User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 15

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is where I archive threads from 2011 that are about deletion.

Sticky vs. Regular Prod

In regards to this edit summary, what's the appropriate procedure, then? Regular Prod? – RobinHood70 ^talk 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi RobinHood. You can't prod an article twice; But I don't think we ever resolved whether a sticky prod counted as a prod for that rule. If after a good faith attempt to source it you still believe the subject is not notable then of course you could AFD it (there is also always the possibility that a good faith attempt to source an article will uncover a hoax). ϢereSpielChequers 08:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it had been prodded before, nor was I aware that you couldn't prod twice. As it stands, TerryE has made a good point on the talk page, so I'm just going to let the article stand. Thanks for the info. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

NPP backlog

Hi WSP. Please do consider continuing to chime in here occasionally. At the moment there seems to be only me and SnottyWong running the show. Although we are making very good progress, you know how much I value your opinions. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I may not be around much for the next ten days, but the topic is still dear to me. ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Just a quick update for you. We obtained temporary approval for the bot for a trial run for 50 unpatrolled pages. Everything we planned seems to have gone well, pages are tagged, cats are created and maintained, the special log page is working. All we need now is final approval for the bot, then I'll let the folks at the BLP task force know, so that they can pick out the uBLP from the list, and work on them. The pages are not all BLP, so I'll be needing some suggestions on how to broadcast this new Wikipedia feature - perhaps a template message delivered by a bot to all projects? Signpost ? - I could do a short article for that. --Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW:On the first couple of bot runs, even on a conservative estimate, a massive 18,000 pages per year are slipping unpatrolled into the encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just another update: The full approval for the bot has been accorded, and the cat and report page are being added to daily. At a conservative guess, I think it will have listed a minimum of 18,000 pages by the end of the year. There is strangely however, a lot of resistance to the project I have boxed through with SnottyWong's help for all the bot design and programming. I am positively amazed that there are so many editors, including sysops and crats, who think this is not an issue for concern. There are even people who think that new page patrolling is not strictly necessary. I think it's one of the most fundamental functions - probably even more important than RCP. For example, It's one of the first barriers against attack pages. --Kudpung (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

For having written User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment at NPP - I wonder why you never pointed me to it before ;) Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that, NEWT wound up so contentious that I never finished it. But I've made a few changes now, and may finish it sometime. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Curiouser and curiouser. Kudpung (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BPLPROD

Hi, My RfA, as I guessed it would, has sparked of some minor comments in various quarters about BLPROD. Do you think the time is ripe now to start a review of its performance? A review would need to come first before trying to get anything changed. If you think it's time, we would need to get some stats (I have a shopping list) - who is good at extrapolating such data? --Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the sun is shining outside and I have some real life commitments for the next few days. I will try to make time but may not be able to for a week or more. ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD school

Hi,

Picking up on Epeefleche's recent comments, the original discussion in February (here) and knowing that you have strong opinions on this topic, I was wondering what the best practice was to help someone improve their practical interpretation of the CSD guidelines. I could, say, easily forswear any use of A1/A3 for six months while I think about it, however it can also be argued that if I am to improve my practical interpretation then it would be a good idea to show my use of these CSD categories appropriately. Is there an existing consensus about the best approach to improvement? Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fæ,I don't think it would be a good idea to forswear use of a particular CSD category as they all have their value. But a promise never to tag A1 or A3 in the first ten minutes might be helpful. I'm very cautious both with CSD tagging and deletion, I suspect I'm rather more cautious than the majority of the community. Mostly I use CSD to deal with bad faith edits, author requests for deletion and articles that effectively assert non-notability. I decline a sizable minority of tags that are incorrect, and there are loads of quite legitimate A7 tags that I leave because in my view speedy shouldn't mean instant when it comes to goodfaith articles. There are a whole set of essays and at least one survey on my userpage. You might also look at wp:NEWT when a bunch of us created alt accounts that then submitted articles, we had enough not deleted to rebut the original press criticism that any new article was guaranteed to be deleted. But a lot were tagged, so it did yield an interesting list of incorrect tags. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, when things are quieter I'll take time to ponder the essays and absorb them properly. In the meantime I'll think about adding a commitment about it to my talk page (though I don't plan say anything about commitments in my RFA as I probably should be judged on my edit history rather than promises about the future). Cheers Fæ (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that commitments can play a part in RFA. In my first RFA I shifted my settings from a default to minor edits to the reverse, other people have amended signatures and created alt accounts. A promise not to tag A1 and A3 articles in their first ten minutes is in my mind a credible RFA commitment - we had another candidate recently who had been tagging G10s as A7s and that wasn't something you could fix that quickly - they'd have needed a b period of editing where they'd demonstrated better tagging. ϢereSpielChequers 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made a commitment on my talk page, let me know if you spot any wording improvements that could be made. If asked another question I'll bring it up but otherwise I'll just point to it in discussion away from RFA. I would hope that if this is considered a good thing, then it will be mentioned by someone else spontaneously anyway. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your involvement in WP:NEWT I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, this is worthy and useful, but you are probably looking in the wrong place. I'd start at Cat:speedy looking through the articles tagged for speedy deletion. I visit there quite frequently and almost always find incorrect tags to decline. I'm not keen on incubation as I believe the best place to develop articles is in mainspace. Also the main benefit is probably not the newbie you save from biting - you have to be very quick to do that. I think the main benefit is in retraining the tagger before they bite another hundred newbies because they think that "Professors aren't notable" or some similar misconception. ϢereSpielChequers 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

question about CSD F8

Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I picked you at random from active editors who discuss CSD policy.

I was wondering about this one: File:VolkerkartevonMittel-undSudosteuropa.jpg. It's marked as an F8 speedy, but the EN wiki upload history is not present in its Commons doppelganger. Per the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended, I'm thinking it's acceptable to go ahead and delete it. Do you agree, or do you think there's a better way to handle this?

Thanks much, --JaGa^talk 01:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi JaGa, to be honest I haven't a clue. Though I'm active in speedy deletion I have never got involved in File work, I'm vaguely aware that files here get deleted after moving to Commons, as that's how I first discovered Commons years ago. Perhaps one of my Talkpage Stalkers can help us out, if not I'd suggest a post at wt:speedy. As a guess I'd hope the answer was something along the lines of it depends on the copyright, so if the photographer had loaded it to wikipedia but the commons upload was from Flikr we should in my view prefer the direct release info from the original creator - but please don't treat me as an admin when it comes to file work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Example

I must have put 20 or so of these (or similar) custom messages over the last 24 hours. Perhaps we should modify the current template to something like it.

Hi WereSpielChequers/Archive 15. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Patrolling is an essential function at Wikipedia, not only to prevent the wrong kind of pages staying online, but also to do some basic research and tag them for attention. The article you tagged CSD-A7 at XXXXXX was clearly an attack page and should have been blanked and tagged CSD-G10 for very fast deletion - attack pages raise a red alert on administrator's control panels. There is currently a drive to improve the quality of patrolling - you can help! Please read these pages, preferably in this order: WP:NPP (recently updated), WP:DELETION, WP:CSD, WP:10CSD, WP:FIELD, and WP:A7M, and if there's anything that is not clear, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. You may even wish to make your own suggestions for improvement of the NPP page. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I occasionally see these too when I go to unpatrolled pages and have to immediately replace them with {{db-g10}}. A warning notice would be nice, since it indicates that the user is not reading the articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

20 in 24 hours is a lot, was that 20 different patrollers?. I have come across quite a few over the years but nothing approaching that. As for the template I'd be cautious about as it gives a string of things to read for one simple message. Whether its a template or a personal note I prefer things clear and simple with one link to a list of things for further reading. Of course the difficult thing about being clear and simple re this message is that you can't say why it was an attack page unless you send an email. ϢereSpielChequers 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that most of the patrolling work I'm doing is patrolling the patrollers - not to scold them, but just to see how we can improve the system and educate the patrollers in the nicest possible way. I agree that it's a lot to read. perhaps just the link to the NPP page would suffice. Anyway, a certain VP poll seems to be heading for consensus so there may be some major changes on the way. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD check in the CSD template idea

I noticed your positive comments on my AFD check idea, and was wondering what you thought the next step should be; should it be proposed someplace with more traffic, should I give it more time there, or try to find someone skilled with templates who could put together some code for it? Any suggestions you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks, Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest putting a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) with a link to the discussion. ϢereSpielChequers 07:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

de.Wiki

Hi. I've had a closer look at the German site this morning. I'm not sure about this because I can't go all the way to creating a new page just to test things, but it appears that they even allow IP to create pages, and as with en.Wiki ther appears to be no prevention in the software for the creation of articles without refs. Nevertheless, everything there seems to be far more user friendly, sort of a mini version of the Wizard, with short, quickly readable instructions, and the occasional graphic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, I've had a look and you are right they definitely allow IPs to create pages. But they do have some sort of flagged revisions or pending changes system protecting the whole wiki from vandalism, so I guess with that sort of technological advantage over EN wiki they can afford to lower their guard re IP editing. I took a testpage as far as preview without being prompted for a source and I didn't want to go further without having a DE article I'm prepared to save. But there are bound to be DE editors at Wikimania in a few weeks time so I'll get one of them to show me how this prompt for a reference process works (if that is it still is or ever was there). ϢereSpielChequers 08:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Hi WSC. There are new messages at meta.wikimedia.org NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory sources for all new articles

FYI in case you missed it. I have made a suggestion there that you might want to express your opinion on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It got me thinking. User:WereSpielChequers/Newpage proposal ϢereSpielChequers 15:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re VPR proposal

As an aside, I tried, without success to review the discussion about the origin of the sticky prod. I went to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people then to the Archive, saw multiple mentions that this page is about implementation, for policy go other there. but there is a link to here, so I gave up.

I can accept that unsourced BLP's create a legal risk. Arguably, that risk exceeds the risk associated with generation of crap. However, if it is truly the case we get so many unsourced new articles that it would overwhelm the resources to source them, then we should admit we have a problem requiring resolution, not a problem that should be ignored.--SPhilbrickT 20:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm troubled by your comment. I may post about this at the VPR page, but I'd like to get a better understanding of your rationale, so I can put my thoughts together coherently.

If we have a BLPProd team, presumably formed because unsourced BLP's are high risk, why would they stop working on BLP's and start working on something else? If they are mindless reviewing a category, is would be trivial to create a cat for BLP stickies and Other stickies.--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The BLPprod was a response to the deletion spree of early 2010 when some admins argued that unsourced BLPs were high risk and should be purged. The people rescuing BLPprods aren't mindlessly reviewing a category, they are referencing a large proportion of those BLPprods. But the tenday cycle means that the normal process of Wikiprojects and others referencing articles doesn't have time to kick in, and so a small group of editors take on the whole load. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping new editors

I've put a comment on your new essay. I hope it's not TLDR ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Graham Hine

Hi WereSpielChequers,

This is a bit of a round-robin concerning this article

Rumaging through Wiki and I found the page for a Graham Hine. I notice that this article was flagged for speedy deletion by userWuhwuzdat which was then Criterion A7 declined. The assertion that this Hine was with Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts and was associated with Jona Lewie and Keef Trouble is completely false. The Brett Marvin Hine ( http://www.grahamhine.com ) was born in 1949 in South London and was brought up in Crawley, and was a founder member of Brett Marvin In 1966ish, (and aka Terry Dactyl in 1970), and still is a member of that extant band. Also he never had or has cancer. Now, either this article is a spoof, or red link user KeefReef had a post Christmas brainstorm :)

The links to a website (as references) (at Jan 5th) are not recognized. When user EoGuy changed the website link to that above, user Shaky Spades returned it to the dead link. No references or external links are viable, and I cannot find any reference to this Graham Hine under the entries in Discography. What we are left with is: Graham Hine was born in Southampton 1944 and is a cancer survivor… stub for cancer survivors?

I think that the Graham Hine I refer to above is probably worth an article, but I do not think I should edit this article around him as I am too closely associated with him. However, I shall pass this on to a Wiki editor who has an extensive British music knowledge base for him to pass judgement. Provisionally, I feel that userWuhwuzdat had the right idea regarding deletion.

Acabashi (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Acabashi, I still don't think that speedy deletion for not asserting importance applies, but if it is as you suggest we have a chimera - composite information of two people of the same name one notable for pop music the other a cancer survivor. If you read WP:COI then a conflict of interest doesn't prevent you from removing uncited incorrect info from an article. But getting someone knowledgeable about pop to review it would probably be the best option, failing that a note on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard will usually find a neutral viewer. I've removed the cancer bit and I'll drop a note to the other author. ϢereSpielChequers 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just speedied it as a hoax/banned user creation... AnemoneProjectors 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to start from scratch anyway. AnemoneProjectors 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've disentangled such articles in the past, but if it was created by a banned user then yes I would agree deletion and a fresh start is safer. I'm assuming someone spotted who the author was after I did the partial cleanup? ϢereSpielChequers 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was edited by someone else who I had already blocked as a sockpuppet, but I missed their edit to this article. Then Acabashi asked them the same thing as you, and it came up on my watchlist so I checked the page history and realised the creator was the same banned user. AnemoneProjectors 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks for that explanation. ϢereSpielChequers 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Ardinger - you decide

Hi - you added RefimproveBLP and Self-published tags to this article in May. I researched and found the radio station he worked for went defunct not long after he joined, leaving him out of a job. He has not resurfaced since - no sources found after an hour of searching. Even his (self-published) Myspace account has not been logged into since June 2008. He has disappeared. Given this article was created in Sept 2007, virtually as soon as he got the job, I hardly think this is a claim to fame. The two refs I have added are about the end of the station - nothing else is available about Joe Ardinger. I would have prodded it as a waste of time but defer to your more experiennced judgement. Mark^Dask 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark, if you've made a good faith attempt to source it and been unable to then I would suggest a prod. Prods of old articles with a rationale of "searched on Google - unable to find sources" rarely get declined. Thanks for trying to fix it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Mark^Dask 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fadhila El Farouk

I hadn't changed the caps because there are at least two other spellings I found--without the "El", and without the "h". Oh, also "Al." Difficult. I don't want the article to be thrown away, but it's very difficult to find sources in English, and the creator/subject is not being very constructive. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I give up. I tried every permutation, every spelling, in Google Books and Google News and Google Web. I can't find anything besides a couple of blogs and one newspaper article of doubtful notability. Do you have any Arab-speaking wiki partners? Drmies (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't. But I project tagged it to both feminism and Algeria so if we do have someone this might attract them. The awkward thing now is that with two reliable sources someone is almost certain to decline the BLPprod, but I'm still uncomfortable about the article. ϢereSpielChequers 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yup, I agree. And I saw the tag, thanks. Any Arab speakers in the ARS? I would feel much more comfortable if I could even verify the publication of those books, but the English titles deliver nothing, and I don't know what the Arab, French, or Spanish titles are. I hope the creator stops messing around with tags and provides some of that information. BTW, the author's website is not yet up--and its placeholding message does not give me much hope. Also, it appears that the first novel was self-published--don't remember where I read that. Maybe in that interview. Thanks for trying, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Lynn Gilderdale

I wrote most of the Lynn Gilderdale Wikipedia page.

Lynn may not have been particularly notable personally, but she was the focus of a major news story in the UK in Jan 2010 (which had been ongoing since 2008 [corrected]) in which her mother (Kay Gilderdale) was tried for assisting her suicide. This came after Lynn had been suffering from one of the all-time worst cases of ME (known as CFS in the USA) for 17 years. Besides being a major story in itself, it was a major contributor to the assisted suicide debate in the UK in 2010.

Perhaps this could be made clearer in a section at the bottom of the article; however, there are lots of Wikipedia entries about news stories involving people who were not otherwise notable. IndigoJo (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi IndigJo, I'm not particularly hardline on this, but you might want to read WP:BIO1E. Sometimes it is better to write an article on a notable event rather than on a person who is only known for that event. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, do consider the deletion of Bato of Dalmatia

I understand such requests can be barely a routine for you but do read the discussion section of the page I requested for speedy deletion. Maybe at first glance you saw word differences between the article and you stepped back; yes they aren't physically the same at least, but they bear the same content for a singular historical figure I have worked on. This is Bato of Dardania, son of Longarus and the sources tell about only one figure which is misnamed. Even Longarus is doubled !!!

do read this [[1]] and probably you will understand! With all due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I saw Longarus of the Delmatae and also that the article had been changed to become more of a duplicate. Is this a case of one person having two spellings of their name or just a modern typo? ϢereSpielChequers 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

G10 G12

Yes i did mean G12, I must have click attack page by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriele449 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gabriele, I was rather thinking it was that sort of accident, I mean it was a violent film but clearly fictional. Easily done but rather unfortunate as a newby was involved. May I suggest remedying it by striking your comment on the authors page. If you put <s> in front of your comment and </s> afterwards that will strike it out. PS I know this sounds like a silly lo-tech workaround, but would you mind signing your comments on talkpages with ~~~~ Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation of kentucky

Hi - a question if I may. The article of this title is up for discussion Here. I voted to keep, and so did a second person who is not registered. A third person who voted to delete says unregistered users can't vote, (see FYI at end of that page). Is that true? If unregistered users do in fact have a vote I would majorly appreciate it if you could say so on that page. Thanks whichever way. Mark^Dask 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not true, thanks for raising this. I've replied in the AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an attack

Perhaps this is indeed not an attack, but the page appeared to be saying "hey, look at the censorship in Egypt!" (attacking Egypt's actions), based on the premise of a single site (twitter) being blocked. I've not used G10 in this manner before. I took the page to AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 17:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

By all means take this sort of thing to AFD, but please don't use such bitey templates on goodfaith contributors. I've deleted unsourced articles on alleged mafiosi and pornstars with a tailored far more friendly message than you gave that editor. ϢereSpielChequers 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

AFDs and redactions

I rather got on my high-horse at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Five Creeks. Perhaps you can take a peek and tell me if my intuition has gone astray in this case of interpretation of WP:REDACT? Fæ (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you were right about redact, but a little too confrontational about the way you handled it. Sometimes a note to somebodies talkpage can achieve things less contentiously - after all the person who you disagreed with may not have been aware of redact, and also redact is phrased as guidance. In this case once they were aware of the issue they seem happy to follow redact guidelines. ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, I did write on the nominator's talk page diff as you suggest, they even thanked me for being so civil. Unfortunately they continued to refuse to follow the guidelines until three days after I resorted to taking the passive approach of striking my opinion from the AfD. The discussion at WT:AFD has been quite encouraging in supporting my interpretation of the guidelines. I agree that my tone should have been friendlier in the AfD thread and I'll try harder on that score. To be honest I'm still quite taken aback by having two admins insisting that WP:TALK does not apply to AfDs. Fæ (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

New York lawyers

Hi WSC. I'm in a bit of a quandry. User talk:Processadmirer has been creating dozens of short articles in Good Faith on New York lawyers, for which often the only ref appears to be an extract from the US equivalent of a bar register. My first thought is that being a lawyer and/or a judge does not automatically confer notability. Do we have a guideline on this? Perhaps you could have a look at these articles and give me your personal opinion. thanks. Kudpung (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. processadmirer seems to be on judges now, WP:JUDGE failed to get consensus, so I'd suggest raising this on WT:notability. I'm aware that plenty of lawyers are notable and I suspect that many judges aren't. So I would take being a judge as an assertion of importance but not simply being a lawyer. ϢereSpielChequers 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(2p worth) I have had a few tussles on interpreting notability for some lawyer articles. They tend to be easy to cite as every case has public documents associated with it and many cases will be reported in the press. The confusion is that the lawyer may be mentioned in these documents rather tangentially, unless the case is top-notch notable lawyers involved are not automatically notable (note, in cases such as Enron there may be vast arrays of lawyers, they may not all be notable). American lawyers tend to advertise themselves in a way that the UK tends not to, consequently filtering out press releases and pseudo-news items might also be an issue. I have also noticed definite COI on some of these articles and boiling the sources down to decide if any of them are more than tangential fluff is awfully time consuming. Fæ (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hey there, I got you from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and it looks like you are active. Anyway, I just removed a copyvio from The Emperor of Nihon-Ja (this edit) and I'm under the impression that the old revisions of the article need to be RevDel'd to remove the copyvio from the article history. Just as an FYI, the copyvio was added in this edit by an IP whom I've now warned (though I doubt it will do any good, they haven't edited in months). Cheers, Jenks24 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24, indeed I am an admin who will act on revdel requests, though to be honest thus far I've only actioned ones involving personal data or attacks, this is the first copyvio one I've got involved in. I've had a look but I think this falls foul of "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used." In order to revdel all the copyvio versions I would have to remove text from a dozen intervening contributors. ϢereSpielChequers 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ok that seems to make sense, but it has left me genuinely confused. See this archived request of User:Courcelles where he RevDel'd the article's history, even though there was more than one editor. Could you please explain to me what is different about these two situations? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well comparing the two edit histories the other example had only four contributors other than the editor who did the copyvio, and judging from the edit summaries one could argue that they weren't really contributing content - just tagging or using AWB. For example I do a lot of categorisation using hotcat and I wouldn't be fussed if one of those edits disappeared that way. But the Emperor had a dozen contributors. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Much appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy in the Oak

Hi WSC. I'm between a rock and a hard place: This was closed as keep, mainly because only 2 people !voted, and they both !voted 'keep'. I seem to recall that putting a CSD on an article that has been kept previously at AfD is not possible - but I can't find the policy. What are the other options? WP:DRV, or another AfD? I don't really want to hurt anyone's feelings by slapping a {{Delrev}} template on it. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I think this is a great example of what can happen when the nominator fails to follow wp:Before. The article does indeed have a "Complete lack of any reliable sources", but that doesn't tell us whether such are available or not. If somebody now attempts to source it then four possibilities arise:

1. This may for all I know be a highly notable book that definitely deserves an article and a sentenced reference to its commercial success or prizes won leaves the article improved and sourced.
2. You could draw a blank and quite legitimately start a new AFD "The previous AFD closed as Keep but no attempt had been made to source it. I have now attempted to source it using x, y and z. I can now confirm that the book existed but notability would appear to be lacking."
3. Of course it is possible that sufficient sources exist to establish it as a book of borderline notability......
4. And searching for sources could expose it as a complete hoax worthy of {{db-hoax}}.

Hope that helps, and I have to say that I agree with the close. ϢereSpielChequers 08:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. You didn't mention if there is a policy that strictly dissalows a later CSD of a article that has been kept at AfD. I think there is not, but it will help my projects for work on the Wikipedia to know. Cheers, and thanks again for your patience with my questions. Kudpung (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you can't speedy per A7, or anything that would have been covered by the deletion debate. Technically If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations (my emphasis). Should not is not the same as may not, and in the case of an article that had only a limited discussion and only one editor I would probably delete per {{G7}} if the author requested, and I would certainly delete a blatant hoax or attack page if that was revealed by an attempt to source it. ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article in question, which was a totally unreferenced one-liner, has now been deleted - partly, I believe, due to a (perfectly civil and friendly) comment I made to the closing sysop. I'll bravely carry the can if there's any fallout, but there probably won't be. Thanks again for your opinion. Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced is not a good reason to delete, nor is brevity. I'd support changing policy to make unreferenced a deletion reason, but only if we made it clear in the article creation process that new articles required a third party reference. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fully realise that. The irony is, that if it had been PRODed, it would have been gone by now with nary a ripple. Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Somalian Chubby, etc.

I too want to dismiss the stuff submitted by Amarenna123 (talk · contribs) and Abdirrashid (talk · contribs) as hoax but, irritatingly, this video and several others from the same source exist. Are they also hoax? But until the guy can actually submit coherent, referenced articles, then block is definitely the best action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was the chubby tribe who accounted for 98 million of the population of Somalia, 1 million of Bulgaria and nearly as many Hungarians that did it for me. I won't be as rude as the guy who commented on the youtube link, but for my money that is as blatant a hoax as the WWII bomber "found" on the moon. ϢereSpielChequers 01:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Monastery of St Jerome, Lisbon

I am surprised that deletion of the page is not accepted. Two reasons: a one word line that says the "Monastery of St. Jerome in Lisbon, Portugal is a monastery" does not seem to have any context whatsoever, and more importantly the External link on the page refers to the Jerónimos Monastery. If anything, shouldn't it be deleted based on db-a3 or db-a10? The stub is just a rephrasing and duplication of a valid article.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A1 is for articles without context - I was able to workout that this was about a monastery in Lisbon, so that didn't apply. A3 doesn't apply either as the article has a reference. A10 doesn't apply because even if the article is a duplicate it is a plausible redirect. But thanks for pointing out the duplication, I've now made it a redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: Reggie Aqui

hi WereSpielChequers, thanks for the explanantion. cheers - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might find some of this makes interesting reading. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reltih Flöda

There was another version, with a picture, but the more I looked at it the less I liked it. I asked my wife, is this a plausible Swedish name? and she took one look and said "It's 'Adolf Hitler' backwards!" JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Good spot! ϢereSpielChequers 12:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion Please

An article such as Miguel Alonso Reyes is not notable if its refs are in other than English. How can one evaluate the refs in a different language? What is the protocol for non English refs? Thanks for your time. Mark^Dask 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark, we prefer English sources, but no they don't have to be in English, and notability is not considered to be language dependent. Google translate is a useful tool, and if you have concerns about an article you can always flag it up with a relevant wiki project. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming sports events

Hi, there seems to be a pattern for creating articles such as UFC Live: Hardy vs. Lytle in advance of such a competition or specific evidence of notability apart from the fact that a notable organization has scheduled the event. Do you have any opinion on whether we ought to try harder to comply with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG in these cases? I have put 3 up for deletion with mixed comments so far. Fæ (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are scheduled and sourceable and will be noteable after the event then I see no reason to delay writing about the article until it has happened. I'm not a sportsfan and have no intention of getting involved in it, but if we have a notable topic, interested readers and enthusiastic editors I see no reason to get in their way. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good approach, I'll back off unless there is a specific problem. Fæ (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Example bad faith deletion

Hi, you might want to take a glance at Thakur Dal Singh (a BDP) which has gone from PROD to AFD on the basis of sources being "thin". There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of WP:V and at what point articles are suitable for escalating to deletion rather than improvement and discussion. Cheers Fæ (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nb, I have userfied User:Pkandhal/Raj Singh which was deleted on very similar grounds and created by the same new user. Fæ (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Hi WSC. I'm not sure what to do with this. Normally I would PROD it as a nn boutique hotel, with three entries in travel guides for references, but... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed a typo but think I see the issues. Institutional bias may be involved here, it is possible that as we speak the author is expanding the article with information sourced from the Island's newspaper archives. Prod is not much point in this case as the author would no doubt decline it. I would sugget you ask him what his selection criteria is for creating hotel articles (normally if he is creating one article he has some database and plans to create whole batches). If his intent is to make sure we have the most important hotel in each capital covered then personally I'd be inclined to leave him to it. If his criteria is >30 bedrooms then I'd suggest an AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Four now, and I'm just waiting for Fodor's, and the Lonely Planet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

advice

Removing sensitive information. I'm not quite sure how to handle personal information that I would delete from a user's tp if the text of it needs to be completely removed from the history. AFAICS, only oversighters can do this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision delete is sometimes useful here, otherwise I'd email oversight or an oversighter. ϢereSpielChequers 09:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Buysellads

I had tried talking to admin Panyd about the deletion of my article who instructed me to contact you and user "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry". Hope you can help me. The following is the abstract of what i had sent to her.Please guide me.

Thank You.

Hi Panyd,

This is regarding the page that you deleted yesterday asking me to not publish the same article after it got deleted. With all respect i would like to ask you a few queries. Hope you don't mind :)

I had contested against the speedy deletion as follows

This page should not be speedy deleted because...Previously it was deleted only because of lack of notability. Which i have improved this time by adding references from new york times and yahoo finance. Last time the administrators did not have a problem with the article and was only the case of notability so i have improved on it. Now how fair is it to delete the article saying that it is the same as the previous where notability had been the only issue and which has been rectified. For proof please do see the discussion page of the article which was there previously over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buysellads.

The segment over there reads as follows

 * Weak delete for lack of sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. The page does list one article from a Reliable Source, the Boston Herald, but notability requires more than one article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan . Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You are trying very hard, I'll give you that. But there just may not be enough material out there to cite, no matter how hard you try. You are correct that the article will not be deleted for being an orphan; if it is deleted it will be for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability requirements. I noticed you have a second reference at the article from a Reliable Source, namely the Wall Street Journal Online, but the article doesn't even mention BuySellAds that I could find, so it doesn't help you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So in order to rectify the problem of notability i had to bring in more references to hold the article well if i am not mistaken right? :) Hence i gathered authentic ones from Yahoo finance and also New york times report and included them in the article and corrected a few typos and published it again.

Could you please tell me where i have gone wrong? After working so hard i have built the content for this article and it was rejected the first time around because i needed to have stronger references. And once i got stronger references and put it along, it gets deleted. What am i expected to do here? Am i expected not to repeat the content? Because it was the references and not the content which had the problem last time isn't it? I am finding it very difficult.

Please Advice and Help. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.226.7 (talk)

I have reviewed all the references that were supplied. I find that they are either primary sources, company listings, product reviews, or blog-style reports based on the company's press releases. There do not appear to be any in depth articles such as on mainstream media, newspapers or business magazines. If the creator wishes, they can review again our policies for notability, especially for companies and organisations, and on reliable sources. As a last recourse, they could consider opening a deletion revision discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, Hi Venomary, sometimes we have to just wait until a company wins awards or gets discussed in the business pages of newspapers etc, Clearly you have enough to prove they exist, but millions of companies exist without being sufficiently notable for us to want an article about them. ϢereSpielChequers 07:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Isnt the new york times, Yahoo finance, Alexa ranking good references to make this article notable.Please guide. I have worked hard on this article and want to make it happen.

Thank you. Venomarv (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Venomarv, NY Times is definitely a good source, but are they discussing the company or merely confirming its existence in a list? If you can give me a link I'll go look at the NY Times article. I suspect Alexa ranking is more of a primary source, good for confirming that someone exists and the sort of that that journalists might comment on. But to be notable simply for having a high Alexa count I suspect it would need to be pretty high. Are they a top 100 site or just in the top 1000? ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Survivor allstars 2

{{wb}} {{wb}}

Thanks replied there. ϢereSpielChequers 11:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Userfy request

Per this (and you being in a certain category), could you please userfy a copy of Takethetrain.co.uk? Thanks for any help you may offer. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

...and thanks for breaking it gently :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

...One does one's best, normally I'd refer them to COI but this case seemed a little extreme for that. How anyone could genuinely not understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and their own website does rather baffle me, but we live in a strange world. ϢereSpielChequers 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

If you are about, do you (or perhaps a lurker) mind dealing with this? I'd rather general defamation was not left in my user page history but don't like using admin tools on my user pages. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Talk page stalker: --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, I'm currently on a public WiFi where I'd rather not risk logging into Wikipedia. 120.61.159.240 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you are having fun, glad you did not get caught with travel problems (let's quickly forget the trauma of travel paperwork). --Fæ (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes its been an amazing few days - just about to head for the airport. ϢereSpellCheckers 03:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

19th Century Ministers

If only they would stop adding vanity articles to Wikipedia. I edit conflicted declining the speedy delete for exactly the same reason as you. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And more usefully you added an inline cite, thanks for that. Speedy deletion errors never cease to amaze me, I only need two more to have declined speedies on every member of Liverpool's most famous popular music quartet. ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

성씨

There is an article called 성씨, should the name be changed.Msruzicka (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The basic criterion is whether or not the page name is a likely search term for a user of the English Wikipedia. Even the use of non-English redirects has been the subject of lengthy debates. This guideline will explain things: Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles. More specifically in the case of 성씨, the questions are: Is this a relevant article for the English Wikipedia? Should it perhaps be merged to Korean name if it provides useful additional content and deleted per WP:CSD A10 or some other relevant criterion? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Non Latin words are OK for redirects as they may be of use to some people. But article names do need to be in the Latin script, I see that it is indeed now a redirect. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Michaletos

Hi WereSpielChequers, while I agree that many awards count as an assertion of importance, I'm not convinced the bare phrase "awarded" does. This could mean he got a high school swimming certificate, which clearly would be an assertion of importance. Without a specific award being mentioned, this appears to me not to be a credible assertion of importance. However, I do appreciate that others could take a different view on this and I appreciate the notification you left on my talk page. I'll keep the page on my watchlist. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sparthorse, I take awarded as meaning award winning, and lighting designers sound to me the sort of profession that you need to to put a movie together..... Award winning plumber or taxi driver would I would treat differently, so I don't treat all award winning claims as a credible assertion of importance. In any event if like that one an article already has a BLPprod I would be inclined to let that run its course unless it is an invalid tag or it very clearly meets a CSD criteria - I have deleted several BLPprodded articles per G10. ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted

why was my thing deleted about haypi kingdom? thanks p.s. i dont know if this is where i contact you at or not :)

Faust22 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Faust22, yes this is the right place to contact me. The page I deleted on the Haypi kingdom just consisted of the word ass which isn't a particularly promising start to an encyclopaedia article.. ϢereSpielChequers 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)