how to remove the page from which it was redirected

Hi there, thanks for abridging the page title: I'm aware I didn't use the right naming convention.

I would like to know how I could delete the "John Shaw (Painter/Printmaker)". There is no use to preserving this page: it only appears upon google-searching "john shaw painter" or "john shaw painter" along with the real page (the one you baptised) titled "John Shaw (painter)". Basically, I think there should only be 1 search result for this person, not two.

Please let me know if you have suggestions for how to delete this misnamed page.

Treebrainiac (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Treebrainiac: I'm failing to see why it was declined before, there is no history at that page title that needs to be retained, all of it has been moved over to the new title. Technically G7 might apply because you were the one who originally created it at that title, but ((db-error)) should apply either way. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Treebrainiac: I had left the link as a courtesy to make sure you found the new page title. Since you found John Shaw (painter), I've deleted John Shaw (Painter/Printmaker). —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks guys Treebrainiac (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C. Fred can you look at the page that I may have a conflict of interest in. I made a page for a distant relative who is an author and has been mentioned on a few pages already. I do not want to be biased while writing it and if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to fix the page. The page is Moshe Wisnefsky. ---Matthew Wisnefsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Wisnefsky (talk • contribs) 23:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warning Zootopia

I actually have spoken about this in the talk page of Zootopia and given PLENTLY of sources to prove my claim. This was actually a very recent edit done by another user changing "critically acclaimed" to "postive reviews". This isn't based in fact! And for months pior it has stated "critically acclaimed"! Now how ever there seems to be an effort to make the film seem lesser than what it is. This isn't just! As other films maked the same are not to my knowlage being abused like this.

Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennonthefox (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thread kept together at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mića Jovanović

Either socks or something organised. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maybe not, see my talk page which I'll move to the article talk page. needs more input. 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Danny Boy Styles Page

Why are you deleting this page over and over? There is absolutely NO NEED TO DELETE A PAGE THAT FOLLOWS ALL GUIDELINES!? There is only 1 reference and that is to the discography. What else is missing? This unethical and completely disrespectful to the artist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanzadeh1: As I've noted before, the page was not improved at all over the version that the community decided to delete. Criterion for speedy deletion G4 clearly applies. If you disagree, you're welcome to contest the matter at WP:DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why the page was in worst shape than before? this is extremely vague and not constructive. I am merely trying to support Wikipedia by adding useful information but users such as yourself do not help by deleting pages without clearly explaining why. There was only 1 sourced information and that was for his discography. Are you even looking at the page?! The guy who decided to delete the page in the first place has a personal issue with Danny Boy Styles, and he had a level 3 vandalism scoring on his page. Are you ignoring all this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanzadeh1: Which guy? The nominator or the admin who closed the AfD? —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator. Once again, we cannot just delete this page. It is a real person. It is a real discography. Those were real facts about him. A simple google search would end all this. Please help me restore this page. Even if its his info box and discography to begin with. This only hurts the community, not help it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanzadeh1: As for how it's worse, let's see:
  1. The intro does not mention that he charted on Billboard.
  2. The intro does not cite any sources at all.
  3. The intro doesn't mention his production work for The Weeknd.
  4. The only item sourced is discogs.com: no Forbes, no Billboard.
As Jo-Jo Eumerus said in closing the deletion discussion, "Based on the discussion here, the coverage of this bio is limited to brief mentions with no detail on the individual and his biography. Thus WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met." The most recent version of the article provides even fewer sources, so WP:SIGCOV is clearly not met.
In my opinion, the only way to fix the article is to provide independent, reliable sources that have given significant coverage to Styles. Discographies are not significant coverage.
As for the nominator, two other editors also agreed that the article should be deleted, and the closing admin felt the deletion had merit. That's four editors from the AfD alone. I'm endorsing the deletion when I speedy delete, so that's five editors who say this article is sufficiently flawed that it should be deleted. This is not just a rogue nomination.
"A simple google search"? A week's worth of searching didn't help during the AfD. At this point, the burden is on you to do the searching and find the reliable sources giving in-depth coverage if you want the article restored. No sources, no article. That's what the AfD determined, and that's pretty non-negotiable now. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The intro DID mentioned he charted on Billboard: The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100.[1]

2. The intro ORIGINALLY cited Universal Music Publishing Group's site and it got taken down. Take a look here: http://www.umusicpub.com/#contentRequest=artistdetail&contentLocation=sub&contentOptions=%26artistid%3D6514. This will cite everything stated in the Wiki page.

3. The intro DID mention his work for The Weeknd. What are you talking about? In 2013 Danny Boy Styles worked on Kiss Land, the critically acclaimed debut album The Weeknd, producing all 10 tracks.[2] In 2015 Danny Boy Styles followed up by working on The Weeknd’s record-breaking album Beauty Behind The Madness, including platinum single “Often”. Beauty Behind the Madness charted at the #1 spot on the U.S. Billboard Top 200 Album list for 3 consecutive weeks.[3]

4. I DID SOURCE FORBES and BILLBOARD and the moderator had a problem with that, hence why it was taken off.

5. His discography can be found literally with A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH, and discogs.com is a source that verifies his discography. I can source any other page that has his discography on there as well, how is this not a reliable source.

I honestly think you guys just don't want this page up. This is insane. The person exists. The credentials are there. The information I just supplied are all on UNIVERSAL MUSIC's website....does none of this make any sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Hasty, Katie. "Mims 'Saves' With Forthcoming Album Debut". Billboard.com. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
  2. ^ Lavin, Will. "THE WEEKND - KISS LAND (ISLAND / UNIVERSAL) 'Audio porn straight out of the pages of 50 Shades Of Grey'". Gigwise.com. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  3. ^ "The Weeknd - Chart History". Billboard.com.
The intro did mention that, yet the community felt there was not significant coverage.
I didn't look at the intro before the AfD was opened; I only looked at how it existed during discussion.
The intro did mention the Weeknd; the recreated version did not.
The community felt that the coverage in Forbes and Billboard was not significant in length; that's why those cites weren't deemed to be enough to be significant coverage.
A discography is not in-depth coverage about the performer.
Again, I deleted the article because it had not improved on the article as it existed at the time of the AfD. If you think the article was not in as bad state, take it to WP:DRV and see if there's consensus otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal. Even when I show you the obvious reasons why it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, you're giving me the run around. Sorry we all don't have 24 hours a day to spend on Wikipedia arguing common sense. This is hurting the community more than helping. Based on what you just said above, the original WAS ok, but the recreation wasn't....it wouldn't have to be recreated if the original was just EDITED with the correct information. Absolutely brutal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the community has decided it should be deleted. I am merely enforcing the decision. If you want to make a new, improved article, Draft:Danny Boy Styles is that way. If you think the AfD was misinterpreted or that the speedy delete was inappropriate, WP:Deletion review is that way. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new and improved page. There is no other information to add to this page and everything is sourced. New sources as requested. If there is any issue regarding the page, please let me know without deleting it. I honestly have no idea how else I can recreate this page any different than what it is, considering the fact that it is identical to every other music producer / artist's page I've seen. Please advise. Thx Here's the draft, please let me know if its good to publish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Boy_Styles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanzadeh1: It does not look improved. I've asked the closing admin from the AfD to see if they agree. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:C.Fred: What is there to improve besides adding direct references and citations to what is being written. You're wrong on this one. I'm glad I can get a second opinion. Read the page. Tell me where its wrong. You're borderline trolling now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanzadeh1: What do you mean by "wrong"? I never questioned the article's factuality or deleted it as a hoax. I deleted it for failing to fix the problems identified at an AfD and recreation with the same material. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with :@Alanzadeh1: The page is cited and sourced. I've viewed the original and the new page, and although its similar, it is factual with the necessary citation and sources providing accurate information on Danny Boy Styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiggamafu: Which new sources? —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a minute and read the article: http://www.musicweek.com/publishing/read/living-for-the-weeknd-we-re-the-guys-behind-him-who-make-the-machine-work/064982 which is the first source that establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about the living person biography.

Hi this is Vamsi I would like to add an shortfilm hero biography so please help me for that thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsimallavamsi (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamsimallavamsi: Who is the person, and what reliable sources have written about him/her already? —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Army listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese Army. Since you had some involvement with the Chinese Army redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block/protection request

There has been appalling abuse at the page of music historian Martin C. Strong, some of which you recently reverted. Accounts The Music Manic and Scotsmanic, along with IP 2A02:C7D:2FCD:9700:ADD0:DF51:54EB:E184, have served only to abuse Strong on Wikipedia, with all three accusing him of plagiarism while providing no supporting documentation for their claims. On top of that, The Music Manic added bogus information about Strong being a "closet homosexual" who "moved to mainland Europe"[1] and negated a positive review of Strong's work[2], while Scotsmanic and the IP have falsely accused him of being a "violent alcoholic" who has had legal action successfully taken against him (the IP deceitfully gives its edit summary as "facts")[3][4]. It seems that these edits indicate sockpuppetry by someone with a vile agenda against Strong; The Music Manic and Scotsmanic are similarly named, while the IP and Scotsmanic yesterday edited within three minutes of each other with almost identical edits. Could the accounts and IP involved be blocked? Perhaps page protection is also relevant, as the abuse has been going on since June. Thanks. Reed77 (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reed77: Page protection is not justified, since there have only been two incidents over the last three months. Likewise, with only one edit (plus a self-revert, if we assume he's the IP), it's hard to justify blocking Scotsmanic. Looking further back in the article's history, there have been edits by an IP who held himself out as if he were Strong. So, the article definitely needs an eye kept on it. I've got in on my watchlist, so I'll see what future edits go on. (I've also got Scotsmanic's user talk on my watch list; I'll see any future messages left for him.) So, page protection is not justified at this time, but I'll be watching to see if that changes in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halsey (Singer) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Halsey (Singer). Since you had some involvement with the Halsey (Singer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer: Thanks for the heads up. I've chimed in at the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Obaidi

Hi, Ive got the sources but unsure how to add them. This family is very well known and aristocratic in the middle east and Iraq and what I wrote is common knowledge for the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntratingham (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Added info on adding refs to User talk:Johntratingham Jim1138 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahilljoshi5 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahilljoshi5 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More