User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Jun 08

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

[Title width guide]

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

Hello, RHaworth, I created an article on motorcycle history report and it is now redirecting to vehicle history report and I have been unable to ascertain why. There is nothing in the delete log regarding it. Can you tell me where my article is deficient and I will address the shortcomings. There are differences in the market and in the report availability. Thank you in advance. — Ehirtens (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please learn how to create wikilinks. There is nothing in the delete log because nothing has been deleted! Motorcycle history report seemed to be almost completely a duplication of vehicle history report. We abhor duplicated text because it causes confusion for other editors trying to change it. If there are differences between motorcycle history reports and those for other vehicles it is far better to explain these differences within the vehicle history report article. If you really think a separate article can be justified, raise the matter at talk:vehicle history report. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you removed Holland from "Still Life of Vincent van Gogh (Holland)". I named it that way based upon 1) previous advice from the VA wikiproject group about naming groups of works, 2) because I am going to do an article about other periods, like Paris, 3) it would be a very long article to combine all the still life into one article and 4) each period had very marked differences in the work. I am going to move the article back again (I don't think you can undo a move) for all of those reasons. I appreciate your intention to keep titles brief, it's just in this case there was a reason for the longer name.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we go about deleting the two pages you created in the moves?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Having been accused of rudeness before, I will merely note that there never has been an article called Still Life of Vincent van Gogh (Holland) and ask you to explain why you quoted that title above. It did occur to me that (Holland) was there for a purpose. Choosing a title is fraught with problems: what is the plural of "still life" - neither "still lives" nor "still lifes" seems right; is it "of" or "by"; do we disambiguate with "(Paris)", ", Paris" or go for still life works created by Vincent van Gogh in Paris? Having the title as a singular seems very ugly to me but Modernist has endorsed it so I will accept still life by Vincent van Gogh (Holland). But I would like to ask modernist why paintings of Amsterdam by Vincent van Gogh is allowed as a plural! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Holland) would work too, and would probably be less awkward...Modernist (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Paintings - plural works better in both instances...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you and Modernist work out is fine with me, my key point was about removal of "Holland", which I know Modernist understands and defer to his wisdom on this. Thank you for being a gentleman, it's appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd check back to see if there's resolution for naming the still life paintings and the Amsterdam paintings. I see Modernists input on Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Holland) which is fine with me. Does that work for you RHaworth?

What about the question about the Amsterdam paintings? What do you think about Amsterdam (Van Gogh): 1) to be brief, 2) because it's not really a grouping of paintings. I thought I'd find more, but I think I just have two paintings in that article. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth,

• Per Modernist's talk page: Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Holland) and Still life paintings by Vincent van Gogh (Paris) works for me...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC). I'll work on those changes today assuming you're good to go.
• Do you still have a question about the Amsterdam paintings name? What would you think about Amsterdam (Van Gogh)? Thanks, just trying to close out your valid concerns.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth and Modernist, Up a couple of lines I see that Modernist says that "paintings" is appropriate for Amsterdam, leaving it Paintings of Amsterdam by Vincent van Gogh. As long as neither of you disagree on the final names, I'll work on renaming and adjusting the still life articles tomorrow.

Thanks for the recent R2 speedy of Hugh Berryman as well as a number of other prods. Apologies for the mistagging as R8 I knew it didn't feel quite right, will know for next time. On a semi-related note, I am actually wondering about what you make of the cross-namespace redirect at User:Alejandro Correa Rueda. I am aware that the article, Alejandro Correa Rueda, was created in userspace then moved, although it seems to me that having a userpage as a mainspace redirect may be problematic particularly since it is quite clearly a conflict of interest on the part of the user. France3470 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The redirect at User:Alejandro Correa Rueda is unusual but there is no rule against it. In any case it was created by an highly experience editor and not by Alejandro. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I won't worry about it then. Thanks for the reply. France3470 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Scoach, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, but as a minimum the article demands {{COI}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{orphan}} tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again RHaworth, Listen I'm wondering if you could help me out with something. For several months I've been kicking around at the back of my head putting together essentially a "best practices" for communicating with people about why their page was deleted. My very first effort here resulted in deletion of my article - and it was handled well - and I stayed around. I think when one first tries to write at WP, not only do they not know "the ropes", they don't know that there's ropes they need to know about.

I was wondering if it would be helpful to try and keep people who are enthusiastic, it's just their first attempt wasn't within WP guidelines. Something like (in concept, not actual wording): Thanks for coming to WP to write an article with us. WP is an encyclopedia, and as such, has guidelines for content, impartiality and more. Unfortunately, your article did not meet WP requirements. It can be a bit daunting to get started, but there are resources to assist you in writing articles. WP:MOS, etc.

This type of communication has been my consulting area of expertise for several decades. Do you know who I might be able to run this by? Or, maybe there already is something like this, and I just didn't know. I know that you do a lot of work for WP and so I thought I'd run this by you. Maybe if there was some boilerplate text to use, it would help speed up communications with people and keep people that just needed to be trained in the WP ways (like me). Thanks so much! -- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to be of the "anyone can become a Wikipedia editor if you talk to them nicely" school. As you can see on my user page, I am a miserable sod who takes an opposite view and who gets annoyed because Twinkle (highly recommended) insists on making me welcome people even when I think there is no prospect of them becoming a useful editor, eg. here. That uses the {{welcome}} template. {{Welcomespam}} is another or you can create your own such as User:Airplaneman/W or User:AndrewvdBK/Templates/Template:Welcome. "I just didn't know" - go to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee#Welcome templates for links to a bewildering variety of welcoming templates - now you do know! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're funny! That sounds about right. Or, the "life is hard enough, if we have a choice, why not be polite" school. Thanks for the info!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am, I hope, always polite. It is just that when dealing with people promoting themselves or their company, I tend to prefer the style of the Commons Chamber rather than that of a vicarage tea party. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Pertaining the article that you deleted, I never had the opportunity to show you why it should not be deleted. One main reason is, if this article was branded promotional, why isn't the article that I followed of a similar record company ie. used as a guideline (which 'is' and 'still is' on Wikipedia) not branded as "promotional". Before a correction was made on this article, one of your associates pointed out to something that I wrote "uncompromisingly creative" as the bad words that killed the article. What is the difference between what I have used and what someone have used "fiercely alternative" (and by the way it is still on Wikipedia)? If you're going the way of promotional, then they both are, but if you're not then they are not, but rather both descriptive. Right?

Looking up my history I realised that this same thing happened to my previous article several years ago. Back then I didn't bother, but this time I'm interested in the truth. So please some answers to some of my questions is the least I can get. N.B. I have noted that the person that deleted the previous version pointed out to spam. Don't you think that's going a bit far? — (Tafal2525 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

• I have to admit that a phrase such as "uncompromisingly creative" is a trigger predisposing one to think of deletion but we, ie. new page patrollers, usually look a little further before deciding to delete. Yes, calling it spam is going a bit far - but only a very tiny bit. In the case of Cykxincorp Group of Companies, the main reason for deletion was a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is just the same as five years ago: deleted revision of Funhouse (fashion label) (as of 2006-12-18, at 15:41:24) by Tafal2525 was also totally lacking in independent references so no wonder it got speedily deleted. You say "fiercely alternative". It is typical of a spammer such as yourself that you cannot be bothered to give me a link to the article in question. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleming Harrington Redistribution Wash-in Washout (FHRWW) was not a copied paper. It was in fact completely typed for Wikipedia, so you would have information directly from myself, fully referenced for your readers. I would appreciate your restoring it. You are free to modify its structure if that is an issue; but, not its content. I am currently preparing for 5 lectures and completing editing of the Textbook on Nuclear, CT and Doppler Echo. Appreciatively, Dr. Fleming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.18.106 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Be grateful I have even bothered to answer - as you can see twice above, I normally refuse to talk to IP addresses. I find your claim to have typed it for Wikipedia very hard to believe. You have made absolutely no attempt to create a Wikipedia article. To take one simple example, did you try to get each of those full references to start on a new line in the rendered text? No you did not. But there is no need to discuss further: "not its content" is a totally unacceptable condition for submitting an article here. Please publish your "lectures" on your own website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This was originally written on the edit area and then copied to a word document for safe keeping. It had to be recopied and added again. So, it was in fact prepared specifically for wikipedia. I have better things to do with my life than to write for wikipedia. My two responses are (1) you have NO knowledge base to form a premise on the originality or purpose of this material. It was in fact an effort to allow wikipedia to have information your readers might be interested in. It can easily be found elsewhere on the Internet. (2) I am NOT "grateful" you "bothered to answer". That would somehow imply there is something about you that makes you an expert whose response I would be grateful for. While you may have your own personal web page with wikipedia, you are NOT an expert in this field; therefore, I am NOT grateful for your input. The world is dumber for what you did. When you publish in this field, we can talk again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.18.106 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by IP address. This time I shall ignore it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think that it looks better with a space after the em dash in {{Unsigned}}, but for consistency, there's a boat load of other Unsigned templates that should be done as well (see the bottom section of Unsigned's docs or for a less-structured approach, try something like this). – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• But are any of the other templates ever used? For example, re {{Unsigned-unk}} or {{UnsignedIP}}: under what circumstances is it not possible to tell who did a certain edit? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen UnsignedIP used several times. The Transclusion Count puts it on about 3500 pages^[1], where Unsigned itself is on about 23k^[2] at the moment, so while it's not overwhelmingly common, it's not unheard of either. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Following up on this, I just noticed that SineBot uses {{UnsignedIP}} when appropriate, so doing at least that one would probably make sense. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have that page watched and didn't notice you'd already made the change. – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted? Last time I checked, a PROD could not expire within eight hours of the article's creation. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you may be interested in the fact that the user that tagged the article has admitted (on my talk page) to stalking my edits. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please get into the habit of creating links in talk page messages, eg. I presume you meant this admission of stalking. There is no rule that a PROD cannot be replaced with a speedy tag. In the case of How the English Language is Getting Worse a virtual editor replaced the tag with a speedy saying "test" or "vandalism" or simply IAR. I was so disgusted with the article, I could not even be bothered to replace the PROD reason which was offered to me automatically with a speedy deletion reason. If it really bothers you, re-instate the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The relevant bit is the statement "Yes, of course I have been following your file de-taggings" on my talk page (just run a search for that text); it's quite obvious that s/he is not just following my file edits. I respect IAR, and I definitely follow it when applicable — however, the fact that you didn't cite it confused me, so I'd appreciate it if you'd refer to it in a deletion summary. I'm not bothered, but thanks for mentioning that. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That was stupid of you to delete my page, F.U.N Farm! That was my only page! — rjbear178

• At least you tried to link to the article in question which is more than a certain admin could manage. Your page made absolutely no assertion of notability and provided no evidence that it exists, still less that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth - Author of 10screens wishes to inform that author has updated the 10screens talk page with why in author's opinion 10screen is notable and that what direction of rework author proposes to recreate this article following the recommended practices of Wikipedia. For detailed explanation please look at Talk:10screens. Cheers, Author of 10screens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhulis (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, it seems that while I was creating the Arabic version of that article, by mistake I might did something wrong (which I still do not understand completely, probably my article was just a copy and paste of the original English article, that's because sometimes I just want to see how the original article is organized and then start translating it).

So please just do what you see good, and remove that "warning"'. Thank you very much. Taibah U (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Taibah U

• Your mistake was to post it here on the English Wikipedia. I see that you have already done some edits there, so hopefully further explanation will not be needed. I also recommend using personal pages at ar: for drafts. If you want copies of your deleted text, please let me know. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Haworth, With a lot of joy I posted my first article Plaza Athénée Bangkok yesterday, worked on the layout, links, studied the references and was suprised to see that my article was deleted.The text originated from our hotel and was send out as a press release, can I not use this text? Do I have to rewrite the entire text?

The story of the hotel definitely has Wikipedia value as I did not mention the features but focussed on the historical ground it is build on and the famous architect designing it. Thanks for your help and will be back with more articles, Regards, PARM2011 Parm2011 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parm2011 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Preferably you do not write anything. You wait until someone with no COI thinks the hotel is notable and writes about it. Incidentally: why the ridiculous title, what was wrong with Plaza Athénée Bangkok? And what subjects do you intend your other articles to be about? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, I declined your nomination of Chronology of River Song because I don't think it meets A1, particularly This applies only to very short articles. I certainly have no prejudice against any other deletion procedure, though. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please undelete Ahab (Band)? The work in progress tag placed right at the top of the page. It was very easy to see that it was something clearly being worked on between multiple people, including other administrators. The band is plenty notable and has been written about multiple times on music blogging site, whatstheruckus.com and we were currently in the process of adding more information and citing more sources. Most of us are students who have lives that revolve around other things besides wikipedia or the band, but were trying to put together the wiki in our free time. Giving four hours (if even) between posting the speedy deletion and then actually deleting it is a bit absurd. Most people have lives that take them away from their computers during the day. Time wasn't even given to get the email about the speedy deletion request, much less time to add useful information that would aid in keeping the post from being deleted. - AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiodaughter (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Four hours between speedy deletion tag and actual deletion is probably longer than average. In any case you had five days between the prod tag and deletion. I see nothing to distinguish this from the thousands (literally) of non-notable bands that have been deleted from here. I have e-mailed you the text. If you restore it to user:Audiodaughter/Ahab you should have all the time in the world to work on it. If you have provided sound evidence of notability, then you may move it to Ahab (English band). You may also wish to consider moving Ahab (band) to Ahab (German band) and converting Ahab (band) into a disambiguation page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, I was sad to see that the article on The Global Product Strategy was deleted on 6 May. I would be grateful if you could tell me a bit more about why this was so that I can re submit it. As I said in the disucssion section it is an important out come of Responsible Care which has an article - it is also a result of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals and United Nations Environment Program so it would not be appropriate to simply extend the Responsible Care article. Many thanks. 140Chem (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• You probably have a COI and therefore should preferably not be writing on this topic. But if you insist, I suggest: first create an article about ICCA making sure to include links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and submit it via Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Council of Chemical Associations. If that is accepted, create an article on the GPS similarly including RSs and submit via the same route. Incidentally, I suggest that your organisation should rename the GPS to avoid confusion. That abbreviation is very widely used for Global Positioning System. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see if I can find someone who knows all about the International Council of Chemical Associations to help write an article. I agree about the GPS title but I don't have any channels into the ICCA to go about changing it.140Chem (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)140Chem140Chem (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• So if you are not connected to ICCA, what is your connection with this subject? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I had just been writing on the above talk page and attempted to save it when a message came up saying that the page no longer existed; that it had been deleted by you under CSD-G8. However, I was able to reopen the page, with everything still intact. Anyway, I'm not here to whinge or anything. I'm just wondering if you know what happened. It's got me curious. LordVetinari (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I've just seen the deletion log on my watchlist. The joys of simultaneous editing. LordVetinari (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you deleted my article on Sutton Parade, I didn’t expect it to be deleted as once as I contested the deletion and removed the controversial material. I had to rewrite it when I put it into the Sutton Coldfield article, here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, Just to let you know I have reinstated the article you deleted for the want of evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I have now added (I hope) sufficient references. I would welcome your views. Thanks. MyrtleDene (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I created the article Eaiea from scratch. It should not be speedied. Compare the deleted version with the current one if you do not believe me. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, you are saying that G4 does not apply because it is new text. Things have changed since you started contributing to Wikipedia. Nowadays we use <ref> markup to push external links to the end of a document and save repeating the same link six times. More importantly we insist on links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. But since no other admin has seen fit to delete it in nearly 24 hours, have an AfD with my compliments. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there some way to call attention to this AFD? I think that conlang articles often slip under the radar because of their niche nature. The only people who ever notice are themselves conlangers, and they're not very impartial.Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you. I was rather surprised that my nomination seemed to be going "the wrong way". Best I can suggest (and it is long-winded): work through this search for AfD discussions containing "conlang", most recent first. Identify people who have !voted delete and contact them. Leave your message neutral, ie. "please look at …" to reduce the risk of being accused of canvassing. This looks like a good one and LinguistAtLarge (talk · contribs) is currently active. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Whoa! Contacting only people that !voted delete, is contacting a partisan audience, and could be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I did give Hermione an hint that the practice is deprecated. Anyway, please give your un-stacked opinion of Eaiea in the AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please excuse me, I didn't know about this rule. I was thinking that there would be a place somewhere on Wikipedia where an editor could ask for more participants in AFD discussions. More outsiders are needed in discussions like this because, for the most part, only conlang enthusiasts ever feel like studying the article and its sources to determine whether or not it is notable. Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remember that there are (I assume) people who come to AfDs via the log files, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 1 in this case. Almost all will be "outsiders". If they decide not to !vote it is because they are apathetic about the subject. There is also the WP:Village pump though I rarely use it. Beyond that, I think my suggestion is very sound. I would say go for it and keep your fingers crossed that no-one spots your votestacking. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • I went to LinguistAtLarge but saw that you'd already been there. I've written an entry at the Village Pump. Let's hope it catches a few eyes! Hermione is a dude (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you've prodded this. I thought I'd remembered doing the same myself. And I'm watching it, but it was created today. Has it been recreated from a deleted article? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• The log entry is visible to you. It was deleted as a result of your prod of 2011-04-28. The new version is much the same as the previous but previous deletion after prod is not grounds for speedy so we just prod it again. If the prod tag gets removed, we go to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the pointer William M. Connolley (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roger. If you can spare a moment, I've a query relating to the correct application of the BLPPROD policy on the Javier Carpio article. One primary source, published by the footballer's club, corroborates several assertions. Four sources were listed on the article when tagged for BLPPROD, and this tag was removed by the article's author. Another editor replaced the BLPPROD tag on the grounds that its sources were unreliable.

I'd justify removing the tags on the following grounds:

• In the context, the club's website does not appear unreliable;
• External links are sources and were already present when tagged;
• Both BLPPROD nominations are invalid (following the above);
• {{unreferenced...}} is invalid (following the above);

I'd appreciate comments from a sysop regarding my understanding of the policy. Thanks, Meph^talk 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. The four external links are more than enough evidence that the guy exists and that the facts about him are substantially correct. Even one of them would have been enough to justify removal of the {{prod blp}} tag. Whether he is notable enough for Wikipedia is a different question! I avoid making deletion decisions on footballers because I am not familiar with the notability criteria. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Best, Meph^talk 13:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am writing to you with regard to the second deletion of Tech Plus Forum claiming wiki policy "G11: Unamibiguous advertising or promotion". Since this was my first wiki entry I took the first delete as a lesson to be careful to write neutrally and without promotion. Thus, I benchmarked a few other pages with forum entries, such as TED, Mobile World Congress, Seoul Digital Forum, World Knowledge Forum and Meet the Future, Science & Technology Summit 2010. Actually, this forum is very similar to TED. Can you please tell me how I am differing from the aforementioned entries in my tone, structure or content that is causing you to classify my entry as advertising? As I wrote in the talk section of the page, when it was flagged for speedy delete the second time, this is a non-profit forum hosted by a branch of the Korean government to spread knowledge of the R&D conducted in any given year which will be applied to future policy and solution development. Thus, I'm not trying to promote the event, but rather disseminate information about an event that is having an impact on world industrial technology development. Please advise where I am going wrong. Also, could you please send me the deleted article? Stevelaj (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• There was a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also it was far too long: we do not need the "program" lists and the lists of speakers should be savagely reduced to people who already have bios here. What do you mean by TED? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the prompt and detailed reply. I respect you critique and will make another go at it according to your review and suggestions. Actually, I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond. Please keep a look out for an improved Tech Plus Forum submission. Could you please email me the deleted page? Sorry, by TED I meant TED (conference). Stevelaj (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to undelete, or permit me to undelete it? I'd be glad to add some sourcing such as this and this. I don't think the article met criteria for speedy deletion at the time you deleted it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to undelete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the delete, I was trying to find the right notice to put on the page to get it deleted. Basically, I searched for Chi Eta Phi in quotes and after viewing what came up, tried to create it and it created it with the quotes. I'm in the process of building Chi Eta Phi (I have the under construction template up), but given that there are 5 pages with it mentioned (and 3 were redlinked), I think it will be a good create.Naraht (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I read through why you delete my page and I have no arguments however its part of a project submission being assessed tomorrow & again on Monday. Could it not be left until Monday afternoon and I will take it down myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taha016 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly not. Wikipedia is not a free host. Put it on your own website and it can be assessed there. (And if want decent marks, for goodness sake start by explaining what the thing is!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You deleted Pronit because it was tagged under (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). I believe A7 is unapplicable: the article was about a major Polish manufacturer of vinyl records and a record label itself in since 1930s, with references. What other indication of importance one may need? Please take a look at pl:Pronit: they released a huge number of records. This was before the age of "internets", so info is hard to find sitting on a sofa, but it does exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC) -Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• What other indication of importance? How about links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which your article totally lacked. Create a proper article with proper references but without reproducing their entire catalogue as the Polski version does. Do that and will probably stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember what I wrote. It was a quick text, to kill redlinks. Please restore it to my user space, and I will take a second shot. It didn't occur to me that a huge enterprise with close to century of history may be questioned. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Restored. There is simply no need to do quick edits. Have you seen the film To Be or Not to Be? That contains the phrase "world famous in Poland" which is absolutely appropriate in this case! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thx. <sigh>. Good thing I am not from Albania (which is a famous terrorist state now since Wag the Dog :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Would this help correct the A7 problem for K-12math.info?

“K-12math.info is an online information system serving elementary and secondary school mathematics material developers, teacher trainers, school district resource professionals and home schooling parents. The bibliographic system uses 1000 of the most common terms used in elementary and secondary school student mathematics textbooks. It tracks which textbook contain which terms, on what page (for OER materials a link to the term), for what grade level, and how the term is being used. K-12math.info has been collecting information on the 1000 terms in mathematics series since the 1970’s to the present OER materials K-12math.info helps its users to know what grade level any of the 1000 terms has been and is being used in. How it is being used (formal development, enrichment, or present). And helps in following trends that are occurring. All of which help in the reviewing and designing new materials. ….. “ Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you. Jim Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkelly952 (talk • contribs)

• How on earth is a change of wording such as that going to improve matters? What we need are links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry to have taken your time. I will delete my contributions. The ground work for future innovations clearly can not find a home in Wikipedia. Again thank you for your time. — Jkelly952 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I need the page to stay up until Monday then it will be removed. I know its a do it yourself page & i've explained its part of a final year submission so can it just remain until Monday & then i will remove it myself that afternoon, you can check back Monday afternoon & if i haven't removed it feel free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taha016 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please ask the person who told you to post it here to explain to me why it is so important that the article must be here and not on one of thousands of alternative locations. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles like the DNA/RNA article should be candidates to move to wikibooks (being clearly sourced and all), rather than deleted outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from A Hero's Journey, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hollywoodn't, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK this one did claim that a blue-linked actor was going to star but please tell me what assertion of notability was there in A Hero's Journey. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Prod because of a claim to notability; I removed it because an editor objected to deletion in his edit summary when he said "Editing page to reference the witer's more notable work, which does have a wiki page. An established fanbase from previous work justifies the creation of the new play having a wikipedia page.)". Prods are for uncontroversial deletions and when an objection has been lodged it is no longer uncontroversial. TerriersFan (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just got home and saw this on my watchlist: (Deletion log); 17:39 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Aberystwyth University Octopush Club (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

I can't give an excact quote because the article is gone but that article did not qualify for speedy deletion because it did indicate importance when it said the team had played at a national championship. Another admin had declined to delete for this very reason.

I had first noticed that article when it was brand new because I was looking at New Pages. It hadn't been up for more than five minutes when somebody tagged it as a speedy. At that point it was clear that the new editor was still working on the article, but I think the deletion notice scared them off. I pointed out on the talk page that it did have importance and an admin declined to delete.

But now it's gone again? I'm sure you didn't have reason to notice the earlier history, and we can't un-bite the newbie, but can you undelete the article and give the new editor a chance? (Heck, I'll work on the article myself if needed.) Thanks Cloveapple (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am very dubious whether their assertion of notability is sufficient - they are still just a small amateur club. I have e-mailed you the text and left a note on the newbie's talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the text and userfying the article. They did have enough on the page to show importance (the A7 standard), but I agree that it's not clear yet if they have notability. I'll be working on it to see if I can find them that notability. Cloveapple (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

… stop this Sally james langley, don't you think? Thanks in advance. --RoyFocker (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• This interesting question is neither vandalism nor trolling. As I have said on her talk page, I suspect two different people editing. Someone with "scrupulously" in their vocabulary is not going to write "PAPAELE ". I shall watch but let me know if there is vandalism that I miss. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, you really should not have speedy deleted that article - I had already declined an A7 speedy deletion for it. I declined it on the grounds that getting to a national championships in the first season is a claim of significance. I highly doubt it would pass AfD, but speedy deletion requires a credible claim of importance or significance, not demonstrated notability. Please check the history before deleting pages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I tagged Mechanization (band) with COI and NPOV. Appropriate? Was going to PROD for notability, but thought I'd get a second opinion. Thanks, and good day! Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 12:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good heavens, yes. PROD or AfD it. If I had seen it with a speedy tag, I would have deleted it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 16:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting the undelete of Fitness America Pageant. The article was marked for speedy deletion, indicating reason A7 - No indication of importance individuals, animals, organizations, web content. I contested the speedy deletion by clicking the "click here to contest this speedy deletion" notification, assuming that post would allow the time to expand the article. I would like the opportunity to edit the article and conform it to A7. Karlrink (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you really think you can demonstrate notability, prepare a draft in user:Karlrink/sandbox. Please note that we do not use ™ or ® in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

now aware of User:Markeyatgnapcorg/sandbox, that you have looked at its edit history and that you know how to edit it. I THINK SO - THANKS M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markeyatgnapcorg (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I used Marino's bio from his new york law school website for his wiki page, as I thought it was public domain. I then consolidated the information to a handful of sentences that were not taken from the bio on the NYLS site. The second portion that briefly explained who he is and what he does, I thought, should have remained. It came from a neutral viewpoint and was concise. Do you have any suggestions for how the page can be set up without deletion? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarldg (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• What is your connection to the guy? I am always suspicious of first-time editors. Though in your case it is an editor with a previous record of two inappropriate articles. Obviously an article devoid of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, indeed devoid of any links, stands very little chance of survival. If you are serious and have no COI then develop your article in user:Jarldg/sandbox until it is viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Small Arms Survey, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed her article after you pointed out its flaws earlier today. One more thing: Do you know why it uses a lower - case "g" for her last name ? How can I make it a capital "G" ? Thanks for your attention.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the lower case problem by moving the article to Tara Grinstead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, can i ask you why delete 'psyfriend' article from wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmdir (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• For goodness sake! The entire content of the article was: "PsyFriend is a psytrance music project from Greece". You cannot seriously expect that to survive. If you can demonstrate that the project meets our notability criteria, create a userspace draft and make sure that it contains evidence of notability before you publish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.-- CrossTempleJay  → talk 14:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That edit was an oversight. I was going to add a category to it. I guess it escaped me to add it before I removed the other tag. Thanks once a gain. A friend called  CrossTempleJay  → talk 14:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth,

First of all sorry for my English it’s not my native language, as you know it’s very difficult to explain and be clear in a different language.

I'm really new in Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago I had to do a paper on Sonia Falcone (she is a Bolivian artist very well known here) she is the first Bolivian woman to take her art internationally to New York, Miami, London, also has done a lot for the Latin Community in the United States trough her foundation.

As a Bolivian its very frustrating not to find things in Wikipedia about my country and about our personalities, so I decided to do my share and help in this project and start creating content about Bolivia and our personalities, so I decided to start with Sonia Falcone since Ii had to do a paper on her anyways.

So i did my research got all my info and created an article about her, but now i found out the article was deleted, I really don’t why it was deleted, because she is a very well know person in my country I don’t think to be in Wikipedia the person has to be known globally, if that’s the case is very unfair to small countries like mine.

I think for Bolivia its very important to start showing the world their personalities, let me be clear on one thing this article is not for promotional purposes I`ve never even met her, she doesn’t need money she is one of the wealthiest persons in Bolivia, she is married to Pierre Falcone (you can read about him).

Please let me know why di you delete the article.

--Rodrigosaucedolinares (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)