User talk:RayAYang/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Nominees for U.S. offices

Elected nominees (and presummptive nominees, for that matter) of major political parties for national office in the United States are notable BY DEFINITION. Please review the NOTABILITY Guidelines. Please also review the guidelines for notifying article authors before deletion, and the time period one should use. Flatterworld (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread WP:POLITICIAN. I quote, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" My interpretation of the rules is a result of monitoring AfD discussions for some time -- and to apply consistency between geographic regions of the country. I refer you, as an example in the specific case of nominated candidates, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Rothfuss. In any case, I was not performing a deletion, but a merge. If you wish, we can take the discussion to AfD. Given that a Senate candidate's article was wiped out, I think I know where a House candidate's article will go. RayAYang (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I find it fascinating you think diplomats who are given awards for saving people's lives are rubbish. These ridiculous deletions must stop. As for your so-called 'merge, you left out 90% of the article - that's not a merge. Perhaps you can explain why the many Republican nominees are considered 'notable', yet the Democratic nominees are not? Wikipedia is NOT the place for partisan politics. You and others are twisting Wikipedia guidelines. These candidates ARE extensively covered by third-party sources, as they are running for national office in the United States. Their articles should be expanded, but certainly not deleted. We do NOT delete stubs. I suggest you check out the discussion on the attempts to delete the Dan Seals article. Flatterworld (talk)

Your writings are very much ad hominem, and I recommend that you limit yourself to discussions of the issue at hand, rather than throwing around spurious and gratuitous accusations of bad faith. I would also remind you that edits to Wikipedia guidelines, such as the one you attempted this morning, must reflect the community consensus. A brief perusal of the Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) page would have verified that many a previous discussion has been held on the subject, and your edit, without prior discussion, was surprising, to say the least. If you had not been too busy to read the deletion discussion and the talk page discussions I have referred to, you would have noticed that I once espoused the position of allowing articles for candidates without previous notability, but became convinced otherwise by the many good arguments presented on the talk page, and the centralized discussion presented here.

Regarding the Glenn Nye article directly. I do not believe he comes close to qualifying under the requirements of WP:DIPLOMAT, and, indeed, you have made no such claim. While the awards he has won in his career do him credit, I note that the award he has won does not appear on the list of honors meriting automatic notability by our standards, and indeed is not on our list of State Department awards. This does not reflect any judgment upon the quality of his service to my country. Many in the military, intelligence, police and fire safety, medical, engineering, financial, diplomatic and other civil service professions do wonderful and necessary things for our society. However meaningful and vital their work, they do not rise to the level of public notice, or any of the other traditional standards for notability that have been incorporated into the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of the value of people's lives, nor should it be. A proud but non-notable (in the WP sense) career in the Foreign Service aside, Mr. Nye's sole claim to notability is as a candidate for a Congressional race, and his press mentions do not mention him outside that situation. He has no claim to notability under WP:POLITICIAN, and thus should not have a page of his own under Wikipedia, unless he should win this current election.

As for your accusation that I did an incomplete merge, you are invited to examine diffs of the article before the merge. I included the vast majority of the meaningful content of the page into the election page, which you have since removed. The disinterested reader is invited to examine the diffs: the Glenn Nye article before the merge is here, and here is the diff on the election page before/after my merge here.

Finally, as to your accusation of partisanship, I resent it extremely. My proposals for deletion, and indeed my earlier attempts to protect articles from deletion before my change of heart, span both parties and elections for offices both great and small. I will stand on my record before any of Wikipedia's mechanisms for review of an editor, and, without being overly abrasive, would not shy from such an opportunity should you, upon reflection, choose to bring it. RayAYang (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My update was in response to the one made without discussion or consenses after my post in the Talk page.
I have no idea why that State Department award is not on Wikipedia's list, but that reflects more on Wikipedia than the State Department itself.
I am sorry you took my comment about partisanship so personally. I am simply pointing out the obvious difference between how Republican and Democratic articles about nominees have been treated. I did NOT claim you were responsible for all of these. However, I am not about to stand by while Wikipedia becomes a media laughingstock for appearing to be some sort of partisan 'tool'.
I have indeed taken part in previous discussions on this subject, including those about the supposed 'non-notability' of Bill Foster. (I would point out the notability of Foster's opponent Jim Oberweis appears to hinge on his inheritance of the family dairy business - yet he has an article. I don't begrudge him that, but it's ludicrous that Foster's article was repeatedly deleted.)
I have also taken part in the discussions about the Congressional Candidate/Nominee template and its use. I have also worked on many articles about various 2008 Governor, House and Senate races. What I vehemently object to is the "too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry" attitude in that information is being shunted from one article to another, and then deleted or reduced to a sentence or two. I'm not interested in playing games of keep-away, nor am I interested in constantly recreating material. If extensive candidate information (including infoboxes and templates) is not to be allowed in Campaign articles, then the candidate should have his/her own article. If it is to be accepted, I have no problem with that solution. I also continue to vehemently disagree with your opinion that major party nominees for major national office in the United States aren't notable per se. We're not talking about no-hopers being put forth to fill out the ballot, but serious contenders. They are all being reported on by third-party sources, extensively by the media as the election gets closer. Yes many are known for their other accomplishments as well, but imo that is icing on the cake. Flatterworld (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by, I've long thought w should make this change, and accept articles on those who receive the major party nominations--It would only add about 500 articles every 2 years or so. A thorugh search in the appropriate newspapers should be able to find sources. Expect an uphill fight. I would not like to do this within the context of any possibly controversial article. DGG (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP's not paper, after all, so I wouldn't have a problem doing it for our government, at least at the federal level and major party's candidates. The problem is, not all candidates (or national legislatures) are created equal ... 3rd party candidates in the US aside, there are (to take Germany as an example) multiple major parties and several minor parties courted as coalition partners, each of whom puts up a list for election *and* candidates in each of 300 or so constituencies, and theoretically every member of a party's list could get into office, although in practice this never happens and the bottom of the list is populated with spouses, local PTA-president-equivalents, and even high school students. It would be rather a mess to resolve, and we'd be admitting people who clearly are not notable by a very long stretch of the term. And, on the other end, there are people who oppose nation-specific guidelines on the grounds of double standards. This is a tough one to break, though. I think you have to have some sort of mostly-hard and mostly fast rules, lest you get real issues with POV or discrimination, wherein, say, candidates for house seats from Virginia get their own articles, while Senate candidates from Wyoming get deleted. RayAYang (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

exactly. I think we both understand the problems similarly. I was talking only about the US, and its two major parties. No other major country is really that simple. For Australia and Canada, the additional problem is often the Greens. In Canada, where they've not yet won a seat, only the major national leaders make sense. In Australia & New Zealand where they sometimes have, we might look for those who came close with some fixed percent. In the UK we might look for people who did not forfeit their deposit. In proportional representational systems, I agree we would need some kind of a fixed cutoff for the reasons you say nit I'm not sure the problem is as acute there as with the other countries, because the elected not elected dichotomy does not depend on an individual contest in he same manner. If you care to make a formal proposal, let me know & I'll support, but I'm doing too many things for it to be my fist priority.. It probably won't succeed now, but it can help lead towards desirable change over time, as arguing for a position does help consensus to change. As you well know, those unwilling to accept losing shouldn't enter politics :). DGG (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Spragg

I'd support the AfD if you plan to do so. Timeshift (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have taken the article to AfD. RayAYang (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination)

Hi there! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination) has just been relisted for a second time due to a lack of people offering an opinion. I listed Constantian Society for deletion after it was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The George Nethercutt Foundation, which you commented on. It would be great if you could cast an eye over the Constantian Society article and deletion discussion, and offer an opinion, since it is in some ways a similar case. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up. Best, RayAYang (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1939 in Poland

Dear Ray, we already have on Wikipedia such articles as 1939 in Ireland, 1939 in Afghanistan, 1939 in Northern Ireland, 1939 in Norway and 1939 in Wales. I seriously do not see a reason why 1939 in Poland, which perfectly fits this category, and is much more informative, should be deleted. With regards. Tymek (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that those articles are particularly necessary, either. I mean, could you imagine an article called "2008 in the United States"? It could and would go on for megabytes. If you still feel a deletion isn't justified, go ahead and remove my PROD. I may take it up at AfD, or I may not ... I'll go look at some of those other articles in the meantime. RayAYang (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that any informative article is necessary. 1939 was one of the most important years in the history of Poland, if not the most important. I have spent long hours finding sources, I was going to finish it some time soon, hoping that it may help someone looking for information on this crucial year. This is what encyclopedias are for. 2008 in USA? Why not? Wouldn't it be helpful in, say, 2020? Tymek (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it would be overly long, and an indiscriminate list, in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Not all good things to have, can or should necessarily appear on Wikipedia. 1939 in Poland strikes me as a wonderful idea for a category, with articles dedicated to particular events all belonging inside it.RayAYang (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection. On further research, it seems there's an exception for timelines in Wikipedia, a la WP:TIMELINE. I refer you to the article 1939, which may contain some events of help to you. Best, RayAYang (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, with regards. Tymek (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlie black

I cleaned up the article a bit and organized it. Here are some sources if you want to keep working:

old stuff

SPS, but it is an interview with the subject and CPI is pretty reliable

old stuff

old stuff

old, one line mention

nytimes version of bahamas link above, free

followup

google books

Hope that helps! Protonk (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a note, sourcewatch has done a lot of work for you. Just click on their link and go digging through the sources they cite. you aren't going to remove all the foreign dictator lobbying bits from this article because, like it or lump it, that is what gets the man press attention. Lobbyists are a dime a dozen, but lobbyists who have worked with the saudi's, Zaire, Marcos, etc are rare. It will be an unfortunate consequence of his actions that his biography is likely to remain a rogue's gallery of dictators and curious characters. But all of that can and should be attributed to reliable (and preferably multiple) sources. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly :) I may work on it some tomorrow. Best, RayAYang (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Album: Intelligence Failure

I noted that you marked this page for Notability. After I added details on this page I wondered if I should bother adding pages for other albums by this artist. The project isn't a major label production, but it is the collaboration of two artists who are each notable on their own. Haphazardjoy (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for music are pretty clear -- is there significant independent press coverage? If yes, then reference the press, and the article is notable. If not, then just create a redirect to the artist's own Wikipedia page. Best, RayAYang (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the issue. A cursory search and I have a few articles, reviews, interviews, etc. about the collaboration of the two artists in question, and several cases where it's mentioned in interviews by Viggo Mortensen. However, since this is a collaboration of two artists who are more notable on their own than together, so they don't have an artist page specific to their collaboration. The articles aren't especially useful to references for the album pages except for them being refs for the sake of refs. I'm new to the process, formerly only providing small details. I'm just not sure where my time would be better spent in this case. Most of Buckethead's extensive discography is covered in depth, so I wonder why not these albums? Thanks for your patience and help. -Haphazardjoy (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why article about Amanda Kokoeva was deleted by you ?

Have you seen the video at youtube ? Do you understand the importance of what happened ? Have you seen how many people have already seen this video ? Do you understand the importance of freedom of speech ?

Link to the youtube video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

Meet the criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia, and maybe the article won't get deleted next time. I refer you, especially, to WP:BIO, and WP:BIO1E. RayAYang (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was not my article. Anyway it is absolutely not clear, why you think that Biography rules apply in this case. Not the biography was the point, and even not the personality of the girl, but the fact of embarrassing biasing of current mass media. That was the point ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.207.187 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you are looking for a place where you can publish political rants to your heart's content, I refer you to Blogger. RayAYang (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RayAYang, I totally get your point and understand that the burden of proof on notability is with the author. WP:BIO notes that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6323931

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10171719

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29075

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_10171719

There's also a couple of non-English secondary sources but I won't list them since don't understand what they're saying. Everybody, please feel free to add to the list. Is that coverage enough? Speaking fish 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are more links: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=201476&cid=5 http://www.1tv.ru/news/osetiya/126522 http://news.ntv.ru/138236/ http://www.topix.com/world/russia/2008/08/fox-news-12-year-old-girl-tells-the-truth-about-georgia http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DH8XI2Chc6uQ http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-60626 http://www.viralvideochart.com/youtube/fox_news_12_year_old_girl_tells_the_truth__about_georgia?id=H8XI2Chc6uQ http://www.mp3omega.com/fox-news-12-year-old-girl-tells-the-truth-about-georgia/ http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080816005034AAlZGx5 Is this enoght ? If not go Google your self for "FOX NEWS 12 years Old Girl Tells the Truth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.7.79 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Notifying you since you are involved in it. The articles you CSDed Tri-State Advocates for Scientific Knowledge and Pat Packard are AfDed by me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. RayAYang (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Drawdown card

Just a friendly note on Drawdown card. I've removed the prod on this. It's definitely not a neologism, as the term has been around in the paint industry for decades. 23 hits on google scholar seem to indicate some notability. The article definitely needs expansion, but that's an editing issue. If you still think it needs to go, AfD is probably best.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. My bad. I was doing uncategorized article patrol, and a straight google on the subject didn't yield that many hits. I was led astray by the fact that the top 10 hits had multiple meanings for the phrase, from which I concluded that there was no uniform usage of the term. Can you suggest a category? RayAYang (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Can I suggest a category? Not my strong suit, but I'll give it a go. I'm not thrilled with Category:Painting materials, but it has a lot of similar stuff in it. Category:Tools could be refined to Category:Measuring instruments, as the purpose of a drawdown card is to measure the opacity of a coating. Category:Materials testing also seems possible.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I picked painting materials and measuring instruments, and hopefully that won't be too far astray. RayAYang (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone complains, let them find the right category. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10