Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shaddim (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 14 June 2016 (Undid revision 725254393 by Sarahj2107 (talk) please, act professional according on your responsiblity as admin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:NoBracketBot

Archives

Archive 1: 21 April 2012 - 11 July 2012 Archive 2: 16 July 2012 - 30 November 2012 Archive 3: 1 December 2012 - 10 June 2013 Archive 4: 10 June 2013 - 05 August 2013 Archive 5: 05 August 2013 - 20 Feb 2014 Archive 6: 27 Feb 2014 - 30 Sep 2014 Archive 7: 26 Oct 2014 - 28 Apr 2015 Archive 8: 27 May 2015 - 30 November 2015 Archive 9: 2 December 2015 - 14 March 2016 Archive 10: 17 March 2016 - 9 May 2016

How to demonstrate notability

Sarah Jane, Good evening. Can you help me with the concept of notability as it pertains to the recently deleted page, Preemptive Solutions? I saw a notice of potential deletion of the page because of concerns about notability and found that Misplaced Pages says: Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages guidelines (not policy). Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals I added several secondary sources and the page was deleted. I can’t find any indication as to whether the sources I added were appropriate/ inappropriate, or sufficient/insufficient in number or scope; there were no comments added after the resources were added. If you can give me pointers about their notability that would be appreciated. By the way, congratulations on the layout of your page—the formatting drives comprehension. MaxwellSO (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@MaxwellSO: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I can't verify the Pro J2ME source you added but the other one isn't really enough to prove notablily. It only makes a passing mention to PreEmptive Solutions and doesn't go into detail about the company itself, which is what is needed. I would also question whether it is independent given the company's connection to Microsoft. Overall the sources in the final version of the article were not enough to prove notability and the people in the discussion felt that it was written in an overly promotional way. WP:42 is a good guide to notability, although it's not official. You will need to find multiple sources (probably at least 3 but the more the better) that are completely independant of the company and are considered reliable. These would be newspapers, news sites, books, or academic journals. To be reliable a source needs some sort of editorial oversight (eg. independent blogs are generally not considered reliable). Published press releases or anything written by a company they are connected with (ie. Microsoft) would not be considered independent. The Pro J2ME source would meet the criteria for reliable and independent but it would need to go into detail about the company, which I can't verify.

Deletion of Rebecca Wilson Edit

Please explain to me what article Rebecca Wilson has written that has an actual fact!! Its all made up and as far as being constructive...whats constructive about what she writes!! She can write what ever she likes and splash it on the front page of the paper but I cant change what she's actually known for.....bullshit articles!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.192.68 (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Userfy Digipas Usa

Can I get you to userfy Digipas Usa to the draft area, so everybody can view the article's edit history?

I am a declared paid editor, but the article is not mine, I was the only keep vote. Here is my perspective on what the article could (pretty close to original) look like (User:009o9/Digi-Pas), so a copy paste of the final pruned version is of no use. I'm in discussions concerning what it is going to take to change NCORP to reflect the local consensus, I think the article is a pretty good test case. The NCORP discussion is probably going to get me dragged to a dramaboard, a POV editor thinks that COI editors should have no voice in policy and WP:WPEDIT does not apply to his edits.

The guidance needs to be updated so that people are not encouraged to write the articles in the first place -- they appear to be unwanted as both product and corp articles. The edit history is kind of remarkable in the aspect as to how low some noble editors feel they have to stoop to get an article deleted. Thanks 009o9(Talk) 08:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@009o9: So you would like to view the deleted history to get evidence to use in a discussion you think is going to get you dragged to a dramaboard? Is that the only reason, or did I read what you wrote wrong? Because if it is then I don't feel comfortable doing that.

Your draft contains more information than the final version of the deleted article and anything from previous versions was removed for valid reasons so I don't think you should use it. I don't see the need for two drafts of the same topic. If you have copied information from the deleted article that needs to be attributed then it could be restored to perform a history merge but you will have to ask someone else to do that as I'm not sure I can do it without making a mess. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes Sarah, your reading in your first para is correct. Thanks, I understand your discomfort, my understanding is that administrators can view the history, I would just like to be prepared with diffs. The same involved editor who selectively hatted conversations in the AfD, finished destroying the online version, I had to grab a copy and rebuild in my user space to keep him from destroying it too (I thought I was going to have to get the userspace version protected). BTW: my version was available at the AfD close, not sure if any voters read it. Thanks for your consideration, I have a pretty good file going already without it. 009o9(Talk) 09:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at what was removed and the explanations in the edit summaries, it seems that a lot of sources were removed because they weren't reliable, didn't verify what they were supposed to, or only had trivial passing mentions that didn't support notability. The content those sources were supporting was then removed as well. You could argue that the content should be tagged at citation needed instead of being removed but I would be careful about making accusations of the article being destroyed. It comes across as a possible personal attack and failing to assume good faith, and it could backfire on you if you make the same claims somewhere like ANI. If you want to make a case that the removal of content from the article was inappropriate then any uninvolved admin commenting on it can view the history and make their own judgment without the need for diffs. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 31 May 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) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Red Eclipse

Infact, I disagree with the deletion of Red Eclipse, there was not consens reached. Vice versa, I showed that infact that the article fits (just) the requirements despite the OP claim. My argumentations and brought sources were not succesful challenged (beside straw man attacks on me or unfounded claims). At least, the article should be moved in the user space of Angeles (or me)... cheers Shaddim (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: I determined consensus to be delete. If you disagree and think I closed wrong please take it to WP:Deletion review. If they endorse my closure or you decide not to take it there then it can be moved to your user space. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks will do that. Shaddim (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Red Eclipse==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Red Eclipse. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaddim (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

While I'm disappointed with the deletion review (as the non-existing consensus was not discused but again a unfounded majority vote was enforced (despite User:Hobit counter position)), I'm requesting now at least the movement of Red Eclipse in the namespace of User:Angeles Shaddim (talk)

@Shaddim: You will have to ask someone else. I am done with this article and your continued bad faith accusations that I don't know how to judge consensus. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is. Could you please move the article now? Thanks. Shaddim (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) (About consensus: consensus is not reached when a majority votes for something. In this case there was a faction unhappy with the current state of discussion or the missing of discussion -> very clearly not a consensus. At least some more time could have been given, or I could have been asked what should and could be done to achieve a consensus. Instead, the aricle's community was bashed, sources were not properly reviewed and misrepresented. Well, whatever, time to move forward. )

@Shaddim: This has already be explained to you ad nauseum by multiple editors. There was consensus to delete. I did not count votes. You are really stating to piss me off now. Like I said above, I'm done will this, don't post on my talk page again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Calm yourself, I didn't cursed you or someone else. You started this, finalize it now. Do what you agreed on before, to move the page after the formal review process ended. Shaddim (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) (and about consensus: no, indeed, it seems some have to read this, as it was not strived for maximum agreement of all participants. Also, to continue to a decision when still serious doubt exist by a faction is not compatible with a consensus decision process, but is the majority vote process) PS: you behaviour now starts to gets childish, seriously, reverts ? Please, act professional and finalize what you started and proposed. And, you should be able to handle some critical side notes on your work. PPS: you have a function here and you agreed on a process, to move the article after the review. I didn't vandalized your page or cursed you. Do what was agreed on or offer an alternative procedure. "go away" is not professional and suitable your responsibility as admin.

why my article seetha i. wickremasinghe was deleted.

ChanakaW (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC) please tell me why my article about Dr.seetha i. wickremasinghe was deleted.

@ChanakaW: Your article was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seetha I. Wickremasinghe. The concerns raised were that it did not meet the notability guidlines and it was promotional in nature. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

ChanakaW (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Please help me to Recreate this Article.Because She is the most valuable Sri Lankan academic and She did lot to the country,the field of Science & Technology (More than 30years) as well as the globe.And this is not self promotional Article.Please be kind enough to make an arrangement to recreate this valuable article.

@ChanakaW: I can't recreate the article no matter how valuable you think it might be, as that would go against consensus at the deletion discussion. I think the deleted version is quite promotional in tone so I don't think it should be userfyed. The best thing to do is to create a draft, try to find multiple independent, reliable sources which cover her in depth and write it in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. It can then be submitted to AfC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

David Aronberg, Esq. deletion

Thank you for reviewing David Aronberg, Esq. page. I would like to discuss its deletion. There have been newspaper articles about David Aronberg and it is just as important to distinguish 2 noteworthy attorneys named David Aronberg and Dave Aronberg who practice law in Palm Beach County, Florida. Many people search for David Aronberg attorney and get Dave Aronberg and vice versa. Please reconsider your deletion. Thank you Trialattorney (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The article made no claim of significance and was overly promotional in tone. You need to provide multiple, reliable source which cover the subject in depth to prove notability. The other article states that Dave Aronberg is a State Attorney and was elected to the senate which are claims of significance. It is not Misplaced Pages's responsibility to distinguish two similarly named people for people performing a search on an external website. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

New sources supporting Neon Blue claims

Hi. Just fyi. I have found a couple of sources supporting claims in the Neon Blue article citing touring & charting. I did find a page on the Australian Broadcasting Media website on Google.ca, listing Neon Blue as having the #1 Christian music single as of September 23, 2013 (see link below).

http://www.australianbroadcastingmedia.com.au/publishing/?p=175

Also off of Google.ca, a ticket sales site listing tickets available for a festival featuring Georgette Jones (daughter of George Jones & Tammy Wynette) that the band was also playing at.

http://www.ticketweb.ca/t3/sale/SaleEventDetail?dispatch=loadSelectionData&eventId=4293805 Thanks. CaptainCanuck101 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@CaptainCanuck101: Thanks for finding some sources. I'm not sure they will be enough to save the article from deletion though. If you find anymore then please add them to the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Arvind Iyer

Would you be willing to have a second look at the history of Arvind Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in the context of the behavior of User:Intelbot22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? This article was the target of several bad CSD nominations just before the AfD nomination, which I did not see before its closure. I strongly suspect that the original email that triggered the 2nd deletion discussion was both 1. not from the subject of the article and 2. from the same blocked user that had been disrupting the article.

Given the unanimous !votes at the 2nd AfD I understand if you want this to go to DRV rather than just restoring the article directly; if that is the case would you please be willing temporarily copy the article into my user space so I can directly link diffs in the DRV? Thanks, and kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I have seen the discussion about this on Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion review. I'm not seeing any CSD nominations in the recent history; there was one malformed prod. There are similarities in the edit summaries of a number of accounts in the article history but none of the edits are particularly problematic and only one or two were reverted. Itelbot22 is the only one currently blocked, and even that is only a soft username block. I'm inclined to assume good faith and believe that Iyer did contact CorporateM and ask for the page to be deleted. As this is BLP issue I would prefer to err of the side of caution and leave it deleted so you're going to have to take this to deletion review. I will temporarily move the article to your userspace but I don't think there is any evidence there to prove your theory. Given the nature of the deletion, I will be deleting it again if DRV determines that the closure was correct. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily restored and moved to User:VQuakr/Arvind Iyer. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to U1 the local copy once this is resolved. I'll have a look at the details as I easily could have been remembering wrong; it has been a couple of months. I'll follow up with you pretty soon either with the DRV notification or a heads up that I do not plan to contest your AfD closure. Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, yes I must have had my wires crossed on the CSD nominations. I agree with your closure and statement above regarding AGF; thanks for letting me check personally. VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Taylor Lianne Chandler

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Taylor Lianne Chandler. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Godsy_CONT) 04:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Frequency (Record Producer)

I don't understand why this page was deleted. Frequency is a Grammy Award winning multi-platinum music producer and songwriter. He is most notable for producing and co-writing "The Monster" for Eminem and Rihanna, which spent several weeks at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100, as well as several other US and international charts. He has also produced and co-wrote songs for dozens of notable artists on major label releases, including Snoop Dogg, B.o.B., MGK, Slaughterhouse, Ja Rule, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Melanie Martinez, Bebe Rexha, The Game, Lil' Kim, Jadakiss and the entire debut album for Misterwives, which was released last year on Republic Records. He has been the subject of articles written in major music print publications -- XXL Magazine, Music Connection and Scratch Magazine, for example -- and has been the subject of several online interviews and articles, including the highly respected webseries Pensado's Place. All of this was cited in the article that was deleted.

Frequency meets several categories on WP: Notability (music). The user that flagged this page for deletion called Frequency's career "shrouded in mediocrity." That sounds like a personal attack that is not based in fact. I'm not sure if a page can be reinstated, but I would like to recreate the page. I can shorten the discography and make it less biographical, which is what should have been done in the first place. Not deletion.Diplojosh (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frequency (record producer). The editors there felt that there was no in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources and he therefore didn't meet general notability guidlines or notability guidlines for musicians. I don't think the statement "shrouded in mediocrity" is a personal attack, just a comment towards the article subjects lack of notability. If the page is to be recreated you would need to provide, multiple reliable sources that are both completely independant of the subject and have significant, in-depth content about him. The article as it was before deletion did not have these. Please be aware that interviews are not independent and passing mentions in articles about another person are not enough to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)