User talk:DGG/Archive 40 May 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center

Can you undelete the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center? I saw you deleted the entire article because someone recently added some copyrighted info. I'll delete the copyrighted info, but don't want to have to start the entire article over again. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to send a message to someone who has persistently been inserting not just copyvio but wildly extravagent promotionalism over the last several months. I may--Theexiledmagi (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC) have sent too strong a one. I'll undelete it, of course, back to the last clear revision before she began editing, and, if you wish, I can email the final version to you so you can see what is there. I was planning to reinsert it so & fix it myself, but I'll be very glad if you'll take responsibility for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take responsibility for cleaning it up. I just got the emails. I haven't looked at the article in months probably. I just noticed a bunch of the UCLA medical center stuff had been recently created or added to by one user when the Santa Monica hospital on my watchlist was tagged. Clearly some of the articles created were unnecessary, and the others, like this hospital one, were filled with junk. Hopefully the editor will stop adding the unnecessary, copyvio, and advert info. Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater Cincinnati Aquarium Society

Hello, you recently deleted this article. I feel I adequately explained why this group is notable. However, I feel it is Wikipedia’s loss as many subjects relevant to the aquarium trade and fish breeding and keeping are still not available on the internet. I also felt that I had adequately discussed why it was a notable organization as stated on its discussion page. I feel you could at least show the courtesy to comment as to a reason after you delete it. Otherwise you leave people who would otherwise be happy to contribute to the Wikipedia community feeling disaffected, and unwilling to contribute in the future.--Theexiledmagi (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)--

I have re-examined the article, and looked at the references. I do not think you have much of a claim to notability, but I am perfectly willing to let the community decide; I have consequently undeleted the article and sent it for a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Cincinnati Aquarium Society. I'll express my own view of the article there. More generally, I usually suggest that people interested in contributing here work on established articles, and not try to create articles on such topics as local clubs until they gain some familiarity with our practices. I have long advocated some sort of Wikipedia 2 for such articles, still free from promotionalism but not requiring notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Gebru Asrat

Hi DGG. I just noticed this article, which falls into my area of interest on Wikipedia, which I had to make some serious revisions to. I don't know what the NYC & BW articles said when you read them, but when I reviewed their content I was surprised that neither said Gebru had been murdered/assassinated, but that another opposition candidate had been. Gebru was only quoted in both articles. I know we all write under the pressure of time, but you may want to read your sources a little slower in the future. If you encounter any problems with this article being nominated for deletion -- or any other Ethiopia-related article -- feel free to send me a head's up & I will do my best to fix the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems I goofed pretty thoroughly, and I greatly appreciate that you have called my attention to this--both this specific error and the more general problem. The flood of unjustified unresearched BLP prods does seem in fact to be too much to handle without an organized effort. Since a serious BLP issue is involved, I deleted and restored the article in such a way as to remove my mistaken edits from the visible history, for something like that should not remain in the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm glad that I took the precaution of moving both of the sources you added to another article as "Further readings". Even though it was a serious mistake & justified deleting those versions, those 2 sources you cited are useful for current events in Ethiopia, & I might not have known about these sources otherwise. -- llywrch (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

911 nightclub fire

Greetings and salutations! I see you've declined the prod of the 911 nightclub fire for reasons of notability. I just wanted to clarify that the notability per se was not the issue that led to the nomination; article's newsiness and lack of enduring notability were. If you could add a couple of sources demonstrating the enduring notability of that event, it would be greatly appreciated. If you can't, please consider re-prodding the article, or I'll just send it to AfD later this week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 14:07 (UTC)

you are welcome to take it to AfD, if you are sure there are no further sources to be found--I remind you there may be several names for this event. As for me, I consider the permanent importance obvious from the fatality count. My opinion is not decisive; the decision is what the community thinks. DGG ( talk ) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, DGG. I did in fact look for more sources, but was unable to find any indication that the event can be classified as anything but a piece of news (however tragic). I will AfD this article shortly; your opinion will be welcome there as well. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 15:28 (UTC)

Here's the AfD link for your convenience: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/911 nightclub fire.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 15:36 (UTC)

AfD nomination of M. Qaiser Fatmi

An article that you have been involved in editing, M. Qaiser Fatmi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Qaiser Fatmi. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Emerson

I wanted to ask you if theres a possibility that we can still get John Suggs work into the article. You seem to agree with me on this as long as certain guidelines are followed.

Is epeefleche right that Jimbo has given the final word on this or is there still a possibility that it can be inculded. annoynmous 09:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo is generally considered to have reserved power for emergency situations, though this has been challenged. However, the present case is an ordinary editing matter, and in such matters, I consider that he has the same role in judging article content as any other experienced editor: he's often right, and sometimes wrong. Because of the extra weight that people often give his opinions, I agree with those who think it better that he not generally involve himself, because it distorts the debate, as it is doing here. Fortunately it does not greatly matter for the balance of the article in question, as there are enough others to quote who have the same view of the subject. In any case, have learned not to get over-concerned about individual articles. I am more concerned that his views reinforce an approach to BLP that I think is detrimental to the objective NPOV treatment of public figures. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert FitzPatrick

Back in February I posted a prod Robert FitzPatrick proposing deletion. You removed the prod as "some sources might be OK". I've now been through every reference listed and the vast majority were connected to lists in the article of where FitzPatrick had been quoted or interviewed by media - the majority of time nothing more than one sentence. The rest simply support statements like "FitzPatrick was quoted by", which smacks of WP:OR. Virtually every other source is self-published by FitzPatrick himself. Even his book ends up being self-published. The fact he is quoted to by so many media speaks to notability, but we actually have zero 3rd party, RS references to support anything about FitzPatrick other than he is president of Pyramid Scheme Alert. Suggestions?--Insider201283 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

the way to proceed is via afd if you have failed to find better sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hussain AlQemzi‎

I see that the source you've added is from the subject's employer. Do you think that will be enough to pass at AfD? Or does that merely take care of the BLP prod?

IMO this person does pass our notability guidelines; the article simply needs better sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

hHere's how I've been trying to do it: When I deal with prods, I just try to find a source of any sort at all that is good enough to meet WP:V, and this certainly good enough for that. Just as I remove speedies if it does not meet the criterion, I remove prods if it does not meet the criterion. I always look, but how hard I will look depends on my guess about whether the article will hold in the end. In this case I went beyond Google, to the bank website, because I thought he is very clearly notable, just as you do. I cannot predict what will hold at afd, but I think it at least ought to, considering he's the head of a major international bank, and this is the official site, which can be taken as reliable. It's not as if it's the article on a head of a grocery store sourced by the store's official page. There will probably be similar sources from the sites of the various major companies he's been head or, or where he is a director, to cross-check. News sources from this area are still very iffy, especially as I do not read Arabic. In the interests of avoiding systematic bias, I consider we should be flexible about sources. But unfortunately I have all I can do adding the first source to the dozens of mistaken blp prods each day, that I normally do not have either time or energy to work on the articles further. If people were more careful which articles they nominated, I could more thorough work. But there are thousands of other people who work on articles, and only a very few of us who care about rescuing articles from deletion in any practical way. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading your reply, I took it upon myself to find third-party sources about this individual. The first place I thought of looking was the Arabic Wikipedia, where I was surprised to find that there is no article on Noor Bank yet. (Then again, the Arabic Wikipedia is about 3% of the size of the English.) But Google News did return a few interesting results, and they're all in English. Basically, there is nothing in the article that can't be referenced, and the article simply needs copyediting, for which I added an appropriate tag. I don't think there's going to be an AfD on this article any time soon. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Found a 6 month old AFD closed by both of us

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazub

I've asked Mr Zman several times if he can modify his script so that it doesn't close AFDs that have already been closed. Might be as simple as checking to see if "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD" exists. In any case I've learned to hit "refresh" after closing AFDs so I can quickly correct these when they do happen. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

well, at least we agreed on the result. I've started refreshing too as I havent been sure if all the steps are being taken--there seem to be some lags in the process. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I learned you also have to take a looksee at the article to make sure that the AFD tag has been removed (and the rescue tag if there is one), especially if the article has been moved during the debate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nadine Winnebeck

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nadine Winnebeck, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Winnebeck. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society

Is The Irving Literary Society notable? The article states that it is the oldest student organization at Cornell but I can't verify the information since the source is in print. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

see the subsequent progress of the discussion-- Voceditenore has clarified it with an accessible source, showing it's not the first, but it is the. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting Things Done opinion please?

You once looked carefully at the Getting Things Done article with some ambivalence. Do you have time to read arguments and weigh in on What happened to this article? (RfC tag just expired.) The background is probably important on this one.

As a GTD SME not affiliated with David Allen, I could cut a lot of fat and still leave the meat. However, TNXMan appears to be attached to his ultralight summary, he's a deletionist admin, he doesn't come across as listening well, and he's got Twinkle on it, so I fear he'll just revert. Would it be better to carefully educate everyone there about how WP is supposed to work, even when an admin makes an edit, so everyone knows they can revert/edit in this case without recrimination? When an admin makes a big edit/delete like that, I think it creates fear and hesitation (and the voice of the community is more silent) unless they understand appropriate options. Kcren (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on the talk page there. Even admins can sometimes do things right, as I think he did here. Neither he nor I has much tolerance for over-detailed book summaries of self-help books--it has nothing to do with deletionism/inclusionism. I'd advise you to be content that that the book does have an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for weighing in quickly, more (informed) talk is better; I reserve the right to change my mind with better data.

Your reply (above) really turned on a light, and I suddenly see a bigger problem: The Getting Things Done article is not supposed to be about a book. It's about a methodology. Read the disambiguation and first two paragraphs. Wikipedia is not Cliffs Notes. A book is a source, not usually a topic. We should just cite the appropriate books (there are three, not one). This means that the huge book banner is promotional and creates editing confusion. Maybe there should be two disambiguated articles, but I doubt it.

On another note, your reply there missed 70% of my concerns. I was hoping for a little talk-page-based mentoring on WP policy. You said once in your Biases section: "the other side is generally not intelligent, and is determined to remain untaught." I fear that's true, but I guarantee SOME of them want to learn. If we teach principles and methods briefly each time we edit or talk, then we start building a smarter nucleus, and editing improves everywhere. That's one reason I asked you to weigh in—you seemed willing to mention principles when editing.

So, do you mind explaining (on that talk page) the appropriate non-admin options when an admin is making content edits? Or is there someone else I should ask? The best way to stifle initiative is for the leader to express a strong opinion early. (I'm a business/leadership coach, my bias.) I think we want to encourage editing initiative based on solid WP principles, right? Kcren (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As a preliminary, let me explain that except for copyright and libel and BLP violations, administrators have no more control than any other editor over the content of Wikipedia articles. The basic principle is that nobody owns an article, and that all disagreements are to be resolved by group discussion. Various proposals to have a central body to resolve content disputes has been proposed, and overwhelmingly rejected every time. That said, it is true that in practice a few established editors here--whether or not admins--have been known to do a certain amount of bullying. But admins who use their admin powers to support their position on an article lose those powers, though not necessarily at the first violation. I discussed this article as an ed., not an admin. As I normally do, I proposed what I consider a compromise solution.

the main issue is about the relationship of articles about subjects to articles about books explaining those subjects. There is no clear policy here. It is at present very easy to establish the notability of a book, for a few book reviews in established sources are all that is necessary. Personally I think this may be unduly permissive for many sort of non-fiction books, and might be best dealt with by tightening our practices for what we count as a significant review. In writing an article on a book, it is necessary to say what it contains, and what the argument of the author is , but it is not the place for a detailed exposition of that theory. The reason it is often done in such articles, is that it is considerably more difficult to establish an article on a theory or an approach to a subject, for it would be necessary to show that other independent workers have discussed that theory or approach. Because of this, I in fact did assume the article was about the book--I see I was not correct. I am not the least sure an article about the concept is justifiable at all, and need to think about this a little.

I try to explain what I do, but I cannot explain every time. A glance up at this page, and its archives, will show that I am very ready to discuss the bases for policy as I perceive they are, and also as I think they should be. If I do go into a relatively extended discussion, i prefer to do it where it is generally visible. I'm not running a series of tutorial, but dealing with issues.

And to answer your question: the appropriate non-admin actions when an admin is making content changes is to treat them like just another editor of similar experience--to assume the comments or edits are in good faith, intended to improve the article--and that they might actually be doing that. But if you disagree, anything anybody says here can be challenged. If an admin or any other editor should try to be overbearing, the first step is to wait a day or so in order to decide calmly if the issue is worth the contention, and then continue the discussion. The response will be either conciliatory or defensive or aggressive. If it is defensive, ask for opinions at a suitable noticeboard--see the list of them at the top of WP:ANB. I would normally reserve AN/I for matters which can not be otherwise handled, and which are important enough to be worth wide attention, with the understanding that once something reaches there , it gets so much attention that it can very quickly escalate. If at all unsure whether it is worth proceeding that far , after asking for an opinion from another editor, on or off wiki. And before getting too involved in a dispute, it is wise to observe the dynamics of Wikipedia disputes. It is sometimes worthwhile to examine the course of prior disputes with the same editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A request for help to understand

Greetings!

Thank you for the conclusion and suggestions on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims page. Some questions have accured in my mind and I'd like to ask for your help understand some aspects on Wikipedia. Can you please help?

• The first is, what is "no consensus" in AtD by Wiki rules, as I failed to find much about it reading wp:no consensus, wp:consensus and wp:Afd.
• Then how would a 4 keep and 13 delete votes constitute a "no consensus" according to wiki rules and where I can read those?
• How would 4 keep votes with no proper dismissal-commenting of all the delete voters' comments constitute a no consensus in accordance to your judgments. This might teach me something in life as well, probably.
• Have you paid attention to the notes, that the article created was a wp:SOAP and was created due to wp:point? If yes, can you please comment that too and how it was considered at the closing of the case?

Thank you very much!

PS. I shall be watching your talk-page for the answers Aregakn (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS at a close means to keep the status quo for a while, & then reconsider. My general opinion is that it is folly to appeal a no consensus close, whether or not you agree with it. If you think it should be delete, the close lets you renominate it for deletion very soon--I usually suggest 2 to 4 weeks. Consensus means consensus of policy-based rational arguments, and they can not be picked up out of the incredible mess that was that afd. The key policy-based question was whether the RSs were sufficient to show that the whole time period should be covered, and I do not consider that this had a clear discussion. I used my judgement that the discussion was hopelessly contaminated by irrelevant and abusive personal arguments from all directions, and therefore should be done over after a time. And I suggested that the article be improved first if possible, and suggested a direction. Just wait 2 weeks , see if it is closed, and renominate it, with everybody trying very conscientiously to discuss the article only. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you should mention whether RSs were sufficient when I simply asked for one English scholarly source calling it a Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims, the first response from Hittit(the creator was:however if it is the word “genocide” you are voting on, I have already stated that I have no objection for renaming to “Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims. Which has yet to be changed.) followed by GregorB's statement that I was essentially beating a dead horse for asking such a question! Any wonder that there WAS no conversation concerning RSs?? I do find it quite intriguing for two editors that were screaming the viability of the sources in the article, Hittit[1](was earlier trying to force "alleged" into the Armenian Genocide article and NovaSkola deleted an entire section of text out of an article stating, this source doesn't exist!.[2] Unglaublich! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I do not see a reason why you noted about me (or maybe some other editors) agreeing to it or not and neither do I see a reason why would an Admin care not for it. But as I stated, I don't know why you are mentioning it, as I did not state anything about my opinion in the above message.

Concerning a consensus of policy-based rational arguments not being up out of the incredible mess I can state, that the same policies were repeated over and over and it wasn't impossible to see them, in my opinion. But let this be not about it.

What I really want to know is about the 4 above questions I have asked. This is for my learning and for me, as a participating party in the voting as well, to understand those above 4 aspects to be able to interpret them correct, the way you see them (because all those above is how you dealt with the case, isn't it?).

Please, can you answer them point-by-point? Maybe you could skip the first one as you stated your opinion about consensus of policy-based arguments "not being up put of the mess".

Thank you Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

1. See WP:AFD, section 10. "How an Afd Discussion is closed."

2. Consensus is the consensus of the policy based arguments, not of the total !votes. I saw insufficient such arguments/.

3. Consensus is the consensus of the policy based arguments, not of the total !votes. I saw insufficient such arguments/.

4. I cannot determine the motives with which an article was written; as SOAPBOXING on this subject goes, it was not conspicuously soapy. As for POINT, perhaps, but that still does not by itself invalidate the article.

in conclusion, I suggest that you see if the article in two weeks is one that you consider equally unsatisfactory, and simply renominate it. I will not close that one, though I may contribute to the discussions. Or I may simply stand by and warn anybody who attempts to use emotions as arguments. You probably already know that instead of renominating it, you can take it to WP:Deletion Review, but I think that you will find renominating it much simpler and more likely to give a reasonable result. I f you do take it to DR, I will either discuss in detail why I ejected almost all the arguments, or more likely just stand by my statement at the close. DGG ( talk )

OK, so I've made an other "research" taking into attention your not very long comments and drawn some conclusions. Please assess them and, if wrong, please clarify them in more details.

1) As I said, I saw no clear explanation of what "No consensus" is in wp:afd and that is why I asked you to explain. You offerred and I read it again and did not see anything clear again. It was refered to the wp:consensus page where it mainly, if not only, spoke of editors consensus on article changes. There was only one relevant part I could notice: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus..."

• Conclusion: there has been no obvious consensus that the article should be either kept or deleted. Right?

2) How would a 4 keep and 13 delete votes constitute a "no consensus" according to wiki rules and where I can read those?

• Conclusion: Based on that I mentioned about the Wiki rules and only the 4/13 ratio you said it doesn't depend on the vote ratio in Wiki rules. Right?

3) Q: How would 4 keep votes with no propper dismissal-commenting of all the delete voters' comments constitute a no consensus in accordance to your judgments.

A: Consensus is the consensus of the policy based arguments, not of the total !votes. I saw insufficient such arguments/.

I want to note that there was no emphasis on the vote ratio here and that I only mentioned that there was no dismissal of the voters' comments.

• Conclusion: citation "I saw insufficient such arguments". And so this was the base of no-consensus as it seems from what you wrote. Right?

4) Q: Have you paid attention to the notes, that the article created was a wp:SOAP...? If yes, can you please comment that too and how it was considered at the closing of the case?"

A: I cannot tell the motives with which an article was written [I didn't ask if yu knew]; as SOAPBOXING on this subject goes, it was not conspicuously soapy.

• Conclusion: The arguments of editors speaking of soap purposes, tendentious editing, the obvious (in their opinion) creation of A article, through obvious (even you stated) synth, OR (etc), not in good faith and to "balance" the effect of other "undesired articles" were taken into consideration by you in accordance to wp:del and were insufficient for a "delete" closure. Right?

Thank you Aregakn (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Once more, afd is not a vote count, and emotional and personally-directed arguments will be disregarded by me or z--I would certainly hope-- any other administrator. I saw insufficient policy based arguments to make a decision. I have given you my reasons as best I can, and if you do not understand them or disagree, there's nothing I can do to help further. It is unreasonable and unproductive for you to try to compel me to make a decision I am unwilling to make--instead, we have ways of resolving this: Either follow my advice to try a second afd in two weeks, or go to deletion review. In either case, someone else will make the decision. The topic here is closed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Genocide of Ottoman Muslims and Turks

DGG,, referring to the article in question and your notes on that. As it seems the article has now effectively being deleted by certain editors (actually the same editors who attempted the AfD and one possible sockpuppet). What is the procedure for these kinds of cases? Is it so that destorying articles is so easy in Wikipedia? regards --Hittit (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

comments on Ottoman... , and my role

it's interesting to see the range of the comments above. Obviously no resolution in this will satisfy everyone, and when I give what amounts to a compromise close it satisfies no one. I take that to mean the close is fair. I am not the arbiter of this topic. I am , in fact, not here as the arbiter of any topic. I did what I think is the common sense course, recognize an afd as not being satisfactory and making a neutral close of a debate, make some suggestion for the article, and suggest a later debate if necessary. I'm not here to decide if the article should be kept or not, just to decide if there is a clear and rational view of the community. The material above is not promising in this regard, and I urge you all to take further discussion elsewhere. The ethnic conflicts noticeboard might be a good place. There is nothing further appropriate I can do. Perhaps someone else will find a better approach to it. I am going to do what I almost never do, request that the discussion here stop, as it is unproductive. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarshallBagramyan

FYI I have closed this request with no action as the report is becoming a violation of WP:BATTLE. I have also warned anyone thinking of bringing the matter back if the disruption recurs to read WP:OUCH first. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

a very appropriate reminder in this situation. I had been trying to indicate this to the parties involved, and I hope your more direct statement will have more effect than my perhaps excessively mild advice. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another look

I know that you rarely make mistakes. I believe you did in this case, which remains open at AfD. No doubt the rationales discussed were distracting, and you focused on those, rather than the RS coverage of the book that existed by was not in the article. My fault, as I pulled you in. I've now reflected enough in the article itself that I believe it will be clear to non-baseball fans that the book is notable. See Win Shares (book).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I make mistakes, and I will revise my opinion when I realize them--I doubt they are much rarer than other people's. So I took another look, and gave a somewhat different analysis dealing with some other aspects of evaluating the importance of reference books. I asked some questions there, which I hope you can answer for us. DGG ( talk ) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Found this a little strange

That you denied a G11 on this hopeless article, but you had no objection to the G11 of Informatica (in its DRV). Pcap ping 17:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"didn't object" does not mean I had formed any opinion at all. I see that the DRV closed with permission to re-create an improved article. The DRV in practice served as an AfD, allowing for consideration by the community. This one will get deleted also if not improved , it will just take a few days longer. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Mindanao Tech

Having looked at this article again it would appear to meet speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of a previously deleted article) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mindanao_tech Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ks0stm

Hi there.

I think that Ks0stm (talk · contribs) would make a good administrator, and they have indicated to me that they would be interested. Do you have the time to evaluate their contributions, and to consider nominating them yourself? Let me know what you think. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Can you let me know if you are looking at this. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kenneth A Fuchsman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kenneth A Fuchsman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth A Fuchsman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Beth Bachman

i rewrote your Beth Bachmann [3] c'mon now, i know you can write better than that. Pohick2 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I'd like you to take a look at this please. Am I totally misinterpreting the guidelines, or is everyone else? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

this is an example of where the guidelines applied literally give a result that people think unreasonable. All guidelines inherently permit of exceptions; with respect to notability, the interested part of the community can thus decide on exemptions in either direction. The alternative way to get reasonable results is to quibble on what sources count as reliable, or other specific requirements. This was the usual way when I joined 3 years ago, and I got to be quite good at it. In this instance, I can see how to argue in that manner that the sources here are sufficient, or the opposite. We can either make decisions according to who can do that more skillfully, or by the result we want to achieve. Which way do you think will give a better WP? DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

List of names

Hi. I clarified my rationale for deletion. It's still imperfectly articulated, but I think you might agree with the intent, now. Thoughts welcome. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Additional perspective is always appreciated. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Journal Auditorium

Could you please take a look at Journal Auditorium? The article has been tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

informative not promotional; probably important. From a quick look at the sources, I cannot figure out just what name applies to what, and will need to re-examine them to clarify it. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

quite right. I've deleted it, and warned the user. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Quran Project

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Quran Project. You did not make any changes on the QOP project as you said. You should also think about archiving your very long talk page. It has entries dating back to Feb 2008. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you did a "Keep", could you please reply over there and explain how this OQP meets web notability guidelines? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful

You erased my input on an AfD debate earlier today: [4]. I have restored my input. Thank you. Joal Beal (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry of course, thanks for notifying me, and I'm glad to see you took the opportunity to explain your argument further, a very useful thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Somatic Systems Institute deletion

Hello, I found the article Marked for Speedy Deletion within minutes of posting it. It was a small article, but was not dissimilar to the start of other articles on companies that have lived on Wikipedia for years and were considered substantive enough about a notable entity.

The notice said I should put a hang on tag up and I did so, and within 20 minutes or less I then contributed my Talk commentary to address my reasons of dispute. Before I even submitted the talk, the article was deleted.

Please restore this article; if it needs to be tagged as a stub etc., I can completely understand that. However, I believe the subject meets the criteria for notability, as I stated in my talk page while the article was being deleted:

Somatic Systems Institute is one of only one or two educational organizations that trains professional practitioners in the technique documented in the book Somatics by Thomas Hanna. This book has been published for over 20 years, reports on a pain care method that is touted by medical reviewers of the book, and is widely read (as well as widely discussed on Amazon etc and referenced on thousands of websites and in multiple published books). It seems that this technique is notable, and thus the training institution for it should be considered of interest to the public, perhaps critically so for the welfare and/or education of those in the public interested in the technique. If, say, there is a single institution training in a notable non-invasive hip replacement surgical techniques, a wikipedia article on the school that trains practitioners in that surgery would be both notable and perhaps necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedison (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I undeleted the article, and sent to to Articles for deletion, along with your two other articles. The community will decide there. Possibly, just possible, Clinical somatics is notable, but I do not see how this is separately notable , nor Sensory motor amnesia. You've received a notice on your talk page linking to the discussions--defend them at the discussions. If you want to keep the articles, I suggest you try for just one strong one, or possible instead of that, one on Hanna. In my experience, trying to do too many articles on something of borderline notability tends to like like promotion, and is not perceived favorably. But its up to the community, and another administrator will decide what their conclusion is after the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Observer --> Alton Observer

Hi. I noticed that you denied the speedy deletion of St. Louis Observer. Would you care to do the same to article on its successor newspaper, the Alton Observer? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help for articles like this to give a fuller explanation in the article, along with several references--the various works on the editor would count here also, and it would be particularly valuable for one of the references to be a fairly general history, to show that the publication was in fact regarded as particularly important. DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've passed your comment on to User:Zemestoon, the editor who created the two articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template:Expand DRV comments

I have no position on this DRV, but in regard to your suggestions about TFD, I suspect it would be difficult to notify everyone who had ever used a template. It would probably be relatively easy to have a bot notify everyone who had ever edited the template. Erwin85Bot does something like this for AFDs, so perhaps it could be extended to other XFDs? Regardless of what effect it might have had in this particular case, broader notification could generally help the often anemic participation for some of the venues. --RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, there are some practical problems; if i were actually proposing this as a practical change, it would be something like the 50 most frequent users over the last year. Edited is fine for articles, and the most specialized templates but not good for common templates, because very few people edit major templates--such editing is normally discouraged because of the instability and the likelihood of something breaking. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

TFDs of widely used templates usually don't lack for participation because the standard notices that appear next to transclusions get attention. In fact, a common reaction is demands for the notification to be removed because it is "messing up" articles. This happened with Template:Expand: the TFD notice was noincluded a couple of days after it was nominated because an admin thought it was "ugly" and not "professional". If the goal is to encourage wider participation in such cases, perhaps the better thing is guidance that more strongly discourages noincluding of the TFD tag. Besides, the discussion for Template:Expand was well-attended. The issue there is more about whether the discussion was interpreted correctly. A notification bot wouldn't change that. Still, in this case a notification bot that just notified editors from the past two years would have notified seven editors, all of whom are still active, and only one of whom participated in the TFD. One of the MIA editors was one of the instigators for the DRV, so presumably at least he would have participated if notified. --RL0919 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

there is a difference between marking the articles, and notifying the editors. Marking the articles confuses the ordinary readers of the articles; notifying the editors, does not. And I, like most people with long watchlists, do not watchlist every article I edit. And , like most people with long watchlists, my watchlist is set to hide bot edits, so I would never see the addition of the notices unless I edited the article again in the period of a week that the notice was there. But I certainly notice everything posted to my talk page, and most active people are active at least once a week. The basic need for is a way to move significant discussions at TfD and the other "minor" XfDs into wider notice. The need for this DRV, just as you said, is to realise that even among the people who participated, there was not sufficient consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, would you please consider addressing this for me? Thanks. --MrStalker ^(talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

someone already did it. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, nope still not undeleted XD --MrStalker ^(talk) 00:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ewing Oil

Your unilateral decision that the deletion proposal I put on the Ewing Oil page is exactly why Wikipedia is a joke.65.13.81.233 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone can remove a prod, such as the one you placed. . And, wanting to check the background, I observed the block log and the frequent POV vandalism in the contribution history for this ip address DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

??? Whatever you mean by background, I have no idea. What I do know is that it is a legitimate complaint I have. How do I propose that a deletion take place with a vote? Thank you.65.13.81.233 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

the first thing you need do is to register for an account; it cannot be done from an ip address. The second thing is to read WP:Deletion policy. then go to WP:AFD and follow the inst

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jminthorne's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jminthorne (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I'm not very impressed you didn't bother notifying me you'd simply removed my comments under your own steam without using the various other means that could have left them there to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

do you mean the resolved template there & accompanying comments? You are right, I should have crossed them out, not removed them. My fault, I did not think sufficiently. I'll restore it if you hadn't done so. And I made the assumption that once someone gets into a discussion at ANI they tend to see what continues to happen there--I see it might be different when one marks something resolved, but I'd think almost anyone would check back, just as you did, for further comments. I confess that there is so much to do, that I am guilty of sometimes going too fast to stop and notify. I;m glad you reminded me about this. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with an AfD

Someone has nominated Douglas Cummings for deletion (on utterly absurd grounds). But the real problem is that the article has no AfD notice, and there is no separate AfD discussion for it. It's simply listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians, where the link goes back to the article not to the discussion. I have no idea how to fix something like that and don't want to make a mess. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone can add the missing templates. They're given on the WP:AfD page. I took care of it. Please don't be too caustic in your comments--ignorance is not a crime, and people learn best if gently corrected. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've nominated articles for AfD before, but never backwards and wasn't sure what to do. Thanks for the advice too. I don't mind ignorance of the subject matter. But I do mind it when editors literally "vote" on ten AFDs in the space of 30 minutes,[5] and don't even take the time to look for evidence themselves, as happened there. I often wonder how many articles like this one get lost every day. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The ones that get lost are more borderline than this--though sometimes things like this happen--i got interested in WP process when we almost lost an article on a member of the National Academy of Sciences. My estimate of the errors at AfD is about 15%: 10% wrong deletes, 5% wrong keeps; a deletionist would probably also say 15% but divide it the opposite way. I don't think we can possibly do better than 5 to 10% error in our model, but that means we should be able to cut the error rate in half with more participation. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made one comment there, but am not going to get involved further. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

DGG - Was reviewing a few PRODs and came across this one: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana where the rationale was that the phrase This is a single quote by Groucho Marx. Google search shows no common usage beyond his one quote in Animal Crackers. Non-notable. If indeed, common usage was the benchmark for phrase notability, the nom is probably correct. Yet, the phrase is widely quoted in linguistics studies and even gets a few Google Scholor hits in that regard. So here is my question: It may not have common usage in daily language, but does that make it non-notable when it clearly is used by academia in the study of linguistics. (the thrust of the article is really that anyway). My instinct is to remove the PROD because it is indeed notable, but because there is time, I thought I'd see what you thought? Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

there are no clear benchmarks for notability of phrases. But you are right that limiting to "common usage" as the criterion makes little sense-- WP covers special topics also, and if the phrase is widely used as an example in linguistics that ought to be sufficient. More important, if in doubt about whether to remove a prod yourself, or you think it might reasonably be contested, always remove it. AfD is for cases where there is doubt. If you think it ought to stand, you can leave it up to the prodder to send it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My instincts were correct as someone else contested already.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Salkin

This old friend of mine is associate dean of Albany Law School and "distinguished professor" of law. Is she notable per WP:PROF? Bearian (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, see Patricia Salkin -- please fill in page nos. for the articles. & add and refs for the public service you can find . DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MTV Generation

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is MTV Generation. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Generation (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated. I'll certainly be on AIV soon.

Regards ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody

Just wanted to point out that he once again socked, this time to evade a block. If Arbcom hadn't taken the motion, he probably would have been blocked indefinitely for that alone: fourth offense is a pretty good sign of an editor that isn't going to stop. How many cases do you know of where an editor has been on his fourth sockpuppeting offense that hasn't been blocked indefinitely? Personally, I wish that that had been the course taken here: far less drama and excitement.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it better to say what I need to say at general pages, not as a personal discussion between us; see in particular [6]. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Participate in discussions for changes in Articles

Hi, I'd like to ask you to express your opinion on this issue discussed [7]. Of course, if you are interested :). Thanks, Aregakn (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

things seem to be going OK without me. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School

Hi, the history log for Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School says you deleted this article once due to an MfD discussion, but that's a red link. Can you provide some information? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it got deleted again.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, it was an impossibly unacceptable article completely devoid of encyclopedic content. I saw after I did it that it had the wrong tag. MBisantz deleted it after me; I just closed the relevant Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Munir Babar

Hi DGG. You deprodded this one today; reason for prod was WP:N concerns. You don't appear to have added any relevant references or improved the article. History of the article suggests that no one is watching it or likely to improve it in the near future. Before taking it to AfD I thought I'd stop by and see if I'm missing something - as far as I can see he's the non-notable head of a probably non-notable company. Good faith searches turned up no relevant coverage. Is it that you have some sources I'm missing, or just that you think it's not a non-controversial deletion? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I misread the prod tag. I've been checking so many BLP prods that I thought you were saying there were no sources at all, and there are sources to at least indicate he is head of the company--going into the company web site. But of course that's not enough for WP:N, and the odds of being able to source the importance of the company are pretty low, given the poor indexing of sources in that geographic area. I've replaced the prod. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

S. Hanumantha Rao

Hi, did you mean to remove the prod? The edit summary doesn't mention it. Hekerui (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I thought it was implied by my summary "correct tag", I changed the tag to "BLP IMDB refimprove", which was designed for this very purpose. IMDB is not much of a source, and will not prove notability, but in my opinion meets the requirements for BLP prod. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society

I've read through the Closing comments, and worked up a new page for eventually republishing. Could you look at and provide some thoughts? The page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmagha Thanks so much. --Cmagha (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha

Much too wordy. The general historical background, both nationwide and at Cornell must be condensed drastically. It's appropriate for an essay, but the WP article is supposed to be only about the society. Section 4,in particular, needs abridgment. Minor trivia (like the furniture) needs removal, as does the entire last paragraph. Talk about integration oince, not 3 times over. The language throughout, similarly, will fit into WP only if it is much less formal and flowery. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left some detailed suggestions on the draft here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

S Marshall

S Marshall has agreed to go through Hell Week again, would you care to nominate or co-nominate? Fences&Windows 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tavistock Athletic Club

Can you have a look at this page again, the creator has made a good faith attempt to reply to the speedy delete, however has done so by re-creating the page. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on the talk p. The club has 200 members total "of all abilities"it was written in the first person "We meet on Tuesdays ... To become a member, fill in an application form, and hand it with your fee to whoever deals with the registration of the Juniors on a Tuesday." Sec.3.2 "membership Fees". The article had no secondary sources; however I did find one article of more than purely local significance [8]. Maybe it can be rewritten, bso I restored it to user space. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Brooks

Hi. I think that your rewrite of Patricia Brooks falls under WP:Close paraphrasing and must be rewritten further. I am less experienced with these issues; we could list it at WP:Copyright problems for input and assistance. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not finished with it. I remind you that a list of parts in performances is a factual list and can not readily be expressed differently. However, if yo;d rather do the rewriting yourself, please go ahead. There is no shortage of sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stubbing. I did some cleanup, and I'll take another look soon. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Slimband

Why was Slimband deleted? The page is for a company and a medical procedure. Other companies like Xerox, for example have entries.

It is also a licensed medical device registered with Health Canada.

Sbta (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to a review by the community: you will find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slimband. If you can find some good references, it might stay. You might be able to write an article on the device, if there are references for that. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Brooks

As I had pointed out to me this morning, your rewrite is still a close paraphrase of the source and needs further rewriting, preferably from scratch. I have blanked the article as a continuing copyright problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Current stubbified version contains no copyvio, and is adequately sourced for notability. Needs expansion, but that does not mean I have to do it personally. My general practice is to make the minimum rewrite to avoid blatant copyvio, and stop at that point. Sometimes I may miscalculate , as I seem to have done here. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of hours adding to the Patricia Brooks stub, citing two further references. Although it's still very short, I think the immediate need is addressed somewhat. I have, of course, been fastidious in avoiding copyvio (even though cited sources seem to copy each other!) — Hebrides (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hall Kart Racing School

Hello DGG, I created the page Jim Hall Kart Racing School and you deleted it. I had it undeleted and move to my userspace. I now would like to ask for your permission to put it back now that it has been greatly improved. On a side not your talk page is long! Thanks! Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back to mainspace. The list of notable graduates is an indication or probable notability. It would help if you had an additional reference for each of them having attended besides the school's own web page. Remember that anyone may still nominate it deletion, so you should aim at the strongest possible article. Good job, and I'm glad you were not discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)