Fooey-fooey-flop-chops

This is the talk page for Fooey-fooey-flop-chops.

Feel free to put me in my place.

Speedy deletion of Gavin Drake

A tag has been placed on Gavin Drake, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Drake

You have nominated my first article, Gavin Drake for speedy deletion. Can you tell me why this meets the criteria for speedy deletion? I have quoted multiple verifiable sources, including BBC News. I had intended to do a rewrite of the Walsall F. C. article and thought I'd try a couple of my own before I attempt to edit others. This one was easy to research because there's quite a bit about him in the press around here. Fooey-fooey-flop-chops 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put because it didn't assert his notability (i.e. explain why he was sufficiently notable to warrant his own article) and the references seemed to be generic rather than providing biographical material on him. In other words, you need to find biographies of him from good sources that you can base your article on. Wikipedia has specific requirements about verification and attribution and it's important to meet these from the start. I've removed the tags. If you'd like some help, just shout! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the article a quick copy edit and re-written the intro slightly to emphasise his claims to notability. I've also taken the liberty of removing most of the section heads: the white space they were creating tended to make the article look insubstantial. The main problem here is establishing why he is notable. While he's clearly effective, this is not necessarily a claim to encyclopedic fame. You need better sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gavin Drake

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gavin Drake, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I have no idea why Wikipedia would want to have an article about me and this looks to be sourced, in part, from a biography on my website and in part from other sources. What on earth has my primary schools got to do with anybody?

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Your article was proposed for deletion by the subject a couple days ago. Felisse (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

Here's the source for al-Megrahi's death. I await your apology. Vandagard (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No apology is due, as I explain on your talk page. You removed a validly sourced piece of text and replaced it with an unsourced speculation (the source you now claim, which was not included within your edit, pre-dates the latter sourced retraction of that source which you deleted. Fooey-fooey-flop-chops (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"the source you now claim, which was not included within your edit, pre-dates the latter sourced retraction of that source which you deleted." Yes, I did include this link in my edit (as reference number 3). So I did not remove valid factual sourced information and replace it with an unsourced assertion. Here is the evidence. The apology is definitely due. Vandagard (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)