User talk:Valrith/Archive 3

Savannah
Why did you change the title of Savannah (person) back to Savannah (porn star)? She's the only individual named "Savannah" in the entire Wikipedia. Asarelah (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan & Denise
Please don't blank an article and then slap a db-blank tag on it, that's pretty sneaky. If you think that Alan & Denise should be deleted, use a more appropriate tag, such as db-band, or send it to AfD. Corvus cornix talk  22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what should I have done then? The article is blank, having no sources provided in nearly a year... Valrith (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that doesn't make it blank, just unsourced. Like I said, you could list it for db-band if you don't think that it meets the WP:BAND criteria, or you can list it at AfD.  I tend to err on the side of caution and go with afd for articles that have been here a while.  Do you know how to list articles for AfD?   Corvus cornix  talk  22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know how to do AfD. Valrith (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't sure, sorry. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital Playground
Why did you remove the links from the talk page. Rather than get into a revision war I posted the info on the talk page for discussion. It's inappropriate to remove them there. You should DISCUSS them vs remove them Gkleinman (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding spam is inappropriate no matter where you do it. You'd already seen from your recent edit war on Digital Playground that you couldn't keep the spam in place in the article, so you thought you'd just splatter it on the talk page instead.  Nope. Valrith (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital Playground
Just to let you know that I reverted your removal of "spam" from the Digital Playground talk page. I had suggested that an editor with a conflict of interest propose links to his website pages in the Talk page so that 3rd party neutral editors could consider inserting them into the article. Please give him some leeway on this. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. He's flagrantly spamming WP.  Blatting it into talk pages is no better than article pages. Valrith (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interviews are often very useful for writing articles, assume good faith just a bit, please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to get him to follow the suggestion in EL. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I should have prefaced "I agree with Vinh; Interviews are often very useful ..." to that last statement. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism
If you feel that my edits are vandalism, then immediately report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Otherwise, it is a false personal attack. Either put up or shut up. --Oakshade (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag
Add your tag but i you add it and remove content at the sam time then i consider that vandalism to make it seem less so you can delete it Gaogier (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Valrith (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the user is referring to your nomination of Laura Cosoi for deletion. --Kife 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexa Rae
I have removed the prod tag you added to Alexa Rae. Per WP:PORNBIO, Rae is notable for having won the 2003 AVN Award for Best Couples Sex Scene (video). If you disagree with this, please let me know. Dethme0w (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eve Ellis
Another editor has added the  template to the article Eve Ellis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kelle Marie
Another editor has added the  template to the article Kelle Marie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Avy Scott
Another editor has added the  template to the article Avy Scott, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Monica Sweetheart
Another editor has added the  template to the article Monica Sweetheart, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Sunrise Adams2.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Sunrise Adams2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Swimsuit Templates
As a leading editor at Daniella Sarahyba you may have an interest in the debate at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Amber Michaels
Could you explain your edits please? Your "not an award" edit summaries seem non-sensical to me, but I'm trying hard to AGF here. You've removed the fifth place, yet left in the second place and award nominations. These aren't awards either. Would you also like to explain why you've been adding notability tags to articles that pass WP:PORNBIO?. Epbr123 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-sensical? Hardly.  In most contests, the only award goes to the winner of the contest, therefore 2nd place, 3rd place etc. finishers do not get awards and those positions are not awards.  The Olympic Games are one of the few places I can think of that actually gives awards for 2nd and 3rd place, so leaving in the 2nd place "award" is ok, as Signy seems to be following that precedent.  However 5th place is not an award anywhere that I'm aware of, and shouldn't be mentioned at all, in my opinion. I agree that nominations are also not awards; I've argued in the past that nominations should not be included, but the majority of other editors seem not to agree, so I've generally stopped trying to get nominations removed.  As to notability tags, I put them where they seem to fit, meaning on bios that in my opinion don't assert or have notability. If you've got one in particular you object to, make your case... Valrith (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Diora Baird
Since it seems you're online and checking the last edits of some articles, would you mind checking the last edit of the Diora Baird article? I noticed someone changed the pic but would rather not have the image up on my screen for too long here at work. At least not long enough to check it's license and such. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 01:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I removed the image from the article as it seems highly likely to be a copyright violation. All of the content on the image page indicates the image is from an issue of Playboy, with no indication either on the image page, or the source (skins.be) that any reasonable licence exists. Valrith (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dismas |(talk) 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jazmin
Hmmm... the article improved so much after your last bout of edits, I simply don't know what to say. But, don't you think, films are refs on their own already? I remember seeing a policy/guideline to say that somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, can you reinstate Luke Ford refs, as they are not really that dubious, at least as far as I can see. But, anyways, thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Films are not references, and Luke Ford is an incredibly dubious source for information of any kind, and should never be used. Valrith (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For any information directly pertaining to the films (like release, caste and crew, producer, plotline etc.) the films are valid sources, very much. That has already been discussed all over the Wikiepdia many, many times. Luke Ford is bad source? Hmmm... sad. May be then you'd also like to remove the very information sourced from Luke Ford. Because I don't think many reliable sources exist to support those. Aditya (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Luke Ford is a self published source and It can not be used in any biography except Luke Ford himself. The sources used in Luke Ford are reliable. --NAHID 08:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch your edits on LGBT persons articles such as Stephanie Adams
I am not sure your angel if you are confused or vandalism a person who is LGBT. Please read Stephanie Adams TP, and watch your edits and have a good new year!.--Sugarcubez (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all confused. There's no claim in that article that Adams is a lesbian, and no reliable sources to support such a claim that I've seen. Valrith (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read your biography and the sources, even her official site says she is a lesbian. *Sigh* I do not get your angel whatsoever. Be careful with your edits, don't go around removing categories or information that is sourced and publicly known. Don't go to Ellen DeGeneres and remove the fact that she is gay.--Sugarcubez (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive removals of unsourced birth and death dates
Your recent practice of removing unsourced birth and date dates (without prior notice or discussion) in Wikipedia biographies is unconstructive and disruptive, in my opinion. Only "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". See WP:PROVEIT and WP:CITE. It is unlikely that any of the birth and death dates you have removed are likely to be challenged, and as far as I know, none of them actually have been challenged. And even when sourcing really is needed, it is far better to tag the unsourced (but not harmful) material than to delete it. See also this. Tennis expert (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Privacy of personal information Valrith (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous assertion and completely inapplicable. The tennis players in question are well-known people, their birth dates have been published widely, and one of them is dead.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then cite a reliable source per policy or leave it alone. Valrith (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tag the information or leave it alone. Your habitual disruption is getting tiresome.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Silvia Saint, please feel free help but don't help yourself (Incorrect identification of Linkspam)
Hello Valrith. I left a message regarding you identifying links of this article as linkspam and how to properly identify actual linkspam, in particular to this article on it's talk page. I have been trying to maintain quality of Silvia's page for the past 3 years. I will flag this article if this action on your behalf continues, there seems to be a reason for you to direct and divert the traffic to a non-official page and I am not sure why, the only conclusion is there is monetary gain on your part. Please be very careful when editing and placing information that is inaccurate, especially in the situation that a cybersquatting issue on the domain has been involved. If you are the owner of Club Silvia, you know that it is not an official site but is using licensed content which is fine. But to call it an official site and to link to it for monetary purposes is illegal. JordanGekko (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reread the policy of assuming good faith. Your tone and accusation are bordering inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Morbid, that is certainly not the case as I have no reason to have bad faith nor do I have reasons to personally attack this individual. Much like many others on this page (above), I am trying to understand the reasons and justifications when there is no explanation or clarification why. Upon viewing the history of the topic, the only logical explanation was given. In this case, the only want and need is better understanding of motive. JordanGekko (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your paranoia and accusation are both unfounded. The Silvia Saint article has had an "Official website" link in the infobox for a very long time. I've checked it a number of times in the past and found it looked valid, so when you removed an existing entry from the "External links" section and replaced it with a new link that you labelled as "Official", I treated that as linkspamming. My biggest mistake was in not checking the link to see where it led. So I'm going to leave "your" link alone (though I think it should be relabelled "Official website" to match the infobox), and I'm going to restore the original link that existed in the "External links" section. Valrith (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I'd like to apologize if my tone sounded accusing or aggressive, that was not the intent at all and I was trying to find clarification and wanted understand your motivation, which was not clear. I can see where you thought that it was linkspamming from your message above. I am still unclear on the policy of having an "Official" Fan Club or Fan Site listed but can see that from a content perspective, it can have value and weight. JordanGekko (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: What is linkspam?
I'm at work now so I don't feel comfortable delving into this very deeply right now. I will respond to what I can though. Fan sites are listed at WP:EL under links to be avoided. Rarely have I seen the case where a fan site really should be included.

In reference to the separate links showing the same content, I don't see the point in linking to both of them. If they show the same content, what's the point? Listing both of them seems a bit "link farm-y" to me.

I'll take a better look when I get home later today though. Dismas |(talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally had a chance to look through these sites. I reiterate my thoughts on the two official sites, "What's the point?".  I'm not so against it that I feel the need to take one of them out of the article though.  As for the fan club site, it seems to be that Saint does allow quite a large amount of content to be released to that site and probably has a financial interest in it.  So, I don't see a problem with listing it.  Dismas |(talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Playmate articles
Just wondering, since you did a number of edits to Playmate articles lately, if you've noticed the large number of those articles that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been tagging with BLP notices. (I don't know if you added these to your watchlist) I've been trying to go through a couple articles a day and source them using the uChicago listing as well as some other sources. Dismas |(talk) 19:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits. I had actually noticed your uChicago insertions before and meant to ask about them.  Where would you place that site on the scale of reliable sources?  It seems someone has put a fair amount of work into it, but there's no indication of who is responsible or where their data is drawn from... Valrith (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been in contact with the maintainer of that database a couple times. She, Peggy, gets her info from the actual magazines themselves or from various other reliable sources.  She owns a complete collection of the magazine.  She does get some of her info from other sources but for the most part, it's from Playboy.  I'd say that's it's as accurate as the magazine itself.  As a side note, I own a pretty good (~12 years) collection as well and I've never seen an instance where her info and the magazine in my possession have disagreed.  Dismas |(talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. I'll see if I can start citing a few things to it... Valrith (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Max Hardcore
Reports to prison Thursday. See http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=104083 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.168 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added this citation to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Valrith (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt
Please, could you explain why I can't put the command the article? I added to frame the picture in the text.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "br" elements are generally unreliable for use in formatting. The stylesheets used by wikipedia provide much better control over such things. Valrith (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The stylesheets used by wikipedia allows use "br".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Line_break_handling Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never said it didn't "allow" them. They're just ugly and should generally be avoided. As I said before, there are usually better ways of achieving the same effect. Valrith (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincerely I'm not understanding why this controversy if the appearance of the article will be much better with "br". Please, teach me how to better the appearance of the article. Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, explain me!Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to say it any better than I've already said it. "br" is an ugly hack that should rarely, if ever, be used. YMMV, of course. Valrith (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to use another infobox with the aim of article has a format better, but you took it, I would like that you teach me a way I can get the same effect. You said that "there are usually better ways of achieving the same effect."Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Care to weigh in
I've been talking with a new user, User:Luttycane, who says they work at a review site for actors/movies/etc and they publish various facts about the stars of the movies on their site. Do you have any incite on whether they would be violating WP:OR or WP:RS if they were to cite their site here? Please join the conversation at their talk page. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the following to that talk page, but I'll put them here too:
 * I don't see that vicelist has anything to offer. It has huge amounts of advertising, which are warned against, and it's information content is unsourced, extremely thin, and geared toward promoting sales, not providing information. See the first sentence of the "bio" on  Eve Lawrence, for example.  These so-called "bios" are simply the hook to catch interest in the products that take up the vast majority of every page on the site. This is nothing more than porn spam, which should be shunned as unacceptable. Valrith (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

good deletion on Stephanie Adams
You are right that the lawsuit against Poling is not notable. Actually, I was going to delete it myself because I had found this old thread while checking the talk archives for more info.

I had only left it there in case that there was some mention on some newspaper that I hadn't noticed, but I see that it's been a full year and still none has been provided, just mentions at blogs. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Valrith. Please keep uw-3rr in mind. Since this article is watched by a number of people, controversial changes which are against consensus are unlikely to remain in the article long. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Bevan_Jones Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what kind of articles I can use the infobox used in the article Hilary Bevan Jones, and if I can just fill some fields in any infobox to the article has a better format?
 * That's a pretty bad example that should probably be changed. You'd be better off using one of the standard infoboxes. See Oprah Winfrey for a good example. Valrith (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Justine Joli image
Since disagreement over the Justine Joli image is amounting to an edit war, I've decided to create a poll which will hopefully settle the issue and create a rough consensus. Please partcipate! The poll is at Talk:Justine_Joli. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Witmer
In this case, I agree with your removal of the filmography. I also agree with the removal of the image placeholder. I'm not a fan of those images. On a side note, I don't really care for the antagonistic tone that comes from the words "don't revert again" which the other editor put in their edit summary... Dismas |(talk) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Renee Schuurman
Well, she's dead. So, WP:BLP doesn't apply directly. The crux of the argument, I think, is in WP:V which says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (stress not my own) Birth dates are often wrong due to typos, the subject (usually women) lying about their age, being born into poverty or other circumstances and thus not having an accurate birth certificate (see Sonny Liston), etc. So, asking for/requiring a reliable source is not out of the question. As far as the death date goes, that should be easy enough to find if they were notable. But it's not up to you to verify these things since the onus is on the editor that adds the material.

If they're such a tennis expert as their username claims, they should be able to come up with a source for a tennis player! Dismas |(talk) 11:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wicked Pictures
While not spam necessarily, I think they go against WP:NOT. Every company that she (insert whoever 'she' is) works for could have a bio of her, that doesn't mean it needs to be included. Dismas |(talk) 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lisa De Leeuw
I don't see where you and AtomicSteve have tried to work this out between yourselves. I'm about to start my work week (my carpooler just now arrived) and between work and school will have little time to look this over until Thursday at the earliest. Dismas |(talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Britney Spears on FF
I'm happy to err on the side of discretion concerning the celebrity list on FF. It's why I put the discussion area up on the talk page. I'd request that you give your reasons for feeling that the video interview doesn't give sufficient reason for inclusion. Please give some commentary in the FF discussion page or I will return her to the list after 72 hours. Thanks Lordandrei (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Centerfolds
Hi Valrith. Could you please stop integrating the "see also" link into the lead on all centerfold pages? I'm trying to improve the articles and I'd appreciate you not undo my work. Thanks. Caden S ( talk ) 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, see the manual of style on sections as to why "See also" sections should not generally exist at all... Valrith (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anastasia Blue is not alive any more
Removal of sourced content describing that this person is not alive any more will be considered vandalism and reported as such. Please stop insisting this person is still alive. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not insisting any such thing. I'm only insisting on having a reliable source that supports the claim that she's dead, which neither you nor anyone else has yet provided. Valrith (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish writer categories
I put Kata Kärkkäinen to Category:Finnish women writers. You removed Category:Finnish writers from the article because Category:Finnish women writers is a sub-category of Category:Finnish writers. I put Category:Finnish writers back because after your edit Kata Kärkkäinen did't show in Category:Finnish writers page any more. You again removed Category:Finnish writers commenting: "Please take note that categories nest - ie. being a member of "Finnish women writers" automatically makes an article also a member of "Finnish writers". I am aware that categories nest. But if Kata Kärkkäinen is only in a woman-themed sub-category, she doesn't show in the main category page Category:Finnish writers. You can navigate from the main category page to Category:Finnish women writers easily, but it is not the same. What if you removed all women writers from Category:Finnish writers, and made sure they were in Category:Finnish woman writers? Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality calls that ghettoizing. See an example category "Gay politicians from Germany".

I have solved the ghettoizing problem by adding the article to another subcategory, Category:Finnish novelists. Now there is no redundancy, which you paid attention to. I made this comment to let you know about the ghettoizing problem, and how to avoid it. 82.203.170.153 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Air France Robbery (1967)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Air France Robbery (1967), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * There are no sources for the contents of this article. And by itself, having such detailed information about some robbery where nobody ever got prosecuted is incoherent.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oskilian (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Randi Coy
I proposed Randi Coy for deletion, but I did not realize you had already prodded it and that it had been deprodded. I suggest that it be brought to a full deletion debate. What do you think? 69.251.183.222 (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bleeding Through
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Bleeding Through/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon
I've looked at the editing statistics for Heather Harmon and you are the third biggest contributor. I've brought the page back from deletion and updated it. It has now been nominated for deletion. Please visit the page's deletion discussion and add your opinion. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Heather Harmon
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Heather Harmon. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Heather Harmon (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ashley Renee
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ashley Renee. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ashley Renee (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)