User talk:Vanished user sojweiorj34i4f/Archive 10

Proposed deletion of Gudrun Loftus‎


The article Gudrun Loftus‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Repost of List of University of Nottingham Students' Union societies
A tag has been placed on requesting that it bespeedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A list of student societies at a university may be of interest to students at that university, but it is not of global significance, and has no place in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How do I challenge this deletion? The material could be merged and I expressed an interest in this option on the talk page. I challenged the speedy deletion asking as to how I could prevent the deletion of the material and this request went unanswered! Francium12 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have requested help as I am unsure what wheels of Wikipedia bureaucracy I have to set in motion hereFrancium12 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since James deleted the page and has made it clear that he would be unwilling to undelete it, there are two options: You can request an admin to give you a copy of the deleted page so you can merge/add the info to (an)other article(s) or you can request deletion review of the 2010 AFD for the page, arguing that it has a place on Wikipedia. Regards So Why  20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Gudrun Loftus article currently runs up against Notability (people), where the only coverage is of uncertainties, not her career, works, impact, or a deserved obituary; you should probably move it to User:Francium12/sandbox until you can reference things other than an uncertain/unresolved/resolved cause of death. The List of University of Nottingham Students' Union societies runs up against What Wikipedia is not, and while one of the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articlescould return it to you for you to work on, it seems unlikely that it would be able to meet current guidelines to become an article. To show that it does, you would need to show 1) which Students' Union societies already have articles, and 2) that they would not fit in University of Nottingham or a University of Nottingham Students' Union article. There would need to be indepth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources with no financial interest (would need to be independent of the university, students' union, administration, faculty, and alumni). Dru of Id (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will give up on the Grundun Loftus article. The user has a penchant for deleting my articles and I don't want to provoke any further. With reference to the Nottingham article - Are you an admin? I am not asking to (re)create the article. I stated I wanted to merge the content! I was completely ignored - and the judge and jury in all this has been the views of one Wikipedia admin! Francium12 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not an admin, sorry. Non-admins can't see deleted pages, and while I frequently look at pages listed at Articles for deletion, I've only recently started reviewing Proposed deletions, and I don't think I looked at the article. The community consensus on such articles is well established and clear, regardless of my personal feelings (or theirs); an admin recently quoted a figure of ~3500 deletions for 2011, and they see enough crappy ones (my enemy/friend/ex/teacher/principal is...) that even good faith efforts may receive cranky responses. As editors finish developing content higher on their priority lists, consensus about organizations at education institutions may eventually change, but I would recommend finding sources on something else that interests you that meets current notability and inclusion guidelines. Deletion review might at least get the content merged. Dru of Id (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I rank 311th out of all Wikipedians for article creations (1,164 articles!). I'm creating so much content that people look at my talk page full of AfDs and treat me in a certain way. I wish we valued content creation as such as we did when I first joined Wikipedia. I haven't changed at all - Wikipedia has! Francium12 (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos to you, and a sincere thanks. I often get so wrapped up in finding the help template that I missed seeing your archives. Dru of Id (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conquerorand the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull;email) and The ed17 (talk &bull;email) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathan Rutherford


A tag has been placed on Jonathan Rutherford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contactone of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vibeke Hein Bæra
Thanks for this awesome article; I've given you the Autopatrolled user right to take into account your content work :).Ironholds (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks – should stop the drive by tagging :-D. Going to have a bit of a break from Wiki for a bit though . Seem to be ending up at AfD far more often than previously. Francium12 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh dear :(. Okay, well, if and when you decide to come back, feel free to hit me up for any citations you need - gotta use this LexisNexis access for something! Ironholds (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

== Proposed speedy deletion of Wheeldon v. Burrpows

Speedy deletion nomination of Wheeldon v Burrows


A tag has been placed on Wheeldon v Burrows, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stubfor our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be onnotable subjects and should provide references to reliable sourcesthat verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Ilikepie757 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On Wikibeak for the next couple of weeks but have you considered improving the article? Francium12(talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk •email) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Explanatory and constitutive approaches in international relations theory


The article Explanatory and constitutive approaches in international relations theory has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fits better in International relations; there isn't a need for a separate topic here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion. KarlB (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A merge seems fair enough. Not overly bothered about all your merge proposals so long as the distinction between IR theory and IR is made. What we really need is a few people contributing content but in the past few years we haven't had many contributing to this area at all Francium12 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

article renames
Hi, someone suggested I do a bulk nomination, so I did so; as a result was your previous comments are now part of a closed discussion. I welcome your further input here Talk:Realism in international relations. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.--KarlB (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Societal security


A tag has been placed on Societal security requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directlyto give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administratoruserfy the page or email a copy to you. VIVEK RAI : Friend?  10:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 11th Song for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 11th Song is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/11th Song until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Jay Jay Talk to me 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in theJune-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:River Geography
Template:River Geography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Monster Raving Loony Party politicians
Template:Monster Raving Loony Party politicians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. benjamil talk/edits 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry for this. It was just so obvious to me that this had to be a hoax or some nonsense. I amazed that it isn't. I've noted on the template's talk page and in thetemplates for discussion entry that it should be kept. Again, I'm truly sorry.
 * Best regards, benjamil  talk/edits 07:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk •email) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

File:UniversityofNottinghamStudentsUnionElection.jpg
Hi. Quick question, did you create the poster yourself, entirely by yourself including all non-font elements, or did you just scan it in? I just want to check before I transfer to Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Matt Buck. I spoke to you at the AGM thing during #thebigask or should that be the #thebigfarce. No I didn't. I ignored Wikipedia's policies on images and hoped nobody would ask. I think that means we should delete it.Francium12 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, do you know at least what year File:Nightlinebear.jpg was taken in? I can place it as 2007 at earliest due to the door not being the Ark, but can't see anything beyond that to give a date. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, ,, ,,, and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk •email) 00:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk •email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Students' Union Council
Hi, I'm writing up a motion to the UoN SU Council to promote the use and publication of media under free licences. As a UoN student/alumnus, I was wondering if you'd like to give your input.

Please comment at commons:Commons:Village pump.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gosfield.GIF)
Thanks for uploading File:Gosfield.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot(talk) 04:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009), (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance articlefrog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January!J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martin Day (DJ)


The article Martin Day (DJ) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable local radio DJ. One reference is a small story in a local newspaper, searching GNews etc brings up nothing substantial. Fails WP:BIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion. Tassedethe(talk) 01:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Su Harrison


The article Su Harrison has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable radio presenter.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion. Elongated shorty (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Luke Bozier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luke Bozier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Luke Bozier until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and thatsignups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)