This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there. You recently deleted a biography on Jason ILey. He is president of Mercury Records, the 4th biggest record label in the world. Your reason for deletion was because of notability. Maybe this is because of the the way the articles written though? He works with and/or is responsible for breaking some of the worlds biggest artists ie. Rihanna, Ne-yo, U2, BonJovi. If I added more of this in the article would that make it notable? Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBiles (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a press release from Universal Music Group about ILey's promotion to president of Mercury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieBiles (talk • contribs) 11:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Did it occur to you to provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? Press releases don't count. In any case the article was derisorily short on biographical detail about the guy himself. That is what we need, not a list of the artistes he manages. If you pull your finger out and actually write an article about the guy instead of his current post, then it might stick. Re-submit via AfC. And why do you keep spelling the name with a capital L? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems extremely unfair of you to delete the Rosecrance entry, especially when the reason given was "unambiguous spam" and ESPECIALLY when you consider that Hazelden article still stands even though it is extremely similar in nature. 'Hazelden' features no external sources and essentially acts as an advertisement for the company's services.

The article wasn't created by a robot. It took me more than three hours to research, write and put together. I sourced the company website, I included external links to its official Twitter and Facebook pages and I even cited a very recent article from the local newspaper.

Rosecrance is a huge, relevant company — not just in its local region, Rockford, Illinois, but in the Midwest overall. The company reports more than $46 million dollars annually, employs 600 people and treats hundreds on patients (both inpatient and outpatient) per day. Many, many, many people are effected by its dealings. Billykulpa —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

• You are a design and communications specialist with Rosecrance so you have a severe COI. But you may be confident that when your company becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. Or read this advice - you could start by looking at people who contributed to the Hazelden Foundation article but they also seem to have a COI for their company! (I generally consider links to Facebook and Twitter as clear evidence of lack of notability!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand if you're deleting the article based on relevancy, or if you're deleting it because you're concerned about the conflict of interest.

I don't need to be told I have a conflict of interest. Remember, I'm the one who disclosed it in the first place. But just because I have a stake in the topic doesn't mean I didn't or can't write an objective, fact-based entry. In fact, I'm arguing that my stake in the company makes me particularly informed and qualified to write about it.

Did you find evidence of my conflict of interest compromising the integrity of the article? For example, did you find loaded language in the article? And if so, why wasn't that specific language edited or corrected?

On the other hand, if we're talking about deleting the Rosecrance entry because a lack of relevancy, there are thousands of people affected by the company each week. How come you get to decide that this company, with a nearly 100 year history and tens of millions of dollars in annual revenues, is any less relevant than companies (for example) like About.com or News Chief.

Does the company have to be featured in the news? Because if so, Rosecrance showed up in the Rockford Register Star five times this month already. Billykulpa (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of course the company has to receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and preferably more than the local newspaper. But if you insist on trying to create an article, I suggest you go to deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rosecrance

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rosecrance. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Billykulpa (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you have recently removed an article about The Living Art Museum. I am going to make a new one now, I am a member of of the board of the Museum and act on its behalf and have a right to use the material about the museum from its home page, I have written to permissions-en at wikimedia.org regarding the matter. if you like I can send you a copy of what I wrote to them. I have made the following Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Living Art Museum and will attempt to publish such an article again on wikipedia now. I am new to wikipedia so sorry if I dont do things the right way, I am learning. best regards, Gunnitune (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, maybe you could help me, i cant seem to find information on how to actually publish my article for creation that i mention above, should i create a new one on the topic? Gunnitune (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, why have you deleted my article again? respectfully, Gunnitune (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• As a member of the board, you have a COI and you are strongly recommend to wait until someone with no COI thinks the museum is notable. But if you really insist, then creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Living Art Museum is the correct procedure. I have deleted The Living Art Museum because the text is under consideration at Articles for creation (AfC). Don't be impatient. If and when the AfC submission is approved, the person approving it will move into the (article) namespace for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, thank you for answering, I can appreciate your points and respect how the wikipedia is run and looked after. how ever I still think the L.A.M. is notable for en.wikipedia and I don't think there is a great COI even if I am a member of the board. It is a nonprofit, artist run institute and most of the board work is voluntary – my work is mostly voluntary there for example. Now, as I am somewhat impatient I would ask you for advise; is there anything I can do to further the AfC process other than what I have already done? I have written to permissions-enwikimedia.org and filled out the form there and created the AfC. I created an article on the is.wikipedia in Icelandic about the L.A.M. and it raised similar questions, but the matter there was resolved there after some discussions. Gunnitune (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I repeat - don't be impatient. What does it matter if the article is published this or week or next month? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you recently moved List of colleges affiliated with Mahamaya Technical University to my sandbox. Here is the Original List.

I have since

1. moved it to another section
2. removed html styling
3. removed unencyclopedic column.

Here it is.

Wikilinking to all articles is not possible since all colleges don't have their own articles. I will try to wikilink it to as many articles as possible. Meanwhile, I think it is good enough to be moved to the main wikipedia now.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nice to see my advice followed for once. Yes, it will probably survive if you move it to the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move it then--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You just moved the page First Robot Assisted Double Valve Replacement Heart Surgery to First robot-assisted double heart valve replacement. Unfortunately it should really be "First robotic-assisted double heart valve replacement". Shall I leave you to perform the move or is there really a need for open questions and opinions etc? The problem being that there is no autonomy involved, the machine is only a robotic arm [1] [2] [3] [4] and the manufacturers site [5]

It is also strange that the only mention of it is from the India press, apart from one or two in the Middle East...ah well will keep an eye on it for better sources. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely not robotic-assisted even though the robotic surgery article does use it twice. That article seems perfectly happy with robot-assisted. I would accept robotically assisted but why change it? I suggest discuss on talk page before moving again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are robot assisted surgeries, such as some brain surgery and Robotic_surgery#Radiosurgery, using semi-autonomous devices - true robots. This is non-autonomous, it is merely a robotic arm. I appreciate your correction to robotically-assisted, I was merely using the majority of sources. As you moved it I thought I would ask you to correct the move.

If you wish to make me go down that path I would be a little perturbed that you are ok to do it without discussion but are telling me I have to discuss first? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• In case you did not notice, the move was to get rid of horrible spurious capitals. Having done that neccessary move, I felt the title was good enough and no further move was needed. Which term do you claim is used by "the majority of sources"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of sources - the newspaper and press releases that were documenting the surgery, some of which are used in the renamed article. There were only about 30 or so from a Google search [6].

I appreciate that the hyphenating was necessary, as was the decapping, but it is still true that there are two different terms: robot-assisted and robotically-assisted, the first aided by autonomous or semi-autonomous equipment and the second using non-autonomous equipment. Da Vinci is a non-autonomous system and is, for want of a better term, merely several robotic arms which are controlled by directly mimicking the surgeons hand movements. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are claiming that "robot-assisted" and "robotically-assisted" are different terms for different types of surgery. Firstly I would like to see sound evidence that the terms are used in this way in the majority of sources. But even if it were true, I feel that Wikipedia should use better terms to distinguish more clearly between the two types. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming it, I am stating the fact, though I appreciate your point of view on that :¬) The issue remains that surgery is not the only place where these terms are used, the problem is that assisted by a robot and assisted by robotics are much more used than tele-surgery, which is becoming more widely used for "the doctor was in city A while the patient operated on was in city B".

It is sort of true that they should be more clearly identifiable. Unfortunately the problem is that Robot-assisted and robotically- assisted are the terms in common usage. Using a robotic arm to move a parcel or satellite is "robotically-assisted", using a robot to clean your house is robot assisted housekeeping. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

Hi, You removed PXIT as there was no reference to the importance of this company.

Importances to note are:

• They are a founding member of the PXI alliance.[www.pxionline.com/emag/pxi.2004.spring.pdf]
• They developed the first multi gigabit bit error ratio tester and sampling scope in the PXI format. This is a true fact however i need to research how i can substantiate this.
• They were the first PXI company purchased by Agilent technologies, a company that has now embraced the pxi standard.

If these points do not help the company/page achieve the required level of importance then i accept your removal. Otherwise please let me know how more i can further justify its existence. Thank you, Nog 77 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article not only lacked evidence of notability, it also lacked information on what the company actually does, being mainly a boring list of the corporate history. The company sells very specialised products of very little interest to the general public. You probably have a COI but you could try deletion review. Please learn wiki markup - you cannot be bothered to create a link to the PDF mentioned above, so why should I bother to look at it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback and close scrutiny of wikipedia. Administrators' conscientiousness and attention to detail is the reason I wish this article to be on wikipedia and become a useful set of navigation links within wikipedia to relationship and self-help subject areas.

Thanks for taking the time to read this article before, it has been redrafted, please let me know if there are now any Wikipedia guidelines which it still needs to address. The rationale for the article's relevance to Wikipedia is on the Discussion tab.

The Intimate relationship skills page has now been redrafted, would you have time to make any more comments? Re-submitted to Afc, here:2nd Afc submission - Intimate Relationship Skills Many thanks Geoffjw1978 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am sorry but surely you can see that it is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. If it was simply a "set of links within Wikipedia to relationship and self-help subject areas" then it would be fine. Incidentally, please learn to create wikilinks! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:

Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike was a highly notable figure in the f/sf world [7] [8] [9] who died quite recently, and the news of his death has barely broken. He clearly meets the ANYBIO standard, and I doubt the article would need more than a moment's pro-forma work to pass the notability standard; I can't see how it would fail A7 unless it was deleted while under construction. I was about to remove the speedy notice when you deleted the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored the text to User:KConWiki/sandbox.— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • RH: Just a note: Another editor and I have added sources, indications of notability and as a result I've moved the result to mainspace, this is just a friendly notification that that was done, feel free to trout me if I've stepped on your toes here. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 3, 21 March 2011 This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail. Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with ((WAP assignment)) on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active. Education portal in progress - Wikimedia staff have started work on an outreach portal for information about teaching with and about Wikipedia. Please help develop it! Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.) Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee. Editing Friday returns - This Friday, join fellow ambassadors and others real-time collaboration on Wainwright Building.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, a couple of weeks ago I bookmarked a few pages on Wikipedia - one of those pages was for James Layfield. Visiting the page in the last couple of days it's clear it's been deleted. Is it possible it could be undeleted? If not, I'd like to potentially take it upon myself to create a new page, or amend the previous version from within my sandbox. The current page states I should contact you if creating a new page is my intention.

I registered a few days ago and I've spent most of the weekend looking at the various guiding points and best practices for Wikipedia entries so I can make sure it adheres correctly. Along with some of the other pages I bookmarked I think the new/amended page would make a notable addition.

Any help or further guidance would be much appreciated. Parbjohal (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• On reflection, I probably should not have deleted it. It had been around for three years, contained a lot of external links some of which may well be independent and the deletion proposal had been placed by an IP address. But the tone struck me as too much like a newspaper article: too many peacock terms - even if they were in quotes - and unwanted pictures of Richard Branson and the Dalai Lama. I have e-mailed you the text. Feel free to tidy it up and simply re-post. Let me know when you have done so - the previous history will need to be restored underneath so that all the editors get credited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's great. I've received the email with the original text. I'll take your notes on board and do a tidy up of it before re-posting. Once I've reposted I'll update this talking point to let you know. Thanks again Parbjohal (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Roger, I am new in Wikipedia. I am a student in the U.S. I have to research about environmental law, and post my research in wiki. Could you please, give me some tips and ideas about how can I start, and what should I do? Thanks,Mehrshad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.202.150.169 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please read our views on original research. You may "have to" post your stuff on a wiki but why this one? Please see comparison of wiki farms for suitable places to post it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mehrshad, if what you actually meant was "I have to learn about environmental law, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of it while doing so" then I would recommend the following:

1. Point your teacher to Wikipedia:School and university projects where they can learn more about how to use Wikipedia as part of schoolwork. Regardless of their response to that, you can continue to;
2. Create an account for yourself and log into it when posting messages or editing Wikiepdia.
3. Go to the Wikipedia article Environmental law and improve either it or pages related to it, while keeping in mind the Wikipedia:Five pillars and, as RHaworth said, avoiding original research.
4. Show your teacher what you've done, either by giving them a link to your user contributions page, or, giving them a link to the page histories of the pages that you've edited, and showing them how to view diffs of the changes you've made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr RHaworth, I would like to write an article on Prof. Hersh W. Chadha, O.P.M. (Harvard), ARPS, However everytime I am posting it, it is deleted. Kindly advise why it is being deleted and the steps that need to be taken to prevent it from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avishramgolam (talk • contribs)

• You demonstrate one of the problems in your very question - we do not do titles and honours in Wikipedia articles. And what is the strange MR preceding my name? I will give you one clue: significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. however it is being deleted once again. I am also sorry for my keyboard malfunction, i meant Mr. once again thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avishramgolam (talk • contribs)

• Thanking me twice for deleting your article looks like sarcasm. Yes, I knew you meant 'Mr', I was trying, clearly too obliquely for you, to say that I do not use any title. But seriously, have you actually read my advice? Do you now know why your article keeps being deleted? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Purely technical point only about 南昌爱乐乐 deletion rationale. Hi RHaworth, The CSD rationale was A2. I can't see a matching article in any of the Chinese language wikipedias. Looked to me like it should have been deleted under G11, so I'm fine with the del. I think there should be a CSD rationale for ((notenglish|insert generic non-english language here)), but A2 seems seems to be widely used in its absence, including - and with greatest respect - your good self. Your thoughts about this? -- Shirt58 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• My policy on not English articles if no one else has already tagged them: delete on sight - A1 no context will do - I cannot identify the articles subject! and then leave a message for the author such as this one - short but sufficient. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Accord Correspondent Environmental Technology Zenith. Hardly very short, and in fact extremely and superfluously sesquipedelian, so I deleted it as spam, on the excuse of the external links.... Peridon (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. I had this one on my watchlist after suggesting to the creator that it might get deleted. I noticed you PROD'ed it... didn't it already get PROD'ed? I didn't think an article could be PROD'ed twice. 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the previous prod was on a state now deleted so I was allowed to apply a prod. But the guy probably would not take it for an answer so I gave it an AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if that AfD snowed quickly. 28bytes (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about this one, as the template for CSD A7 says that it is not for schools. My first thought was to speedy delete it myself (like you, I monitor recent changes as well), but I googled the school and it has a claim for notability, at least enough to justify an AfD discussion instead of a speedy. The fact that it is being edited by what I assume is either a student of faculty member doesn't bode well though. Your thoughts? Seaphoto^Talk 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tempting to say delete as spam but probably better to run it through AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Justice is due for the victims of this cranky zealot. After the deletion, within a matter of hours from start to finish on this madman's schedule, of an article of interest to me, I looked at the old crank's list of victims here, and I invite the editors to take a very careful look at his previous targets. In the case of KGB-Radio there was no time to delay the process for review, as in several of his previous assaults. It happen in less than half a day. This is unfair even for a "speedy deletion". Someone needs to take a close look at this guy and restrict his privileges.

I fully intend to look find a way to get this done. Meanwhile, I will resurrect KGB-Radio. Thank you for your kind assistance. ```` David Roknich — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Roknich (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Less than half a day"! Follow new pages for an hour or so and you will see that the worst cases get deleted in less than half an hour. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to open a dialogue to discuss notability of Brad Weber. Here are some facts to start the discussion. Facts:

• Brad Weber was the 2nd most touring drummer in the world in 2010. source: http://www.songkick.com/blog/2011/03/10/the-hardest-working-bands-of-2010/
• Brad Weber has appeared on Much Music, MTV, and even International networks like Channel 4 in Britain. example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86IInyyibXE
• Brad Weber has drummed in over 35 countries to over 220,000 people in 2010. source: average venue size of 1200people with 185 tour dates in 2010.
• Acts that Brad Weber drums for have millions of views of Youtube. source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiSa7THgxrI
• The songs Brad drums for are featured in pop culture: Lexus Commericial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVc3T8IFQZE
• Fifa 2011 soundtrack:
• Brad has been reviewed by Pitchfork, London Free Press, Guardian UK, Toronto Star a number of non-english language newspapers and numerous music blogs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicweber (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have opened this dialogue. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crenglish. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've made the page User:Siddhartha Ghai/List of colleges in Meerut. Please review and Discuss Here. Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you recently deleted an article on the band Paddock Park which I had found very helpful to learn about the band's background. I know you cited "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[4] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" but I find this article very significant to the general public who in my belief use Wikipedia to broaden their knowledge of a subject because Wikipedia is a multilingual encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia deals with the entire range of human knowledge why would you consider this irrelevant? Especially since if I remember correctly, it dealt with what had happened to the band. Also if the article does not go back on the site is there a way you or someone could send me the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdonutj (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• We don't need waffle about "the entire range of human knowledge" - Wikipedia firmly restricts itself to notable knowledge. You may certainly see the text of the article - read this. The article did contain some independent references so you might have success at DRV. Also contact Goroth (talk · contribs) who created the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi my name is Saurabh and I would like to know why you deleted the article Nina Dhillon from Wikipedia? I have seen several other articles with very little information about authors and books and those have NOT been deleted. I have bought from amazone Girl in the Mirror and have two daughters who have read this book and was very surprised that there was no info about the author on wiki because I have seen so many others with a full summary. This is my first article and I had thought I did a good job with it, so please do not delete it, and if you have I'd like you to please allow me to rewrite this article and many others about other Indian American authors. Thank you, Saurabh. email: betahelix.com (this is my personal email) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaurabhBlossom (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do you consider that you have some specially exemption from providing links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? (And find out what your e-mail address really is! But do not publish it here.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion criteria are mistaken. It a political party no less than any other in list of political parties in the United Kingdom.

A7 "important and significant" . It is a valid political party registered with the Electoral Commission and which fielded candidate(s) in General Election 2010 and is fielding candidates 2011 local election. You may be unaware that the Electoral Commission has altered its website so links to registration pages of all other UK politicals parties are defunct. You need to use Registration Search: https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx

G11 Article conforms to party political format. There is no advertising or promotional content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.83.187 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a signed in person! Hang on where are the little gizmos? 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Apoliheres (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• How on earth does registration with the Electoral Commission make a party notable? Your link to the EC website does not work for me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are objecting to. Being a political party which fields candidates is notable hence these entries: Animals Count and Idle Toad. Their notability is their official registration with the Electoral Commission which means they have a voice in local media and a presence on ballot papers. I did say you need to search since you can't link to the Electoral Commission. All the links on party pages are defunct. You have to go to the Electoral Commission website then "Search registered parties and access party emblems" I gave you that link but perhaps that doesn't work other than dynamically either now.Apoliheres (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Show me the evidence that registration with the EC confers even the slightest bit of notability in the eyes of Wikipedia. If you were going to make useful contributions to Wikipedia I would tell you to learn how to format links properly - see my changes to your message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If I was going to make useful contributions? Golly how insulting or jaded can you be like this to someone who is trying hard to do the right thing? Sorry if you find my contributions not useful. You seem unaware that the Electoral Commission bestows legitamacy to organisations in order that people may vote for them. That is it's purpose. If you have a difficulty with democracy per se I think you could have bigger fish to fry. Apoliheres (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• At last! "Bestows legitimacy" (note the spelling) - that I would agree with. But legitimacy is a totally different animal from notability. Jaded? Yes. OK David, prove me wrong! Make useful contributions to Wikipedia on topics other than your party. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You can call me David if you like flower! But that's not my name and I'm not a chap! Why do you feel that democratic legitimacy doesn't matter and nit picking spelling does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoliheres (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You recently deleted several redirects which were the result of promoting draft articles from Articles for Creation subpages to the Mainspace, citing CSD#R2 in the edit summary. As redirects from the Wikipedia-space to the Mainspace, they were technically ineligible for criterion R2. That criterion only applies to redirects from the Mainspace. We are trying hard to clean up the cites to the R2 clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. In this case, there was little harm done because the history was moved with the draft and G6 would probably have applied but if you could help us keep the logs clean in future situations, it would make the education process easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tell Yoenit (talk · contribs) who applied the R2 tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Idle Toad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• What credible assertion? I cannot see any. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Idle Toad candidates have won council elections in the area and currently have a councillor on the Lancashire County Council." That is enough to establish importance. Notability is for AfD. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible for an explination on your reason for deletion of the article about Ark Music Factory's founder. Along with an explination I would also appreciate a copy of the page in a text form; preferably an edit of it from before the 1st of March 2011. Any additional or relevant information that you can provide on the page would be much appreciated. (Please email the article to <removed> Or the email provided to wikipedia. I am not a regular user of wiki-talk pages) Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckman93 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is not the deletion log entry sufficient explanation? The article was only created on Mar 25. I have e-mailed you a copy and you will see that it was derisorily short. I note that Ark Music Factory does not mention the guy and the deleted article did not mention Ark Music Factory so evidence of that connection would need to be provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth, you recently deleted an article entry regarding a worldwide musical group called Mono in VCF with a popular and credible underground rock album. This album at the very least has been received on a cult level. If there were any uncertainty, the links section I listed transcends Wikipedia (or your) pathetic standards of rock stardom and indie beard length. I've seen much smaller bands with Wikipedia pages. You're doing a terrible job RHaworth. Red Astrachan (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Redastrachan

Hi, you just deleted A Culinary Coup with no explanation. I explained that I was still adding and editing content. I also pointed out that I had removed all commercial links. Please explain your reasons for the deletion. I have compared the entry with similar pages referring to other TV programmes and cannot see any reason why my page could be considered more commercial. Thanks and regards Thedecktv (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Jon Moore

• I am sorry, the real reason for deletion was "non-notable TV program". How can you expect an article to survive without links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? And in this case without any external links whatsoever? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood and accepted. The programme will be broadcast internationally on April 18th, 2011. It will also be submitted for a number of international awards. If enough links and notability arise from its broadcast, can I assume that we can resume this conversation and hope for an undeletion? Your advice, in the meantime, on polishing up the entry will be very much appreciated. Many thanks, Jon Thedecktv (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• On reflection, I was right in the first place to give spam as the deletion reason. You don't need to do anything. When the program has been transmitted and enthusiastically received, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Using </div> tags on my talkpage, as part of your message, was not a good idea. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, since you insist on deleting that long-standing redirect, can you clean up those redlinks you created? — Amalthea 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I note that there was really no reason to delete this in the first place. Amalthea 23:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth. User:Argolin brought these to my attention at User talk:Paul Erik#DbClifford. Would you be willing to undelete them? We'd be glad to add the various sources that are available. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• The only links in dbClifford are four out of the five self-links that even the most non-notable band has (missing a YouTube link!). So I have restored it to User:Paul Erik/dbClifford. Go Ghetto Tiger did have some independent refs. So I have simply restored it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Great; thank you! Argolin and I will add more sources to both articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Would you mind elaborating why the new article was proposed for quick deletion? I want to learn the error in creating it so that I do not create any more such articles. Is there a way to access the last state of the deleted article? Sae1962 (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Have you actually read the deletion log entry? To be honest, I was stretching a point when I used that deletion reason - it is not a web site. But the absence of an "external links" section was enough to activate my deletion reflex. Text e-mailed. Suggestions:
  • title must disambiguate better from keyspace (data store) - difference of a space is insufficient - suggest keyspace (NoSQL)
  • external links to reliable sources - blogs are specifically excluded in our RS descriptions
  • I simply do not see the point of the location parameter in cite web templates - see this edit
  • please tidy up your two user accounts - I suggest user:SAE1962 to redirect to your active account and provide e-mail address for both accounts.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roger! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this student working on "Pool and Spa Safety" and this student working on "Business Energy Investment Tax Credit"? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1850 Census List of Settlers at Zodiac Texas, I need to know what to do. And I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone, which is why this list got created - to avoid such a thing. The information was part of Zodiac, Texas. An editor tagged the list as unencyclopedic. Mostly, I think tags are not a positive or productive contribution to the system as a whole, but I wanted to avoid the issue, really. I thought the solution would be to take it out of the main article and just make it a list. I don't have any idea how to put this in Wikisource. And if it does get in Wikisource, then is there a link or something that can be put on the Zodiac, Texas article? But I don't think this census list should be lost. I'm just at a loss as to how to proceed, so maybe you could give me some direction, please. -Maile66 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• For goodness sake! Go to Wikisource and post it in just the same way as you posted it here. James Connolly will show you the format of links in both directions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's done on Wikisource. So, if you want to go ahead and delete the Wikipedia page for 1850 Census List of Settlers at Zodiac Texas, that will be OK. -Maile66 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This entry, I think, is worthy of Wikipedia. Crystal Records, for 45 years has been an important producer of recordings in the classical and contemporary chamber and solo music genre for winds and brass. The start entry was minimal; but, it had been there but a few hours. Would you object if I attempted starting the article, again? If you go to Crystal Records' website, you'll see a staggering number of new composers catalogued, particularly American composers. Many of its recording artists are notable people on Wikipedia. Eurodog 01:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• With your experience here, I am surprised you ask me. How can you expect two sentences devoid of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to survive? Start again in user:Eurodog/sandbox and write a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Eurodog 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for stepping on your PROD of Market Research in the Middle East; the last half of that article was simply unambiguous advertising for a marketing firm. As other editors were taking steps to link it out to other major articles for traffic, I felt it best just to G11 the thing. Feel free to restore without consulting if you disagree. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for zapping it. Much simpler. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering why the article was deleted with A7? The article was a first start about different group buying sites in South Africa. I intended to do similar writeups about other emerging group-buying businesses in South Africa (with a summary page "Group buying in South Africa" and references to all businesses). My intention was to provide articles for individual companies and then the summary article. Although the content might not be notable for the rest of the world, it would provide beneficial for the South African internet audience doing research on group-buying.

If the sentiment is that South African businesses are not relevant/notable to Wikipedia, than surely the same principle must be applied to the following (and perhaps others across the Website_stubs): Junk Mail Publishing, Cozareg, Independent Online (South Africa), Mail & Guardian, News24, Planet F1, Thought Leader and Zoopy

At the same time, content should then also be reviewed under Category:Website_stubs (the majority of which is of promotional nature) and a similar policy be applied. I also then question why Wikipedia has Category:South African websites if content is deemed insignificant?

I did add secondary sources about this article and hoped that this would be sufficient as verifiable/notable sources. I would appreciate your feedback / comments on this with suggestions on what is necessary to get an inclusion. MagicDude4Eva (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot bear to read this. Please convert to wikilinks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up the references to wikilinks. — MagicDude4Eva (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an advertising site or directory. You made absolutely no attempt to provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If you can supply some, you can try deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try the deletion review then as I cannot understand why articles such as Jasmere.com, LivingSocial, BuyWithMe are allowed to exist where all of those show COI or references pointing to press-releases etc. It appears that companies and websites based in the US automatically receive more credibility than in other territories.

I did provide some verifiable sources (it's really debatable if they are notable as South African traditional news-media does not provide coverage about internet companies). I will include further sources in the DRV (Group buying explodes on the SA market, Collective buying: Great for consumers, but what about providers?, Avusa joins group-buying trend with Zappon launch, Online deal websites in South Africa).

In closing, if you can spare a clarification then: You said, that Wikipedia is not an advertising site or directory, so how come there is a (at least in my mind) double-standard when it comes to the articles I referred to in the above (or contributions by newbies like myself are immediately deleted as I don't have any contribution history)? If you feel otherwise, please explain why some of there referred articles deserve a space on Wikipedia and mine not. MagicDude4Eva (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Can't you see the difference? Jasmere.com, LivingSocial, BuyWithMe all have lots of external links. The four links you give do not exactly provide significant coverage for your website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of [Jasmere.com]], LivingSocial, BuyWithMe links route to companies own resources, affiliates or paid marketers. COI in most of the references is questionable in my opinion. LivingSocial is a case in point and even the Wiki-page states that, but despite most external links pointing to company resources, it has a place on Wikipedia and received a change for revision.

Also, why does Wikipedia then have a Category:South African websites?

I will still go ahead with the DRV as I want another opinion on this, especially considering that you have not explained why you believe that the previously mentioned articles then deserve a space on Wikipedia - all self-promotion: (Junk Mail Publishing - COI / self promotion, Cozareg - COI, Independent Online (South Africa), Mail & Guardian, News24, Planet F1, Thought Leader and Zoopy)? I think it can be argued that the amount of links (especially when pointing to company issues press-releases or paid marketers) is not an indication of quality noteable sources.

I am also referring to Wikipedias sentiment of: ...Pay attention to the guideline "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." It is not a rule of Wikipedia that an article has to be perfect the instant it's first posted; that's why we have edits. and believe that the deletion was done in a hasty manor. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol#New pages that may require deletion. — MagicDude4Eva (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the cached-deleted page and does not look anything to what I had submitted and reviewed. Since the original article was gone, I only noticed this now when going through the DRV - I think I might have messed up here and my last edit might not have saved. My last edit (which obviously did not save) had information about competitors with other references in place (mostly the ones I quoted above from my locally saved version of the article - what to do now? -- MagicDude4Eva (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, we have Category:South African websites but that is not meant to be all South African websites it is for notable South African websites and you have not established the notability of your site. 96 minute elapsed between your edit and deletion. By the standards of new page patrolling, that was far from hasty. Your only edit was probably also your last. It was saved, I have e-mailed you its content. I have also sent you the edit history where you will see "remove section on other companies' sites, with references that don't mention the subject of this article" - a totally sensible thing to do. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I guess it was naive to look at structures/content of other sites of similar nature and to assume that the provided references are notable enough (in the local eCommerce industry the references are considered credible/verifiable sources, but it is understandable that non-locals would not understand see this in the same way). It was my intention to rework and expand on the article over a few days and as a first-time submitter the process and policies on Wikipedia are overwhelming. I did learn a lot over the last day and have renewed respect in the amount of work people put into Wikipedia. Unless there is something wrong with my account setup, I would have expected an email notification of the article being deleted, but have not received any sort of notice. I also thought that there would be some sort of feedback with the opportunity to rework it. I will retry in a few weeks/months once notable sources are in place and hope that it will go through then. -- MagicDude4Eva (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• E-mail notification of edits is suppressed in this implementation of the Media WIki software probably because of the vast amount of processing it would generate. You are expected to watch your submissions. To judge from your words, you did not check back to your article at all because feedback was provided within 10 minutes - see the edit log I sent you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey RHaworth! I was trying to get Stageco up to at least stub status. I failed. I didn't start article, but I would ask if you could possibly userfy it to me to work on? Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you were trying to improve it, why did you apply a speedy tag to it? Or remove the tag if you decided it was worth keeping? Now at User:Shirt58/Stageco. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I am the original author of the Stageco page. I was wondering if you could both help me please. I understand that the original article may have been too 'PR' heavy, so I deleted anything that I thought could be too promotional and left facts that were backed up by outside articles from event industry magazines (online). I am just wondering why it has been moved and if we can work together to restore this page (I have edited a few pages before, but never created a page and indeed could do with some help with this.) The company has a very interesting history and is turning 25 this year, the only place it was mentioned on wikipedia was on the u2 360 tour and also the Rock Werchter, so I thought it would be good to have a stageco page, for people interested in the stages they have built for the thousands of tours, festivals and concerts over the years. I also thought it would be good for people studying structural engineering to understand about the importance of CAD drawings in the industry and to have link through to case studies they can use in any coursework etc. Please could you advise me on what I can do to make this page better (I am used to writing marketing and press releases, so understand the language I need to use will have to be altered, but factually is there anything more I can do to get this page restored?) Thanks Annie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMJohansen (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article was not too PR heavy, it was too independent references light. It was first deleted for the latter reason then restored to a user page. Go ahead and improve it. When you think it is ready, ask Shirt58 to move it, do not move it yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. You wrote:

If you were trying to improve it, why did you apply a speedy tag to it?

With greatest respect, my reaction was the other way around. When I first saw "Stageco", it would have seemed as obvious to me as was to you that it was Unambiguous advertising or promotion. On later reflection, it would appear to me that there is an article there, awaiting significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus the Userfy request. Thank you for that move; I'll have a quiet word with AnnieMJohansen, and then lets see how it goes from there. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, you applied a speedy tag then changed your mind. So why did you not remove the speedy tag? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please send me the content of the article noted in the subject line? I've visited the page within the past few months (browser history) and I don't remember it having anything to do with Godhead (Christianity) much less duplicating the information. I could be wrong though… Thanks for your time. Sorry if I've mad any errors in posting this. — Smegmatic (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Text e-mailed. True, using WP:CSD#A10 was stretching a point but I am sure you will agree it needed speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not understanding the reason that this page was deleted. There is an over abundance of mentions of the accomplishments of this person. Please mail me the original article for "Malcolm Grear", so that I can edit to include several more additional accomplishments. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreenDaddy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why on earth do you need it e-mailed? How different was your posted version from User:ScreenDaddy/Malcolm Grear? Note we do not need "more accomplishments" - we need links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Telegence entry deleted - what could be the real explanation. I created a new page for our company to so we can start putting data on Wikipedia in coming days. We noticed you have deleted our site due to "copyright infringement", this is really puzzling since we don't have much data yet and only thing we got is a blurb about our company and some very rudimentary information right now. The unfortunate thing is that you have deleted without any explanation, I have never deleted anything and not sure that you can enter some but i find this were troubling. what is the ground that you have brought up "copyright infringement?" — Qfard (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of course you were given an explanation: "copyright infringement". The text was a verbatim copy from your website and was thus not only a copyright violation in Wikipedia terms it was also an insult to Wikipedia in my terms. (And by the way: "gap" is not a verb and it is not "our site", it is a Wikipedia page.) But if you want a "real explanation", try: blatant advertising. Please do not attempt to re-post it. Have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to save the IAMDA page from speedy deletion. I am at a loss as to what kind of referenced I need to provide. Are Press references good? MacWorld on MobileArtCon Cult of Mac on MobileArtCon Digital Artist on iamda. Any help appreciated. Thank you. — Maffix (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• They might work but it would be better if you were to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)