User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive 5

Yusuf Jameel

Hi there, I've declined this speedy: a quick Google search shoes he seems to be notable [1] and I'm sure sources can be found. I've put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article, if it doesn't improve you can always take it to AfD. Or better - add the references yourself! I've done this quite a few times with articles with Asian subjects, it strikes a blow against systematic bias. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hello again Kim, and thanks for the heads up on this one. I have to admit this was one of those "Leave or Level" articles. The decision to CSD was more based upon the idea that it was better to have an experienced CSD admin look at it (As opposed to letting it slip) then the idea that the article was really that bad. Im still trying to get a feeling for working with CSD, which means that i might be overzealous on the reports every now and then. However, that should be over pretty soon, so my apologies in advance for the extra work this might cause :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• No probs - I must admit that when I'm making decisions as an admin to delete/not delete, I take more time and trouble than when I'm tagging for WP:CSD. In this case I do think there were assertions of notability in the article, they just weren't backed up with references: in a case like this it might be better to do a quick Google search to see what comes up. I use Firefox and a quick highlight and right click does it in a second! You might see I've added one reference I found already, backs up the article completely (and better written - shame I can't copy and paste!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

In your last entry on the "Articles for deletion" page concerning the article about G. Edward Griffin, you claimed that no reliable source to establish notability has been provided by the "keep" voters. However, you did not address my "keep" entry (the last entry in the list), which proofs notability by refering to Griffin's appearance in "Who's Who in America". I even provided (and still do so) the original text from "Who's Who in America 1994" on my talk page to support this claim. It verifies a lot of the information given in the original wikipedia article about Griffin. According to the wikipedia article on "Who's Who", this famous collection of biographies "endeavores to profile the leaders of American society; those men and women who are influencing their nation's development". This IS evidence of notability, if you like it or not.

Please note that any kind of "revenge" argument (i.e. "nobody has provided reliable sources for a long time, so the article has to be deleted, no matter what evidence is provided during the discussion") is a poor excuse for deleting an article (I do not claim that you made such an argument yourself).

Another poor excuse is your inability to come up with independent information by a simple google search. Please go to the library and check out "Who's Who in America"!

If the article about Griffin is not to be restored, it should be checked, whether the wikipedia article about "wikipedia" itself should be deleted. I doubt that it relies on any independent source or possesses any kind of "real-world" notability. It is a self-published article which is biassed by nature. I admit that I have not even read the article entirely, my statements about the "wikipedia" article are meant to be thought-provoking. However, I noticed that even the "wikipedia" article contains a section about criticism. It has been suggested to establish such a section in the article about Griffin, and I don't understand why the mere fact that nobody has done it so far should justify the deletion of the article.

Since you pointed out, that you think it's a shame that the article "has to be deleted", I hope that you just overlooked my contribution on the "Articles for deletion" discussion page. Please post a reply to this on my talk page. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think the argument that "nobody has provided reliable sources for a long time, so the article has to be deleted, no matter what evidence is provided during the discussion" can be described as a revenge argument. The only evidence that was provided during the discussion (along with lots of people saying 'of course he is notable') was the Who's Who entry. The existence of this entry was referred to, but no use of it was made in the article: at the end of the day articles stand or fall on the references in them: no reliable sources, no notability. The article had been crying out for references for months: if all those desperate to keep it could not find and insert one reference in the final week of the AfD discussion (despite their assertions that such references existed a-plenty) then in the final analysis it deserves its fate. Why didn't you insert the citation into the article? I said it was a shame because he sounds like a real American eccentric: I'm always delighted to read articles about his ilk, and I'm surprised that no reliable magazine or newspaper hasn't run a feature on him, even a debunking one. But perhaps this is telling with regard to his notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right that "revenge argument" is not the appropriate term. But I noticed that some of the "deleters" were biassed by some frustration over the lack of improvement of the article. I am new to wikipedia and I didn't change the article right away because I wanted others to have a chance to discuss it first and I was not aware that the inclusion in the article was crucial at this point. I thought that everybody's goal was to improve wikipedia so I didn't care whether the evidence popped up on the article page or the discussion page, where it would be seen by the authors, editors, and judges. I expressed my comprehensive opinion on the whole matter on Nihonjoe's talk page if you are interested. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The poor quality of the article cannot be a cause of "bias". Rather, the poor quality of the article and its lack of references is the central reason for deletion! But I assume you know this, because your ability with the Wikipedia editing process and technicalities suggests that you are not, in fact, a new user. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I know this. I did not say that bias was the reason for the poor quality (although this is also true, but rather bias by the keepers who thought their weak arguments would rescue the article), but that bias played a role in the deletion of the article (in addition to the poor quality). If your goal was to delete the article, you got what you desired. If your goal was to improve wikipedia, you would not have denied the progress made during the discussion. All editors and all sources have biases, if you believe it or not. The key to be honest to others is to be honest to oneself. The key to contribute in a constructive way is to prevent biased views from diffusing into arguments made. This may be difficult in a conversation, but in written form it is always possible. As Benjamin Franklin said: Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. But I assume you know this, since your experience with WP seems to be by far greater than mine. Sorry that this sounds arrogant, but I can't help it. Don't take it personally. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've been mopped...

...you should probably consider updating the "This user is not an administrator" user box. Just a thought ;) Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, I'd forgotten about that one! It's cleaned up now. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hangon tag

Whoops -- I was looking right at the (hangon) tag in User:Family Guy Guy's sandbox page and forgot to mention it. My apologies for your extra trouble and thanks for removing it. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - there seems to be a rash of these tonight, that's the third on the trot I've removed! I think the instruction left by the template is confusing to newcomers... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edmond La Beaume Cherbonnier

Speedy declined - needs a lot of tidying up, but some assertions of notability there. This really isn't a candidate for speedy - needs to go to AfD if you don't think it makes the grade. You might like to try using WP:PROD and WP:AFD a bit more: I think you're tagging a lot of false positives with WP:CSD judging by this talk page! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tssk, Never judge unless all factors have been considered. :). I assume that there are about 10 articles on my talk page that really refer to a case where a speedy was not warranted, the rest is just asking for an explanation. Your also forgetting a different variable: The amount of pages tagged within a certain time unit. Since the 23th till now (Well, 21th if you count the 50 or so articles that day) i tagged 1975 pages for a speedy deletion. In short, i'm tagging 600 ish articles a day. Simply based upon numbers my error count is higher then the average patrol, but based upon percentages, im not doing half as bad i think. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A fair point - but I still disagree with your fundamental philosophy (expounded elsewhere on you talk page) of tagging liberally on the basis that (a) it's best to be on the safe side and have one or two good articles deleted than let one or two bad ones survive and (b) the admins will check anyway so I don't need to be too careful.

I will admit that (b) hopefully does apply: now I'm an admin I certainly do check if I'm in any doubt at all about deletion. Although turning down a speedy means a lot more work for me than accepting one: if I accept, it's two clicks and the article's gone. If I deny, I have to edit the article to remove the CSD tag, then notify the tagging editor with a message on their talk page. (I could miss this out, but prefer to say why I've declined). So in the time it takes me to decline one speedy, I could have deleted 5 or 10.

That's a practical objection: my difference on (a) is more philosophical, in that I believe it's better to let a few weak articles survive untagged than to catch good articles in a tagging frenzy. Time was when I'd tag on sight, but now I pride myself on tagging more slowly, and sometimes stopping tagging altogether to rescue an article from deletion that seems potentially interesting. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that you noted some very valid points in here. You are indeed right that my main methodology is to tag when in doubt (And that doubt is on the side of delete). Why? Two reasons. The first one is that there is always a safety net available, in the form of an admin that will check (Indeed, if he/she does his job correctly) if the article meets the guidelines which i tagged them for. And second, because i am still not used to have things presented to me that are in a shady area when man looks at the rules. I used to look at partial diffs which either contained vandalism; Or contained no vandalism. There was no such thing as something being semi-vandalism, so my tagging became a bit of the same style: Good or bad, with some space in between.

In my humble opinion, i think that i don't hit a lot of articles that would classify as good. I am often tagging questionable articles with the standard maintenance tags instead of CSD tags. Of course, at the time of writing, my talk page shows exactly the opposite, which is also true at times. The article under this section was a wrong tag (But that was more because i didn't know part of the ruling), and the article you tagged came in with yourself is just, well, lets simply call it one of my worst tags of that day. I tag articles like this one once or twice a day for deletion, because they are in such a bad shape that simply re-writing them would be easier then repairing it. Generally this happens when i have to apply a mass of maintenance tags, and also question that it meets CSD guidelines (On this one that were G7 and G12). Is it a good idea to tag it for CSD then? No. But at times, it kind of just happens.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by again. As always, i appreciate feedback on my editing, simply because there is no better way to improve it :). And of course, i will adapt my editing because of this feedback. I think that i will step of adding CSD tags when in doubt, and simply add the standard maintenance tags instead of it. After all, your feedback somehow reminded me of the Inspector Essay, and i found that at times, it IS surprisingly equivalent to me. Kind regards as always, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lumbridge

As you can see from my userpage I have already contributed significantly to one GA. Thanks for the tip, though! Littleteddy (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I did see the GA (nice work!) I've had a look at Lumbridge too and I see there is one reference, so at least you have something to fall back on there. Sorry for the deletion of the list of skills in RuneScape, the fact that the article had previously been thoroughly discussed at AfD made a speedy inevitable, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fcaysen

Hi Kim i would more than appreciate your help in editing this page down. I dont know what im doing on Wiki and would like to post an article on the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance. It is a non profit group and so I in no way want to promote or advertise anything. I just need a simplistic definition of the group, how we function, why we function, what our function is! can you please help me b/c you are an expert in this realm. is it possible to add a webpage link? www.jhalliance.com. I want the general public to have the ability to know who we are simply w/o going against any Wiki rules. Please help. Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcaysen (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcaysen (talk • contribs)

OK Frank, will be glad to help. I'll reply on your talk page, in order to keep the conversation together. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: AN/I and RFR

heya, be great if you could explain what I am doing wrong still? give me some diffs that say that I haven't changed into a good wholesome editor? Yeah I know two months is short but thats no reason to say that I have been incivil recently please tell me where I went wrong, you too can't just say "computer says no" Surely not? -- BpEps - t@lk 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there: it's not what you're doing wrong still - rather that there has been too little time elapse to be certain that the improvement is permanent. If you had started from scratch with a good attitude, 2 months positive editing would be sufficient. I'd suggest starting the clock again now, and consider applying for rollback in late April. I'm sorry if the "computer says no" comment seemed rude: as you're a UK editor I knew you'd get the reference, but on reflection it wasn't very polite of me!

Keep your head down, interact positively with other editors for a couple more months, use the existing buttons to revert vandalism when you see it and I'm sure you'll get a different response. Applying yet again for rollback any time soon is more likely to have people see you as impatient and impulsive: not qualities we want in a rollbacker. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

lol cool - you didn't actually say "computer says no" - so no fault, just me reading between the lines. Thanks for the advice. Thanks for replying. BpEps - t@lk 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

I've declined the speedy request. There's enough claims of notability in there to need an AfD for deletion. Thanks for tagging. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, will look again and probably AfD it. Have left some advice on the originating editor's talk page - he is a little overenthusiastic at the moment. And thanks for contributing to my RfA! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I looked through your contrib history. I have no concerns about you as an admin. Your antennae will soon sharpen up as you run the rule over CAT:CSD. And we all mistakes. AfD looks sensible. It'll need some expert opinion, I think. You might consider dropping a note at a relevant WikiProject or two. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One more suggestion before I leave you alone (!) How bout adding the other articles about his works into this AfD and remove the speedy tags? --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Will look through contribs and do so - as well as seeing if there's a WikiProject who could advise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions --202.164.134.254 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Hello, I really try to understand the ideas of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath - he takes spiritual and administrative care for many terminaly ill patients, as it is said in his user page. That's why I respect his work, eventhough it lacks much. We have te be more patient about him, I think. Maybe he'll need time to "wikify" his style. The Syro-Malankaran Catholic Church really has been eleveted to Major Archbishopric and the late Major Archbishop Mar Cyril Baselios Malancharuvil was the first Syro-Malankaran Major Archbishop since February 10, 2005.Drjmarkov (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very vluable suggestions. They really enriched me in wikifying the articles created by me. --202.164.134.254 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He is improving his work and he wrote me he would correct all his articles.Now he told he was collecting more information, so obviously we'll have to wait a little.Please delete Syro Malankara Catholic- he has already blanked it. Drjmarkov (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions. I am the subject of the article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath. You told me that it is better to create other articles only after resoving the editing of the existing ones. Now I feel the necessity of a page for the world famous Jesuit Canonist Prof. Ivan Zuzek. I have already made the wiki search for it. But I could not find it. I have the materials with me. www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/ ivan zuzek. I have other materials also about Ivan Zuzek (1924-2004). I do value your valuable opinion. 202.164.132.105 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you . I will do as u suggest. I never intend a self advertisement. But i think it is not crime to share the good thoughts. omalloor 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs)

Hi Brown! The article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath already passed 5 days in AfD stage. Now can we delete AfD tag. omalloor 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I and Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath both were using the id kuzhinapurath. It was when you suggested about the problem of confusion I created another seperate id for myself. Infact, When I have asked Fr. Thomas about writing an artile about his service. And I created the id kuzhinapurath and gave the password to him. And I am the one who is responsible for this confusion. Now I created my own id. I was doing all technical and linguistic assistance to this page. Fr. Thomas is responsible for the basic matter only. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do expect your valuable comments on the recent developments on AfD of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath. It is Your sugestions made me doing something in editing. So please do comment. 202.164.134.203 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to login. sorry. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your valuable contributions and suggesstions which made the article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath pass through AfD. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NYRB

You're the first of my friends to read that far down, it seems. DGG (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FASHION AFD

You were involved in an AFD for Scene (Fashion Trends) and seem familiar with both it and a related AFD. I'm currently commenting on an AFD here [2] and think it might be related to those previous articles. Since I have never seen either of the previous articles can you shed some light on if this is part of some kind of article recreation?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Liam Higgins

Hi. From my understanding of criteria for A7, this would include an article about a real person, organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. There is a distinction here that notability is separate from this, and that lack of notability itself is not a sufficient reason for a speedy deletion. My assertion was that the article did not indicate why the subject is important or significant. In my interpretation, simply being "something" (a member of a group or a team, for example) doesn't assert importance. If I am in error, please direct me to the specific Wikipedia policy statement, and I will incorporate that into my future actions. Thanks. -- Taroaldo (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO Liam Higgins meets this criterion by being a fully professional sportsman. I'll accept that the article was not very full or brilliantly written, but it did make this minimal claim to notability and the Super League (Europe) is very definitely a professional league as required by the criterion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please create an article on Sonnet Mondal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnetkajal (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I need help!

Please,I have problems with an experienced editor: User:Attilios, who has special attitude, when editing my work.
Firstly some months ago he deleted all the biographical info-boxes about Roman Catholic Cardinals from the articles, that I have created or edited, with the conclusion, that they were not saying anything new. I think every info-box in general is not to say anything new, but to show the most important information from the article and to help the reader to find facts and links without reading the whole article. I have to admit that I had made some typos (now I have a special program, that finds them), but it can't be a reason to delete big parts from the article.
Yesterday he edited that article: Giuseppe Firrao jr. I would like you to read the old and the new version and to say your opinion, please. Is there a reason to cut some facts from a person's biography, while leaving the others, how exactly someone can know what will any reader want to read about a person. I admit that everything can always be made better, but I don't agree about the deleted text. I will wait for your answer.Drjmarkov (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Board of Oblivion BBS and David D Stanton

The removal of this page I find to be a situation where wiki policy seems to be elitist and leads to censorship of just the kind of information which wiki was made for. The little person's history, the things of interest which big media does not pick up. I find this removal very disappointing and disheartening for a person who had hopes of wiki being a site for an archive of data filtered for abuse yes but not censored do to some stringent policy which leaves out the little people. Thank you. Armisis (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that I've had to delete two honestly-written articles, but Wikipedia is, in fact, an encyclopaedia of notable people, places and events. That does mean that people and websites who have not gained mention by some sort of quotable source do not rate a separate article. I don't think this counts as censorship but I do recognise that it's disappointing for you. There may be other wikis that would be more suitable for articles of this type: I'm not certain of this, but the wiki software is used in many places other than Wikipedia. Please don't be disheartened: why not add some sourced material to an article that already exists, or try and write a new article on a subject that you have some good sources for? Get back to me if you need help, I'll be glad to do so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see if I can find a good home for this data, I just wish that the idea of notable wasn't as strict, it feels elitist. Thanks 90.212.254.200 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal Langausge (disambiguity)

Thanks for your message. IMHO the suggestion that the term Formal Language has different meanings in the fields of logic, mathematical logic, mathematics, computer science, linguistics and philosophy is not proven (although this does not entail that it is not true, of course). It therefore seem unlikey that seperate articles will be forthcoming and therfore there is no need for the diambiguity page I created in anticipation. I have therefore deleted it.--Philogo 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) PS I blanked the page: not sure how to delete. Feel free if you know how.--Philogo 00:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: I'm at work now so can't log in and edit as an admin, but will do so tonight and delete the page if it hasn't been attended to by another admin before then. best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown. 143.167.137.186 (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilton San Diego Gaslamp Quarter

You have no right to just remove an article without proper due process, regardless of the fact you are an admin. You are morally obligated to reinstate the article and allow due process and voice of contributers to take its path. You have shown an act of power hunger. And if you delete this article, you might as well delete every other article about a specific Hilton hotel, because there is quite a few.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, sorry for the delay in replying but I've been at work and only edit from home as a rule. I'm also sorry that you are obviously upset about the deletion of the article you drafted, but I can assure you that due process was followed. The due process for a speedy deletion is...well... speedy! So I appreciate that you may not have felt you had enough time to intervene. Your article was about a branch of the Hilton hotel chain which did not assert the notability of that branch. That is to say, the article did not have anything to say about why this particular hotel was special, remarkable or unusual. I'm afraid I don't feel morally obligated to reinstate the article, though if you feel there is more to be said about this hotel (and have the sources to verify this) I'd be happy to restore the text to your user space where you can work on it. Would you like me to do this?

On the other hand if you feel that instant re-instatement is in order, then you could ask for a deletion review. As to articles on other Hilton hotels, if these exist then they do not constitute a case for keeping this article - see the essay called Other Stuff Exists. I haven't deleted these since they haven't been tagged for speedy deletion. I don't go hunting pages to delete, I just scan the list of tagged pages: if anyone tags other individual Hilton hotels, and their articles don't assert notability, I'd delete them as well. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion

Hello, thanks for the reply...I have worked on it pretty much over the last months offline and was just trying it again. However, I don't know how to put refrences in, so I just put a sources area in the sandbox...that's probably why it isn't 'wikipedable'. Anywaym Thanks. METALFREAK04 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

David and Sam PR

Good day,

I would definitely enjoy some help with rewriting the David and Sam PR article. I was trying to model it after the Off Madison Ave article and thought it was pretty similar. I'm a little confused on how it did not meet the criteria because I know it was marked for deletion before in the past, but when I contested it they had removed the speedy deletion marker because they found it followed the guidelines. I'm not sure that anything had been changed on it other than a few brief updates.

Thanks. ReggieGorilla (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Reggie, I can see how you used the other article as a model and the difference between them is small. Frankly I'd say the Off Madison Ave fails to assert notability as well, but I tend to be an exclusionist where articles on commercial firms are concerned. However I don't go round seeking out articles for deletion, so I'm not going to tag it!

I think your original article had fewer references and those that were there did not all seem to me to be substantial references in high quality sources. This is a judgement call (see WP:ORG for the notability criteria) but it did not seem that this company had done anything that a thousand others had not, and was not worthy of any especial attention. Indeed, PR companies by their very nature will tend to generate their own press coverage, so it would be an exceptional company who did NOT have a portfolio of clippings!

As you can see, I'm a bit sniffy about this kind of article: but I can say I did have to think quite hard before deleting yours. One more substantial reference from an authoritative source (eg a feature article from an independent newspaper - not a paid for feature or a mention in passing) and I think the original article would have been a keeper. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: PNGlish

Thanks for letting me know. After I tagged it, I thought that this may happen, but I didn't know which one to use. I mean, db-WIKIPEDIA_IS_NOT_A_CRYSTAL_BALL is a redlink. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given my Delete opinion at the AfD. A shame that it fell out of criteria for CSD: it's an obvious delete, IMHO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cam Nacson

Hi Mate, I do understand the guidelines in which Wikipedia run but I do believe Cam Nacson and the Third Wheel are worthy of recognition by Wikipedia. You will find Cam Nacson is one of the most talented songwriters of his generation. He at the age of 17 has written over 50 tracks. He writes, sings, plays guitar, piano and drums as well as production of all of his tracks and other up-coming artists. At 9 years old he wrote his first song and although went through a dry spell he has written over 45 tracks in 3 years and the tracks just keep coming. Cam Nacson has gained recognition from both peers and industry professionals alike. This kid is truly talented and "the number one spot is just waiting for him." (quote; Free2Go radio DJ, the official Byron Bay schoolies radio station.) Radio friendly music combined with amazingly meaningful and evocative lyrics, where could you go wrong?

I would like to get a page for them up asap as it will be a great future contribution to wikipedia. If you have any doubts just listen to them on myspace and you will see exactly why they are destined for greatness.--John H. Benici 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello John, I do understand the feelings of frustration when an article about a topic you care about is deleted. Unfortunately Cam Nacson does not presently meet the criteria for notability that apply to musicians. However much potential he has, he needs to realise that potential (eg by charting a release on a recognised national chart, or releasing on a major label). Have a look at the criteria from the blue link I highlighted. If he meets these, I'll happily help you rewrite and reinstate the article. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough mate, is there any way you can help me out with getting the article up? They actually do have quite a fan base. Have a look at their myspace; myspace.com/camnacson --John H. Benici 13:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)