Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 7 June 2010

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

Gastrich, PRT, October 2005, December 2005, January 2006, January 2006a, February 2006, February 2006a, March 2006, April 2006, May 2006, June 2006, July 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, October 2007, December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, June 2008, July 2008, August 2008, September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, June 2009, July 2009

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile

Why did you delete page?

Hi - I recently edited a page TelePacific. I basically deleted all there selling points and added their ownership history as they have a pretty hidden past. It took me ages to discover who actually owned the company and that they were based in a corporate tax haven. I think this is valid information and lets consumers who this company actually is. I would appreciate your feedback as to why you think that this information was promotional when it was clearly taking a factual stab at the company for be shady.

Proposed Deletion?

You deleted a page that has been up for 2 years? Not sure how all of a sudden it violates anything. You removed a recently added article understandably, but then removed a legitimate article that has already been approved by another admin. I would appreciate if you would undo the delete as the article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Rticles (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• More to the point, how did this apparent autobiopgraphy get missed for that long? Guy (Help!) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, in case you care, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_undeletion#Doug_Davis_.28Pro_Gamer.29. --B (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

busy

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Third Report Article Deletion

Hi. I noticed my article on Third Report was deleted. I saw the reason it was deleted was that it did not really indicate what about the site warranted its inclusion in an online encyclopedia. I updated the article in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/User:TonyBorelli/Third_Report to highlight the fact that it is unique among citizen journalism sites in that it uses geolocation software to automatically taylor the local portion of the news to the user's location, so that local news can be front page news without the user having to register and identify his or her location.

I'm not sure if this meets your needs or not, and I hope I'm not way out of bounds in thinking/hoping this article could be useful to folks looking for this sort of thing.

Any advice would be great. Thanks, Tony. 2 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sources need to be non-trivial, primarily about the article subject, reliable and independent. The sources you cite all fail at least one of these criteria. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I won't resubmit unless/until the site gets some attention from a source that meets those criteria. Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBorelli (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks for understanding so quickly. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

JWFind article deletion

Hi, I realized just now page JWFind has been deleted. :( with reason that it is not notable. IMO it indeed is notable, in the degree as many other niche social networks linked from List_of_social_networking_websites are. I did my best to make it readable, unbiased, covering most important information.. etc. Please, what should I do to make it deletion-prone? I'd be very glad for any recommendation. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hi, yes, I see, the sole fact that tons of similar pages exist does not automatically prove notability. I agree with the statement. But still I'm convinced that the page is notable enough to be kept. How could I prove its notability? The value is not in the web itself, but in the lively and increasing membership base behind. The web is also unique, there is no other similar project. In compliance with Misplaced Pages:Notability_(web) it has been mentioned on various places already, independently on creators, such as lovetoknow and by some bloggers too. Also, the site has been designed as a space for applying results of scientific research, thus various aspects of the site are to be mentioned in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on high-quality conferences. E.g. some acceptability questions related to the site will be presented and discussed on IE10 and site's unique distrust model on SWIE conferences held by Monash University in Kuala Lumpur in July this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are convinced, but since you seem to be engaged in promoting this site in numerous places around the Internet your judgment is perhaps not the same as ours. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I listed the site on some places elsewhere. Does it automatically mean that subject of the article is not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the site does that. A web forum with 500 members - you're about 499,500 short... Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it would be not much objective to decide mechanically, just by member stats. Of course, it's much easier to get thousands of members on some general-purpose social network, whereas member base of a site where users have to prove that they meet tight requirements can't grow so quickly. If you assume networking site targetting 7 bil people, it may easily get 500k members, but it is incomparable with a site aimed on a group of 7 mil. Well, again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comes to my mind, looking at the list of other social sites, where many have lower Alexa rank, no members stats published at all, even way lower traffic Scispace.net, Pingsta or some already closed, e.g. Mobikade.. I think that these pages are worth to be kept, because their unique focus. They are interesting suitable for encyclopedia, because they were novel, introduced some new concept etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zejdad (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO you are promoting a non-notable website. End of. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yaakob/Kobi Arad

OCR-A font

I noticed that you removed several references to vendors of OCR-A fonts from this page, with no reason listed in the talk page and only "spam spam spam" as your comment. Would you care to expand on your reasons, in the OCR_A talk page? John Sauter (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• They were not references as such, more commercial sites linked to look like references - WP:REFSPAM. This was a followup form a user (who appears to ber an SEO or marketeer) who had a significant number of consecutive edits all linking one of these sites. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Network for Business Sustainability

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the Network for Business Sustainability for deletion under G11 and A7. I don’t see how the page I created warrants unambiguous promotion. The Network for Business Sustainability is a publicly funded, non-profit organization. It connects an academic research community from around the world to business professionals interested in sustainability. The Network conducts and provides research on the various sustainability topics of interest to the business community and was founded by a professor, Dr. Tima Bansal who is widely quoted and respected on the subject. It has researchers from every university in Canada and quite a few from the U.S. and the rest of the world. Business sustainability is a topic of interest for me. This Canadian organization is one that is really trying to bring the topic to the forefront of business practice; based on all the articles I have read. Everything I said in the entry was factual not promotional. By this standard there are a lot of pages that warrant deletion but are still up and running for example Sustainable Business Network, oikos International, Continuing Studies Centre for Sustainability (CFS) to name a few. Now I think these organizations are great and they deserve a page of their own; I’m just saying that the Network for Business Sustainability does too. I was just hoping for an explanation as I would like to put up the page again as I believe it is of importance in Canada and your input would be very much appreciated.--Sunalis (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Because it was advertorial. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But it wasn't, I was stating facts! How different was it from the pages I stated above? Please explain that to me --Sunalis (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• It was "stating facts" in a way that was blatantly promotional. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court (again)

Hello JzG the page has been edited again and is not NPOV. Can you advise me should I be requesting page protection? It seems pointless to me to continually revert it. Berkinstock (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, RE your deletion of the SBS Radio Alchemy Program page

I am not the original creator of the article, on the talk page I requested a 24 hour grace period to try and source the content. The program is part of the national, government radio network and even the briefest click on Google news brought up a score of awards/articles which would have verified notability. I agree the article was too promotional, but your speedy was well out of line given I'd posted a hold on, 'particularly' as you are 'meant' to click google news to check if the article might warrant inclusion. Judging by your page it looks as though you're extremely trigger happy with your deletes, please consider politeness and protocol in future. Stevezimmy (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gray Loeffler LLC

Something weird is going on with this page; the deletion appears in the log, but the content is there (maybe an edit conflict???). It may be worth a look. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Hi. I believe that the following three users are meatpuppets of User:Bircham, who is known to you and me as the owner of Bircham International University. Before taking any action, I'd like your second opinion:

• User:Shoovrow
• User:Trevaniam
• User:Phdwell

I say "meatpuppets" rather than "sockpuppets" primarily because Shoovrow has a long edit history that indicates an affiliation with Bircham, but is otherwise inconsistent with W.M.'s work. The other two are WP:SPAs who have made very limited edits to the BIU article. Taken together, I believe the most likely explanation is that all three of them are editing the BIU article as a favor to W.M.

Thanks for your input. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked the two single-purpose accounts, but please do push back against the whitewashing. Every source that is not influenced by Bircham, describes them as questionable; Bircham relentlessly attacks anyone who reports this and then uses any that give up as "evidence" that they are not crap after all, but still they don't pursue the only legitimate route to provable quality: accreditation. They say this is "unnecessary" or not properly available to them, but they are wrong on both counts. And they have been trying this shit for literally years. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Breut Carmen

Just to back up your delete decision, I was about to re-add the db-g3 tag as a result of further research:

I noticed that the first reference given (the only one with a URL) doesn't mention the subject. The other two references were to a book, where page 149 was cited. The book is available in Google Books and page 149 is the only page not visible there. The other reference was to a newspaper called "The New Tribune" in Tacoma which has never existed. It is a plausible typo for "The News Tribune" but that name wasn't adopted until a year after the claimed date of the article.

In short, I was wrong, and you made the right call.

Thparkth (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. It socred the coveted zero non-Misplaced Pages Google hits, which is always a good start :-) Guy (Help!) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoovrow

Hi, Thank you for your suggestion on Bircham International University. I saw that you deleted my article Death and Adjustment Hypotheses. I thought, the user "King of Hearts" deleted it previously and letting him know while I recreated it will be enough initially. I thought, it has the references now to reside at Misplaced Pages. Will you please suggest/explain?Shoovrow (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• You need reliable independent sources which are primarily about the concept. Do you want a copy in your user space to work on until it's properly sourced? Guy (Help!) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, a copy would be nice. But I shall be very grateful if you see the references and indicate the faults in them specifically. It is a brief postulation and some reference can be deducted if indicated specifically. Pls take your time and let me know.Shoovrow (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Hi, JzG. I've reverted your move of this page as there is a current discussion on the talk page regarding the page title (as well as many previous discussions). Moving a page during such a discussion really shouldn't be done; let's allow the discussion to reach a result. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I notice that if you examine it with a microscope there is a tiny trace of a biography lost amongst the extensive coverage of the news story. I despair sometimes. No reputable encyclopaedia would pretend to have a biography of this person! Guy (Help!) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether standard practice should be changed or not is of course a discussion for another page, but keeping the article at the victim's name seems to be current practice when looking at related categories (Category:Disappeared people and Category:Murdered American children for example). Regardless, anything you can add to the move discussion would be appreciated. Best, --auburnpilot talk 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard practice already is not to pretend to have a biography when the subject is actually a single event or crime. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AuburnPilot, given the discussion on the talk page, it was better to await the outcome, especially with three admins all maintaining the article and opposing the move. As for the bio, she was 18, and there is a limit to how much, in an encyclopedia, you can say about an 18 year old's bio (the major section on toilet training is out). BTW, did this article come to your attention through a noticeboard we should be aware of, or did you just chance upon it?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there is a general consensus to move the page among users as a whole, but because the three most active editors of the page are opposed to a move, individual discussions never reach a consensus (with, in my opinion, the second AfD for the page being an exception and having reached a consensus to move the page that was never acted on). Though the current discussion has turned into a discussion of the different titles' merits, my main point in starting that discussion was supposed to be that there already was a consensus to move the page, and I was merely adding my opinion on top of what I believe to already be a consensus. I don't think it is reasonable to decide the issue based solely on the current discussion, and that to do so would be ignoring the main point I was trying to raise by starting that discussion. Instead I think that an univolved user or group of users (i.e. someone who had never expressed an opinion on the issue) is needed to review all the past discussions and decide whether or not there is a consensus to move the page. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Playing Fields (band)

I quite clearly stated in the discussion area of this article why it was valid:

On what basic is this band notable? Snoop God (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, band has over 100 press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with band.

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

is that enough? Please let me know if you need more.

I am on here regularly. Whilst this band may not be Madonna,

General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...

and it doesn't stand alone, it is not an orphan.

This is another example, like First Aid Kit (band) who recently performed in fron of thousands of people at the Primavera Sound Festival, attendance 80,000, of valid articles being deleted.

Misplaced Pages states the policy as copied above, which this article fulfils. If only Madonna and Bruce Srpingsteen and McDonalds can have Wikis then the whole site is invalid. Are you going to remove the Velvet Underground? Please rethink.

Fiedorczuk (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My amigo, who uses the same log in has reloaded the page. According to the wiki notabilty criteria on here you don't have to be Madonna, or Mc,Donalds to be here- this has fulfilled the criteria, full stop.I have referecend the article plenty. Fiedorczuk (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• You write great advertising copy. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello JzG

Dear Brother/sister, I am desperately looking forward to learn the drawbacks from you about the deleted article DAH in a specific manner. Please let me know after you get time to see it.Shoovrow (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bachir Attar

Hi JzG, after a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion, I have moved Bachir Attar back into the mainspace. Though the article is largely uncited and the subject has apparently edited it, he is pretty unquestionably notable so I don't see a reason for deletion/userfication. Obviously, if you believe I have missed something and it should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate it at WP:AFD. Thanks. --B (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some people don't care as much as I do about blatant self-promotion on Misplaced Pages - in fact might well be in the minority in opposing it as strongly as I do. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't mistake adherence to the relevant policies with indifference. I moved it back not because I believe it is a well-written article or that self-promotion is ok, but because the individual is unambiguously notable and the article does not qualify under G11. --B (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• And I moved it out because I strongly feel that egregious self-promotion does not belong in mainspace, per WP:NPOV - I think no article is better than a crap article because an independent person may well come along and fill the redlink with something that is not promotional. But I'm not going to pick a fight on this, someone else can take a scythe to the article. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Rather than go another round at ANI about Mk5384, I will just advise you of this edit in the hopes that administrators will at last do something about this guy. I'm sure MK will scream about conspiracies and me stalking him, but enough is enough. After narrowly escaping two serious blocks, MK is back to EXACTLY the same kind of behavior, this time calling another user an a-hole, stirring up edit wars and disputes on other articles, and claiming that nothing is his fault but all the fault of others. Please review as well MK's record and tell me there is something we can do. -OberRanks (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)