiter James Joll Wolfgang von Leyden

Fellow students
Stephen Pound

Football
Linvoy Primus Albert McCann Alan Knight (footballer)

Music
Paul Cook Joan Jett Eddie Clarke Phil Taylor (musician)

Politics
Michael Mates Bashereyre (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Blast Books
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Blast Books is an established New York book publisher which has been in business for over 20 years and has published dozens of significant titles. I will be developing this page over the next few days to add more information, references, and citations. I have created at least a dozen wiki pages over the past 10 years and none have been deleted. I am also an active ad hoc wiki editor, and most of my edits and additions are retained. FYI, I have no professional affiliation with Blast Books. Keyofz (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the speedy, but just because Blast Books exists doesn't mean it's notable. Has there been any press coverage of it? None of your references establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

J Hutton Pulitzer
Thanks. See my comments at Talk:Oak Island and an old WO thread.. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Green Spaces in Freiburg
Dear Ubiquity,

thank you very much for your comment on the article "Green Spaces in Freiburg". It is part of an educational assignment and we translated it from the German article "Grünanlagen in Freiburg". We now edited the missing templates and hope that it is fine now. We are sorry for the lack of clarity.

Best, Herbstblüte —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

CSD
Hi, please work further down the new pages queue - at the 20 min mark or something - best give editors more than 5 minutes to create new pages. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Love and Pain (Munch painting)
Hello! Your submission of Love and Pain (Munch painting) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Fezalar Educational Company
Fezalar Educational Company is an article for an Educational INSTITUTION in Iraq but the original name is "Company" not "institution", maybe you should just change the name but not delete it? Yahya yasa (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yahya yasa. Although I tagged this article for deletion, I am not an administrator, and did not delete it. It was deleted by, if you want to discuss this with him. However, even educational institutions must meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and with no references, it was hard to see how Fezalar did that. Technically, the article was speedily deleted under criteria A7, which excludes educational institutions, so you may be able to get Samwalton9 to restore it on that basis, but I think the article will still, eventually, be deleted, unless you have independent (not self-published) sources that attest Fezalar's notability. If you think you may be able to find such sources, I recommend that you work in Draft:Fezalar Educational Company or User:Yahya yasa/Fezalar Educational Company until you have the article in a state that makes clear the notability of the subject. Then you can move the page back to the main space, and not have to worry about deletion. I hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While A7 excludes educational institutions, this refer to places where people directly receive an education as far as I understand it (schools, colleges, universities), and not simply educational companies; this article was about an organisation that owns some educational institutions and so I think still qualifies. Sam Walton (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Warburton
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I noticed that a couple of days ago, you nominated the newly created page, Chris Warburton for deletion. All that was mentioned was that the man was a DJ on the BBC and he appeared on Celebrity Mastermind with no sources. After your nomination, the editor who created the page who only joined a few days ago, added THE BBC playback of his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind as the only source and which will probably expire in the next month or so. He also removed the tag. Would it be pssible to double check the Chris Warburton page?

This new user only created the page as he is appearing on the new series of [Celebrity Mastermind]] and he didn't have a proper page, so that is the reason for no biographical info and the emphasis on the panel show appearance. Since he registered this week, he has made sweeping changes to the Celebrity Mastermind page, citing me, who doesn't edit too much on the page as responsible for its destruction and when I voice my concerns, he becomes bossy and says his edits are much better, but he'll make certain changes,  but this is as far as he will go (as noted in the edit history). Editors like him are seriously making me question continuing editing on Wikipedia.

Anyways, sorry to bother you and my sincere apologies if I've overstepped my boundaries, but this new editor is becoming a pain in such a short time and I needed to tell someone. 66.130.12.185 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)samusek2

DYK for Love and Pain (Munch painting)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User:Xiaodui
I think that IP user 74.71.233.229 might be a sockpuppet of User:Xiaodui. They both have edits that are consistent with one another, and both are concentrated on Sammy Figueroa. I also got a message on my talk page here[] that is possibly implying paid editing. I'm not sure how to fill out sockpuppet investigations (yet), so feel free too. Boomer Vial (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible, but I don't usually get involved at that level. I will keep an eye out on now that I've tagged him once, but  hasn't (yet) done anything to get on my list. Good luck if you decide to go after him. ubiquity (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Re. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtlebytes_llc speedy deletion
Thank you for your concerns i think i replied to the one message, sorry i don't mean to repeat anything. I have used wikipedia before but i've never created an article on here before. My intentions are to create an article about my company

Im going to try to model my article something like this. I just don't have the content yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

my article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtlebytes_llc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach2825 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, Zach. Thanks for discussing this with me. Welcome to Wikipedia, but there are several reasons why you should not be writing an article about your company.
 * Wikipedia is not a directory. Not every organization is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Your model, Walmart, is a household word in the United States, and well-known internationally. I do not believe Turtlebytes 11c has the same notability.
 * Articles in Wikipedia must have references to provide verifiability, and the references must demonstrate the subject's notability. The article on Walmart has almost 300 references. So far your article has none. How many will you be able to provide? (Remember, they must be from independent, reputable sources, not self-published material such as home pages and Facebook pages).
 * Your own involvement with the company means you have a conflict of interest. This means you are not in an objective position to judge your company's notability, and you probably should not be writing it.
 * If you insist on continuing, you should probably work on the article in a protected location, such as Draft:Turtlebytes 11c or User:Zach2825/Turtlebytes 11c (just click on either of these links to start an article there). This way you will have time to gather references to complete your article before people start pressing for its deletion. But I have to tell you I think your efforts will be doomed to failure. At this time, turtlebytes 11c is simply not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast reply, i know you guys are busy. I misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia being a global collection of information. and since my company is not a behemoth like walmart, sears or samsung it does not matter. Remember at one time those were small flea markets, i do understand Turtlebytes LLC has a far way to go. I'll keep my sandbox env up-to-date for the day its big enough in wikipedias eyes to move it to public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach2825 (talk • contribs)


 * I totally agree that small companies can be notable, you just have to prove it with references. You don't need 200 (I was just going with your own example of Walmart), but you do need SOME. But please read (or reread) the article on conflict of interest. When your company becomes notable, you won't have to write your own article, as others will do it for you.


 * Since you're new to Wikipedia, I'll give you two tips. First, please sign your posts to talk pages and discussions (but not to articles) by adding four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Second, I noticed you were writing out the full links to wikipedia articles, such as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart". If you're linking to an article already in Wikipedia, please just type the name of the article, surrounded by double brackets, as in " [[Walmart ]] ". This will automatically create a link, and make your posts easier to read. ubiquity (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Green Spaces in Freiburg
Hi Ubiquity. You put the article Green Spaces in Freiburg up for deletion. I had, for example, added the link as you had suggested, but you put the site up for deletion again. As I am new on Wikipedia: What don't you like about the article? Evemuriel (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Evemuriel. I put the article up for deletion on 29 December 2015. As you can see, there has not been much interest. If consensus is not reached, the article will stand, and I will take no further action, so you probably don't need to do anything. But for the record, I don't feel that the green spaces of Freiburg are so notable as to deserve their own article, especially when Freiburg has a perfectly good article of its own which could receive this information. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and I feel that an article with as much text as Green Spaces in Freiburg needs a lot more than one reference to demonstrate notability. ubiquity (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Symphonic Choirs
The page was created as part of the expansion I am doing to the speech synethiser template.

Template:Speech_synthesis

I have created several pages related to this and I have 0 connection to any of these companies. I'm actually a Vocaloid fan, thats all. I cannot fully create all the details of the pages because I'm limited of my knowledge beyond Vocaloid, but I am trying to get these pages started. Maybe, befrore you speedy delete a page... You would care to investigate whats going on? I've not started a project page because there is only 1 person interested in expanding the speech syns pages and thats me it seems. Butbe aware other pages like Realivox and chipspeech were part of this expansion process. Currently, I'm doing the singing syns, I'll expand to the speech ones later, but their harder to research.

Other pages such as Vocaloid and UTAU have been overhauled by me and others, but there isn't much interest in these lesser known synthesizers.

I'll work on the page more, but I'm limited on my understanding, but your added pressure didn't help at all. I'm just 2 person here and I don't have any help with these pages at all. Perhaps, you would care to give advice rather then rushing to add the template next time...? It would help the poor lonely edtors left in the cold editing a page alone like myself. :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Angel. I saw you undid my speedy (which, technically, you shouldn't do if you're the creator of the article, but we'll let it go), and saw your edit summary, and looked at your contributions and saw all the work you're doing, so I dropped the matter. But, just for the other side of the question, what I saw when I looked at the page was a lot of information about a product, with two references, one of them self-published. It actually did look pretty promotional to me. I patrol new pages, and you would not believe the number of non-notable products each day that do nothing other than link to their own home pages, and believe they are entitled to be in Wikipedia simply because they exist. Obviously, in this case I jumped the gun, and I apologize.


 * It would have helped me a little if the references had had a little more content other than "link". I fixed that in the current article. I hope you don't mind. If you do you can revert, but I think you'll see that actually naming the links makes it easier for people to decide if they want to follow them, and makes the article itself look better-sourced. I also noted your attempt to reuse a previously listed reference, and saw it wasn't working for you because you provided the link again. Look for the "AP" reference and you'll see how I did that.


 * I sympathize with your wanting to be left alone to work on your article until you have it right, but as long as the article is in the main article space, that might not happen. If you want to work on your article in a more private, protected space (where people like me won't butt in until you're ready), try working on it as a draft (e.g., Draft:Symphonic Choirs) or in your user space (e.g., User:Angel Emfrbl/Symphonic Choirs). Then you'll have all the time you need with no outside pressure to meet Wikipedia standards all at once. When you're done, it's easy to move what you've done to the main space.


 * Hope this helps. Thanks for your contributions. ubiquity (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I originally sandboxed it completely off site at the Vocaloid wikia on my own personnel sandbox there. Thank you for the help,it was much appreciated. I got ahead of myself and thought the page was fine as it was and left it for another day to edit.  That was my own fault so I honestly though was annoyed with it, I won't blame you for my bad mistake. Never less, stress aside it seems you got me to panic edit and bring up the page to snuff o much sooner ir was a blessing in disguise.


 * I forgot, since it had been a while, that you'r also not suppose to delete such templates as the original creator. By been a while... I mean my laast S.Delete was back pre-2006. Software pages are only something I recent got the hang of trying to attempt to write, I'd only ever been a series page editor (such as anime shows). Angel Emfrbl (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

AlwaysOnVacation
Hey Ubiquity, AlwaysOnVacation was tagged for speedy delivery because it was deemed as advertising. I was looking for further clarification as to why and if it was because of specific wording? I would really like to correct fix the problem and make the page appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taker91 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Taker91. Wikipedia is not a directory where any and all businesses can be listed and described. It is an encyclopedia, and one of the criteria for inclusion is notability. There was nothing in your article to indicate that AlwaysOnVacation was particularly notable, and there were no references to demonstrate notability. I have re-read the article, and the tone is not very encyclopedic (the sections on competitive environment and the industry seem more like something one would read in a promotional brochure than in an encyclopedia), but the main problem was not one of tone or wording. There just wasn't anything there to show that AlwaysOnVacation was notable enough to be in Wikipedia.


 * If you have independent, reputable sources (not self-published ones, like home pages, Facebook pages, press releases, blog or directory entries) that indicate that AlwaysOnVacation is notable, then by all means add them to the article, and say early in the article what makes it notable. If you feel sure such sources exist, but need time to assemble them, I suggest you work in either Draft:AlwaysOnVacation or User:Taker91/AlwaysOnVacation so that you won't be bothered by other editors until you are ready. Please let me know if you have further questions. ubiquity (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, I understand where you are coming from and will make those changes to (hopefully) show why it is notable. Would you be able to copy and paste the page into an email to share it with me so I can edit the original? I had written it directly in Wikipedia so I unwisely don't have a saved copy. Taker91 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 January 2016


 * The article was deleted by on January 13; if you ask him, he will probably copy the page to one of your user pages. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help! Taker91 (talk • contribs) 13:21 18 January 2016 (EST)

Re:Speedy Deletion
Please tell me how I can improve my article Megan Rain. I am still in the process of editing.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Akhila. Wikipedia is not Boobpedia. In general, porn actresses have to be fairly notable before they are included, and meet other criteria. But if Megan has won awards, or attracted wide critical acclaim, and you can document that with solid references, the article may stand a chance. If you think that's the case, you may want to copy what you have to Draft:Megan Rain or User:Akhila3151996/Megan Rain so you can work on it without distraction from other reviewers. Here's an example of a successful article about a porn actress (notice the many references). You might also want to read the WikiProject Pornography page. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, she is a notable actress. She has had two award nominations and she had been ranked on notable websites. I have found many sources on her. I think that this is worthy enough as other porn stars with the same kinds of credentials also have wikipedia pages.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work on the article! You don't have to convince me, you proved your point with references. Looks like a solid article now. ubiquity (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but
Thanks for seeing the message on Black Belt museum but

1. Be sure to make sure redirects are broken so nobody mistakes that page as being created and

2. Learn to make more personal messages instead of boiler plate like the aspies that Wikipedians are stereotyped as — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.187.253 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Noted. On your part, you should learn to sign your messages so that people can easily reply, and you should know that making the kinds of changes you made to that article is not the right way to get someone's attention. You could have actually made the correct changes yourself with less effort; I am not an admin and I made them. ubiquity (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A white man playing a black man.
Ok. Emurray01 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia.
Thanks for your comment. I didn't realize I had to enter an Italian Wikipedia page differently than an English one. Can you please tell me how I can move the page Balestrieri fiorentini to Italian Wikipedia? (Also how do I create a new page directly in Italian?) Grazie! 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leezk (talk • contribs)


 * Edit the current article, copying everything (except the tags) to the clipboard. Then create an article with the same name on Italian wikipedia and copy it there. When you're done, please blank the English page so someone will delete it. Thanks. Let me know if you need further assistance. Va bene! ubiquity (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've managed to copy the old article onto an Italian Wikipedia page and deleted the text on the English page. Thanks for the help! Leezk (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Steed Bespoke Tailors
Hi, you've marked my article for Steed Bespoke Tailors for speedy deletion. This is my first ever article and need some help, can you be of help please? Steed are mentioned on the Savile Row Tailoring page but don't yet have their own page like many other firms of their ilk. Thanks, JamesJack99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjack99 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, James. I tagged the article because it seemed promotional to me, and an administrator who agreed with me deleted it for that reason. Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company exists doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia entry. What's special about SBT? How does it differ from the other thousands of bespoke tailors the world over? You need to identify this, and then support it with reputable, independent sources - not home pages, directories, press releases, blog entries or other self-published materials. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided.
 * You almost certainly do not want to copy material from the company's website, because that material is designed to be promotional, and usually has neither the tone nor content required by an encyclopedia. Likewise, although you can link to the company's website, you don't want to include other promotional links. If readers are that interested in the company, they can visit its website. Enough of your article was taken from SBT's web pages to trigger a copyright warning, and you included links to seven promotional webpages, as well as SBT's home page and facebook, twitter and instagram account. This doesn't seem like an encyclopedia article, it seems like you want to give potential customers ways to contact and find out more about SBT.
 * Finally, as this stuff takes time to get right, you might want to do your work outside of the main space, say at either Draft:Steed Bespoke Tailors or User:Jamesjack99/Steed Bespoke Tailors. When an article appears in the main space, it should meet all Wikipedia standards of notability, verifiability and style, and be ready for the review and scrutiny of other editors.
 * I hope this helps; feel free to ask more questions. If you do, please remember to sign your entries with ~, which will be automatically expanded (when you save) into a signature that will make it easier to identify you and to respond to you. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Capokolam Speedy Deletion
Hi Ubiquity. I see that you have reviewed Capokolam and note your comments. Ive reworded the entry completely to make it less ambiguous. In my submission it does not meet the criteria for Speedy Deletion, and I have contested it. Here is my rationale.

"This page should not be speedily deleted because... 1) this organization is an educational institution, operated by qualified professional teachers, and registered as such with a government institution, and so is wholly exempt from the CSD A7 clause. 2) In any event it clearly has Credible Significance - it is an operating INGO, for a charitable cause, in the same vein as any education and child-orientated INGO. There are many multitudes of similar organizations on Wikipedia already. This is again supported by it being registered with the England and Wales Charity Commission as per the citation and internal Wikipedia link.

To support this I have reworded the article to make it less ambiguous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimecesaire28 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Aimecesaire. I still believe that you have not properly demonstrated the notability of Capokolam. You main reference is self-published (the Capokolam home page). The other references are a government directory entry that merely proves that the organization is a registered charity, and an article that does not mention Capokolam at all. I also believe that being involved in education does not make Capokolam an educational institution in the sense of WP:A7, which are enumerated in "Types of educational institutions". However, it is not for me to decide, and you have done the right thing by contesting the deletion on the article's Talk page. ubiquity (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edition to Sells

I dont get why are you trying to delete the article about a brand, I am not promoting in any way, is just a little information just like an article of Nike and Adidas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratosgeek (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sells Goalkeeper
You are contesting my article about a brand and I dond get it, I just put some information about it, just like an article of Nike and Adidas why you dont contest those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratosgeek (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kratosgeek. I tagged the article because it seemed promotional to me, and an administrator who agreed with me deleted it for that reason. Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company or brand exists doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia entry. In order to have an entry here, you must be able to demonstrate notability. The article on Nike, Inc. has 83 references, and the article on Adidas has 75 references, while your article had one -- the subject's web page. Unfortunately, since this is self-published, it doesn't do much to demonstrate notability. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided.
 * If you feel that, given time, you could find appropriate references for your article, you might want to do your work outside of the main space, say at either Draft:Sells Goalkeeper or User:Kratosgeek/Sells Goalkeeper. When an article appears in the main space, it should meet all Wikipedia standards of notability, verifiability and style, and be ready for the review and scrutiny of other editors.
 * I hope this helps; feel free to ask more questions. If you do, please remember to sign your entries with ~, which will be automatically expanded (when you save) into a signature that will make it easier to identify you and to respond to you. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I will try to improve it --Kratosgeek (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The original article was deleted by . If you ask him, he will probably be willing to restore it to your user page for further work. ubiquity (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grunge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport, United Kingdom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Salizzato
To link from the db-a2 template, just use an inter-wiki link like "source=it:Italo Salizzato", not the full URL. I'm not sure what to do with this guy: I think he's working up to an attention-getting block, because he doesn't seem to listen at all. His global contributions show he has been spamming this Italian text all over the place, e.g. de:Italo Salizzato. The guy is probably notable: I would list it at WP:PNT and see if someone would translate it, but it is a copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bundling AFDs
Hi, you beat me to the AFDs on those  Various 00X compilations. To bundle multiple AFDs, see the instructions here. Please shout out if you'd like a hand with that. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. After reading that, I think I will leave these unbundled because the issues for 1 and 2 are slightly different from the issues for 3 and 4. If you feel differently, feel free to bundle them. ubiquity (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Stepbang
I created 2022tedcody's talkpage and added a warning because he vandalised barack Obama's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepbang (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reversion, swearing and shouting are certainly never called for on WP. When you tried to create the page you typed "Usertalk:" instead of "User talk:" so your message wound up in the main article space. I moved it to User talk:2022tedcody for you, and signed it for you. When you want to issue a warning in the future, you might find it easier to locate the user's name in the History page and click on "(talk)" -- this will automatically create the user talk page if it doesn't already exist, and avoids typos. Also, please remember to sign your comments with ~ . Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Pablo Hernan Pereyra
FYI: The editor who created the page Pablo Hernan Pereyra, which you nominated for deletion, removed the deletion notice with no comment. The claims made are not credible, and the sources are not reliable, so I nominated it for speedy deletion before realizing you had nominated it for regular deletion. The editor in question only created that page and added the claim of a proof to the page on Fermat's Last Theorem; it seems a pretty clear case of self-promotion by a crank. Magidin (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He has removed it several times again, and also multi-reverted his additions to Fermat's Last Theorem; I've made a report in the Edit warring noticeboard. Magidin (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I see he's been blocked, so that should slow him down a bit. I participated in the deletion discussion, and I will keep an eye on the pages. ubiquity (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem; I reported his violation of 3RR which got him blocked. I tried to get the page speedily deleted on the same grounds you mention, but another editor removed the tag saying there were claims of notability (though I agree with you that they are simply not credible, my understanding of the speedy delete process is that the objection means we need to go through the regular process, so I initiated it). Thanks for the support and for keeping an eye out. Magidin (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well, turns out he also created it in Spanish; it's been marked as possible auto-promotion, but that will take a month to clear. I'm going to submit it for plain deletion. Magidin (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * /me shakes head sadly... ubiquity (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's giving up (if I understand his posts in Portuguese (which he makes in both the Spanish and the English Wikipedia... sigh) he's asking the "Organizers"[sic] to tell him how to delete his account and remove his photo from the Commons); but he is still completely missing the point, saying that it is "completely unjustified and arbitrary" to say the subject is not notable and lacks verifiability, and then gives an "important quote by the subject of this biography", as "a mathematical proof is never submitted for verification; it is imposed merely for contemplation until it is completely understood; its author is merely a communication channel, and rejecting it is not a dispute with the author, but an attempt at doing the impossible; a mathematical proof will look for its own channels and comes to light in ways that cannot be blocked. Mathematics speaks for itself." I don't know if he was every a mainstream mathematician (he has only two publications indexed in MathSciNet, and one of them is reviewed negatively saying there are serious errors in even the statement of the problem it claims to solve, and the other is merely indexed); but he's definitely solidly into kook territory now (he also has an manuscript claiming a proof of Goldbach's conjecture at the arXiv, and it's complete nonsense)... Magidin (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, he totally misses the point. Even if the proof is correct, it's not notable until a body of informed coverage says it is. This is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board. Einstein published his four ground-breaking papers in 1905, but I wonder how many years after that it took him to get into the Britannica? If PHP had his way, Einstein would have been listed there before the papers came out. And then he moans how he had thought we were free, but we're not really. We're free as in free access &mdash; no one ever said we were free as in "anything goes." What would be the value of that?
 * As far as being a mainstream mathematician goes: he teaches at a privately owned college in Brazil, and since he doesn't have a PhD, I imagine the equivalent of a junior college here. The fact that the college was willing to put out a press release expressing their pride in Pereya's "solution" doesn't give me a lot of faith in their academic rigor. ubiquity (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Travel Hyte tagged for deletion and even deleted and all my materials lost
Hi, You tag my whole article Travel Hyte with even responding to me or feedback to my reasoning. I removed all promotional information and my article was similar to 100s of other companies that do the same business that still exits in wikipedia today. Why was my article Travel Hyte really deleted after my write and update and citation to show that I have complied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewolems (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 February 2016‎


 * Hi, Joe. I tagged but did not delete your article. The administrators who deleted your article were (on Feb 6) and  (on Feb 8). Both deleted it because it met the criteria for speedy deletion due to lack of a credible claim of significance. Either of them should be able to put a copy of the article in your user space, if you ask them. However, unless Travel Hyte is a lot more notable than your article suggested, I think you will be wasting your time.


 * Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company exists doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia entry. What makes Travel Hyte notable? How does it differ from the other hundreds of travel search engines? You need to identify this, and then support it with reputable, independent sources - not home pages, directories, press releases, blog entries or other self-published materials. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided. In the absence of notability, the information you had in the article -- logo, links to partners, links to homepage -- made the article seem promotional.


 * The fact that other articles on similar businesses exist is not germane to this discussion. However, if you believe that they also have no claim to significance, feel free to tag them for deletion, or to start an AfD discussion. Or let me know and I will do it. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
 * On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
 * On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
 * On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
 * On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.  In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

AWK Solutions
Hello Ubiquity

Thanks a lot for your prompt review. I have few queries regarding the proposed deletion justification.

you mentioned "Does not meet WP:GNG. References are mostly self-published or press releases and do not establish notability"

1) out of the total 12 References, those you mentioned as self-published, are basically the social media pages, to justify the popularity and social presence.

2) Press release references, provided, are all non paid releases. Hence I would beg to differ on your conclusion, as this references are all relevant without any promotional glamour. quite a few of the references are well renowned sources of information in UK & India.

3)I didn't intend to promote the company. I just highlighted the new dimensional services that have been introduced. I think you can get the same essence on my writing.

4) Lastly you have mentioned to provide justification for non deletion of this article. So where exactly we need to give the justification ? Is this justification in your talk page, will suffice ? or is their any other place where we need to put the justification.

Please Advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startupindia (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Startupindia. Thanks for discussing this with me. You might also wish to defend your article at its deletion discussion (started by another editor).


 * Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company exists doesn't mean it should have an encyclopedia entry. What makes AWK Solutions notable? How does it differ from the other thousands of IT consulting firms? You need to identify this, and then support it with reputable, independent sources - not home pages, directories, press releases, blog entries or other self-published materials. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided. You will see that social media pages are among those to be avoided.


 * Here's my analysis of the 12 references:
 * self-published (home page)
 * self-published (home page)
 * doesn't mention AWK
 * self-published (social media)
 * self-published (social media)
 * self-published (directory entry)
 * self-published (press release)
 * self-published (press release)
 * self-published (press release)
 * self-published (social media)
 * self-published (social media)
 * doesn't mention AWK


 * There is not a single source that is reputable and independent. Without such sources, you cannot demonstrate notability. In the absence of such sources all your press releases, social media links and work samples look very promotional.


 * Also, I have to ask: are you connected with AWK Solutions? Your name suggests you might be. If so, please read WP:COI. Working on articles about organizations with whom you are closely associated is frowned-upon here. At the very least, you should declare your connection on the talk page.


 * I'm sorry if this is daunting. If you can find some solid sources to demonstrate notability, then by all means do so. Otherwise, I think that you'll have to wait until this company becomes more notable. ubiquity (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Minus33
Hello,

In your explanation of why Minus33 was flagged for deletion you cited it's relevance. Minus33 is a business, through its parent holding company LW Packard, that has been in operation for 100 years and has historical significance in the wool industry and the New England region. Minus33 is the legacy of LW Packard, that at one point, was a top 10 textile company in the world. Additionally, all the information in the Minus33 article is factual and very comparable to existing wool company entries on Wikipedia currently. I would ask you to reconsider based on the historical sinificance of this company. Csexton3552 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your article has seven references, all but one of which are reviews or otherwise promotional. This makes your article look highly promotional. However, I admit I didn't read the first reference closely enough. It tells the story that your article does not: that Minus33 is an american company that moved to china to try to be successful. I think that you should enlarge that part of the article, and reduce the part that tells about -33's superior product. It would be good if you could find some other sources that are more like news and less like promotion. I have removed my speedy tag, but the sooner you improve the article the better. In its present form, it looks VERY promotional. ubiquity (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering this article based on the historical significance. I will rework the entry in the near future to address your points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csexton3552 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jade Dolman
Hi there. In regards to the Jade Dolman article, can you please give some direction to what qualifies as 'important enough'? thanks IngridC-Curtin (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ingrid. Please read the notability guidelines for people. The first of these states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There were two sources for the Jade Dolman article &mdash; the first was just a self-written bio that didn't really attest to notability, while the other was a human interest story that wouldn't have been written had Dolman's mom not been locally well-known. The article presents Dolman as an accomplished and talented person, but she doesn't seem to have received a well-known and significant award or honor, and she doesn't seem to have made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in her field. This is the sort of thing that would qualify as "important enough." -- ubiquity (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sathiyan Gnanasekaran
Hi, Ubiquity. Thanks for the guidance. I'm new here and just learning the ropes.

I attached a citation like you asked me to.

Thanks and Regards,

Sjsuchil Sjsuchil (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sjsuchi. Thanks for fixing the article. I removed the PROD tag. I also cleaned up the article a bit, and made it less of a fan-piece and more of an encyclopedia article. It would be a better article if you could find additional sources. If you want to talk about how well he is regarded, and mention nick-names like "Super", you must find citations to support that. Let me know if you have questions. --ubiquity (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: HX DOS Extender
Hi! I don't think the page HX DOS Extender is advertising or promotion in any way. The content of the page is similar to, for example, the CWSDPMI page, which has a introduction of what CWSDPMI is, and what the function of CWSDPMI is etc. Clearly the article is established not to promote the product, but to introduct it in an encyclopedic way as already done. --Wengier (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wengier. First, I am not the person who makes the final decision. If you want to make an argument for your page, click on the "Contest this Speedy Deletion" button and put your reasons there. That way admins responding to my tag will see your defense. Second, I disagree with you about the page. There are no references to demonstrate notability, only a link to the home page, and a link to a page providing another link to the home page. thefreecountry.com is not considered a "reputable, independent source." Wikipedia is not a software directory where anyone can come and list any product they think is of interest. It's an encyclopedia, and articles should be restricted to products whose notability has been demonstrated by coverage in multiple reputable independent sources. I don't think HX DOS Extender meets this criterion. I agree with you that your article is similar to the article for CWSDPMI, but I don't think that's much better, and will probably start a deletion discussion for it. ubiquity (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is currently a problem because of a lack of references to demonstrate notability then, not that I wanted to make advertising or promotion in any way. There are obvious differences between the two. Anyway, I think at least make it a redirect to DOS extender should be fine for now. Similar for some others such as DosWin32 which currently also redirects to this page. --Wengier (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly accept that you did not intend to make it promotional, but I am not alone here in thinking that the effect of listing non-notable products, organizations and people is at least as promotional as listing them at any blog, notice-board or directory: people see their names who might not otherwise learn of them, which tends to promote them. In any case, I will make no objection to your adding the product as a redirect. ubiquity (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)