Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teflon Peter Christ (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 3 January 2014 (→FAC comment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

If you are here to ask why I deleted an article or to request undeletion, please first read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Notability, and if you still don't understand why the article was deleted leave a message at the end of the page, and I will deal with it when I have a chance. If you email me instead calling me names, making silly accusations, or making misguided legal threats I will very likely ignore you.

Archives

/Archive /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 /Archive11 /Archive12 /Archive13 /Archive14 /Archive15 /Archive16 /Archive 17 /Archive 18 /Archive 19 /Archive 20

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Barber

I would like you to take a second look at this AfD, the thrust of those in support of deletion is that the lack of reliable sources that cover it in any detail means it fails WP:V and WP:GNG, however after four weeks the best those supporting retention can come up with is from the author "Additional sources undoubtedly exist, but are likely to be in local archives, not online" (see WP:MUST) or "historic significance, with potential to grow" which totally ignores the sourcing issues and the other one "it would be a pity to lose the information to history" which is bordering on WP:INTERESTING. LGA _talk 09:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that this was a commonly used advertising symbol can be verified as there are numerous adverts and ephemera in existence with it on, so I disagree that it fails WP:V which is the applicable policy. One of these adverts, for example is on the side of a listed building in Walsall, and the local authority listing would be considered a reliable source. The key thing here though is that there simply was no consensus either way after four weeks of discussion. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that you can say that it passes WP:V it existed that bit was never in doubt, but nothing else is verifiable and none of those in support of retention were able to rebuff the argument of lack of sourcing, the weight of the arguments favours deletion. LGA _talk 09:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Cheers! Unforgettableid (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Envelope-Content Splitting

Regarding the deletion of my article, titled "Envelope-Content Splitting", Korin43 uses inflammatory and potentially libelous language when claiming that "Significant portions of the article are lies". For one thing, the claim that "anyone who intercepts the headers can access the email body" is incorrect: access to message content is controlled via an authentication scheme. Simply knowing the pointers to content is not sufficient to retrieve it. Secondly, by using the plural ("Significant portions"), Korin43 is claiming more inaccuracies than the one inaccurately claimed.

Envelope-Content Splitting is a significant, innovative technology and information about it for the public needs to be available through Misplaced Pages. If there is some content in the article that needs to be changed in order to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines, I would have appreciated being contacted about it first, rather than finding out from our publicist that the article had been secretly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FractalBob (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing secret about the deletion. The article was tagged with an AfD template and the discussion was visible for any editor to see at WP:AfD and lasted for seven days. Ideally the nominator should have informed the article's creator of the deletion nomination, who in this case was User:Robert Uomini, and as you have not contributed to the article as User:FractalBob there was no way anyone could have known that you had an interest in it via that account. The editors who contributed to the deletion discussion were unanimously of the opinion that the article should be deleted, some for reasons other than those put forward by the nominator. To meet Misplaced Pages guidelines (and policy) an article about this topic would need to have content that is verifiable through reliable sources, and it would be necessary to demonstrate that the subject has received sufficient significant independent coverage to be considered 'notable'. The relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Notability and the applicable policy is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The project also requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view, so it would probably be best to wait for someone independent of the subject to write an article about it. I hope that helps. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Kendrick

Hello, Michig. I see you deleted Ryan Kendrick; could you please eMail it to me because he co-shot the Wild Cub video for Thunder Clatter, and I'd like some more information before I decide whether or not to redirect? Thank you.--Launchballer 16:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect the deleted article may have been about (and by) a different Ryan Kendrick. The content was "The most awesomeist dude ever! :-) Source: Himself". --Michig (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A redirect it is. By the way, what is your opinion of Template:Rda? I use it to request deleted content.--Launchballer 17:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. --Michig (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Michig. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Boxing notability discussion

I believe I have a workable proposal for the notability of boxers. Could you please take a look at the Notability discussion. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michig, thanks for your comments. My concern with world-rankings is their transient nature, and the online availability of retrospective world-rankings, e.g. who where the top-ten middleweights in April 1983? Could you let me have the details of the particular boxers you had in mind when you said they "have had fights on prime(ish) time TV on major channels in the UK and have received plenty of coverage", and I can look to see could if my notability guideline proposal could be tweaked? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A few that spring to mind are Chris Eubank, Jr., Hughie Fury, and Kid Galahad, each of whom has had quite a bit of television exposure and print coverage. There's likely to be enough coverage around of these to satisfy WP:GNG and as these are current boxers there's a good chance we'd find it online. I can think of a few others from a few years ago where coverage may be more difficult to find but who are equally worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Even this guy who hasn't really got above area-level title fights is probably notable enough for an article despite its current state (coverage includes - some is local but there's enough overall to support an article, and bear in mind that the articles from the major British boxing magazines, which cover far more than just title contenders, are not found online). I think this illustrates why a guideline that suggests that a boxer who hasn't at least fought for a national title isn't notable is going to be problematic. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of historical rankings I think this just comes down to verifiability. Some we will be able to verify from sources (reports on fights will often mention a ranking), some we won't. Someone somewhere will no doubt maintain historical lists of rankings. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Kid Galahad meets my proposed boxing notability guideline for his WBC International super bantamweight title, my intention was that a WBC International title would be considered higher than a British title. If you could let me have a couple of names of boxers from a few years ago where coverage may be more difficult to find, that'd be great. Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of any off the top of my head, perhaps because a lot of the boxers that I remember went on to fight for titles. Tyson Fury was easily notable enough for an article before he'd fought a decent opponent, and long before he'd fought for a title, same with Frank Bruno. --Michig (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"AfD is cleanup"

Hi. Since I sent The Bluehorses to AfD, a somewhat bizarre choice given it's a band I actively like and praise, it's made me realise that every now and again (probably about 1 in 100) I've sent an article to AfD when I assume it's notable but can't actually prove it, and know that it gets faster and better results than just posting "I can't find any sources - help" on the talk page or another noticeboard, simply because AfD has higher visibility. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/County of London Plan was another example. I think TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) does it from time to time (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Roberts (singer)). I know AfD is not cleanup and you shouldn't really do this, but it seems to occasionally result in a net positive for the encyclopedia. What do you think? Ritchie333 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is for projects to be more effective venues for helping with improving articles. Ideally you would be able to raise this with a WikiProject and get help improving the article. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Brake Lights (mixtape)‎

While you are certainly within your rights to deprod Brake Lights (mixtape)‎, can you improve the article with the "good references" you mention? Without this it is not at all clear how this subject might meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Michig (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Come Now Sleep

I recreated the article per another users request because it is notable with my work.HotHat (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Michig (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Hi Michig! Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 25#Category:James singles. GoingBatty (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Flint (band)

Where is said coverage? I didn't see it anywhere on Google News. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of the Glasgow Herald article is here, NME here, MTV here and there's also this and this from Google News. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Weird, why didn't any of that come up when I searched Google News? Also, you have a far stricter definition of "merge" than I, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As in not meaning the same as 'redirect'? --Michig (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

BeamNG Page Delete

I'd like to you inform you of wrong doing and why you deleted this page its a very good page and some people would like to know about the game theres a website for it you know http://www.beamng.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.90.136.80 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NMECover19790224.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:NMECover19790224.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Egghead06 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Warlocks

Hi Michig, I know that you have more than enough to do, but I'm always impressed by your cleanup skills. An anon IP has just done an extensive update to The Warlocks, full of florid prose. I am sure you will make short work of it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look later today. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get a chance - probably won't have much time before the weekend now. --Michig (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I know how that goes. I wouldn't have pushed it on you if I wasn't hard up for time myself. It's not going anywhere! Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking better? --Michig (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Much, much. much, better. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RA

Hi, I saw that you'd been helping at WikiProject Requested Articles, and I wondered if you had seen the proposal to make the process slicker here. Thanks, Matty.007 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mohanji - Re-creating a page that has been previously deleted

Hi Michig, I'd like to re-create a page that has been deleted, and have been guided to first contact you as the deleting administrator. I was not sure if I should write here or at the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mohanji&action=edit&redlink=1). The page has been deleted for multiple reasons ( A7, G11, G12 ). Now, I'm ready to re-write it backed up with third-party sources, and in a neutral objective way in my own words. Should I go forward, and ask for your guidance please? Let me know. Zlio2004 (talk) 29 October 2013

The main issue here has been that there hasn't been evidence that the subject has been written about in reliable third party sources, which is a problem for both notability and verifiability. If you have sources that would address this then by all means go ahead - I can restore the deleted article to userspace for you if you wish. If you would like me to give an opinion on the sources that you have I would be happy to do so - I wouldn't want you to spend time on this only for your work to end up being deleted. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Michig, that would be wonderful. Where can I share the sources for you to check them out and give an opinion? Could I post them here or else where? Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.86.245 (talk)

Feel free to add links here and I'll let you know what I think. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Michig, will go forward now and share the sources so you can let me know you opinion if I can now back up the article on P.K. Mohan also known as Mohanji. Official website: . General coverage: . The Power of Purity book: . "Kailash with Mohanji" book release media coverage: . Valedictory address by Mohanji at the The Life Positive Expo - 2012 in Mumbai: . Mohanji's Charity organization Ammucare third party sources coverage: . Mohanji as CEO of a Shipping Company coverage: . Mohanji coverage in Serbian magazines: . Please take your time to check the sources and let me know what you think, Michig. Thank you! Zlio2004 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately these seem to be largely the sources that were identified before the article was deleted. While there may be several sources available on the web, several of those would not qualify as reliable sources. The Daily Excelsior and State Times appear to be acceptable sources, but don't contain much coverage of the subject - two similar articles on the publication of a travelogue, and one about the Uttarakhand tragedy. You would really need to find more reliable independent sources that cover the subject in more detail. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Michig. It's true that some of the sources are before the article was deleted but they are still valid third party sources. Also the new sources are regarding this person's charity activity and book release - is this not enough to post a wiki article on this person? There are a lot less sources for persons like this one but still they have a place on wiki. What's the catch? Let me know. Thanks Zlio2004 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not that they were from before the article deleted but that they were evaluated at the time that the article was deleted and deemed insufficent to establish notability. lifepositive.com is not a reliable independent source, a link to an amazon page doesn't help. Is Mooji notable enough for an article? I don't know. BBC is a good source and that article goes into some depth about him. The fact that we have that article which is perhaps under-sourced doesn't justify other articles being created. If you could find reliable independent sources that discuss Mohanji in some depth, that would be the best course. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I see, thank you for clarifying, Michig. So, both these sources are notable and describe Mohanji in-depth and in many details, but in Serbian language. They must be reliable since they are an online website of a popular spiritual magazine "Sensa" in the territory of ex Yugoslavia. You could use an online translator to read the articles on Mohanji. Second, why is lifepositive.com not a reliable source, it's a well known spiritual magazine in India. Third, how come a book release covered by 4 different third-party sources is not reliable? Fourth, Mohanji and his charity organization took a great part in helping the victims of the Uttarakhand catastrophic floods from July 2013. This was covered in several third party sources as well, is this not reliable? Let me know what you think? Thank you. Zlio2004 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Those two sources don't look to come from a reliable source, and the articles don't appear to be objective. --Michig (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Michig, I'm sure you're an expert at Misplaced Pages but you're not giving me sufficient explanation so that I know what kind of sources to look for this article. Why these sources "look" like not coming form reliable sources, and articles are not objective. All of the sources come from not affiliated third party websites. Please explain in more detail. Zlio2004 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Notability. Subjects will be expected to either meet the criteria in one of the subject-specific guidelines or to meet the WP:GNG. The GNG requires significant independent coverage in reliable sources. I doubt that many of the sources that you have identified would be considered reliable but you could always raise them at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a decision from the community on whether they are considered reliable. I think you would be wasting your time with novasvest.com which states "If you practice some of the methods for the development of consciousness, body and spirit, we offer you the option of opening personal pages on the site NovaSvest to your customers faster and easier to find." --Michig (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Michig that's been helpful. I'll raise them at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a decision from the community. If the community finds them unreliable, I'll have to collect more reliable sources. Zlio2004 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter

Danielle Major talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Michig: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 07:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.