User talk:Ubiquity/Archive 4

Archive 4, created 9/9/2016

Choreographer tag

Suggest adding support for this recommendation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. algocu (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association

Help. Every time I edit the page, it gets tagged for speedy deletion. How to I stop this/make the page suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lharvey12 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lharvey. Looking over the notices on your talk page, I can see that a couple of things have been going on:

1. Your subject doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines, and
2. You used (at least at one point) copyrighted material in your article, which is absolutely forbidden.

I didn't see the version of the article was was speedily deleted, but in general speedy deletions are supposed to be non-controversial (that is, due to a clear violation of policy).

Currently, the article is not tagged for speedy deletion, but for a deletion discussion. I opened the discussion, stating 'Does not meet WP:NORG -- organization has not "received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization."' Other editors will come and join the discussion, saying whether the article should be kept or deleted (there are sometimes other possibilities but in this case those are probably the only two outcomes). You are welcome to state your own position.

I can't predict the outcome of the discussion, but obviously I wouldn't have started it if I didn't think the article should be deleted. I'm sure the NZVNA is a fine organization, but Wikipedia is not a directory of any and all organizations, even those that are non-profit and do good work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for articles about notable organizations, where notability is demonstrated through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Two of your references are the NZVNA website, which is not independent, and, as far as I can see, the other three references do not even mention NZVNA. If you want to be able to demonstrate notability, you need to find other coverage. I googled NZVNA and I didn't find anything appropriate, but you may have access to sources I don't have.

I'm sorry this is such a frustrating process, but if you'll take the time to read some of the policy pages I've linked to, you'll see what I mean. A lot of people have the idea that because anyone can edit Wikipedia, anyone can add an article on anything they like. Then they are disappointed when they find their article, or the subject of the article, does not meet Wikipedia standards.

Good luck with your article. If you can find some appropriate sources and add them to the article, it will probably survive. Let me know if you have more questions. ubiquity (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary E. Hutchinson (and other women artists I am adding)

What would be needed to provide enough information about the importance of this artist? Do you have any tips/advice for adding new articles so they do not get tagged for deletion?

This and other articles will be expanded upon during the Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon at Emory University on Feb. 26.

I am adding about 20 new articles to start us off for the event, so that they won't need to be created during the event and are ready for participants to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifersyoung (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I was probably premature in tagging that, for which I apologize. However, there is a fool-proof formula for avoiding speeding deletions. Do not save your article until you have at least this much on the page:

Jane Doe is an artist, known for <whatever>.<solid reference>

That is, you must say what makes your subject notable, and you must back that up with an reference to a reputable, independent source. Your article had a reference, so the problem was that there was no assertion of significance. The article said Hutchinson was "an artist and teacher in the New York Federal Art Project under the Works Progress Administration." Not every artist or teacher is notable. What did Hutchinson do that makes her worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Please read the notability guidelines for creative artists. Here are the criteria:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

To be honest, I'm not sure Hutchinson meets these criteria. If you're expecting to add 20 new articles to the encyclopedia, all of your subjects should meet these criteria. Not only that, but you need to provide suitable references to demonstrate that they do.

You don't need to have all of this done at once. But as I said above, the minimal article must include a credible claim of significance. This is enough to avoid a speedy, but you will still need appropriate references to avoid deletion in the longer term.

Please let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Too fast

Re this speedy deletion tag: you might have been a hair fast on the trigger. A general rule I like to follow is that for articles that are not blatant copyright violations or attack pages, allow the user at least 15 minutes or so to add more material before tagging for deletion. Many new users feel the need to "reserve" a page title by creating some minimal content, and then proceed to flesh out the article. Tagging the article for speedy deletion after only 3 minutes is considered too bitey. (I say this from personal experience: I have been accused of the same behavior in the past, and have learned from more patient editors to wait before hitting that speedy delete button.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

All right, I will try to wait. <grumble repeat="2"/> ubiquity (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DeSimone Consulting Engineers Page

I am aware of the fact Wikipedia pages are not to be promotional, we have worked hard to ensure the content we wish to put on the page follows this. We examined similar firm's wikipedia pages to make sure we remain objective and we believe we have been substantially less self-serving then these other firms. We wish to just have a presence on Wikipedia as most other major structural engineering firms do. We are new to this and would appreciate any guidance to ensure we are not breaking any rules. We have news articles that are we ready to cite and would love to go about this in the proper way. We believed adding DeSimone as the structural engineers on the buildingss they have worked on (if they have a Wikipedia page) was completely harmless and many other buildings have listed the structural engineer so just wanted the same for DeSimone. Like I mentioned, I would love to get some help on this to make sure I do not run into any more problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSheaNY (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As you saw in my question on the Help Desk, I accept that you have been working in good faith. Nevertheless, I think what you have done is essentially promotional. If I created a web site for myself and (truthfully) listed all the companies for which I have worked, would that justify my going to the Wikipedia articles for those companies and adding my name as a contributor, citing my own web site? You know it would not. While I accept that a firm of consulting structural engineers makes a much bigger contribution to a building than I have made to the companies I worked for, that's just a matter of scope. There are dozens of consulting firms who were involved in each of those projects, and their names are not listed in the articles because, like DeSimone, their contributions were not notable enough to be noticed by reputable, independent sources.

As for other firms, see this policy guide. However, if you can give me some examples of the other firms you feel are being more self-serving, I would be glad to look into it, and take appropriate action. As you saw in my Help Desk question, I really don't want to be accused of singling anyone out.

Nothing to do with our discussion, but it greases the wheels here if you sign your messages and comments by adding ~~~~, or clicking the signature button, at the end of your text. Sometimes a bot will do it for you (as it did in this case), but you can't rely on that. ubiquity (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of the signature part. Will do that from now on. In terms of some of the projects they have worked on, I can certainly go back and cite that news articles that write about DeSimone being the structural engineers on that project. Their most reputable work is on supertalls, so they are the ones that actually make it possible for buildings to be that tall, so we just wanted to mainly have a page to talk about advances in engineerings not as an advertisement for DeSimone.

In terms of other firms, I can't think of any specific companies but we looked around the industry at pages for architects, developers and structural engineering firms to ensure we were less promotional, ensuring us the best chance of having our page not get deleted.

I will work on the wording a bit more for the page and try and put everything up at once, not section by section which is what I had done before it got deleted and I will see how I go. I have many news articles from reputable publications that talk about the techniques DeSimone uses on these specific buildings and projects.

Thank you for your help with this.

GSheaNY (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would really help if DeSimone had its own article, but only if you can source it appropriately. Using "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, I would feel much better about entries like "[[Notable Company]] did the structural architectural work<ref>Reputable independent source</ref>" than "Nonnotable Company did the structural architectural work<ref>Nonnotable Company's home page</ref>".

If you write the article in a sandbox (such as User:GSheaNY/DeSimone Consulting Engineers or Draft:DeSimone Consulting Engineers), I'll be glad to give you my opinion when you're ready for it. ubiquity (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you , I will try doing the page in sandbox today. GSheaNY (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi There, we have content thats ready to post as a draft wikipedia page for DeSimone and we are interesting in having you look at it to ensure we have the best chance of the page staying live. Is there anyway we can send to you what we have done? Perhaps to an email address? GSheaNY (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, if you put the article in a sandbox (such as User:GSheaNY/DeSimone Consulting Engineers or Draft:DeSimone Consulting Engineers), I'll be glad to give you my opinion. Just tell me where it is when you're ready for me to look at it. ubiquity (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, I will be posting it today, its a rough, bare bones start, we are definitely wanting to add more technical details about projects in the future. GSheaNY (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember, the problem is not content about DCE or its projects. I'm sure you have plenty of information about that. The problem is finding appropriate sources that demonstrate DCE's notability. ubiquity (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I have made changes to the entry based on your suggestions. I have added more sources that cite DeSimone's involvement in varies projects and demonstrate their notability within the design, architecture, and engineering fields. I have tried to take out anything promotional and it seems to be in line with the Wikipedia pages of their peers. Please take a look and let me know if there are any additional modifications that need to be made. Thanks! Draft:DeSimone Consulting Engineers — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSheaNY (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed your article. It still seems very promotional, and is not adequately supported by appropriate references. Let me give you a few examples:

• Everything in the History section is sourced by DeSimone's own web pages, which are not independent.
• You claim that "DeSimone is one of the few firms in the world responsible for engineering supertall buildings", but this claim is not supported by its reference, an interview with deSimone
• You claim that "DeSimone is recognized for its work with exoskeleton buildings", but the reference supporting this claim doesn't even mention DeSimone.

I could go on, but I won't. When you make a claim such as "DeSimone is known for X", you need a reputable, independent source that says, almost in those words, "DeSimone is known for X". I don't see ANY of that in this article.

The long list of buildings, most of them without wikilinks, is exceedingly promotional. In Wikipedia, you shouldn't put something in a list unless it's notable, as demonstrated either by having its own Wikipedia article, or a reputable, independent source attesting to its notability.

Sorry, but I still think you do not have a viable article here. If you want corroboration of that, you might try submitting the article at Articles for creation. ubiquity (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for reviewing and providing feedback! I have added additional sources and deleted any that source back to DeSimone (with the exception of the final source.)

• I made sure everything stated is sourced to a reference outside of DeSimone
• I edited down the list of buildings to only those that have Wikipedia pages and mention DeSimone as an engineer.

Hopefully this covers everything, but please let me know if any more changes are needed! Thanks! GSheaNY (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I re-reviewed the article, and I still feel like your claims for notability are NOT backed up by your references. Obviously deSimone is well-known enough to get interviewed a lot, but this does not necessarily mean his company is notable in the wikipedia sense. Your article talks a lot about the architecture of tall buildings in general (which is irrelevant to this particular article), but I am still not seeing references that establish the notability of DCE.

Maybe it's there but I don't just see it. Could you possibly, for my sake, make a list of the claims to notability in the article, and show me the (reputable, independent) references that specifically back up those claims? It's a big article, there are lots of references, and I'm getting tired of trying to match the claims to the references when so far I haven't had much success. ubiquity (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I have been involved with architecture and development too long and am making connections that aren't there. In talking about the tall buildings (or twisting buildings) it is the structural engineer who makes them possible. Without them, the supertall and unique buildings wouldn't be possible or safe so I always associate and architect with their engineer as they often work side-by-side on projects. I think perhaps part of the issue is also what I am looking at for reference. For example Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is a peer of DeSimone and have been using their Wikipedia page as a reference. Should I not be doing so? It appears some of the issues you have brought up are present on their page. I will make a list of claims and there sources so it is easier for you to reference. Thanks again for all your help and patience...I am learning!!! GSheaNY (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A great example! Please take a look at their references. Notice how many of them are from solid sources, such as Art Institute of Chicago, Architecture Magazine, New York Times? Notice how many awards are documented? You seem to want DCE to be granted notability by syllogism: big buildings are notable, structural engineers make big buildings work, therefore structural engineers of big buildings are inherently notable. But super-tall buildings also wouldn't be possible without their construction crews, their cleaning staff, their security guards, their electrical and IT infrastructure folk. Do all of these people deserve articles in wikipedia just because they worked on a super-tall building? In wikipedia, the only way to prove notability is with reputable, solid sources that demonstrate that notability. I see lots of these in the Skidmore article. I don't see any for DCE. ubiquity (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have updated the DeSimone page and have only included info that can be attributed to independent sources. I only left the background of the company and examples of their notable work. Hopefully this alleviates the concerns you addressed before, but if not, please let me know and I'm happy to make changes! Thanks! GSheaNY (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	आपको मिलकर मे अत्यंत आनंद महेसूस करता हु .... आभार Jmraval (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas A&M notable people edit

Hi, you removed my edit from the List of Texas A&M University people article. Syed Zafar is not the governor of the state of Maryland, and never was. I undid my first revision removing his name from the list of U.S. state governors and you may have only saw my original edit. I am going to edit the page again to remove his name again. 76.84.58.13 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You are so right! I apologize. I did think you were adding the entry, not removing it. Thanks for setting me straight. ubiquity (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation tools

Hey, it seems like the Page Curation tools aren't very clever about detecting if someone else has already added the same deletion tag as you moments before you did. You might consider checking out Wikipedia:Twinkle -- it'll abort if you try to add a speedy deletion tag and the page already has already gotten a tag. Just a suggestion though! :) -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, so do the PC tools. In fact, they're annoying because sometimes they won't let you tag something that used to have a tag, even if it's been removed. I looked into Twinkle a couple of times, and decided it wasn't for me, but I forget why. I'll take another look, but the edit clashes are easy enough to fix, and don't happen often enough for me to really care. Thanks for the tip anyway. ubiquity (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops! It looks like I do use twinkle, I just forgot that's what it was. But usually I prefer the page curation tools. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: A River Through Time (The Mainstream of the Clinton River)

Hello Ubiquity. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A River Through Time (The Mainstream of the Clinton River), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is quite neutrally-written, and was published 2004 so it is not someone pushing his new book. Not a speedy, but I will PROD as I don't see it meeting WP:NBOOK. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Update - the author said on the talk page that we could delete it, so I have. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Gyulchehra Bobokulova

use google, read and help to improve --Chemischer Bruder (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny that she did what she did, and that she made the news because of it. But that doesn't make her notable. --ubiquity (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

read more about it --Chemischer Bruder (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I did. What are you trying to get me to see? All I see is a woman who did a horrible thing. I don't think that makes her notable. Why don't you read WP:NBIO, particularly WP:PERP, and tell me why you think she is notable? ubiquity (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fashion for Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Ferguson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Murphy-Hoffman Company Page Edits

Hi Ubiquity, I believe I have corrected the issue you flagged - I entered the wrong link. If this wasn't the issue, is it possible for you to walk me through what needs to be fixed in order to not delete the page?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aastewar (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Aastewar. I'm not sure what specific issue you fixed that you think I flagged. I proposed that the article be deleted because I do not believe the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory where anyone can list any business. Businesses must be notable, as demonstrated by significant coverage in reputable, independent sources. In my opinion, the sources at Murphy-Hoffman Company do not demonstrate notability. Only the article in the Kansas City Business Journal comes close to the kind of coverage that's required. Please read the general notability guidelines and the guidelines for notable organizations and you'll see what I mean.

It was totally your right to remove my proposal for deletion ("PROD"), but unless you have some better references to add to the article, I will open a deletion discussion (Afd). You will be able to make your case for the company's notability, and other editors will reach a consensus as to whether the article deserves to be in Wikipedia. ubiquity (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

• On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
• On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
• On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
• On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
• On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Thanq sir,can i add aditional sources to the article Dr Sreehari Hypnotis?

(Laptopking (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

Of course you can. Deletion discussions take at least a week, and often longer, and it's certainly possible to make changes to the article to overcome the objections. But please read the Wikipedia policy on verifiability first. You have claimed serious accomplishments for Dr Sreehari (world record holder, worthy of a Nobel Prize). These need to be backed up by significant coverage in reputable, independent sources. ubiquity (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Apparently not, since you are an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet. ubiquity (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

please use your powers,please dont stop disscussion at middle,Bonadea and thomas are going wrong editing

(Laptopking (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC))

Oooooh, my powers! Which would those be? ubiquity (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Take your pick! :D --bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

West Branch Library Page

Hey Ubiquity, please withdraw deletion. I was still working on the page and the West Osceola Branch is different from the other Branches. I am new to Wikipedia so creating a page takes time. Thanks.Kmmcderm (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The main article space is not the place for leisurely creating your article. Articles in the main space are supposed to be meet all Wikipedia standards. If you need time to create the article, I highly recommend you move it to Draft:West Osceola Branch Library or User:Kmmcderm/West Osceola Branch Library where you will be able to take all the time you need to complete your article without having to worry about me or other editors interfering. When you're done, it will be easy to move it back to the main space. If you don't know how to move it yourself, I will be happy to do it for you, just let me know. ubiquity (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain how to do that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmcderm (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I did it for you. Your article (minus the deletion tag) is now at Draft:West Osceola Branch Library. Good luck with it! Let me know if you need help. ubiquity (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks! How do I revert it back when I am done? Kmmcderm (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As an auto-confirmed user, you should see a "Move" tab at the top of your page. When you have the draft the way you want it, simply go to the draft and click this tab – you'll be taken to a form for moving the page. For more information, read Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. If you have difficulties, let me know; I'll be glad to move it back when it's ready. ubiquity (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Photon Engineering mark for speedy deletion

Hi, you marked my new page, Photon Engineering for speedy deletion. While I don't disagree that it is currently poorly cited, I would stand by that it is notable, and worthy of a Wikipedia page. For example, FRED, a software that the company created and currently publishes, has a wikipedia page, but the company that created it does not. I would certainly argue that my article is not advertising, primarily because i have no direct affiliation to the company and created it with encyclopedia intent. I replied to the page's talk page, but am curious to hear what you would recommend I do to prevent its speedy deletion. --Hunterm267^Talk 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Just because a company exists, does business, and is successful doesn't mean it merits a Wikipedia page. The criterion for inclusion is notability, as demonstrated through independent, reputable sources. To me, listing a non-notable company at Wikipedia is automatically a form of promotion, akin to listing oneself in a business directory. So although I agree your article almost attains a neutral tone, I still see it as being promotional.

That said, being the creator and publisher of notable software is at least a credible assertion of significance. If you add that to the lead paragraph (e.g., "Photon Engineering LLC is a consulting and software development firm based in Tucson, best known for FRED, a commercial 3D CAD program."), I will remove the A7 ("no credible assertion of significance") tag. If you can dig up some appropriate references, such as press or journal coverage, I'll remove the entire tag.

If you think that, given a little more time, you could do this, but you're worried it will get deleted before you do, you might want to move the article to Draft:Photon Engineering or User:Hunterm267/Photon Engineering while you work on it. That way no one will bother you until the article is complete.

Please let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ubiquity,

Thanks for your message. I'm slow and even couldn't find a way to "reply" to your message. I'm working on reference and just need some more time.

1001Bookworm (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

south west india article editing

i have edited the article. i made it big and i took off the template of prosed deletion. review the article South West India.If you are not satisfied send me a message in my talk page.i will make it even better. i have no time to edit it before.--wiki tamil 100 06:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened a deletion discussion on this article, as I do not believe that it belongs on Wikipedia at all. It contradicts existing sourced material, and you have provided no sources to show that this is even regarded as a typical division of India. I do not believe you will be able to solve these problems no matter how much time you take. ubiquity (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC

alpha beta psi

Hi, I'm not sure why you keep flagging alpha-beta side for speedy deletion. It is a recognized college level sorority in the Commonwealth of Virginia as reflected in the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 March 2016‎

That does not necessarily make it notable. Wikipedia is not a directory, just because a sorority is recognized doesn't mean it deserves inclusion. In any case, you shouldn't keep removing the tag. Please let an administrator decide. Follow the instructions in the deletion box if you want to contest the deletion. ubiquity (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What would you suggest to include in order to make it clear that it is significant and deserves inclusion. This word is fairly new so history on it is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any suggestions, because I don't think it does merit inclusion. You understand, I hope, that notability is not based on potential, but on coverage by reputable, independent sources. So it's often the case that something new doesn't merit inclusion. ubiquity (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I added more sources, including more notable ones - the American Cancer Society and Longwood University, a long-standing formal education institution - that speak on the contributions of Alpha Beta Psi. Please take a look at them and see if it will reverse your decision to put the page up for a speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I will check them out. But perhaps you don't understand the process. I only tagged your article, I cannot delete it. An administrator will eventually see the tag and make his or her own decision. They are only supposed to delete in obvious cases of articles not meeting Wikipedia standards. My tag is just me calling their attention to it. So instead of lobbying me, or removing the tag (which only makes you look bad), you should click the blue button in the tag that says "Contest this speedy deletion" and give your reasons there, where the administrator will see it. ubiquity (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I see now. I appreciate the suggestion. Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia so I thought that html was coming up in error. Thanks for the advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyheights (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Halydean Corporation: How to improve it?

Hi Ubiquity, I am a novice historian interested in Kelso, Scotland, and related subjects. Please let me know things that I can do to improve the "Halydean Corporation" page. At the time you tagged it for deletion, it was lacking a great deal. I think it has been much improved. I plan to continue expanding it based on many of the references in the book by Alistair Moffat, "Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times". The company has a very rich and interesting history, including ties to the Norman Invasion, the Church, Monastic life, and feudalism's evolution into modern capitalism. I wrote a paper on the evolution of the modern corporation, as it evolved from feudalism, and I think there is room for the page to be expanded with more historical significance. How might I improve this page? I am also having a little trouble getting my signature correct. Insightfullysaid —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The only way to improve this article is to demonstrate its notability through reputable, independent sources. You have not done this. You are trying to prove that Halydean is the oldest company in the world, but this is original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for. A historian would want to prove this with primary sources, but a Wikipedian wants to find secondary sources where it's already established. You need to find reputable, independent sources that say "Halydean is the oldest company in the world", and there is nothing like that on your page. Instead, you have a press release (repeated three times), four primary, off-line sources that constitute original research (that is, they don't assert that Halydean is the oldest, they just provide dates from which you are inferring that), and five sources that are completely irrelevant because they do not mention Halydean at all.

Wikipedia is not a historical research site. I know from the tone of the article on your comments on the talk page that you are very excited to have discovered that Halydean might be the oldest company in the world, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your results. When you can find newspapers or journals or books that back up your claim, then you can write about it in Wikipedia.

As for your signature, SineBot has put an explanation at the bottom of your user talk page. ubiquity (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eliézer Niyitegeka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kibuye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

TWEED TheaterWorks

You marked the article I just created for deleted. This is a verifiable 501(c)-3 non-profit theatre organization that has been around for over 3 decades. I noticed they didn't have a Wiki article so I created one. Their website has the most detailed history. You say the New York Times article "barely mentions Tweed". TWEED was the producer on the project! Please scroll down to the bottom of that review and you'll see the credits there. This is a real company and I think it merits a wiki article. Please assist thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman1988 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because something exists doesn't mean it deserves to be listed. Subjects of articles in Wikipedia need to be notable, which means there needs to be depth of coverage by reputable, independent sources. A company website is not independent, which leaves your article completely dependent on the review from the NYT, which says almost nothing about Tweed itself. Without intending disrespect to Tweed, please consider an analogy: if Al Pacino puts on a play in a parking lot, and the NYT reviews it, this does not necessarily mean the parking lot is notable. It might be, but in that case I'd expect to read more about the parking lot in that review, and I'd expect to see other sources talking about how the parking lot was notable on its own. Do you have any other independent sources that are actually ABOUT Tweed? ubiquity (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite a few. I will insert those. I am just beginning...if you allow me to proceed. The TWEED website in itself is an archive of specific photos and videos from the 1980s art movement in the East Village. I was intending to use that archive to build the TWEED article. A lot of the theatrical work took place before Wikipedia, thus there isn't too much on the web in terms of clips or images or "proof" or an independent lens. Are you saying there is no world in which I can cite from this archive? As to your point about being "notable", that is an extremely subjective term. Notable for you might mean Al Pacino, but for people in the downtown/experimental theatre world, TWEED TheaterWorks might be just as notable. For you to suggest a theatre company that you specifically might not know about doesn't "deserve" to be listed isn't fair. Tweed isn't a parking lot, it's a company. There are thousands and thousands of articles on wikipedia about oddly specific and unique companies, people or places that no one has ever heard of; things I would never consider notable. But there are people that certainly would be interested in them, this I know for a fact. I will continue to find other internet sources, but the website archive has a lot of the coverage of the "theatrical work" itself. Anyways, if you'd like me to find 100 people who find TWEED notable, I can do so. But I didn't think that was the point of Wikipedia. It's not a popularity contest. I hope you'll allow me to build this article and proceed.Dman1988 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the article I cited earlier about notability. In Wikipedia, notability is not subjective, but is based on the depth of coverage in reputable, independent sources. If it weren't for this, anyone could post anything they like about anything. Some people misunderstand that this is exactly what Wikipedia is for, but again, if you will read the policy articles, you'll see it's not true.

The bar here is not particularly high. If you can find one article in one reputable, independent source asserting that Tweed is notable on its own, I think the article would be OK. According to you there are quite a few, so this shouldn't be a problem. That said, here are your options:

• Move the article to Draft:Tweed TheaterWorks or User:Dman1988/Tweed TheaterWorks where you will be able to work on it at your leisure until the article meets Wikipedia standards.
• Provide an appropriate reference right away, I'll remove the PROD tag (or you can do it), and there will be no more problems.
• Simply remove the PROD tag. If you read the text of the tag, you'll see anyone can do this at any time. But if you do this without supplying an appropriate reference, I will escalate to an Articles for Deletion discussion, to which others can contribute, and which may or may not go your way. If you're confident that you understand how Wikipedia works and that I am being unreasonable, you may indeed want to go this way.

If you take no action at all, the article will be deleted at the end of a week, unless someone else contributes. But really, that should give you plenty of time to take one of the above-listed actions. ubiquity (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Kadai Raja

Care to compare what you first brought to AFD to what it is now that sourcing has been added? Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I speedy kept, and closed the Afd. Honest, I did look for sources before I tagged it, and couldn't find a thing. But you turned it into an entirely reasonable article. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that courtesy. I offer you two things: 1) Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, so WP:INDAFD offers a better search tool for Indian topics, and 2) I always expand my searches to include a film's director, actors, producers and, because of poor translations from Indian languages to English, I also try alternate spellings. Best wishes, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit of new page Arnold Coster which has been marked for speedy deletion

Dear Ubiquity,

I have edited the page after receiving your message, and I believe that I have deleted all possibly promotional expressions. Also I found a different more neutral photo. Please look at the article again and see if there is still something that needs changing. This is my first article so please be patient. Julia Maystar (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. It really did look like an advertisement, but you've got it looking like a reasonable article now. I cleaned it up and added some wikilinks. You don't need to use <br/> for ordinary spacing in an article. It's good if you can include not only the URL but the page title for references. Edit the article to see how I did it, but it would be even better to you the citation templates (click on "Cite" at the top of the editing panel).

It still needs more references, especially for that large table of ascents. ubiquity (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit of new page TestOut PC Pro which has been marked for speedy deletion

Dear Ubiquity,

I have edited the page after receiving your message, and I believe that I have deleted all possibly promotional expressions. Please look at the article again and see if there is still something that needs changing. D.alexand4 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it still looks exactly like an ad for TestOut PC Pro. It provides no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Just because something exists doesn't mean it deserves an entry here. ubiquity (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit of new page Darwin Escapes which has been marked for speedy deletion

Hi, Just wondering if you could provide more details on the reasons for this deletion? I recently had a holiday with this brand and realised they didn't have a Wiki page so attempted to create? I didn't feel that it was promotional, so any feedback would be appreciated? I'm realitively new to Wiki so this will help me if I decide to create a page in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartin88 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am not an admin and cannot delete articles. I tagged this article for admin attention because I don't believe the sources establish Darwin Escapes as being notable in any way, and because the excessive detail seems promotional to me. I'm glad you enjoyed your holiday, but Wikipedia is not a directory or travel blog, and just because this brand exists doesn't mean they are notable enough to deserve an article. I certainly don't want to discourage you from writing or editing further articles, but this particular one seems like a non-notable organization to me. ubiquity (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Question For you

Hello, Thanks for helping me with my article on Hosewells Run. It is my personal objective to write about every single water way in the state of Maryland. Would you like to help me? Most large ones are covered but many small streams aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoistFeb (talk • contribs) 12 April 2016‎

Sorry, but I'm not very interested in that project. However, you should look into WikiProject Maryland and WikiProject Rivers, where you might find resources and interested parties. Here are some other tips:

1. Always sign your messages on talk pages with ~~~~ so people know who you are. It also facilitates communications.
2. Leave messages for people on their User talk page, not their User page. I almost missed your note because it was on the wrong page.
3. Copy the wikiproject templates to the talk pages of other articles you write on Maryland Rivers. I did this for Talk:King's Creek (Maryland), so just copy what I did there.

Good luck! Although I don't particularly know anything about Maryland rivers, please let me know if you have questions about writing articles on Wikipedia. ubiquity (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joanne Black, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stylist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit of new page Rory O'Keeffe

Hi Thanks for looking at this page and making suggestions. I have added some citations and links to the page. if there are any more issues with the page i would appreciate some guidance on how to fix it thanks Hyggemedia

FYI: I have blocked Hyggemedia as a corporate account (Hygge Media) promoting their author, and made an entry at WP:COIN#Rory O'Keeffe. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Report on my page

I have seen that you reported on my article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Krishnan_(CPI-M) its the link. i have made a little change please review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jithinrajtk (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, that solves it. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the deleting nominations, appreciate it. Sarcasm aside, I can't really see what is wrong with the articles, and since there isn't even a talk page where we can discuss about it, it brings me here, to your talk page; Why did you nominate the articles? The articles are about about three Sasanian princes with unique names, which gives us a better knowledge about Middle Persian names at that time, and what happened to the princes during their lifetime. You should have come to my talk page first, where we could talk about it, but instead you suddenly nominate the three articles (that I used my time on) for deletion. I'm sorry if I sound rude, I don't mean at all to do so, but I am indeed very frustrated by this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Guranshah, Arwandrang and Afrudshah. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but nothing has been lost -- anyone, including the author of an article, can remove a PROD, and it's not like a speedy deletion nomination, where time is of the essence. So please just view it as a way to start a discussion. I nominated the articles because I really don't feel like they belong on Wikipedia. Their father and brother (the one who killed the others) are clearly notable. But notability is not inherited, the children and siblings of rulers don't necessarily get the same treatment. When I look at these articles, I see three almost identical pages that say "this is a nice guy who got killed by his brother." I don't see the notability there. I notice that neither the article on Khosrow II or the one on Kavadh II see fit to mention these men by name, suggesting further that they are historical non-entities. Wouldn't it be better to add their names to one of the other articles? ubiquity (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eduardo Testa

added a link pointing to Brazilian

Friedrichs Bridge

added a link pointing to Tudor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Manhunt International proposed deletions

Hello. I removed the PROD notices on all but two of the Manhunt International articles because the proposed deletions were contested in 2008. Also, the main Manhunt International was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International and survived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International (2nd nomination). Please consider a bundled AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International (3rd nomination). • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll consider it, but when I read the discussion from the original AfD I didn't see any reason why the outcome shouldn't be the same. And to tell the truth, when I re-read the article and realized that it wasn't just the first men's beauty contest in Singapore, but the first in the world (this tallies with the dates of all the other male beauty contests in wikipedia), I figured there was a shred of notability. Too bad I can't find any references to back that up. ubiquity (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Heena Panchal

This is in reference to your message send to me as below.

Proposed deletion of HeenaPanchal

Hello, KamalMahrshi. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, HeenaPanchal, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want HeenaPanchal to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, ubiquity (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added enough references for everything, Now kindly cancel the proposed deletion or advise me on what else you want reference. KamalMahrshi (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalMahrshi (talk • contribs) 07:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, KamalMahrshi. I took another look at the article, and I don't see anything to make me withdraw the nomination. The first reference is from a blog, so not considered reliable, and the third does not mention Heena Panchal at all. Please read the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for entertainers to see what you need to do to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion (and as stated in my reason for the deletion discussion), the fact that she was the 7th best item dancer of 2015 is not enough.

Deletion discussions generally last for a week. I encourage you to submit a "Keep" vote, explaining why you think Heena Panchal deserves a wikipedia article. You can also continue to improve the article during that time, if you can find better references. If the article is deleted, it will not be solely on my say-so. ubiquity (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Helperedits : Cineworld Sheffield Deletion Debate.

I have put my answer why not to delete on the Cineworld Sheffield talk page. Check it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cineworld_Sheffield#This_page_should_not_be_speedy_deleted_because... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helperedits (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Helperedits. Your article was speedily deleted as promotional by administrator Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a directory where one can list anything one likes. To have a Wikipedia article, a subject must be notable. You say the cinema is famous, but the article didn't say that, and as I recall it had no references. If you feel that, given time, you could have shown then cinema was notable, I suggest you try again at Draft:Cineworld Sheffield or User:Helperedits/Cineworld Sheffield, where your article will not receive scrutiny from other editors until it's ready. Concentrate on the things that make the cinema different from other cinemas, and be sure to include references to support your claims. Please read the general notability guidelines so you'll have a better idea of what's required.

Two technical points:

1. Please get in the habit of signing your comments on talk pages and user pages. Sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. This facilitates communications in a number of ways.
2. To refer to a Wikipedia article, use double square brackets: [[ and ]]. Thus, instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cineworld_Sheffield#This_page_should_not_be_speedy_deleted_because... it would have been better to write [[Talk:Cineworld Sheffield#This page should not be speedy deleted because...]]. It's easier, it's more readable and it makes it clearer that you are using a wikilink.

Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Orbit Logic Deletion Noticce

Thanks for the notice, Ubiquity. I could use feedback on the Orbit Logic page as to which parts you consider promotional. I attempted to keep the article neutral from a customer's point-of-view. I placed my contention on the talk page. Cheers! Gambrew (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it so calmly. Right now the article consists of a short description of the company, and a list of products, like you're trying to sell something to the reader. In fact, the article bears a strong resemblance to Orbit Logic's home page. Since home pages of commercial organizations are usually intended to sell things, it's a bad sign when a Wikipedia article resembles a home page so much.

Wikipedia is not a product directory. Just because a company exists doesn't mean it warrants a page on Wikipedia: for that it needs notability. What you need is a statement of what makes Orbit Logic a notable company, and that statement should be backed up by reputable, independent sources. The sources you use also look like they're trying to sell something, so the depth and quality of coverage doesn't look very good.

If you think that, given some time, you could recast the article to make it look less promotional, and find stronger references, you should consider moving the article to Draft:Orbit Logic or User:Gambrew/Orbit Logic, where you will be able to work on the article without interference from other editors. If you need help doing a move, let me know. ubiquity (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

neuvoo Deletion Notice

I made this page to provide information to users and let them know about the company so that they can search for it before using and to provide credibility. It was not made for promotion or advertising. I made sure to use neutral languages and provide basic facts about the company. This page was marked as promotional and deleted, but at the same time our competitor companies have a page on wikipedia (Indeed, monster.com, etc) Please help me make the page "non-promotional" as I would like to have a wikipedia page for the company. THank you Rainbowsherbet5 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Rainbowsherbet. You say you want to "provide information to users and let them know about the company so that they can search for it before using and to provide credibility." This is what promotion is. Wikipedia is not a directory where anyone may list companies they think are of interest. In order to be listed in Wikipedia, a company must be notable. Notability is proven through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Company home pages, LinkedIn and Facebook pages do not provide this. Press releases do not provide this. Your article has only one reference that meets these criteria, http://www.techvibes.com/blog/shaking-up-job-search-space-neuvoo-2013-01-02, and it's not exactly a strong source. The article on Monster.com has references from many diverse sources, including Reuters and The Times. It's often frustrating that the big companies are the ones that get all the press coverage, but Wikipedia isn't here to provide a level playing field. Also note that the Monster.com article doesn't really try to "provide information to users and let them know about the company." Instead, it begins with an assertion of notability ("Monster.com is one of the most visited employment websites in the United States and one of the largest in the world.") and proceeds to give more info about the company. One gets very little info from the article that would be useful in making a decision to use it. In fact, there are sections on criticism and scandals that might make one NOT want to use it. It is definitely not a promotional piece. Perhaps you can see now why I feel your article IS promotional. ubiquity (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lasarte (Álava), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vestibules. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'M STUCK

I'm trying to write some new articles but they are always selected for speedy deletion. I need some advice on how to make my articles. And also another thing. I was thinking about writing on Sirgun Srivastav and my own school Shaw Public again. Could I write it? Amiy Chakraborty (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Amiy. No matter what you're writing about on Wikipedia, the key to a good article is good sources. Sources are the way editors prove to readers that the things they are writing about are important, and that they didn't just make it up. For instance, although there are several things wrong with your article on Sugarcane production in Queensland, the main thing that is wrong with it is that there are no sources. If I see an article that has problems, but has sources, I can read the sources and correct the article. But when I see a problem article without sources, there's no way to correct it. So whether you want to write about your school, or sugar production, or something else, the very first thing to do is locate good sources, and then build the article around them. By "good" sources, I mean sources from newspapers and magazines that are independently edited. School homepages and Facebook pages aren't very good sources, because anyone can publish them, so, again, how do we know people aren't just making things up? If you can't find any good sources, that may be a sign that what you want to write about doesn't yet deserve a Wikipedia article. ubiquity (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Notice Pauly

It is correct that by mistake I deleted the speedy deletion notice while editing and didn't know how to put it back. Tried to find what to do in your talk page but it was 2am for me and too tired to figure out what to do. I even missed to understand that I had to sign with the symbols (---) Thanks for helping on that. Saw you wrote it again before taking a decision. Have deleted all information that is not historical or a fact that is proven. The description is similar to other companies in the industry.The German version has existed for several years -don't know who wrote it- and you might agree the English one should be there if it contains the same info, just updated. In fact the German version said that this company is one the oldest and most respectable, and I omitted the latter in the English version to avoid superlatives. Please let me know if there shall be any more changes before deleting if you still have remarks on some editing. It has been difficult to do the first page ever and figure out the codes and symbols. In fact I made a mistake of trying to follow a similar format of another company in the industry and didn't notice that their page had a COI note at the top, which showed up at my editing and I couldn't figure out why from the start, until I understood what COI meant. A learning process. Right now all is edited as neutral and even less than its German version and hope it meets the standards. Carolinena (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carolinena. I appreciate that, as a new editor, coming up to speed on Wikipedia and its policies can be a frustrating experience. On the other hand, you can't expect to be let off the hook for meeting Wikipedia standards just because you are new. This is why I suggested, and suggest again, that you move your article to the Draft space (Draft:Pauly Beds) or your user space (User:Carolinena/Pauly Beds) where you can work on it at your leisure, instead of being under the gun of a speedy deletion tag. If you want to do this, but need help, please let me know.

That said, let me explain why I think your article is promotional. Subjects of wikipedia articles must be notable. We demonstrate notability by showing that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your article has many alleged facts, but no valid sources. Here's a reference-by-reference breakdown:

1. A Wikicommons category list. Wikimedia articles cannot be used as sources. In this case, you should remove the reference and link the text to [[c:Category:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court]].
2. Another wiki. Since anyone can add info to this wiki, it's not considered reliable.
3. This reference says "Austrian National Library - History of Austria" but is in fact another link to c:Category:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court,
4. Pauly Beds home page — obviously not independent.

In addition to the lack of sources, the bulk of the article (the entire history section) looks like it was copied from the company's "About Us" page. This is material intended for promotion, and it's very unusual that such material is appropriate to an encyclopedia. The article looks like it's trying to convince us that Pauly Beds is a company I should feel good about buying from, rather than one that is notable by Wikipedia standards.

You might be able to fix the promotional tone of the article, but the lack of references will eventually sink the article even if it is not speedily deleted.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions. If you move the article to a Draft or to your user space, I'll be glad to review it again when you think it's ready. ubiquity (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I gladly accept your help to move the page to the drafts until we have it all clear on the sources. Not sure I understand you mention the sources are not reliable, as for example, being purveyors of the royal court is based on the copy of the history of Austria, a book from the national library where the wiki link comes from. Also, there is another source that lists all the purveyors to the empire. I thought that the sources had to be online. Can they be on paper only? Does it matter that there is a German version in Wikipedia that's been there for a long time with the same sources? or shall I just translate that page into English? The company is notable because it's one of the oldest bedding company in the world, older than several others that are on Wikipedia too and the only one that supplied beds to the Austrian Hungarian Empire. The others supplied to the royals in UK or Sweden and are not even that old. The sources they provide are less than what I wrote, that's why it makes all more confusing to me. I'll revise everything you said to make sure I've inserted the correct item. On the meantime, please let me know how to proceed with the draft until you approve it. Shall I send you the links to compare which are the other companies?Carolinena (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by the time I saw your reply, the article had already been deleted (not by me, I am not an administrator). I have asked the deleting admin to restore it to a Draft or User page, so let's give him a bit of time to do that. If he doesn't, do you have a copy? If not, we can copy the content from [the cached copy on Google, though we will lose the wiki markup.

In answer to your questions:

• Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand what sources are considered reliable. In general, these are professionally edited sources, such as newspapers, journals, books and curated blogs and web pages. They are not sources where anyone may contribute without oversight (such as most wikis), or self-published sources (such as home pages, press releases and most blogs).
• Sources need not be online, though that makes them easier to verify. People may be suspicious of an article whose only sources are off-line, but it happens. A history of Austria that mentioned Pauly would certainly be a valid source. Unfortunately, in the article I saw, the citation was not correct. I can help you with that.
• Each Wikipedia has their own standards. The fact that the article is already in de.wikipedia does not automatically grant it admission to en.wikipedia. However, the first reference in the article should be very useful to you.
• "J. Pauly & Sohn are one of the oldest bedding companies in the world, and the only one that supplied beds to the Austrian Hungarian Empire" is a great leading sentence, if you can back it up with a decent source.
• The fact that Pauly were the official suppliers of beds to the crown is interesting (especially if it was exclusive), but you need a better source for this than a Wikicommons category. I don't know what the standards were in the Empire, but in England "by appointment to HM the Queen" only means that someone in the royal family used the product, not necessarily exclusively, so it's more of a marketing device than a true assertion of notability.
• Documentation of the awards you mentioned would be helpful.
• You also need to seriously trim back all of the "background" that has nothing to do with Pauly. For example: "That was the beginning of the luxury beds and mattresses, as only the wealthy and noble families were able to afford to pay a master artisan to use materials such as horsetail hair (a material diffusing humidity), cotton and wool (to regulate body temperature) and the recently invented pocket springs (springs individually sewed in a pocket to avoid noise), aside the cost of the many hours spent to stitch the mattresses by hand." Interesting, but unsourced, and doesn't say anything about Pauly. It makes the article seem promotional.

Hope this helps. Good luck! Let me know if you have further questions ubiquity (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely! It was definitely helpful. I had copied the page on the draft when you mention it and also saved a copy, since it took me so long to create. Even though I didn't understand what the person who deleted the article said to you about my short memory, I supposed he referred that I had copied it to drafts. Will continue to edit following your suggestions. Now it seems much clearer.Thank you very much.Carolinena (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I've completely changed the article and supported it with the publications and references as requested. I think all the information in the article is now verified with the sources and hope that I have placed them correctly in the draft. Would you be so kind to check it out and give me your feedback?Carolinena (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look at it this weekend. ubiquity (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time. look forward to your feedback.

Carolinena (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Would you be so kind to give me your feedback so that the page can be right this time?Carolinena (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

1. I meant to make the page in the namespace.
2. Why not ask the user what context a page was meant to be in, before marking it as junk?

-- Zanimum (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion because of A7: No credible indication of importance

Hi, so I just wanted to ask you why you deleted the article written for Ronco Communications? I am an intern at this company and was given the task to put us on Wikipedia. That was my first attempt at putting up an article and I would really appreciate it if you could give me some tips for my next attempt at writing a page about Ronco Communications. We are a credible business that has been running since 1965 and we have a long history of success and very credible partners. While we are not as big as Cisco or Avaya, we are partnered with them, so we have just as much credibility to be on Wikipedia as they do. If you could help me in any way shape or form that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!

CbRonco0595 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)CbRonco0595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CbRonco0595 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry that your first attempt at writing an article ran into difficulties, but there are a number of essential problems with it. I will try to explain.

1. I am not an administrator and cannot delete articles. Your article was deleted at 15:02, 1 June 2016 by DGG (talk · contribs).
2. I did tag your article for deletion (which is not automatic, an admin makes the final decision) because there was no indication that the company was notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of organizations, and just because a company exists does not mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. You need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate this. Your article had three references, none of which were reliable or independent. The articles on Cisco and Avaya have 134 and 39.
3. On the talk page, you said you needed more time. The main article space is not a place to leisurely build an article. If you want to take time to build an article, do it in Draft:Ronco Communications or User:CbRonco0595/Ronco Communications. But my own google search of Ronco didn't turn up anything interesting, so I'm afraid you will be wasting your time.
4. As an employee of Ronco, you have a conflict of interest. Ideally neither you nor anyone else who is employed by Ronco should be writing this article. The fact that you were assigned to write it indicates that its purpose is essentially promotional.

If you wish to continue to try to write the article, please read the articles I have linked to here, as well as the guidelines for references and the notability guidelines for organizations. You may want to show some of these to your supervisors, since they seem to have a mistaken idea about how articles get written here. If they insist, perhaps they can help you find better references. ubiquity (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion, Promotional??

Hi, you just marked my article for speedy deletion. I have contested it. I didn't entirely understand your motivation. You say that it's promotional and it's not supposed to achieve that. It is intended so that it can be referenced by this dynamic list which contains many other similar articles about services. Incidentally the other articles are mostly about commercial services and in my opinion genuinely promotional. I don't understand why you think my article is any different to those ones. Any info appreciated. Antdiff (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. ubiquity (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

fatal Paradox records :RE

Please help me to keep my page so I can prove that the page is important by providing information to people about a record label that requires the publicity of all places and this is my job as I am obliged to Meggison Misan (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are going to find this difficult. I think you and your employer may have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia.

• The only way to prove that the subject of an article is important enough to have Wikipedia page is to provide references to reliable, independent sources that demonstrate this. You have not done this.
• Wikipedia is not a directory. You don't automatically get to list your company here.
• Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization, no matter how much they "require" publicity.
• If it is your job to publicize this company, you have a serious conflict of interest and should not be writing the article at all. You have violated Wikipedia policies by not declaring your interest.
• Simply recreating the page after it has been deleted will only anger people.

When and if your company becomes notable, someone else will probably want to write an article about it. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohamed Zaazoue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi there, just got a notification saying that speedy deletion might occur due to the page appearing promotional; however, I just edited the page and removed the deletion notification at the top hoping you will reconsider. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstefan (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Amstefan. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags for articles you created yourself. I nominated the article for deletion because there are no citations showing that the Fresco y Mas brand is notable, and because the article reads like an advertisement. I understand that Southeastern is a notable company, but this doesn't mean that every aspect of their stores deserves its own article. If you can find some reliable, independent sources demonstrating that this brand is notable, please add them to the article. If you feel this can be done but that more time is needed, you may want to move the article to Draft:Fresco y mas or User:Amstefan/Fresco y mas so that you can work on it at your own pace. ubiquity (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fresco y Más

Hey there! Could you help and tell me what parts of the Fresco y Más article need to be removed in order for it to not appear promotional? It got marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amstefan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Amstefan. In my opinion the entire article needs to be removed, that's why I nominated it for deletion. Please re-read my comments from last week, immediately above. I see that you have found some references, but unfortunately press releases and light local news coverage do not demonstrate notability. Please read the general notability guidelines to see what qualifies. ubiquity (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Lough

Conflict of interest? Tad confused to what may need cleaning up — Preceding unsigned comment added by TankoLtd (talk • contribs) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your username suggests you represent or are in some way part of Tanko Management, Brendan Loughnane's management company. If this is the case, please read WP:COI and particularly WP:COI#Financial conflict of interest and take the appropriate action to declare your interest. If this is not the case, please read Wikipedia:Username policy, particularly the section on promotional names, and change your user name to avoid the incorrect association. ubiquity (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Shaheen Chishti

Dear Ubiquity I have simply created the page in the draft space and as I mentioned to editors before you, kindly allow a little time for me to flesh out the article. It seems like all of you are sitting ready to hit that button. I see on your talk page a lot of similar mentions, people asking you to calm down. I would like to finish the article properly and then submit it for a review to you and several other editors and admins, but until I do so, I would request you to please hold back. I have definitely seen the guidelines and have prepared the content, and I am still doing my research about the writings and the other materials.

I have also sought help from the wiki help page and am following their guidelines about the process. Besides I am holding the manuscript of the book written by Shaheen, which is slated to publish soon, and there are so many things in the book that I would add as references from third person sources, but since the book is not yet published, I cannot reveal those things. So allow me the time to submit the article for a review. If you feel like it is purely promotional even then, then please go ahead and tag it.

Grateful for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spcobide (talk • contribs)

The draft space is the correct place to prepare articles. Take as much time as you need (I'm not being generous, that's just the way it works). If everyone took their time to prepare their articles there before rushing them into the main space without satisfying Wikipedia requirements, I'm sure I would be much calmer. ubiquity (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lakshman Prasad Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nepalese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 王嘉龄

Hi Ubiquity, thanks for leaving a note about the speedy deletion nomination of 王嘉龄. I am sorry that I meant to created the Chinese version of this page but I created it in a wrong place. Please feel free to delete this page at your convenient time (I have deleted the content of this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxlistar (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 June 2016‎

Pavlenko Anatoliy

Dear Colleague, And you can help me improve this article? Remove only the advertising and non-advertisement post important information. I do it hard - because I know English poorly.--Білецький В.С. (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Bess Marvin

It has 3 sources now.--Trisha Gaurav (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that. I see that you're adding sources to the other articles too. That's good. At this point, though, I'd like the consensus of others as to whether these characters are notable in and of themselves. Please be sure to make your voice heard at the deletion discussion. ubiquity (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

US National Cycling Center Contest Speedy Deletion

Hi, I don't know why this was flagged for advertising (again) I cited different local newspapers and press to show the article was worthy of being included in the encyclopedia, and in my opinion, the article does not advertise. It's not asking anyone to sign up, buy anything or donate. Even if they wanted to, there is no item for sale. Just informing the Internet about a National Cycling Center and possible future Olympic Training Center. That seems pretty worthy of inclusion to me. The article is purely an informational source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eerez (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will answer this on Talk:US National Cycling Center. ubiquity (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Pre-emptive olive branch re: Bess Marvin et al.

I just spent quite some time opposing your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Powers and wanted to make it abundantly clear to you that I have zero personal animus against you, and if anybody wants to characterize my actions to the contrary they are not directed to do so or approved of by me. As I noted in my response, I can see exactly why you (based on WP:GNG and the limits of human tolerance) threw up your hands and bellowed, "AUGH, the freaking Nancy Drew people! PLEASE let us just MAKE THIS GO AWAY!" about those articles. That is not your fault. That is the fault of whatever systemic bias discourages people who have an interest in those articles from coming forth and making them good. My ENTIRE point is that nobody did that about the two legitimately notable character articles that fell into your catchment (unbeknownst to you), and THAT is a systemic problem that somebody needs to jump up and down and scream about.

Forgive a few seconds of whining: I have so much else to do in my real-world life, and I misapplied my own resources in spending 90 minutes responding to that AFD, because I want to save the universe, and I can't. This one character is a big deal to me after having received, decades ago, a meaningless piece of paper from an undergraduate professor commending me on my scholarly analysis of second-lead females in girls' adventure stories pre-WWII. I assure you that there are a lot of non-girls who have secondary-character touchstones who helped them rationalize themselves, decades ago. (Bess in Nancy Drew-land is no less significant to that fandom that Montgomery Scott is in Star Trek-land, and Scotty should, in retrospect, have been my example in my AFD response, but I'm way over-deadline and can't spend the rest of the afternoon finding better examples for people to at least understand why Bess needs her own AFD.) But non-girls are able to summon consensuses not to delete things on Wikipedia. Girls aren't. I don't know why that is. It kills me. I'm middle-aged and I went to a women's college where we learned not to be shy about engaging in polite, reasoned rhetoric. I ignore these things almost all the time. But it's hard because of the abuse women get here, or even people who align themselves with concepts that trollboys believe are only supportable by females. I just wanted to copyedit Wikipedia for inappropriate non-hyphenation of compound adjectives in opposition to WP:HYPHEN, and I never wanted to have to turn into the mom here for all the girls who can't handle talk-page messages from trollboys telling them to do bad things to themselves and others that involve death. I have a hard time with that, and I'm old.

I absolutely view Bess Marvin as the American dorky-girl fandom-character touchstone analog of Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, and I have already warned my business partner that this may become our collective "cross to bear" if the 4chan boyz or redditors want to assassinate me (heaven help us, the anti-Nancy Drew contingent may be bored over the holiday weekend and sick from Salmonella spp.-infested coleslaw/potato salad). But, please, Ubiquity, one last time: YOU are NOT blameworthy. You did a reasonable thing. My issue arises from the absence of responders, not the existence of proponents. I am not complaining about you at all and shall not on an ongoing basis. Please take care. You are okay. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Juliet. I appreciate your attempts to make sure I don't take this personally, but really, I wouldn't have. Your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Powers were perfectly civil and totally within the bounds of polite Wikipedia behavior. Believe me, I have seen a LOT worse and not taken it personally. Please refer back to the discussion page for my comments on what you said.

Your comments on gender got me thinking, and I checked on characters from The Hardy Boys to see if we had the same situation. But they seem to have already adopted the single-page approach: List of The Hardy Boys characters (with references!) ubiquity (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Irshad Khan Chagharzai

Hi: Ubiquity, I have added references to my page. I contested election 2013 and was attacked by terrorist during election campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshadkhan859 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Goat Rodeo

Hi there. I appreciate the edit, and apologize for having saved the new page without having entered all the content that was necessary. I have added more information and citations, and hope that it passes muster. M0918]] • 2016-07-14 22:43

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to see it before it got deleted. However, as this is the second time that's happened, it's possible that your topic really does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. Please read the general notability guidelines and make sure Goat Rodeo has the depth of coverage it needs from multiple reputable, independent sources. If you feel you need more time to assemble the right sources, consider working on the article in a Draft (Draft:Goat Rodeo) or as a user page (User:foroun/Goat Rodeo) until you've got everything you need. ubiquity (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with my first creation about the play FULL GALLOP. I usually write or add facts for articles. Andrew Sachs (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Congrats on your first creation! ubiquity (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of HPE Mobile Center

Hello this is the user Theman285. you marked my "HPE Mobile Center" page for deletion because it was duplicated with "HP Mobile Center". no it is not duplicated because "HP MObile Center" deleted. can you please remove the deletion tag from the page? Thanks lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman285 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, please read the Deletion notice. I am proposing the article be deleted because I do not believe the product is sufficiently notable. As this is a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion, you (or anyone else) may remove the notice at any time. However, if you do this without improving the article to explain why the product is notable, as demonstrated by suitable references, I will open a more formal deletion discussion.

I see that you are a new editor, and I'm sorry if this process is confusing or frustrating to you. However, Wikipedia is not a product directory, and just because a product exists does not mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. Like everything else, products with Wikipedia articles must satisfy the general notability guidelines, which I encourage you to read.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and you may feel I'm wrong, in which case the simplest course of action for you is to remove my deletion notice and trust that no one else will agree with me. If you decide to do that, please be sure to participate in the deletion discussion. ubiquity (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Hackolade

Hello, I'm sorry if I infringed the rules of not being unambiguously promotional. That was not my intention and is due to my lack of experience in the field. I'm happy to make the necessary edits to reach the acceptance criteria.

Hackolade brings a solution to a problem that was thought difficult to solve, as stated in this article: http://www.tewdur.com/index.php/comn-articles/2-noer : "the new data structures that NoSQL DBMSs make possible can’t be represented in E-R notation. "

But, to delete this page would deprive readers from realizing the existence of this solution, while other data modeling software vendors are allowed to have their pages, without providing such a solution.

The screenshots of the software show that the representation of NoSQL data structures is actually possible in E-R notation.

Please let me know what else I can do to comply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackolade (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to appear in Wikipedia, a product must be notable, and its notability must be demonstrated by coverage in reputable, independent sources. Your article does not provide this, so is basically marketing. If there are articles about other data modelling products that simply publicize their products' features without suitable references, please let me know, and I will also nominate them for deletion.

Your userid suggests that you are closely associated with the product, which creates a conflict of interest. This is another aspect of the article that makes it seem promotional. ubiquity (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I can wait for the notability to be established. And I learn how to publish properly and with the right nuances. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackolade (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Weex (Mexico)

Dear Ubiquity,

The article "Weex (Mexico)" is not promotional:

a) The article is fully referenced using Mexican Government pages. Maybe you are not aware, but IFT in Mexico is the same as FCC in the US, so the references are "OUTSTANDING" and RELIABLE. If the Mexican Government is showing statistics about WEEX is because it is a major competitor.

b) Mexican operators, like UNEFÓN and Telcel have articles in Wikipedia because they show how the Mexican Telecommunications market is arranged and how it operates. If you like to delete the article about Weex, please go ahead and delete UNEFÓN and Telcel articles as well.

c) Weex is one of the newest operators in Mexico. I'm quite sure that you don't know it but VMO market is new in Mexico and this market was created only because new rules took in place in the last years. Maybe some research in "Pacto por México" and "Reforma de telecomunicaciones" will help you to fully understand that.

d) References are in Spanish because the Mexican government has issued them. Due Mexican Constitution, the Mexican Government can not post any information in other language than spanish or any dialect spoken in Mexico. Maybe Google Translate may help you to understand.

--Tempusflow (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tempusflow, after looking at the articles you mention, I saw your point, and withdrew my objection. ubiquity (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Clop

I respect your decision to delete my article on clopping. I only made it because I am a brony and I like MLP a lot. --Mister Jerry Jackson (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I'm not an admin and I can't delete articles. I initially nominated your article for speedy deletion but for an incorrect reason, so I undid that, and proposed it for deletion on the basis of lack of notability. Basically, it's not enough to have sources, but the sources have to be reputable. Under this process, if no one objects to the deletion (by removing the deletion tag), the article will be deleted in a week. If anyone does object (including you), I will probably initiate a stronger procedure that takes even longer.

If you think I'm right, you can short-circuit the process by blanking the page, which will be accepted as your asking for it to be withdrawn. Only the creator of an article (in this case, you) can do this. On the other hand, if you think the article really belongs on Wikipedia, you should probably try to find better sources. If you want to see what other people think, feel free to do nothing, and we'll find out. ubiquity (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

cervical cancer

I agree with your nomination about article of cervical carcinoma in situ. It was my mistake that I did not checked for similar articles. I will be taking care next time. Thank you for your kind gesture.Ameyawiki (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for letting me know. ubiquity (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

West London Waste Authority/ Western Riverside Waste Authority

The two articles link from Waste disposal authorities in London and need improvement rather than deletion. (Unless you care to cross-wiki-link to the pair of articles [1] and [2]). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do they need their own articles? It seems to me that Waste disposal authorities in London is more than sufficient. I wouldn't object to turning the articles into redirects. But assuming that they are notable on their own, why not work on them as drafts (Draft:West London Waste Authority and Draft:Western Riverside Waste Authority) until they meet basic Wikipedia standards? ubiquity (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an equal case for either all 4/5 bodies having separate articles on WP or none of them (transferring the extant material over to London Wiki) - and having a note on the main article/its talk page that effectively OR-entry level articles can be found on the LW (which is 'a public wiki with few active participants' rather than a private wiki). What solution do you suggest?

The borderline between what belongs on 'small field wikis' and what on WP can be somewhat fluid (and depends in part upon whether others 'keep the snowball rolling'). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The articles, as I saw them, did little more than assert, without references, that the waste disposal authorities existed. I really don't see how that's helpful, when the existing article on Waste disposal authorities in London already does that, AND provides the context of a bigger picture, AND has references. Why maintain four marginal articles AND a good one when we can just maintain the good one? If we are really worried that people will come here seeking information on their local Waste Authority and will be upset when they can't find it, redirects are the answer.

Of course, you can do what you want with LW, I have no idea what their policies are, but obviously a more locally focused wiki might be expected to take a more liberal view of what's important locally. But I would consider LW completely separate, and not attempt some sort of cross-wiki link. ubiquity (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

We are 'looking at the same topic from different angles': there is a case for an article on WP on the 'bodies as a group' - and that the individual bodies are better covered in a specific lower level wiki. The question is - where should 'further coverage on the individual authorities has been devolved to London Wiki' be put (and equivalent-wise for other topic). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just leave a link to the LW articles under "External links". ubiquity (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Royal Garden of Prague Castle

Hello Ubiquity, Don't you think it's rather silly to delete an article just because it's name is mentioned in another one!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Otto. Actually, I think it's silly to create a new article without references when an existing article could be expanded. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but your proposed article seems to be mostly pretty pictures. If you are planning a detailed article with text and appropriate references, I understand, but in that case you might want to work in Draft:Royal Garden of Prague Castle until the article is complere. ubiquity (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ubiquity, so your problem is lack of refernces, I can work on that if you just give me time. As for pictures, their number can be reduced, even though I don't see how their big numbers can be a problem. As for working in Draft:Royal Garden of Prague Castle, I don't see that fair, seeing as so many articles in wikipedia are unrefernced without hounded. I hope you understand my wish to not delete this article because I put so much effort to create it and it can be easily improved real soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so it's not my decision. I'm really not sure why you object to working in the draft space, it will impede you in no way, and save you from this sort of "hounding" not only from me but from others. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

CPSR

Hi Ubiquity. I added CPSR (Certified Professional Services Recruiter) to the disambiguation page, and then created a stub for the page about the certification. I'm not promoting it, and I have no affiliation with the certification or the certifying organization. I'd run across it multiple times on LinkedIn, so I looked it up. It seems to be fairly widely used in U.S. recruiting circles. So I think it might be useful here. (Previously I'd known CPSR as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.) Because I'm not affiliated with the certification or the organization, I don't have much to say about it. If I'm wrong about the widespread use, I'd agree with the deletion. Or it could be a broader article about recruiter certifications and include the other one I mentioned in the article. I'm open to discussing it, but wanted to let you know it's not just a promotional post. -RobinLampert (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Robin. I don't believe the CPSR cert meets Wikipedia standards of notability. To do this, the certification needs to have coverage in reputable, independent sources, whereas your article only cites a single source, the company that offers the certification. Wikipedia is not a directory of products, so just because the certification exists, doesn't mean it should be covered here. If people want to find out about it, there are lots of other avenues besides Wikipedia.

If you can find appropriate sources demonstrating notability (for example, a journal article saying how much employers want their employees to be certified, or one showing that certification makes a difference when getting a job), I would support this or any other article you choose to write on recruiter certification. But an article that basically says "this cert exists", and provides a single link to someone who wants to sell it to me, semms promotional, even if that was not your intention. ubiquity (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

JAmodel

Dear Ubiquity, JAmodel is just the description of library for scientific computing (modelling the magnetic hysteresis loops with demos and measuring data). There is no reason for advertisement, as it is open source (MIT licence). It is community operated library, as there is a lot of mesh in Jiles-Atherton modelling. If you could, please correct the text- I don't want it to looks like an ad. Thank you in advance, Best regards! Enthusiast of Magnetic_models — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetic models (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Magnetic models. Promotion doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to sell something. Promotion means you want to let people know about something, which is what you're trying to do here. But Wikipedia is not a directory of software libraries, and only things which are notable, as demonstrated by coverage in reputable, independent sources, should be documented here. None of the references in your article mention the JAModel library (in fact, they all refer to the JA Model itself, which, having its own Wikipedia page, needs no justification here). Unless you can find some references confirming the notability of the library, the page will probably not survive.

As an article creator, you are not supposed to remove speedy deletion notices yourself. If you want to contest the speedy deletion, please press the burron in the middle of the speedy notice and respond on the talk page, as RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) suggested. ubiquity (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request

Dear Ubiquity, the Beri, Jhajjar is a place and Mata Bhimeshwari Devi is a temple where million of people visit so it may exist as a separate identity. It is related with the Mahabharat also and useful for template ie. temples in Haryana.Igumeerpur (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but the article on Mata Bhimeshwari Devi does not make this clear, is poorly written, difficult to understand and has no references. The section on the temple in Beri, Jhajjar already exists, with references, is better written, and provides better context for understanding what the temple is. Why not accept the redirect? ubiquity (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read my reason that my page should not be deleted

Please read my reason that my page should not be deleted. Thanks. Alan (My talk) 21:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. This is not the way to request that a page be created, or to request assistance on a page. Please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and follow the procedure there. ubiquity (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read my reason that my page should not be deleted

Deiros published many articles refereed journals, that are used in the bibliography of other articles and thesis of geosciences and engineering. where subject teaches: Gave classes at a university institute INP in Caracas, but he appears also in scientific publications as part of the Simon Bolivar University and also as tutor engineering in thesis at the University of the Andes. Although I have understood, his primary job is not academic in nature but he is also known for their academic achievements, like the measure the Pico Bolivar altitude (He is mentioned in the wikipedia Pico Bolivar Article and inside two reference of this article, like part of University Simon Bolivar.), the highest peak in Venezuela with other two geoscientists climber collaborator. This single research has made significant impact, because before this, the peak measured had not been achieved, even after many attempts for nearly a century. Also he is notable for their primary job. In the Houston geophysical society is referred as part of the company Fugro and some students went to a private laboratory of his property that had assembled for processing and interpreting seismic data. There was a group of engineers working, the interesting thing it is that at that time were pioneers in data processing using free software Linux. They were working in a geo-hazards study for ConocoPhillips using seismic data. In another hand, in the first reference Yes there is mention the subject. Biographer1950 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have references to support this, you should add this material (along with the references) to you article. You should certainly add information about where he's from and where he teaches. If you feel you need more time to do this, you should move the article to Draft:Diego Deiros or User:Biographer1950/Diego Deiros where you will be able to work on it at your leisure. ubiquity (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ubiquity, I will find some article form a refereed journals that show Deiros like part of the Simon Bolivar University. I believe there are already in wikipedia. Also I will find same free domain published material that show Deiros like the Tutor of some universitary thesis of engineering. In another hand, do you check that In the first reference Yes there is mention the subject: in the pag.3 of the Geographical Bulletin IGVSB-BG N° 14. the Government Agency of National Cartography, mentioned literally that the data used to put the oficial altitude of Venezuela was measure by Diego Deiros and another two engineers. Biographer1950 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not going to be enough. Please read WP:NACADEMICS. Simply teaching at a known university is not enough to establish notability. You should also read the general notability guidelines. You cannot build a case for notability solely from primary sources like the Geographical Bulletin.

Also, I don't mean to be impolite, but I don't think you have the English-language skills required to write an English Wikipedia article by yourself. I noticed that this article has already been deleted once. Perhaps you should try submitting it through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. If you can convince the editors there that Deiros is worthy of an article, they will give you step-by-step help. ubiquity (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"I don't think you have the English-language skills required to write an English Wikipedia"?? Our goal is to create a web-based, free content encyclopedia of all branches of knowledge, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. "article by yourself".. all the Wikipedia community are here to help.Biographer1950 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. I said you didn't have the skills to write it by yourself and suggested where you could find some help. ubiquity (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rich Perez

I denied your speedy deletion of Rich Perez due the possibility of rewriting the article to be more encyclopedic, and that there is a credible claim to fame. I'm aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Perez, but note that was from 2009, six years prior to his induction into the Nevada Broadcasters Hall of Fame (the credible claim to fame). I've no objection to someone placing the article at AfD, but feel the article is not a speedy deletion candidate, even under G4 given the change in circumstance. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. When I first saw the article it was basically a resume. To me, a bare resume with commercial links but no sources is promotional. Now that the page has been cleaned up some I'm OK with it. ubiquity (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm not sure I am ok with it. It's still marginal. There's no doubt he's real (prior AfD had some people believing him to be a hoax). He has some notability, but perhaps not much. A state broadcaster's association HoF award, but no significant awards otherwise (if you count that one as significant). 600 boxing matches covered, but I can't find any references indicating notable matches. There's attempts at associated fame by rubbing shoulders with notable people, but that doesn't count for us. I don't know. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, OK, when I said I was "OK" with it, I just meant that at this point I don't feel like opening an AfD. I agree there's not a lot of coverage, but at least they managed to come up with two reliable independent sources. The guy is in imdb too, though not for anything big. I guess the HoF admission is just enough to dampen my usual enthusiasm for deleting this sort of thing. Though did you see the creator's response to the speedy on the talk page? He claimed Perez was every bit as notable as Bob Costas. I'd love to be able to hold him to that. ubiquity (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pretty funny :) Yeah, I found the two references that are in there. I wouldn't have removed the speedy tag if I hadn't found a reference for the HoF entry. Meh. I've watchlisted it. Curious to see what happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls: Viewing Revolution

Hello! The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls: Viewing Revolution is a Japanese-only game, and the article is translated from Japanese Wikipedia. The same article about a Japanese game in Japanese Wikipedia thrives, but in a non-Japanese Wikipedia is defined as an advertising, isn't it funny?

And for the article:

• 『アイドルマスター シンデレラガールズ ビューイングレボリューション』（THE IDOLM@STER CINDERELLA GIRLS VIEWING REVOLUTION）は、バンダイナムコエンターテインメントよりPlayStation VR用に2016年10月13日発売予定のVRアイドルライブゲーム[2]。 - Game title, developer, platform, release date, game genre. Facts.
• 本作は2016年7月7日にニコニコ生放送にて配信された「願いをかなえて!アイドルマスター シンデレラガールズ七夕特番[3]」においてバンダイナムコエンターテインメントからPlayStation VR専用コンテンツとして発売されることが発表された[4]。 - First appearance of the game, it's certainly important.
• アイドルマスターシリーズを通してPlayStation VRに対応していた初めての作品となる[5]。 - The first PlayStation VR title of the series. Simply statement a fact.

Then, WHICH sentence is attracting you to buy the game? And at least, source 1 (from famitsu) is acceptable. --A3268487 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Maelstrom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Ince. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Dr. Layke

I contested the notability on the talk page. Please look there for citations.

Rex Freiberger (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

TWIXX31

Hey man , I just want to tell you that I add references to the page that I create Thanks I need you're answer , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twixx31 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What you supplied were not what we mean by references. You need to be much more specific, so that people can actually find and verify the information in the article. But I supplied one for you, so you don't have to worry. ubiquity (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Help, I need a Do-Over

I, in haste and ignorance, saved my work well before I should have and along with some other accidentals. What's the best practice for a do-over to the page I'd like to create? Apologies and Thanks, Shelton2267 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Davis Chocolate, which was deleted a couple of times (and also declined at Articles for Creation). Ordinarily I would tell you to just ask the admin who deleted it to place a copy on your user space, but I have a feeling that may be problematic. Looking at the log shows us three relevant entries:

• 18:21, 9 August 2016 DGG (talk · contribs) protected Davis Chocolate [Create=Require administrator access] (expires 18:21, 9 August 2018) (repeated promotional editing)
• 18:20, 9 August 2016 DGG (talk · contribs) deleted page Davis Chocolate (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• 15:51, 16 July 2015 Edgar181 (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs) deleted page Davis Chocolate (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

The "[Create=Require administrator access]" means that you won't be able to just re-create the article again by yourself, but will need an administrator to do that, or at least to remove the protection.

I think a good first step would be for you to review the general notability guidelines, and make sure Davis really meets those requirements. If it does, you should collect the references together on your User page. Then you'll be in a position to explain to DGG that you really do intend to write a non-promotional article about a notable organization, and can ask him about retrieving your previous draft and unprotecting the page.

I have to tell you, though, that I think you're wasting your time. Certainly a casual Google search fails to turn up the kind of coverage you will need. Remember, Wikipedia is not a business directory. I'm sure Davis makes a fine product, but this in itself does not make it notable. ubiquity (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Speeding Deletion of Developing a Redux Edge

Thank you for your review of my page. I realized that the article is short but was trying to keep it a simple synopsis of the content of the book. The book is very technical and is about new technology (so new that the technology (Redux) doesn't even have its own wikipedia page. I thought this would be a simple way to help others know that the book exists. Please let me know what I can do to prevent the deletion. Njspetre (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting your book. Please read the general notability guidelines and the specific notability guidelines for books. In order to prevent deletion, you will need to introduce references that show the book meets these criteria. I searched for information about the book, and found nothing that led me to believe it did, but perhaps you can prove me wrong. ubiquity (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oussama Methazem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algerian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Speedy deletion nomination of Mystic Messenger

Hi, thanks for telling me about that, sorry that it looks like a promotion, but writing an article (and looking for a reliable citation) is tiring so I planned to continue tomorrow.

Also, you probably want to tell me how to make it article-ish? Or probably where I need to change.

Thanks! --Yukinotane (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yukinotane. It's a fairly new game, so it might be difficult, but the only way you can make the article stick is to demonstrate evidence of the game's notability, as shown in reliable, independent sources. You can't use the game's home page, or press releases, or directory entries to do this (because none of them are independent). Unless there was a lot of advance press, or the game was a runaway sensation, it's really unlikely that you'll be able to do this for a new game. It's just too soon.

Wikipedia is not a directory of software, or games. The subject of any article on Wikipedia must meet the general notability guidelines, and Mystic Messenger didn't appear to do that. If you feel that, given time, you could round up enough of the right kind of sources to demonstrate notability, I suggest you ask Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) (the admin who deleted your article) to restore it to your user pages so you can continue to work on it. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Trend Prive Magazine SPEEDY DELETION notice

If you could explain to me how this page is different than all of the other magazine pages that would be helpful. I am trying to add various magazines to the lists of GREEN PERIODICALS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_periodicals ) and use them so substantiate various articles on FAST FASHION etc... I also had my computer lock up while editing and had to reboot so there are more things to add to the article but I won't worry about it if they are only going to be deleted. Please let me know... I followed the other magazine formulas exactly so I am unsure how this is inappropriate. Please explain how to make it comply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaKBell (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, the article was indeed deleted, by admin Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article looked like something from the magazine's web page, and had no references to support its notability — of the four references, not a single one even mentioned the magazine.

If you would like to resubmit this article, please read the general notability guidelines, and make sure you have reliable, independent sources that support the magazine's notability.

As for your assertion the page was no different from "all of the other magazine pages," I suggest you compare it to the pages for Vogue or Cosmopolitan, which each have dozens of references, and clear statements of notability. I'm sure you're right that there are other poor articles about magazines, and if you've spotted other articles about periodicals with no appropriate references, please let me know, and I will try to have them deleted too.

By the way, I notice that you are the Marketing Director and Social Media Personnel for Trend Prive. This means you have a conflict of interest, and probably shouldn't be writing the article at all. Also, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. It is hard for me to understand why someone in your position would write an article about your magazine that wasn't intended to be promotional. ubiquity (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Product Registration

I have added some more text to this page, but don't want to go to far if you going to delete it. Can you review the page and let me know if this is more in line with are expecting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrProdReg (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it doesn't qualify for any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and because you removed my proposed deletion tag (as was totally your right), I opened a deletion discussion on the article. The problem is not the amount of text, but the lack of references to show that this is a notable topic, and to prove that what you're saying is correct. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. You are also welcome to add appropriate references to the article before the discussion closes. I would say that simply adding more text to the page is not going to help. ubiquity (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Küppersbusch

Hi Ubiquity.

Regarding the speedy deletion request on the Küppersbusch article, I have stressed in its Talk page that the article is in the middle of adding info material from various resources - including the translation from the German WP version (as tagged in the Talk page). However I am not willing to add further work and energy on an article which is in the process of it to be killed prior to its birth. So I find it more reasonable and appropriate to wait for the outcome of your request.

Regarding the substance of the importamce claim, I fail to understand the reason why this article has been proposed and tagged for deletion, speedy or not. Its subject is about a renown manufacturer in the business area of domestic appliances and as such, it fulfills the criteria for a broad interest under the terms of the WP project. Meanwhile the subject in regard has a dedicated page in the German Wikipedia project (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCppersbusch) since 2005, and there are also bidirectional associations with other pages in the English Wikipedia, ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teka .

This makes me believe that I can hardly see any case for a speedy deletion request here. I hope there will be soon an outcome for your deletion request so that I will be able to know if there is a meaning to this article, so that I can restart working with it. Thank you.(LeonCR (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

Hi, Leon. I replied to you on the talk page, but I just want to stress that if you have references to reliable, independent sources demonstrating Küppersbusch's notability, please add them to the article and I will remove the speedy tag myself. If all you want to do is add more unreferenced text (even from the existing German wikipedia article, whose single source does not impress me), then, yes, I agree it would be best to wait on the outcome of the speedy deletion request.

If you feel that such sources exist but that it will take some time to locate them, perhaps you should move the page to Draft:Küppersbusch or User:LeonCR/Küppersbusch. Then you can work on it at your leisure. ubiquity (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact that my leisure time is valuable enough to bother with unreferenced citations. It is also true that I am not willing to let myself be consumed in fruitless and unnecessary disputes. WP is a community project and as such it keeps going one way or another in the long term, beyond personal views. (LeonCR (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

Charles-Elie Laprévotte

Hi Ubiquity, I am a novice here. At the time you tagged it for deletion, it was lacking references I tried to fix the problem. I think it has been much improved. here is my page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Elie_Lapr%C3%A9votte

Sorry but I don't know how to leave a signature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefrigoesteteint (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Lefrigoesteteint. A couple of things:

1. One source is all it needs. You could have removed the tag yourself once you added the reference, but I was happy to do it for you. I cleaned up the article a bit too.
2. Add your signature to a page by typing ~~~~.

Good luck with future articles! ubiquity (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ,

I really appreciate your help. Newcomers should make mistake to do better

Zenji

Zenji (video game)

I have been working on quite a few video game pages and this is the only one to be tagged for speedy deletion due to notability. I believe that these games are notable and need to be given more thought than an automatic deletion after 7 days. Wikipedia is about collaborating and the nature of these vintage games means sources are hard to come by. I agree that they should be deleted in due course if no one can find any more information on them, but it is not hurting anyone to give the page a chance for other editors to contribute for longer than a week. MBlairMartin (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MBlairMartin. Please read the message on the tag carefully. In part it says "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" [emphasis mine]. So feel free to remove the tag and you need not worry about automatic deletion. You may have confused this tag (called a PROD) with a speedy deletion notice, which article creators are not allowed to remove. But your article, being about a game rather than a person, organization or event, does not qualify for speedy deletion. So if you object, just remove the tag.

That said, I tagged the article because I believe you have not demonstrated the game's notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of games, and just because the game exists (which is all your sources indicate) doesn't mean it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. You need to include references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in order to do this. According to what you wrote above, you seem to realize this, but want more time for other people to find the references which you (and I -- I looked) can't. The trouble with this is it might never occur. You correctly listed the game at WikiProject Video games; you might be able to get some help there by asking on their talk page. But if no one steps up in the short term, how long do you think it will take before someone shows up with the references we couldn't find?

You might want to wait until the last of the seven days to remove the PROD tag. This buys you a week. Then remove it, and I will open an AfD. That will buy you more time, and allow you to make the argument in the AfD that you need an indefinite amount of time, or make other arguments about the notability of the game in spite of its lack of sources. If the article gets deleted then, at least you'll know that no one was going to come to the rescue within 3-4 weeks, and that it was the general consensus of the community that the article did not belong.

BTW, I looked at some of the other game pages you worked on. Most of them have better sources than this one. ubiquity (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@MBlairMartin:: OK, someone added a source to the Zenji article that did more than prove existence -- a positive review in a print magazine with (presumably) editorial control. This proves that someone thought the game was notable. I'm not entirely satisfied, but i won't pursue deletion. Good luck with your articles. ubiquity (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the article on The Relationship Between Tyranny and Arms Control have been provided.

Please refrain from further attempts to delete the article. It has only been published for about 20 minutes. It is a very important topic that merits thorough discussion. The introduction's first paragraph is complete. Although the article is a stub, I assure that it will grow rapidly in the near future. I have some other work to do today, but I intend to create a dozen more sections for this article over the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wiki authority (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a speedy, it was a PROD, and you removed it, as is your right. I see you have added a lot of references, so I'm sorry I jumped the gun, but you might be surprised how many people add unsourced, unencyclopedic essays to Wikipedia everyday. If you really intend to take weeks to complete the article, you might consider moving it to Draft:The Relationship Between Tyranny and Arms Control or User:The wiki authority/The Relationship Between Tyranny and Arms Control where you can work at your own pace without having to worry about other editors. ubiquity (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wind and Fire

On what grounds do you want a speedy deletion? I see multiple objective third-party sources. --Baselineace (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

On the grounds that the article is unambiguously promotional. Except for the last reference, all the sources are themselves promotional. Nothing here shows us that Wind and Fire meets the general notability guidelines; it all shows us how to buy stuff from Wind and Fire. The reference from the North Attleboro Notebook shows local notability at best, and only in a very narrow way. ubiquity (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Maderia Beach Library

I was planning to delete most of the section in the original article but got sidetracked. I am going to revert your redirect and delete most of the original section now. FlyerMan (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, as long as you bring over references that show the library is notable on its own. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable. ubiquity (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Page moved, links added. I am now looking for references. FlyerMan (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of FIFARMA

I dont think this page should be deleted. FIFARMA is the federation of pharmaceutical companies, we are a non profit organization. Our mission is to improve the health of patients. Many other federations can be founded on wikipedia and each pharmaceutical company has a wikipedia page, why we cant write about FIFARMA. Please answer my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandradeguzman (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alejandradeguzman:: The page on Fifarma was deleted two days ago by Explicit (talk · contribs), but I was the person who tagged it as promotional. WIkipedia is not a place to publicize your organization, no matter how noble its mission, nor is it a directory of organizations where anyone may carve out a page for their organization. It is an encyclopedia of notable entities, where notability is demonstrated through references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The FIfarma page had no references (which meant that none of the information on the page could be verified), and it looked pretty much like a company webpage. Take a look at the article on Bayer. Notice that they have 117 references. Notice they do not have their mission statement, or their vision, or a list of their partners. These things tend to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. If you can find reliable, independent sources which write about Fifarma, then you can write an article about it. Meanwhile, if you know of other articles about pharmaceutical companies or federations which have few or no references, please let me know about them, and I will try to have them deleted. ubiquity (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)