User talk:Phil Bridger/July 2012 – September 2012

Image

Hello Phil,

Thank you for contesting the deletion and contributing to the page. I have one request if you're willing to participate, it's nothing big. It's just that I'm confused with adding the logo, and I was wondering if you are willing to add that to the page. If so, that'd be brilliant.

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeminglySubdued (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

I have nothing personal against you, but you seem to be heavily against my edits which contest notability of articles that have a disputable verifiability. You seem to have backup so I will not join the edit game and won't engage in edit wars. You win, here is a Falafel. Keep doing this on wikipedia, you surely only make it better. Hope you see this positively as a good sign of friendship. Blessings be upon you. Louk⟟nho≟ 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Roofing materials

Unfortunately, almost the only place that information is available is trade sites. I initially checked the refs very thoroughly and only passed those sites that offered solid information (like the difference in durability between straw and reed thatches). I haven't check through the refs lately, but I am sure some of them are valid. Did you go through them all before deleting?

Amandajm (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Starlight (DJ)

Hello there. Please note that users have also suspected that the page is in violation of her official page. I couldn't find a way to fit both links into the SD template. SplashScreen (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then I won't contest a reinstatement of the speedy deletion request with the official page url. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've reinstated the template with the new link. SplashScreen (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ETOA

Hi, Out of curiousity, could you please direct me as to where this soon to be deleted article asserts notability? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The test is whether it indicates importance/significance, which is a lower standard of notability. The second sentence does this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There you go, learn something everyday . Thank you! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. When you recently edited Kerei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

National Memorial Hall (Mount Herzl)

pleas do not change to subject. the memorial structure will honor the Jewish worrior from 1860 until today. thank you ! פארוק (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting words in bold doesn't persuade anyone that they are true. The way to do that is to cite reliable sources. The one source in the article, from Haaretz, says that this commemorates post-Holocaust casualties. Let's pplease keep further discussion to the article talk page rather than have have a private conversation on my talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shah Niyaz Ahmad

Hi. Thank you for considering Shah Niyaz Ahmad. The difficulty with using edit summaries to explain the reasons for actions like deprodding is that it makes discussion awkward. The talk page already had a section. Your summary was contest deletion - the book linked by the proposer on the talk page demonstrates that the outside world considers this to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia entry, which is what we go by. I would contest that. WP:BASIC states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." As on the talk page, I would argue that the source in question fails on those grounds, as it merely gives genealogy and a list of interests. If that were enough to establish notability, every English country vicar would be notable because they have entries in Crockford's Clerical Directory. I'm not going to bother with an AfD, however. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bharat Patel

Hello; as you previously removed a prod template from Bharat Patel, I thought you might like to know that I've taken it to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Memorial Hall (Mount Herzl)

An article that you have been involved in editing, National Memorial Hall (Mount Herzl) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beastiepaws (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I need some clarification here....

You contested the prod for Lawrence_of_Arabia:_The_Authorised_Biography_of_T.E._Lawrence, based on "prodding via guesswork." You also claimed it clearly met NBOOK. I did not think so at the time, and I certainly didn't find anything now, so could you tell me what you found? MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the sources that I cited, among many others found by the obvious search. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mannifest

You removed the A7 speedy, quite correctly--I agree that band/singer/etc. should not be stretched to cover such events. But I was going to delete as G11, promotional, however I want to check with you first DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud

Did you see the discussion at Talk:Hassan Sheikh Mohamud? While I have no problem with a redirect from Mohamoud, there's very little chance of it being considered an "accepted" spelling. In my experience with names transliterated from Arabic, I've rarely seen such consistency among sources as there is in this case (2250 vs. 7 Google news hits). I think it's likely that the sources that put the extra "o" in there were confusing it with the usual spelling of the name "Mahmoud". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw the discussion, which gave a good reason why the article title should be spelt as it is, but no reason why there shouldn't be a redirect. There are a few sources with the "o" in them, and a redirect will help readers find the article that they are looking for if they include that "o" when they search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you said that you have no problem with a redirect. If so, why did you tag the redirect for speedy deletion? Redirects only have to be from spellings that readers might type in, not from "accepted" spellings. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do it :) I might also suggest a redirect from Mahamoud, which is how AllAfrica spelled it, though they weren't even consistent (it was different in the article than in the title)! I only wanted to point out that we should spell it internally the way the vast majority of high-quality sources do. I've therefore edited the 20 articles that had the previous spelling. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Mikhailovich Zakharov

HI! I ask you NOT not remove PROD delition from the page Vladimir Zakharov any more! I am the author of this article and post and kept it for 2 yeaqrs and I requested PROD because I wasnt fairly treatred and paid for my work here by this Vladimir Zakharov, so I have a right to request deletion of my page!! Thanks. Eva Basil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva basil (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have any conflict with Mr Zakharov that is no concern of ours at Wikipedia - you need to resolve that with him as you have agreed to the free use of your content by creating the page. Once a deletion proposal has been contested, as I have done, then the only way that this can be deleted is by starting a discussion at WP:AFD, but you will have to explain why Zakharov is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, and any unfair treatment or lack of payment is irrelevant to that. If you want to proceed to a deletion discussion but have difficulties with the technicalities then I can start a discussion on you behalf - please let me know if you would like me to do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is such a thing as "WP:CSD#G7 - Author requests deletion". However, it only applies if "the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author". It is difficult to say: I've gone through every edit to this article, and Eva basil has contributed essentially all of what I consider the substantial content, but numerous other editors have removed content, fixed typos, added categories, etc. Talk page is just project banners. I'm inclined to say this would be a valid G7 deletion, but I don't think I would feel comfortable saying this definitely meets the requirements without some agreement from others whether it applies here. I suggest starting an AFD discussion, where we can discuss whether (a) G7 is satisfied, or (b) whether Zakharov is a suitable article subject. If the discussion ends up agreeing with deletion on either of these two points, it can be done. If not, I'm afraid there is nothing more you can do to remove this article. In particular, re-adding tags over and over is guaranteed not to work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ibt

Hi Phil. Thanks for your updates and thanks for your comments. I removed that talk page because a lot of it has to do with speculation that has since been resolved. But with regards to your addition to the article itself I can't say that they pass the WP:SOAP tests. The CT article you listed doesn't Jang controls it, it says simply that the founder "declined to participate in a Christian industry association," so ownership is a stretch. The USAToday article (actually syndicated from the Tennessean) says leaders and former students run it, but 'Jang controlled' is inaccurate. Looking at IBT's history it says what the wiki says -- ie it's owned by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis. This is a corporation. They can't just make up whatever. I am tending to believe that until something concrete comes. There are sources that, for example, say Bernanke is part of the illuminati -- should we put that into Ben's wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcom7 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For recognising "notability" of Dr. T.G.McGann - I intend to find more sources for this article and develop. Rayabhari (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Salty_Fingers

Hi,

Thanks for your contributions. Could you possibly format your comment with either Comment, Delete, Keep, Merge here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salty_Fingers_%28plant%29#Salty_Fingers_.28trademark.29

Many thanks Mootros (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It might facilitate a better understanding of view in relation to this AfD. Mootros (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. I want people to read what I have actually written, not just a single-word summary of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. A sensible point that appears to be based on faith in the editors. Mootros (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	With compliments! Mootros (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Satyanarayan Chhipa

Hi Phil,

I have reverted the change that you had done on the article Satyanarayan Chhipa

The reason for me reverting is, to start a discussion on the talk page of the article for any information you needed as to the reason I marked the article for Speedy deletion. I invite you to discuss anything related to this article on the Talk page.

Thanks

Nithin (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted again. The tags that you added to the article call for deletion without discussion. If you want to start a deletion discussion the procedure is described at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the tags that I placed are for articles that do not call for discussion. I was only trying to reach out to you to inform you for the reasons why I tagged the article with WP:GCSD G3& A7.

1. G3 - Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes. - This article should be considered a hoax as the creator of the article credits the indiviual for discovering soda feldspar - a mineral that has been available for over a thousand years(*1).

2. A7 - No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). - This article qualifies as there is no indication of importance. As we can't have articles on every other businessman in the world, Or every other businessman with a feldspar mine!

If you could show a reason as to why this article is of importance, I shall be glad to have learnt something new.

I will wait for your reply, after which I shall proceed with adding the WP:CSD back.Thanks! Nithin (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref - *1. Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 12, Ceramic Technology, Volume 5 Page 219, Confirms the usage of Soda Feldspar (Sodium Feldspar) in the Ching-te-chen city provice around 1004AD — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitRav (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

NitRav, once again, if a discussion is necessary then the place to have it is WP:AFD. I would probably support deletion unless someone in the discussion can find any coverage in reliable sources, but this article does not qualify for speedy deletion, and if you put those tags back it would be considered edit warring. The article does not credit Mr Chhipa with discovering soda feldspar, but simply that he found some deposits of it, and "pioneer of mineral Soda Feldspar in Rajasthan" is a clear indication of importance/significance. If you would like help with creating a deletion discussion then I would be happy to create it on your behalf. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at NitRav's talk page.
Message added 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

T. G. McGann

Could you pls verify the sources again and undo my edit if you successfully establish that there was such a person. At the moment, none of the sources say anything about T. G. McGann, only about a McGann hospital. I can't access source number one, the book on google, as the page is now blocked. At the moment, it all looks like original research. Many thanks!