Jump to content

User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Appeal of your deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)

Article DID indicate importance or significance of the subject. Edit77edit (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bit indicated this - that he was a blogger? That he's written for some internet publications? That he coined a neologism? None of these would appear to show significance. However, if he is notable (a slightly different criteria to "significance"), then I presume he's been written about in the media? Could you link to some articles at reliable sources which are independent of him (ie no press releases), which have significant coverage of him and his life/career? You might find the general notability guidelines helpful, as well as the notability guidelines for biographies or the notability guidelines for writers. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Chris Moore (blogger)

Neologism "Judeofascism" is too controversial for media coverage, but is increasing used on Internet, and its blogger coinage and the context thereof is therefore of encyclopedic interest.

"Judeofascism" currently garners 11,600 google results. Judeofascism + "Chris Moore" currently garners 2,230 of those (19%).

"Judeofascist" currently garners 102,000 google results. Judeofascist + "Chris Moore" currently garners 5,330 of those (5.2%).

Media gatekeepers should not be the decisive factor in encyclopedia worthiness, but rather general interest. The dispute over the listing for article "Judeofascism" established way back in 2005 that term "Judeofascism" had been used in mainstream context… http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:BrandonYusufToropov/Judeofascism_dispute

And today, the term is even more common (as evidence by the google search results), and part of the American vernacular.

Since certain elements of Wikipedia have censored the term "Judeofascism" on an ongoing basis since 2005 (even though they include the term "Islamofascism" in article listing), in the interests of intellectual fair play and general public interest, at the least the person who coined the term Judeofascism and reference to the context of its coinage (Judeofascism.com -- active since July 2006) and the blogger who coined the term (actively blogging since Oct, 2001) should be available on Wikipedia. Edit77edit (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide some reliable sources which are independent which shows that the term was originated by Chris, and that it is in popular use? Google search results themselves do not necessarily mean anything, as the source needs to meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Number of hits on Google is no indication of notability either - if you typed in my real name into Google, you'd get about 7000 hits for my full name (including middle name), about 119,000 hits if you use my middle initial instead of my middle name, and about half a million hits using my name without the middle name/initial - and that is exact quotes (using a search term in quotation marks like "John Quailstone Smith" - not my real name!). Google hits is far from an accurate sign of notability
Although the term may be too controversial for media coverage (although controversy and media go together like peas in a pod), I'd expect to see lots of references to it in scholarly works or in books, including many which meet the reliability and independence criteria. The scholarly papers which use the term either attribute it to professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, or minor mentions (ie in a single sentence, not a paper specifically, or majorly, about the term) - indeed, in The Discrete Charm of European Intellectuals by Hamid Dabashi in Volume Three, Number Four of the International Journal of Zizek Studies, it appears to be a much older phrase, created more than 60 years ago: I have not heard of any talk about “Judeofascism” sixty years after the Zionist armed robbery of Palestine.... In books, the mentions again appear to be minor ones.
As such, I feel that the decision to delete the article was a correct one. If you feel that my decision was incorrect, please go to Deletion review and ask other editors to judge whether my deletion was correct. If you do so, please mention this discussion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Moore (blogger)

Phantom: "Could you provide some reliable sources which are independent which shows that the term was originated by Chris"

Never said the term originated w/Chris, only that he coined and significantly defined and advanced it after origination. That is self-evident from the google search results.

Phantom: "Number of hits on Google is no indication of notability either"

The question is whether the word is significant neologism, in which case number of hits is relevant. Another relevance is the geopolitical environment which itself is advancing the legitimacy of the word as a significant neologism.

Phantom: "controversy and media go together like peas in a pod"

Not in certain areas, which are highly censored by corporate and politically correct mainstream media. The uncensored Internet itself should be considered a far more worthy judge of legitimacy in those censored areas. Wikipedia is creating a Catch-22 by relying on mainstream media references in censored areas of society, and then using lack of reference to justify censorship on Wikipedia.

Phantom: "I'd expect to see lots of references to it in scholarly works or in books"

The area is so controversial and sensitive, political correctness and academia careerism prevents/stifles such references.

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. It is a popularly edited, cyberspace encyclopedia, maintained by the world community, and thus should reflect populist, cyberspace trends and neologins and their backgrounds, including controversial ones.

  • You obviously don't understand the intention of this encyclopedia, as you are so narrow-minded with regards to this subject. We have no aversion to covering controversial subjects, but they must be reliable and independently sourced PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you to rescind your decision to delete without my having to go through a bureaucracy of would-be gatekeepers who themselves might be subject to the constraints of political correctness, as their refusal to list the word "Judeofascism" itself as a neologism demonstrates them vulnerable, whereas they had no problem listing the word "Islamofascism" early on despite its lack of credentials, and having only been advanced by a handful of ideologues with "credentials" and an agenda.

At this point, the term Judeofascism has a credibility all its own which is legitimized by the People. It's coinage would thus be of significant interest to the populist Wikipedia community. On top of that, Moore's many other Internet writings and blogging activities over the course of many years qualify him for inclusion in the "American bloggers" category on Wikipedia at the least.

Again, pleas rescind your decision to delete.Edit77edit (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Again, I do not think that my decision to delete was incorrect. Unfortunately for you, being "legitimized by the People" is insufficient - there needs to be multiple independent reliable sources which verify the information. In this matter (both with Moore as a blogger, and the tem Judeofascism) there is insufficient sources which meet our criteria. Again, if you feel that I was incorrect, you are free to take the deletion to deletion review. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is now over, and if you comment further on this page, I am unlikely to respond, as I have made my position very clear - you are just choosing to not accept it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Moore (blogger)

Phantomsteve: "You obviously don't understand"..."you are so narrow-minded"..."Unfortunately for you, being "legitimized by the People" is insufficient"..."I have made my position very clear - you are just choosing to not accept it."

You couldn't be more obvious in your bias, nor could the other editors of Wikipedia who quickly accepted "Islamofascism" and rejected "Judeofascism." If your approach is representative of the level of professionalism I am likely to encounter on appeal, it's clearly a waste of time.Edit77edit (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I have missed a memo, but I am unaware of any policies or guidelines that say "if something is legitimized by the People then it is clearly notable"! I have explained clearly why I will not consider undeleting the article. However, you appear to want to ignore some of Wikipedia's core principles: verifiability at independent sources which are considered reliable. I would welcome you going to deletion review - I may have made a mistake and not realise it, in which case the deletion could be overturned. But you would need to accept that at a review, editors will consider the merits based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
Of course, you will say that we are unwilling to host controversial subjects, that we are influenced by a society which will not accept the term. You would be wrong, but I am sure that you will say that, so that you can run away and tell your friends how short-sighted, how ignorant, how Judeo-friendly, etc, Wikipedia are.
If you could provide a decent set of references for Judeofascism like that provided for Islamofascism, you'd not be having the problem you are. Oh wait, I've forgotten - you can't, can you? It's a conspiracy whereby all of the media are refusing to mention it, where every single scholar in the subject area is too cowardly to write a paper mentioning it, where no reliable independent source will dare to cover it, because they would lose their job/career/life!
Sorry, as you obviously do not have the courage of your convictions, and are unwilling to go to deletion review (after all, every editor in the world is part of this Judeofascistic conspiracy, aren't they - they can't be anti-Judeofascistic, can they?) then further communication would be a complete waste of time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh and one other little thing - if you want to continue a conversation, we generally edit the section that the conversation is in and add to the bottom of the section, not start a new section. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PhantomSteve: "you will say that we are unwilling to host controversial subjects...I am sure that you will say that, so that you can run away and tell your friends how short-sighted, how ignorant, how Judeo-friendly, etc, Wikipedia are."

Actually, you're not Judeo-friendly because you refuse to distinguish between sane Jews and Judeofascists. You insist on conflating the two, whereas I go to the trouble to distinguish between the two. Indeed, you deny there is even a Judeofascist wing of Judaism, and glom them all together into the same camp.

If you were to allow an entry for the term "Judeofascism," then that would clue people in that not all Jews are part of the Judeofascist syndicate, which is perhaps why you and Wikipedia refuse. It's either out of ignorance, or malice, or both.

I wasn't going to bother to appeal, but since we've had this conversation, I realize how essential it is for some reference to "Judeofascism" to appear somewhere on the pages of Wikipedia, if only to prevent short-sighted malice and ignorance from attaining totalitarian control of these pages.

How do I appeal? How I reference these conversatons on appeal? Edit77edit (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

'Please note that a response was made at User talk:Edit77edit'

DGUSA United We Stand

Re. PROD2 on that; see User_talk:Chzz#DGUSA_reliable_source. I've tried to explain; I give in.

Note - this is one of many non-notable PPV wrestling articles I've had huge troubles over; I'm about to give up on all of 'em, to be honest; [1] [2] [3] etc. "meh"  Chzz  ►  10:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the provided sources in the article to see if they are reliable and independent. If they aren't then I'll AfD it. I've found the wrestling community here are very defensive of the wrestling articles - I'll have to find a few of the specialist wrestling wikis which I can direct them to! From what I can see, very few of these PPV events would meet notability! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
None of the 4 sources appear to meet WP:RS so I have put the article up at AfD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A question about a deleted article

Hi, I had some questions about copyright involving Abdul Majid Abdullah, and naturally went to Moonridderngirl. See User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Process_question_and_a_specific_question My current thinking is that the article should be restored, and listed at Copyright problems so they can track down whether it is a reverse copyvio. I don’t know what investigations you may have made. Do you concur?SPhilbrickT 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm at work, but I'll try to look at that when I get home later and then get back to you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, the article as it was when I deleted it was a direct copy of www.alamelphan.com/artist/abd-el-meged-abd-alah - which has no notice regarding copyright at all. However, my understanding is that unless a site specifically states that the content is freely copiable, or specifically says that the contents is covered by a compatiable licence, the default status is that it is copyrighted, and so cannot be copied.
Secondly, I must confess that unusually I did not thoroughly check the history of the article for a previous version which the article could be reverted to - I checked back to November 2008, but didn't check further - the copyright violation was put into the article in July 2008! Normally I would check more thoroughly, so that was a mistake on my part!
I have now restored the article to the version as at 09:47, 31 July 2008. However, looking at Google hits for the English translated name, I cannot find sources which would indicate that he is notable - although I will admit that there appear to be a lot of hits on his Arabic name - but as I do not read Arabic (and GTranslate is taking forever to translate), I've no idea if they are about the singer, or the company CEO that comes up in the English-name hits. I am leaving a message on the talk page, and on the relevant WikiProject asking for help with this. If there is no response in a week, I'll take this to AfD (in the mean time, I am going to be bold and PROD it!)
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have PRODed it, and left a message on the talk page and on the talk pages of WikiProjects Biography, Saudi Arabia and Musicians. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

request from Anil Mascarenhas

Dear Sir Just trying to get in touch with you so that I can make my wiki page more reliable without the usual errors.

My email id is (redacted)

We do not put everyone's designation etc on the website and since I choose to keep a little low profile I have only given the (email address removed) to contact. Else we have too much corporates and PR trying to get in touch to plug their stuff. I am on Facebook too but don't know if it is accepted as a reference. I have appointment letters etc in hard copy which I can scan and send. But I think I will add a designation to my name in the interviews. That should make things easier.

Regards

Anil Mascarenhas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmasc (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anil, thanks for contacting me! I have removed your email address as pages on Wikipedia are very visible on the Internet and we wouldn't want spammers harvesting it!
I'd forgotten about your article, and looking at it now very quickly, I'm not sure if you meet the criteria for inclusion. I'll look into this more in a couple of days when I'm off work, but if I can't locate evidence that you meet our notability criteria, I must warn you that I will put the article up for discussion at Articles for deletion. If I do that, I will let you know and explain what will happen next -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 07:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to look at Anil Mascarenhas but will do so in a few days -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have Proposed the article for deletion, as I cannot find the significant coverage at reliable independent sources which show that you meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - please read the message on your talk page for more information PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

I'm slightly disappointed that the article has been deleted, when the opening sentence pointed out the importance of the subject. The article was a stub, but so are many of the NHS trust articles. Could you restore the article at the very least to my user space please or can it be restored so that I can work on it further? It was nominated for deletion within seconds of my first edit. Harrison49 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I read yout message on the article's talk page while considering the deletion. However, "Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, also known as NHS Hillingdon, is the NHS Primary Care Trust responsible for coordinating and providing public healthcare services across the London Borough of Hillingdon." does not show why this PCT is important in its own right. I'm a UK resident, and I'm not sure why a PCT would meet the notability criteria (or even the notability criteria for organisations) unless there was significant coverage of the Trust at reliable sources which are independent of the PCT itself. PCTs don't tend to get much coverage (and most of the coverage tends to be based on press releases issued by the PCT itself, so not independent) - the individual hospitals and practises tend to be more likely to get the coverage.
However, I am going to place it in your userspace for you to work on. Please note that this is not an indefinite "stay of execution", as it were - I'll expect you to work on it, and if I see no significant work/progress in a week or so, I reserve the right to speedily delete it.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have restored it, and moved it to User:Harrison49/Hillingdon Primary Care Trust. I have also set it up so that it will not be indexed by Google and other search engines, and commented out the categories (which aren't used in user space). Regards PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Thank you very much, Phantomsteve, for your help on this page move! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
And DoubleDog-Ditto for this one, too!>) – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Caroline P. Mauldin

Hello, I was in the middle of editing and waiting on more information for this page. Thank you for the guidance on what it would take to keep this page up - if you have any more examples of Bio type pages that I can follow for significance that would be appreciated. I would like to get this page to stay up if it meets requirements.

Many thanks, Raina

Well, to begin with, "She is also very awesome" is not the kind of thing you would get in an encyclopedia! Significance is shown by sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. A quick look at Google News Archive found lots of mentions about Caroline Mauldins who had died, or were in school - but not about this Maudlin. Likewise, Google Books and Google Scholar did not have anything that I could see about this Maudlin. To have an article on Wikipedia, an individual needs to meet the notability guidelines, which Maudlin does not appear to do PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that wasn't official information - was literally leaving it up there momentarily. I found the biographies guidance and will put this up similarly. Also can people put up their own wiki pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkumra (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, people cannot put up their own pages - would you expect Encyclopedia Britannica to allow people to create their own articles? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia just like they are!
Regarding Maudlin, unless you can find reliable sources which are independent of her (that means no press releases, etc) that give significant coverage of her, then an article about her would likely be deleted within a week, if not within a day. Being a speechwriter is not enough to be notable usually - and if she was notable, I would expect to find coverage of her in the media, which I did not. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Article deleted

Hi Phatomsteve

I have written an article and just posted it under Treetops Executive Residences. I am currently staying in this service apartment and find it beautiful, and thus decide to do an article on it... The information i have adapted from their brochure and my understanding, sources cited was from their website and based on their news archive.

Understand it has been deleted as it seems like a suspected advertising and promo article.

May i know how i may revised it so that it can be posted? Thanks!


Regards Shoppiee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoppiee (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In order for the Treetops Executive Residences article to be restored/recreated, you would need to:
I found 3 minor mentions in Google New Archives ("Another nominee for the Super- Star Award (Hospitality Sector) is Ms Mary May Simon Alayon, 30, Treetops Executive Residences- assistant manager of guest services."; "The Treetops Executive Residences in Singapore has 24hour guest services and broadband Internet..."; "She was then living in Treetops Executive Residences and visited its in-house spa" - none of these are significant coverage). The only mentions in Google Books are listing their address, again not significant coverage. As such, I do not think that they meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I understand that you like staying there, but that isn't really a reason to create an article! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Encounter Magazine page

Hi Phantomsteve,

I'm getting in touch as you deleted the page I created for Encounter Magazine (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Encounter_Magazine).

I created the page as there is currently another Encounter Magazine listed (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Encounter_(magazine) ).

I realise that there is little to reference other than the site itself, but it is definitely in existence and so I'd like to contest it being deleted when The Grocer (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Grocer) has a page of it's own relying only on references from their own site.

Could you let me know what I would need to do for you to find this article submissible for Wikipedia?

I appreciate you are busy and I am really grateful to you for taking the time to help out a newbie :)

Best wishes,

Joanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoannaHP (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me - this will be a quick reply, as I'm off to bed!
Firstly, whether another article exists or not has no bearing on whether this article exists. Incidentally, a very quick search revealed this confirmation of the owner and starting date of The Grocer (although I'll conceded that Harpers is also published by the same company as The Grocer) - but this one from Media Week isn't - a more thorough search would probably find some more (hmmm... perhaps I can add references to The Grocer another day...!)
Secondly, before deleting it, I tried to find some references at reliable sources which are independent of the subject, but was unable to do so. If you could provide some examples of such references (they need to be significant coverage - not a single-sentence mention, but an article which is mainly about the magazine, or which covers the magazine in some detail even if it is not the main part of the article), we could see where we can go from there.
Basically, you would need to demonstrate that the online magazine meets the notability criteria (and especially the criteria for web-based sites/magazines and the criteria for magazines, etc). You should also note that "What Wikipedia is not" says
I hope this explains the situation more thoroughly! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phamtomsteve,

Thanks - that's really useful :) Will do as you've suggested,

Many thanks,

Joanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoannaHP (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article: Ghostery

Greetings. You nominated Ghostery for deletion today. I'd really like to make sure it stays! Is there any editing suggestions you can provide me with to help me refine it? The nomination for speedy was proposed because the user flagged the page as not notable, but it is clearly so. Which criteria were you referencing when you flagged the page?ResolvedElement (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be pedantic, the speedy wasn't to do with notability (that wouldn't be a valid criteria for speedy deletion) but lack of indication of importance or significance. I disagreed with that, as I felt the article did, which is why I declined the speedy nomination. However, I did not feel that the article meet the general notability guidelines, hence the PROD. I have now started an AfD in which I explain why I do not think it meets the criteria for inclusion - the main problem for me is the lack of significant coverage - the mentions in newspapers are minor, and I do not think the reviews meet the criteria. I would welcome your input at the AfD - obviously, you are going to recommend keeping! The community can discuss it and reach a consensus on whether the article is kept or not. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

some deleted article creators just don't get it

Hello! Do you know of anyplace to discuss how we communicate with editors about why their articles get deleted and how to improve them? Emmanuel Jose Galvan was deleted four times. Others left the standard notices. I left notes and a template trying to explain notability, and was still being asked Why? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people won't get it even if we went to their house and sat down and explained it to them! Without looking at the particulars, is there a chance that the editor does not use English as a first language? Perhaps they really don't understand what we are saying, which is a shame as they could end up being blocked! Personally, I think that between the standard templates and personal messages, we are doing everything we can. In the past, I've found that often in this kind of case, the editor is either the subject themselves, their agent/manager or their PR company! I'll look at this a bit more later on if I get a chance -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I should add that there are many editors to whom I have explained notability, sourcing, etc who have either tried to find sourcing, or have understood that the article isn't suitable for inclusion - or have never edited again! Some don't try to recreate it but don't agree with my deletion - I refer them to Deletion review, but most times they do nothing further. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article (Balanced heart healing center)

Hi, I posted an article titled "Balanced Heart Healing Center" recently, which was deleted. I am new to wikipedia and am wondering what happened? I have an updated, more detailed text ready to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsoh51689 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the reason the article Balanced heart healing center was deleted was because it did indicate the importance or significance of the organisation. Being a non-profit organisation does not inherently make an organisation notable. Although the aims of the organisation are worthy, that is not the same as notable. An organisation needs to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (and definitely the notability guidelines for organisations. The main criteria is significant coverage at reliable sources (especially newspapers and magazines) which are independent of the organisation - which means that press releases, or press coverage based on press releases, are not sufficient. I found three mentions of the centre - one in January 2008 in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about a fundraiser fair the centre held, which appears to be based on a press release; one last October in Fox Business, which had a minor mention in a paragraph about Katie McCorkle within an article about "Retirement Planning With a Low-Pay Job"; and another mention in the Post-Gazette which was likewise minor (and not about the centre itself). I couldn't find any other mentions at reliable independent sites.
If your reason for creating an article about the centre is to promote it, then Wikipedia is not the right place - you'd be better off looking at AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany or MyWikiBiz, all of which exist for that purpose.
I hope that this explains the decision to delete the article - we appreciate that effort needs to be made to create an article, but unfortunately, not all subjects meet the criteria for inclusion!
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Phantomsteve... Thanks for the quick feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsoh51689 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DocRun Page

The DocRun page was formatted similar to other articles I looked at. It referenced other companies Jennifer Reuting founded, one of which already has its own Wikipedia page (InCorp.com) and linked to it, and the book she wrote. It also cited independent blog articles as sources. I also linked to Jennifer's own Wikipedia page.

The talk page says it doesn't indicate the significance of the subject. I believe it does, because it references the companies she previously founded, and let's the public know about her newest venture. What types of sources can I cite so it doesn't get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berklyboy2 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As Fæ told you, the company needs to be notable in its own right - not just because someone notable like Jennifer Reuting founded it. There needs to be significant coverage at reliable, independent sources which demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (including the guidelines for company notability). Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Treetops Executive Residences query

Hi phantomsteve

Was reading through your talk section and understand the frustrations behind alot of times, people create articles, and get rejected and do not understand why they are rejected.

Noted that you have put up my article for deletion once again. Sorry to have to ask, but would really want to know why. The first time when i did this article, i was pretty ignorant about it, thus posted it directly and got removed almost immediate. Understanding it, i then decide to bring the article to articles for creation for assistance on reviews and feedback so that i can better my article and hope it will get approved.

Article was assisted by alot of kind volunteers, who told me the way i might have written is seems too much like an ad, and i have revised it multiple times hopefully i get it right. Was very happy to finally see it get approved, but understand now you have put it up for deletion.

I want to write to you in hope that you can understand, this is defintely not from a point of advertising for the company. I am not with the organisation, though i am currently staying with them as a in-house guest for the past few years. I might have said before i enjoy the property, but that does not give enough perservance to fulfill the wish of getting it posted. Though many a times i wish to give up because of the constant rejection, it is gratefulness to wikipedia for providing resources whenever i require, which gave the determination of writing an article, and constant writing as well.

Perhaps you can enlightened me on what gives the right for an article to be listed then? I guess alot of people who are trying to write their articles are also curious to understand this area, so that our endless efforts spend on writing this articles are paid off. Really hope to seek your kind understanding on this and remove the assumption that i am related to this organisation, because if i am, perhaps i would have given up long ago and turn to other sources.

Hope to hear from you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoppiee (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Shoppiee! Firstly, when you leave a comment, if you add ~~~~ at the end of your comment, your user name and the date and time will be put there automatically!
I have explained quite fully the reasons why I feel the Treetops Executive Residences article should be deleted at the "Articles for deletion" (AfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treetops Executive Residences - to which you are very welcome to add your comments!
Basically, I feel that the notability of Treetops has not been established. Although I appreciate all the work you have done, the references do not add up to significant coverage at multiple reliable independent sources - they are either not independent (e.g. advertising), not reliable (e.g. reviews which can be submitted by anyone) or not significant coverage.
For a subject to have "the right for an article to be listed", it needs to meet the notability criteria. The general criteria are here, and the organisation/company-specific guidelines are here. I do not see how Treetops meet those criteria.
I hope this explains more fully why I have put the article forward for deletion. The community have a week to discuss it, either recommending to delete or to keep the article. A closing administrator (not myself, as I have participated in the discussion, as the nominator!) will look at the arguments presented after that time, and judge the consensus of the participants. I should stress that it is not a vote - arguments based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (see here for some of the most important ones, alongside the two notability criteria guidelines I linked to a couple of paragraphs back) are considered more useful than simple statements like "I like it" or "Articles about similar things exist already, so this should as well".
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Attempt at censorship at Korean Pop Music Scandals by an "insider"?

It seems that you are being discussed there. Quasihuman | Talk 12:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it - I'm ignoring it. It gave me the chance to see a couple of unanswered queries, so it was useful! I've left a welcome message on their talk page with useful links to policies. I have suspicions about the account, but nothing worth SPIing or anything. Thanks for letting me know, though -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should create a new userbox: "This user is the King of Wikipedia" - or do you think Jimbo would object? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I like it. This userbox contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.:) Quasihuman | Talk 13:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Steve, I just took the bold step of collapsing all the nonsense comments at the AfD for the Korean pop music scandals page, is this OK? I did this to try and help other editors that might want to contribute to the discussion. I should also point out that Standage has started blanking the article as he's supposedly given up, so I think that effectively means that he's !voting delete now. Who needs the daytime soaps when we have this, right? :) Robman94 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but it would be polite to leave a message on Standage's talk page about it. You could also perhaps warn him about not blanking the page (I've mentioned this on the article's talk page if you want to read that) - explain that no one, including me, want him blocked from editing. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 16:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and perhaps mention licensing and that you can't "withdraw" what you have contributed? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Done [4] Robman94 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage started. Robman94 (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ZMarr page deletion

Hi, I am concerned about your deletion of page "ZMarr". Every other member of the band Combichrist has a valid wikipedia page but I don't understand why you keep deleting ZMarr's page?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.113.44 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only 3 out of the 11 members past and present have articles. Even of the current line-up, only 2 have articles. Being a member of a notable band or group does not automatically make you notable in your own right. I've explained more fully on the talk page of the Z Marr article creator (see here). Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kameelion

Hey!

Just been talking on the "Un-Delete" page and they don't me to contact you regarding the un-deletion of the Kameelion page. The singer/songwriter was just starting out when article was created, and the article lasted a decent amount of time on Wikipedia before a deletion policy came into action. Kameelion has now finally signed a deal with Sony BMG and is recording his album for a release in 2011. A quick restore and a clean up with new references and this article will be back on track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.157.86 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I did a quick search for reliable sources which are independent of the subject which would verify that information, but I couldn't find any. Could you point me to a reliable, independent source that verifies your information? With that, we can proceed! Incidentally, you might want to read the notability criteria for singers, and explain under which criteria Kameelion comes - being signed to a major label is not enough, and recording an album (not yet released) isn't either - the guidelines mentioning releasing 2 or more albums. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 01:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Odaine Demar

It's been recreated yet again (this time without the accent mark), despite your warning here [5]. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, SALTed and editor blocked for 1 week PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

KimSeoul

Hi. It is OK with our user name is OK. We thank you for message. --KimSeoul (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand - accounts are for *one* person only PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Far too speedy deletion / abuse of power

The Joe Clokey article was too quickly deleted. It appears that the notice of soon deletion was given on June 20. And yet the article was deleted that day.

If this is how the article was deleted then the deletion was an abuse of authority. There is supposed to be a discussion period of several days. Many of us have jobs and cannot be on wikipedia 24/7 to weigh in on debates.96.246.247.142 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about the deletion. I think you are a bit confused - the discussion of 7 days is for an article that has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion - however this article was not listed there, but tagged for speedy deletion under criteria 7 which is about the article having a lack of credible assertion of significance or importance. As the name implies, speedy deletion means that the article could be deleted in a speedy manner - possibly within seconds! When I get home from work in a few hours, I'll look at the deleted article and see if I was correct to delete it or not, and will comment here in either case -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, having looked at the deleted article again, I see that it definitely was nominated for speedy deletion, not AfD. The only "claims to notability" appear to be who his father is (which does not make him notable), and the animated film he created? However, although the film is mentioned in the main Davey and Goliath article, it is only a minor mention - and no mention of Clokey is made there. All in all, I see little evidence in the article that Clokey is significant or important - the mentions in the Washington Times and MSNBC are mainly about the animation, and a short bit about Clokey and his wife. As such, I believe the deletion to be correct. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Have a look at this AfD

Heya Steve, Do have a look at this AfD please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153 (2nd nomination), Thank ye, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S: How did you create taht QR code?? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at the AfD. As for the QR code, I can't find the site I did that at! I can find those that will generate it in colour, but not one which will embed text - I'll look for it another day this week when I have more time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks sir. P.S I never noticed you turned admin, I only know that you gave me my review, :) Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Do look at this one too please, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Done PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wally Jenkins

Restored, even though it could be speedied as spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: it was indeed speedied as spam later! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolporter Holding

Hey I did that once :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It was late being closed, and I figured that as the consensus was unanimous, and against me, no one could claim that I acted in a biased way! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Government shutdown
Janne Turpeenniemi
Amilcar Compound
DWNB-TV
Amilcar CGS
The Noise
Nikki Osborne
Amilcar C4
2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey
T.V. Mohandas Pai
Amilcar CGSS
Brett Le Man
Benimàmet, Valencia
Partabpura
Brian Lane Green
King of the Khyber Rifles
Amilcar CC
Memorial High School (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Nangal Maja
Cleanup
Heidi Zeigler
Augustin Daly
Sam Trammell
Merge
Death of Osama bin Laden
Classic Comics
Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden
Add Sources
The Devil With the Three Golden Hairs
Cinema of Andhra Pradesh
New Year's Eve with Carson Daly
Wikify
Portlligat Museum-House
Kuppuswamy Nagarajan
Manakampat Kesavan Unni Nayar
Expand
John Costanza
M. Karunanidhi
Conservative Party of Canada

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "South Eastern Christian Centre"

Could you please clarify the reason for the deletion of "South Eastern Christian Centre"? I felt that I had met the criteria and then explained why on the "talk" page, so am puzzled since no further explanation was given. As a reminder, the uniqueness of this church is that whilst already a significant size shortly after its inception, it experienced unprecedented substantial growth, a fact which was referenced accordingly. Rob Nyhuis (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that this sounds impressive - but although it is a large increase in size compared to the average, I saw no indication that this church is the only Australian Pentecostal church to have anything like that growth. I also note that you are the current minister/leader, and although that has no bearing on the status of the article, I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to our conflict of interest guidelines.
However, it is true that this is a 'claim of significance or importance', and so I should not have deleted the article. I have therefore restored it. I will, however, be nominating it for deletion at Articles for deletion, where the community will have 7 days to discuss whether the article should be kept or deleted - this is based on the consensus, not a vote - but I will leave a message on your talk page when that is done, with a link to the discussion so that you can make your comments for keeping the article.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario Masic AfD

Hi there! I hope my course of action was correct. The article was originally speedy'd, but that was removed, after which it was PRODded. A debate then started, so I decided to send to AfD instead since the deletion was becoming controversial. I feel in the end it should (and will) be deleted. Thanks, Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you did the right thing! PRODs are normally removed by the "protesting party", but there was a clear objection so it was right for it to be removed! AfD was the next step, I only noted the PROD removal for info. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm curious, though.. I notice my revisions are showing up in the libel deletions. That almost makes it look like I'm one of the trouble makers. Any way to remove the problem statements without making it look like anything I did needed to be removed? Thanks! Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I had to RevDel back to when the potentially libellous statements had first been added - I could RevDel your username from the history, but any admin can see that, and to them it might make it look even more like you were the problem editor! If you really want your username RevDel'd, you might want to ask at WP:ANI for another admin to do it - I'm not sure when I'll next be logged into my main (admin) account rather than this alternative account I use when I'm on my mobile -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify that: if (for example) the 2nd edit on a page includes something that needs RevDel-ing, and the problem isn't removed until the 8th edit, the statement will be present in all of the 2nd through 7th edits, so all of those would have to be RevDel'd. That's the reason for the large block of greyed-out edits. I thought the two statements were sufficiently potentially libellous that they shouldn't remain generally visible in the history. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 18:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, that's good enough for me! :) No worries. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 19:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deborah presley brando

So even after it was just deleted for being a contentious, unsourced BLP; you allow it to stay because of a technicality? Then you add an AfD template that doesn't point to any where. Nice to see you're doing your bit to keep the quality standards up. I'm not going to touch the article again. Let's just leave it. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the AfD - that was already there, all I did was decline the speedy nomination. You had nominated this at AfD here - which you then asked to be deleted, so I did so. The article had not been deleted following a discussion, so the criteria was not met. When originally deleted, it was indeed unsourced - but this version has links to articles about her. Personally, I agree that it should be deleted - but it has to be done correctly. I have undelete the AfD and will relist it, so that this can be properly discussed - but I will not delete something under "previosuly deleted following a discussion" when there is no AfD - and the claim has sources, so I cannot delete under A7.
If you don't like this, you are welcome to ask for other admins to talk about it at WP:AN to see if the consensus there is that I acted incorrectly. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I know I added the AfD template; but I also tried, or at least I thought I tried, to remove it. There seems to have been an edit conflict. My edit history shows that I nom'd the AfD page for deletion, I removed the AfD page from the list. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the AfD, re-tagged the article as under discussion, and re-listed it at AfD. I have also commented at the AfD and tidied up the article to remove the unencyclopedic bits, as well as tidying up the sources for use as inline references if (!) the article is kept. I couldn't be bothered to put much work into an article that I am certain is going to be deleted! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

NHS Hillingdon

Is User:Harrison49/Hillingdon Primary Care Trust any closer to being ready for a move to the mainspace? Harrison49 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where the notability of the PCT lies. Looking at the references provided:
  1. "Public Board Meeting: 25 November 2010"
    • Confirms the chief executive and the 3 trusts being merged, but no the significant coverage about the Trust which the notability criteria mentions
  2. "Hillingdon PCT combined with Hounslow and Ealing"
    • Again, confirms the re-organisation of the 3 trusts, but not significant coverage about this one
  3. "Borough NHS chief quits in health service shake-up"
    • Confirms the departure of the previous chief exec, but again, not significant coverage
  4. "About us"
    • Not independent - but also has no mention of the PCT from what I can see.
  5. "Northwood Hills hospital 'in too difficult box' and set to 'wither for 10 years'"
    • This is probably the best source of the lot, but it's about a minor point (one specific hospital), and I would not count it as significant coverage of the PCT
  6. "CNWL become responsible for community healthcare in Hillingdon"
    • I see nothing in the article that mentions the PCT. It mentions Hillingdon Community Health, but nowhere has it been shown that HCH and the PCT are the same thing, or that HCH was part of the PCT. This would be counted as original research or synthesis, which are not allowed in articles.
  7. "Confidence in coping with huge changes to the NHS"
    • Confirms the status, but I do not feel that there is enough in the article about the PCT in particular (basically, it confirms the debt that the PCT inherited, but not much else)
Overall, I still do not see where the PCT meets the notability criteria for organisations (see here), which specifically excludes "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". As such, I do not feel the PCT meets the criteria for inclusion.
This leaves us in an interesting position: draft articles cannot be left in userspace indefinitely! However, the above is my opinion, which may or may not be agreed with by other editors. If you believe that I am wrong, and that the Trust meets the criteria for inclusion, then move the article back to main space. I must warn you that I would probably take it to Articles for deletion for a discussion about whether the article should be kept or not.
Alternatively, if you think you can find some reliable, independent sources which would give significant coverage, you could continue editing it - however, if you don't think you can (and don't want to move it to main space) - or you do not further editing and adding further sources in the near future - I would consider taking the page to Miscellany for deletion (which deals with pages in user space).
I acknowledge that locally in Hillingdon, the PCT is important - but this isn't the Hillingdon Wikipedia, but the English-language Wikipedia: subjects need to meet the notability criteria, and regrettably, I don't thing the Trust does.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I know this isn't the Hillingdon Wikipedia but felt this trust was notable, partly on the grounds of there being other articles on primary care trusts but also that it covers the second largest borough of London. Some of the references you have mentioned cover the parts of text in the article in the way I intended, particularly the 4th, which covers the point of the hospitals run by the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I have no wish to create an article currently which will be swiftly nominated for deletion and so I will for now redirect the page to my userpage. I will continue to seek references to support the article and work towards gathering enough to support a future move into the mainspace. Harrison49 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you can find some references which would meet the criteria. A few points though:
  1. Whether other PCTs have articles is not strictly relevant - it could be that they meet the criteria for inclusion, or it could be that they should be deleted - either way has no bearing on whether this PCT should have an article
  2. The fact that the area they cover is the second largest borough of London isn't relevant either. The main criteria is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" - it's the significant coverage which is the problem (plus some of them are either not independent in their own right or are in independent reliable sources but appear to be based on press releases (i.e. they merely say what the PCT has told them - and so are not independent))
  3. By the 4th reference, I assume you mean the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust one? As that is their own website, it can hardly be counted as an independent source can it?
  4. Again, the lack of 'significant' coverage at independent sources is the main problem at the moment. The general notability guidelines say "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material (emphasis mine)
If you think you have find sources which would meet the criteria (and that clearly demonstrates that the PCT meets both the general notability guidelines and the subject-specific guidelines for organisations, please do contact me again. Again, I must emphasise that this is my opinion from reading the article, the references and the notability/independent sources/reliable sources guidelines. Other editors may feel differently - and it is no reflection on my opinion on you as an editor - I see excellent work that you have done - do keep it up! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll certainly keep going back to it. The 4th reference for the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust would not count as independent, but I mentioned it as you highlighted it for not mentioning the PCT. It was not meant to. Thanks for your help. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm (Crystal Baller)

I beg to differ, as notability has still not been established and the information that was used is useable in (and better used in) the article about the album, but if I must use this process, I will. Thanks for letting me know. CycloneGU (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources now, and I feel that it is sufficiently different to the original version as deleted as to need another AfD! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This is true, there are sources and I did suggest to the author (see his talk page, too lazy to link right now) that the information might be better used at the album page. I'll link him to the deletion discussion where I will post these concerns. CycloneGU (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaci Velazquez

Thanks for not deleting Jaci Velazquez. I realized that it was a spelling mistake and this is the correct action. I'll clean-up the redirects soon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it looked like a plausible search term which should be redirected to the correct spelling PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Joygf53/ArtistScope

Still unedited since I tagged for speedy and you declined. Time for it to go? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As it has been unedited for 20 days, I think we gave the user a fair chance, so I've deleted it under your original G11 criteria. Thanks for reminding me, I'd forgotten about it! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Foodily talk page

Hi Phantomsteve, I am contacting you per the recommendation that I reach out to the deleting administrator before recreating a page. I'd like to create a Wikipedia page for the recipe search start up that I work for, Foodily.com. Can you provide any guidance on how to ensure the entry meets Wikipedia's standards? Thank you, Chris Chris foodily (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)chris_foodily

I have copied this over as the editor is looking for information I will post this link to his page so he can follow your reply. Mo ainm~Talk 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jumping in here. Suggest that you read WP:CORP and WP:BFAQ. Generally speaking a start up will not have received the significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to demonstrate notability for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ukexpat said what I was going to say! If it doesn't meet the general notability criteria or the notability criteria for businesses then it would end up being deleted. You might also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, editor is currently blocked User talk:Chris foodily Mo ainm~Talk 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove the page Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

Sorry to come in this way, the disturbing

But if you do not mind, like you do not remove my article to Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector, this article has nothing against the laws of wikipedia, is only one article about my club. There are several articles on wikipedia about youth football, the Sporting Clube de Portugal is world renowned for its football youth players in our history we have known worldwide, awarded to the governing body of football. The national team of Portugal, is composed of many players who have been through the youth football Sporting Clube de Portugal. I am doing this article, but I did not have much time available, I am doing it gradually. This article is an article constructive to know our history, like many other clubs. I agree with you that are a few titles, and there is no relevance to the article, but the history of Sporting Clube de Portugal is very diverse, the Portuguese club is best known worldwide for their youth football, portuguese is the club that uses more players coming from their youth football, please do not remove the page, it would be a great injustice. Understand that I have not had much time to do it now.

Thank you, have a great day Cumps

As you have objected to the deletion I have removed the proposed deletion tag. However I will be l will be looking into this in a couple of days and unless I can find evidence that the club meets the general notability guidelines, I will be taking it to Articles for deletion -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/June&oldid=1144160203"