User talk:Accounting4Taste/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Accounting4Taste. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

HI! First, I would like to know what I could include into my article to meet with Wikipedia's guidelines. It was taken down because of your A7 code. I am more then willing to make any corrections that need to be made to have it back up. I* think that though New Blood is a small production company, that they take what little they have to work with and create amazing films. Oh, almost forgot. The name of my article was New Blood Films.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterofmyth2000 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the deleted content and there were two major problems, either one of which would be a reason to delete the article. First, there was no reason for anyone to think that the company was notable -- the specific guideline that applies to companies is found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It is a common misconception that, because a company exists, it qualifies to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. In fact, organizations, etc., must be notable -- special, unusual, in some way better than their peers (or significantly worse) -- worthy of notice. Have a look at this article for a more complete definition. Second, if you have a look at the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) page, you'll notice the first sentence in bold: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources." That means things like articles in newspapers and magazines; not usually blogs or forums. And it absolutely doesn't mean your own website; that's a primary source, not a secondary one. In other words, the article would have had to tell the reader a way in which the company was notable, and then that notability would have to be verifiable by way of arm's-length, third-party expert sources of opinion writing in reliable, independent sources. Have a look at this article for a more complete definition of reliable sources. I hope this helps you. For further background information you can have a look at WP:Why was my article deleted? Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

good deeds

hello, thank you for your interest in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia and it's established value. My resubmission is because the term 'good deeds' is not yet covered on Wikipedia and as it is in very common everyday popularised useage,I thought that this would be of benefit. There are hundreds of entries if 'good deeds' is looked up on the web and my article mentions the diversity of interpretation without promoting any. Your comments would be helpful as I am a new user with no subversive intention other than greater awareness of 'good deeds' as a term as this may help to inspire poitive benefit in itself.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamilly (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There are a number of problems that would prevent Wikipedia from having the kind of article that you describe. Principally, defining terms is just not what we're set up to do. Have a look at this policy page: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You might find a place where you can contribute this definition at our sister project, Wiktionary, and I suggest you investigate that. Another problem is that, although you seem quite sure that you know what a good deed is, and how it is defined, what I saw was pretty much your opinion. If you assemble a definition by collecting illustrations that meet your opinion of the definition of "good deeds", that violates a number of Wikipedia policies; among them, neutral point of view and no original research. Defining something as "good" inherently contains the problem that it's your definition of "good" that's involved; that's a non-neutral point of view, in and of itself. Putting together a number of examples to illustrate the definition of a term is known here as "original research by synthesis", and it's not allowed; we rely entirely on the opinions of expert sources. The material I deleted also had the strong suggestion that it was promoting the work of the organization in question; since there were no reliable sources suggesting that this organization was in any way notable, I'm afraid it came across as advertising for that organization, which is not allowed. I think I understand the impulse that leads you to want to contribute this material; I suggest that you try Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary as its more appropriate home. Have a look at the articles linked in this paragraph to get a better understanding of the concepts I'm describing. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV period of 7 days has elapsed for "Sacred microdistillery" Hello Accounting4Taste, I wonder if you would consider moving this page to mainspace if you are satisfied? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox best wishesBeefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use the "move this page" function, which isn't restricted to administrators as far as I know, but I've taken care of it as per the consensus at deletion review. Good luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite grasp what you were getting at by suggesting I move the page to articlespace. I have never closed a deletion review before and didn't realize until a few minutes ago that there was a process equivalent to closing an AfD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I think it's now handled. If there are any further issues, please don't hesitate to leave me a note outlining them. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you please give me a little advice as to how to make the Margarona page acceptable for Wikipedia?

Many thanks,

Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcklco (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I doubt I can, since my personal opinion is that it's not, but I will try my best. Essentially what would be required is evidence -- references to things like articles in books, magazines and newspapers -- that indicate that there is widespread usage of this term, widespread being defined for me as about a quarter of the US. I would be looking for at least two different national-level sources that define this term as you have, and probably more. These sources would have to be at arm's-length from the topic; for instance, finding that the Corona company defines this term as you have is not evidence of anything except advertising. They would also have to be sources that exercise some form of editorial control; sources to which anyone can contribute any type of content, like forums, blogs or Wikipedia itself, are not acceptable. You may want to focus your efforts on putting this definition in place in a location where it is possibly more appropriate. Wikipedia is not especially meant to function as a dictionary; you might try the sister project, Wiktionary, or Urban Dictionary. You can follow the links in this paragraph to get more background information on the concepts, and also examine this introductory material. Best of luck with your contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ciara Bravo Page

Is there anyway that you can send my Ciara Bravo article(userfy) to my email at shaquan_mcdowell123@yahoo.com Thank You, greatly appreciated --7shaquan (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. "Userfy" usually means that I retrieve the deleted material and place it into a temporary page (a "sandbox") for you within Wikipedia; I think this will be more useful to you in the long run, so that's what I'm going to do. You will find the material at User:7shaquan/Sandbox. I note that the history of this page tells me that you have made a lot of mistakes so far; enough that there is absolutely only one way in which this article could possibly be recreated. My advice is that you follow this path very precisely and don't leave out any steps. What needs to happen is that you need to add enough reliable sources to this article to make it meet the notability guidelines (if that's possible). Once you do, you need to contact User:NawlinWiki, who was the administrator who most recently deleted the article, and ask him if the article is ready to be re-considered by deletion review, and follow his instructions after that. Believe me, there are no other options. You cannot return this article to Wikipedia because you already did that so many times that it was made impossible for it to return; it has also failed an articles for deletion process so it would be deleted on sight anyway. I recommend that you follow the links in this paragraph for exact definitions of the standards you will have to meet and look to User:NawlinWiki for advice when you have done the necessary work -- which is entirely up to you, by the way. You are currently the only person who cares whether we have this article, and I very much doubt anyone will be rushing to help you construct it since it has already failed so many tests. Best of luck with your efforts. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

My page on Froth au Lait was deleted under section G11. Could you please let me know how/what to change because I wrote it due to the lack of information about the company/product and wanted a place where fellow users can find basic information and improve it if they find anything new. The lack of external sources means that the corporate websites was all I could find.

Regards.

Dunkoe (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. This is a fairly common situation. "The lack of external sources means that the corporate websites was all I could find" -- if that is truly the case, then there is absolutely no way that the topic would qualify to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do not use primary sources like the corporate website; if there are no external sources, it means that no expert thinks that the company is sufficiently notable to write about it and thus it cannot meet Wikipedia's standards. "I wrote it due to the lack of information about the company/product" -- if there is no information about the company outside of its own materials, then that is exactly where people will have to look to find ithe information. Wikipedia is not about subjects that are not yet notable; Wikipedia is only about subjects that are already notable. Trying to create an article about a non-notable company by using only materials that it generates itself is considered advertising. I accept everything you have said, and in that case I don't think there is any point in your trying to make this article because it absolutely cannot meet our standards. You can find out more about our basic principles by reading this introductory article. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Swing

Hello there,

Well done on the hockey?!! It was such a wonderful game, I considered changing my citizenship to Canadanish.

Now, a propos my article. These guys are all over the media in Ireland, and I thought I'd be the first to make their inevitable entry. I've no affiliation with the band whatsoever. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfkfmheykfid/rss2/

Perhaps it was my formatting, je ne sais pas but I'd be obliged if you could clear this up.

Kind regards from Zurich, Switzerland, Thomas Breathnach thomeiza Thomeiza (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (tilde is my new word - thank you kind sir/madam)

Thanks for your note (yeah, it was a great hockey game, thanks). I have to ask why you didn't add this reference, or any other reliable source of information, to the article I just examined (and previously deleted)? Have a look at this basic introduction to Wikipedia. One of the absolutely crucial elements of every Wikipedia article is references. If this group is, as you say, "all over the media in Ireland", those references would be the most useful things to start with in the creation of an article -- not, I will add, a citation to Youtube. Youtube is not considered a reliable source here because it has no editorial standards for what it includes. What we'd be looking for is articles in newspapers, books and magazines -- not forums or blog postings (or, as I noticed, unsubstantiated rumours -- adding those to an article do more harm than good because it makes people look at the rest with a jaundiced and skeptical eye). If you want the deleted content retrieved and placed into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it, I'll be happy to do that, just leave me a further note. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: If I had a nickel for every time I've seen the phrases "viral video", "Youtube sensation" or "Internet meme" in a deleted article, I'd be a wealthy man. In my experience there are a LOT of people who want to put articles into Wikipedia about whatever 15-seconds-of-fame has currently caught their attention, and very nearly none of those articles stay around. You have to have really, really good references to even have a chance. Try looking at the general notability guideline for hints. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Symmetry of Delirium

Would you mind deleting this one? It's related to a band whose article you deleted. I accidentally redirected to the genre instead of the band, but it's still worthy of being removed. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; the redirects were a bit confusing, so I'm glad to have sorted it. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheverly Swim and Racquet Club

Can you please restore the page "Cheverly Swim and Racquet Club" and "Cheverly Pool"? This is a neighborhood recreation facility in Cheverly, Maryland. I know that the title has club in it. This location is similar to country clubs, of which many in the DC metro area have wikipedia pages. The Club has a history dating back to 1955 and has had a significant impact on the community as well as events that have been hosted there for the metropolitan area. I was just starting to put together a history and sources to be listed on the page. Please restore so that I may finish my work.

Thank you,

Ostranox (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Ostranox

Michael Heer heermichael@gmail.com

Thanks for the opportunity; I'm going to decline to go any further than to restore this to what we call a sandbox page, which you'll find at User:Ostranox/Sandbox. Before you proceed, please read over this introductory article which outlines three of the key elements of every Wikipedia article: notability, reliable sources and verifiability. The material I deleted, which I felt was properly tagged, contained none of those things and read to me like an advertisement for the organization since there was no attempt to document any of the assertions by reference to arm's-length third-party expert sources. You don't need my consent or my assistance to return the material to the main body of Wikipedia -- simply use the "move this page" function -- but I will suggest that if you don't rethink this you're simply going to be dealing with another administrator for the same reasons after s/he deletes it again. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonthan Sandys

Sorry, it's one of the problems of text only. I meant to say yes I'd read all the rubbish before it got slimmed down and it still (even more?) merited the AfD. Personally I loved your description oft he original article NtheP (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian Roll'd

I guess they updated {{A7}} with "web content" while I was busy. That makes (our) life easier! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen a bunch of changes go by in the last few days; it seems as though someone is always tinkering with those pull-down menus. I only hope the users find the edit summaries more informative. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And somewhere above on this page, I wish I had a nickel for every time someone has suggested that something is an "Internet meme". Frankly, it only needs to be a penny. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Privilege Style destinations

Ok then, i understand the reason for this airline but i still don't get why the Iberworld one was deleted. They are one of the largest charter airlines in Spain and are a larer company than some others who have the destination pages

Note:sorry this message was at the top of the page first

MKY661 6th March 2010 00:54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKY661 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it has nothing to do with the size of the airline. It usually has to do with the size of the page. I cannot speak for the people who actually had something to do with deleting this material, but it just might be that it was not felt that having a list of destinations was all that important. This is an encyclopedia, not a booking agency; if someone wants that information, they can go to the airline's website. There was no reason to believe -- specifically wiithin the body of the page about the Iberworld destinations -- that that list was of any notability whatever, mostly because there was no information about the airline and, since this is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish one, it's unlikely that the average reader would be familiar with the airline in question. I have returned the list of destinations to the body of the main article. Perhaps before going further with splitting out such destinations into separate pages, you might consider discussing it with other editors on the talk page of the article; you may find that people who are intimately familiar with that type of page have useful insights (where I do not, since airlines are outside my area of expertise). Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Iberworld Success

Hi again. I would just like to say thank you very much for adding all of the destinations for Iberworld, as i have now managed to re-create Iberworld destinations without any problems or any speedy deletion notice. Click here to see it. I have also used a reference to the destinations for Iberworld.com and updated some of the destinations too.

I couldn't have done this without you so thank you very much.

I also have a picture of an A330 Iberworld at Manchester somewhere on my computer. When i find it, I will put it on the page.

--MKY661 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Speedy declined"

Best "speedy declined notice I've ever seen. Dloh cierekim 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for noticing! In my early days of tagging new pages, it used to frustrate me that admins would decline my speedy tags but never explain why, so that I could learn how to do better; I resolved to do my best to explain whenever I declined one. And I have found that, very often, material has been added after the tag that makes the article useful; people need to know it's not just me substituting my judgment for theirs. Your note made my day, for which thank you; I expect you know how often admins work away without any thanks or notice, and I've long since learned not to expect such things, but when they happen they make up for a lot. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

article deleted

hello,

I found that the article on "Richard Parncutt" has been deleted. I am a music psychology instructor, and for my university course at University of Graz, Austria, I want my students to do Wikipedia pages about renowned music psychologists. Richard is one of them (though he's my boss, see here: http://www.uni-graz.at/en/muwi99ww/content.muwi99ww-mitarbeiterinnen?= )

I found that there was a short article about him, now it's gone.

He actually is renowned, look at google scholar search results: http://scholar.google.at/scholar?q=parncutt+richard&hl=de&btnG=Suche&lr=

Well. it's up to you to restore the page, if you like my argument. I won't insist. I don't want to feel like "defending" my boss, I don't even want him to know about the whole issue.

yours 62.47.20.84 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It took a minute for me to find the article on Richard Parncutt since you created it using the username User:LadybugInvasion, and you may want to stick to that name, it will be easier for others to investigate things like this. I think you may have misunderstood what has happened here. The article on Richard Parncutt consisted, in its entirety, of a link to what I think is the German-language Wikipedia -- which you yourself then removed. The removal of the entire content of a page by its only contributor is taken as a signal that the author somehow does not want there to be such an article, and it is therefore deleted. There was no material about Mr. Parncutt in the article -- there was no text whatever. There is nothing that I could restore that would not be deleted within a few minutes as being an empty page. You are entirely welcome to create an article about Mr. Parncutt; I have no idea whether he meets our notability standards or not, since I haven't investigated the citations you provided. One suggestion; since you say that the individual is your boss, you may want to read our conflict of interest policy page and disclose your relationship, as is advised there. Best of luck with your efforts. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How can I get my article not 'speedy deleted'?

Hi I'm new to wiki and wrote my first article about a radio station I am passionate about and you had it deleted. I was a little confused because it was based on facts about the station and I wrote it in a similar format to other radio stations on here. Could you give me some pointers on how to not get it deleted please? It was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Gaytion_Internet_Radio.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

mossyboy10 —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. I had a look at the deleted material. (I didn't exactly "have" it deleted; articles are examined and tagged by people who do "new page patrol", and then administrators like me come along and assess the articles to see if the new page patrollers were correct. In this case, they were.) The two main problems were that there was nothing in the article that suggested that the station was in any way notable -- special, unusual, different from its peers -- and there were no reliable sources that anyone could use to verify that notability and the facts you asserted. Although I can see that you think that the station is notable, what would be required is the opinions of arm's-length, third-party experts writing in sources like newspapers, magazines and books that assert the station's notability in a verifiable way. Notability, reliable sources and verifiability are three absolutely key elements of every Wikipedia article and the article I saw contained none of those things. You may want to trace the links in this paragraph for more information; you can also look at this introductory material for some useful background, or WP:Why was my article deleted?. If you wish me to retrieve the deleted material for you and place it into what's called a sandbox page where you can work on it until it meets these standards, I'd be happy to do that; just leave me a further note. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WindPower

Dear Accounting4Taste,

You recently deleted our wikipage for the band Windpower. I speak for all the diehard WindPower fans when I say can you pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top reinstate our page which we worked very hard to create? :( If this is not possible we completely understand and thank you for your time. Lots of Love, WindPower Fan xxxxxxxxxxxxx

p.s. Here is two links to WindPower sites (To sweeten the deal ;))

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=feed&story_fbid=367134415951&gid=367016845951 http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/WindPower —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinChris (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm going to decline to recreate the page in question, because I cannot see a single way in which it approaches meeting the requirements of WP:MUSIC and, frankly, because the whole thing smells like a hoax to me; I very much doubt that such a group exists with the history as you've stated it. You have the option of taking this to deletion review if you want; you can also simply reinstate the page yourselves, in which case you will doubtless meet the same objections as I've offered you here. Best of luck with whatever you choose. PS: Don't waste your time trying to convince me that the group exists by pointing me to some Youtube videos, or whatever; it would be better spent in reading and understanding the requirements of WP:MUSIC and finding ways in which you can prove your putative group meets them. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there is no need to be rude about it. WindPower will take the world by storm. You just watch. Good Day Sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinChris (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's much ruder to waste the time of volunteers and waste everyone's time by trying to insert nonsense into an encyclopedia, but opinions differ. You go right ahead and take the world by storm. When you can prove you have done that, we'll talk again. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Touche Sir. You're kinda a legand. This win to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinChris (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Finans Network

it is non profit organization and there are many news about it, just google it you will see.

Thanks for your note. If you feel there are sufficient reliable sources available to demonstrate that this topic is notable -- which was not demonstrated in the article I saw in any way, since the single reference was a publication of the group itself -- feel free to remake the article. I'll even help you if you require it, but that offer of assistance doesn't extend to looking up all the references and adding them; you have to do that job yourself if you want it done. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Accounting4Taste. You have new messages at Talk:Hilary Barr.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Kopetsky

I've taken the liberty of amending "BLP1E" to "BIO1E" in your nomination, to avoid streams of people pointing out the BLP doesn't apply. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I had actually thought they redirected to the same place, but I am happy to be shown the finer point. (Is it that you are suggesting it's not felt that she's alive so BLP1E doesn't apply? I only rarely cite that policy, so I'm just happy you took an interest and I hope others do too.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess in this case we don't know; use of BLP1E often produces a silly argument in the case of murder victims, and there will probably be enough argument on this one without adding to it. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just remembered WP:VICTIM, for which the exact link had slipped my mind, so I've added that reference. Much obliged again. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste: The article that was deleted was an intro article. Please view the recent article and reinstate.

Mamalous (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC) If you're referring to ChartSpace Music Publishing, I'm going to decline any action. Neither the brief article nor the current one, which is up for speedy deletion and correctly so in my opinion, make any attempt to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and there are no reliable sources whereby anyone could verify any of the claims in the article. I note that you have maintained the content of the article that's about to be deleted on your user page at User:Mamalous, so there's nothing I could give you that you don't have already. I would recommend reviewing this introductory material before proceeding further; best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appologise for contravening any of your rules and regulations, it was not the intention, I simply wanted people to find out more about Huntersfield Equestrian Centre if entered into wikipedia. Many Thanks Nico van den Berg

re: Paintface

That seems fine, the edits are the same and the timing fits. No worries as far as I am concerned. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Zinaf

This has not yet been documented in history as it is a brand new theory which came about today and i was there when this was created and decided to document it so i could begin to officialise it. I request that you do not delete it as it follows much the same principle's as thing's such as Grahams number, and that was not deleted. Thhis is not a hoax or jibberish but it is a new theory which will benefit people which is why i believe it should be reconsidered. I hope that the right dissiscion is made.

Thank you.

p.s I read through that thing about deleted article's that you took the time to write, so that i could follow this properly. I am not just rushing in to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACW241 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of policies that cover this situation -- for instance, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- but the real key to this matter is reliable sources. Reliable sources in this case would be things like articles in newspapers, magazines and books -- not forums or blogs -- that use this word and define it in the same way you do. If you cannot prove that other people use this word, there is no chance that the associated article will be allowed to stay. Since you mentioned in the course of the deleted article that you made the word up today, I can't see any way we can oblige you, regardless of whether or not it will benefit you or anyone else to have this word exist. I would recommend that you try Urban Dictionary, which I understand has no standards for its contributions. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I added an album article associated with this rapper to the AFD after you !voted, you might want to share your thoughts on it as well in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Mercury (rapper)--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I'm having the maddening feeling that this material has actually been deleted more times than the first AfD, but nothing popped up when I looked for it. At any rate, I'm hoping that a liberal application of SALT will end this. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brandi A. Lange

The page I created for her has been deleted due to her not being "significant". She is a published author and it was a short blurb about her book and life. I will be adding to this once the book is available on shelves, within a month. I understand that it wasn't the most informative page so far, but could you please reconsider having it deleted. Thank you so much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spkbaseball17 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for your note. Unfortunately there was nothing in what I saw that asserted any notability for Ms. Lange and there were no reliable sources so that a reader could verify any of the assertions in the body of the article. Notability, reliable sources and verifiability are three crucial elements of every Wikipedia article and what I saw failed all three. I'd recommend that you have a look at our notability policy to determine just what it is that you are trying to meet. If Ms. Lange was an athlete, she would either have to be competing at the highest possible amateur level -- such as the Olympics -- or playing for a fully professional team. Does your friend have that level of notability? (I won't get into the idea that someone is a "published author" when the book hasn't yet come out -- it has no bearing on the outcome, just one more problem). Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I can also find no evidence on-line to suggest that Ms. Lange's book is being published. With that in mind, I just wanted to mention that self-publishing adds no notability and would not qualify a person to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Thornton (politician)

I added what I could find: two mentions in a book and a mention in U.S. News. Seems a bit slim to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. I would not decide notability based on how important I thought someone's role in some society was, but based on whether there was significant coverage in multiple reliable and sources. The exception to that would be per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians inherent notability for politicians who were members of a state legislature or equivalent, many of whom have comparably slim references, such as Ambrose Abbott and George Herbert Babb. Edison (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree that he doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN. My question about the societies was based on my tracing the links and finding that they were "fraternal organizations". To me, that doesn't mean much notability at all (I confess that the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo from The Flintstones tends to come to mind), but in my own field I've run across people who think that being the president of the provincial Law Society doesn't mean much notability, where I think it's significant. I'm not from that part of the world and don't have direct experience, but it did occur to me that I might be making a similar kind of error based on ignorance. Well, I suppose I'll hear soon enough if I have; thanks for taking an interest. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for adding back the article on 01SJ Biennial.Also, I hope that I can still work on my user page as it has been deleted, and create new article. Thanks again, Manasmom (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Blackman

I just wanted to say that, had I come across it first, I might have nominated this article for exactly the same reasons you did. It took me about 90 minutes of research and thought to come to the conclusion I reached, and frankly my sentiment is that generally notability should be much, much more clearly present. Some of the cites are, as you note, more or less misquoted in either word or effect, and it wasn't until I weighed the sum total of my findings that I found myself disagreeing with you. BTW, I tracked down the full cite; Mr. Blackman was not the first solicitor to lead a case in the House of Lords, he was the second -- it is, I think, misplaced emphasis in the article to give him credit for being the first solicitor to win one. As you know, there are all kinds of mis-emphasis and Mr. Blackman's supporters appear to be making use of most of the legitimate ones, so my suspicions were aroused as well as yours. I only hope that you continue to feel that it is the right thing to do to bring these cases to AfD; I think the experience is a valuable one for all concerned, and while some people may mistakenly feel that this is a battle to be "won", I believe the contribution to a full and useful definition of notability is what we're doing in cases like these. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am aware that sometimes there is an appearance of a battle being fought in AfD discussions, though I feel it is usually more an appearance than a reality. I feel that sometimes people write quickly and perhaps give the wrong impression. I have frequently noted that during an AfD discussion better sources are found by those motivated enough to do so, and that an article that appeared to be a lost cause can improve almost beyond recognition.

I suppose when people spend more time arguing a point than actually working on the article they feel should be kept, that might give the appearance of fighting a battle just to win, but really it's just human nature. We are all volunteers, and there are different things that attract us. Some people like talking about articles, others like working on them, and it's good that we have both sorts of people! Yes, in an ideal world those willing to spend time and effort on finding sources in an AfD and putting forward well argued rationales for keeping an article, would actually put those sources in the article itself, or spend a little time on improving the article, and it can be a little frustrating when they don't - but, hey, we are thankful for every moment of people's time, and for every word they contribute to the project. I have a good number of times initiated an AfD on an article that looked to me to fall short of our requirements, and ended up improving it along lines suggested by people in an AfD discussion. Yes, it would be nice if those who were interested in keeping an article did the work themselves, but I have never been one to demand anything of another unpaid volunteer (other than to stop being disruptive!)

If there are good sources that provide support for this man's notability, and if the article gets tidied up and improved, then that's a positive result for Wikipedia and for the person concerned. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think we're both working towards the same thing -- that Wikipedia should keep useful and informative articles and get rid of useless and uninformative ones. It's been a pleasure to work beside you and no doubt we'll do so again. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for It's A Crime, Mr. Collins

On March 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article It's A Crime, Mr. Collins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 20:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi, Thanks for adding a copy of 01 SJ biennial. Manasmom (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Two deleted sites

Hey!

I'm dwyanewade333 and I would like to get my two sites back. I play this www.basketsim.com game. Of course it's virtual, but there is big community with many users. There are also national competitions so I decided to make site with all database about USA NT. I think it is useful for all users.

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

   * 17:33, 29 March 2010 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "USA national basketsim team" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7))

Second page is also about this game. Only my own team is included. I would write about my players, achievements, history ... I have seen many sites like that and I think it's nice. The name of site was Dwyane Flash team.

Thanks and sorry for bothering you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyanewade333 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry to say I'm not absolutely sure if I know what you're asking me. When you say you want "the sites back", do you mean you want me to return them to Wikipedia -- to undelete them -- or you want the keystrokes that were in the deleted articles? Are you suggesting that you are associated with a team of professional -- fully professional -- gamers, or is there a reason that you think I've made a mistake in deleting them that isn't obvious to me? Accounting4Taste:talk 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get them back on wiki. That I could edit them and so on. Yes, I am in touch with those gamers and this site would help him. I think you made mistake. There are 800 active users of this game only in USA and I am sure that not only those gamers would be interested in this site. There are also many "other country" users.

You really couldn't unlock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyanewade333 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I think I understand what you want. Unfortunately, I have to refuse. Every article on Wikipedia must be about a notable topic -- something that is special, unusual, different, better than its peers, etcetera. With respect to sports and games, we have a very specific standard that's found at this link; your group doesn't meet it. I might save you some trouble if I tell you that athletes either have to be on a fully professional sports team or competing at the highest level of amateur sport, such as the Olympics; many, many athletes and gamers don't meet that standard. I can appreciate that you would think that other people might be interested in this story; perhaps you should look for an alternative venue to post that information. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I don't get it. Why have all other countries that kind of page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyanewade333 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the word "basketsim" being used anywhere in any article on Wikipedia. Are you sure you're thinking of the right location, or have I mistaken the title? Accounting4Taste:talk 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.basketsim.gr/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Maybe because it's Greek site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyanewade333 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because it's a completely different wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Feel free to post whatever you like on that site, at least as far as we're concerned. Good luck with that. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly an error somewhere

You stated that articles are deleted until the person has played a pro game yet I found many about players not yet in the nhl or nba etc. Several not even drafted or signed to teams.Mbr1983 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There probably are; Wikipedia is staffed entirely by volunteers who don't always catch everything. You can feel free to tag those articles for speedy deletion, if you think they qualify. This is the relevant section of the policy found at WP:ATHLETE: "1. People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" -- over time, "competed" has been defined as "played a game", not merely signed to a team. But if you want to re-mount the article, you don't need either my permission or my assistance, simply create the same article under the same name. (If you require the original keystrokes, leave me a note.). I think that the same thing would keep happening with different administrators until the gentleman actually plays in a game, and you may find that rather frustrating, but you're welcome to try. Let me know if I can help you any further. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wouldn't mind the orginal keystrokes when you have a moment, he will likely play tonight or Thursday. Thanks.Mbr1983 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've stored the keystrokes for you at User:Mbr1983/Brayden Irwin; when he plays, as I said, I'd be happy to retrieve the article for you and re-post it, but I'd recommend that you add the details of his first game before re-posting. Let me know if I can be of further help. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its confirmed that he will play tomorrowMbr1983 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/mapleleafs/article/788322--new-leaf-irwin-to-make-debut-thursday

Then there's only 48 hours left to wait before reposting it; that type of citation after the game is exactly what will be required. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:WikiRecontributer47

your welcome Codf1977 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Philip Cutler

Hey A4T, This page went up yesterday. It was tagged for a CSD and I asked for a hangon, at which point ttonyb told me to clean up the sources and include some more relevent ones which I have been working on the last hour or so, only to find that the page has been taken down. The page contained information on an active politician and community coordinator and is certainly wiki worthy with the right citations. It would be greatly appreciated if you could put it back up and give me a chance to fix everything up. Keep up the good work. Yours in health, Theswissarmy (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not prepared to go further than restoring the deleted material to a sandbox page, which you will find at this link. The material I see, in my opinion, doesn't meet any of the relevant guidelines no matter under what category you're suggesting Mr. Cutler is notable; he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE (both of which I earnestly suggest you read before proceeding) and I very much doubt that he meets the general notability guideline. I suspect that unless you "fix everything up" to an extraordinary extent, including providing excellent citations to a category of accomplishments that is currently nowhere in evidence, you are liable to be disappointed by this article's continued deletion. However, you require neither my assistance nor my permission to restore this article. When you're satisfied with the contents of the sandbox page, simply use the "move this page" function to restore it to its previous location; if you require assistance with that, you can leave me a note. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A4T, I have the original keystrokes and I will try to make some changes. There was an special section on Mr. Cutler in this week's paper. Having read the notability for people he obviously should not be considered for an athlete (I don't think all college athletes should have their own pages, obviously), but he seems to meet the notability for politician for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Let me know what you think. Theswissarmy (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My understanding of "significant coverage" is not based on any specific policy reference, but I would be looking for evidence that his achievements had been chronicled over a wide area. By this, I mean about a quarter of the U.S., or three widely-separated major cities, or in two European countries... at about that level. Coverage restricted entirely to one city or one state would seem to me not to qualify unless it was a sustained intense interest over a period of months. I can't say if every administrator's definitions agree with mine (indeed, that would be unlikely) but these are the kinds of boundaries I would suggest in a discussion about an application of the general notability guideline. I hope that's useful; if you have any further questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SmokinPhotos Deletion

I would like to respectfully ask why a business that gives 100% of their profits to a foundation that supports disabled veterans, same one as Wound Warrior Project, is considered advertising but Google, eBay, Amazon.com, Amazon Bookstore Cooperative, Starbucks, Seattle's Best Coffee, PayPal, Gatorade, Cliff Bar, PowerBar, Purell, Quaker Instant Oatmeal... should I keep going... can have a page? I'm really confused on this idea of advertising you have, seriously, not being a smart-ass. I know advertising to be, "a form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action. It includes the name of a product or service and how that product or service could benefit the consumer, to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume that particular brand. Modern advertising developed with the rise of mass production in the late 19th and early 20th centuries" ^[1]

I know that somebody once stated,

“

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.^[2]

”

-Diderot

Providing knowledge on a foundation that assists disabled veterans seems to fall into the, "we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." With that, I see my page also fit, "an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men...," my page receives visits from all over the world like Russia, China, Australia, Vietnam, Germany, France, England, Mexico, Canada, Japan and so on.

I cannot advertise in the negative sense that Wikipedia tells us not to seeing I am not making any type of money for them. People always ask me about my business and, like Wounded Warrior Project, I wish to get the word out. I find the deletion of my page, especially based on the idea the WWP donates to the same foundation, as an attempt to place restrictions on the size of influence in an age where the grass-root projects are what makes us all. An encyclopedia is based on articles and that is all I wrote. If you wish to flex your admin muscles then I suggest you also delete the pages that I mentioned. Not sure why it is believed our future must never forget about Purel or other companies like Quaker Instant Oatmeal.

Thank you for your time.

Mjkrifka (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I deleted the article I saw because it had no references. Reliable sources are a key element of any Wikipedia article, along with notability -- which your article was not asserting except perhaps implicitly -- and verifiability, which was also not present. Those are the three essential elements of every Wikipedia article, and the article I saw lacked all three of them. My personal opinions about the articles I delete or retain are entirely irrelevant and do not come into play in the slightest; it's all about whether or not those articles meet/do not meet our policy guidelines. As far as the deletion of your article being "an attempt to place restrictions on the size of influence" -- you are absolutely correct. Wikipedia does not host articles about topics which are not yet influential -- Wikipedia only hosts articles about subjects that are already influential, or notable, and can prove that notability by reference to arm's-length, third-party expert sources of opinion. If you're here to increase the "size of influence", you'll have to look elsewhere, because that is considered here ... as you seem to have already discovered ... to be advertising. My "admin muscles", as you put it, do not require flexing; arguments that are based on the comparison of one article's merits to another's are not usually considered very useful here (see WP:WAX for details) and so I'm going to decline your invitation to examine any other articles. I think, rather than attempting to engage me in a philosophical discussion, your time would be much better spent by learning the basic elements of every Wikipedia article and the specific ones that relate to not-for-profit organizations. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Also have a look at our conflict of interest guidelines, which I gauge by your username you're in danger of infringing. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I do understand where you are coming from and Wikipedia in general on the entire basis of "x exists so why cannot I?" Makes sense and to have a philosophical discussion is pointless when the other wishes not to even take a minute and see another side. I am confused on your zero reference idea due to my ability to provide them on the page I had before deletion. It is what it is though. COI is indeed a very touchy thing. I attempt to protect myself against this though by keeping a neutral approach to the page as Wikipedia has suggested but as the Marx example states... it is rather difficult.

Thank you again for your input. Whether I disagree or agree, I appreciate your time. Maybe I'll create another type of hand sanitizer and somebody will write about it on here :) Mjkrifka (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think you have confused primary sources -- which is what I believe you provided on the page, references to the organization's own website and writings -- with reliable sources, which is a Wikipedia term with a specific definition that is pretty much secondary sources. (Click on the reliable sources link to see the specific definition.) Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources like, for instance, your organization's own website to attest to opinions about the organization, because those are usually coloured with the same problems that you have observed in our conflict of interest guidelines. (Primary sources are only used for things about which there is little or no possibility of disagreement, usually physical facts like street addresses, etc.) Wikipedia only uses secondary sources for matters of opinion, which is to say we rely entirely on what experts have had to say about a topic. I like to use the illustration that we are not interested in what an actual survivor of an earthquake may have had to say, just what the contemporaneous newspapers printed about the event. They are types of information that have different value in different contexts.

One part of Wikipedia that you may find of value is an area where you can suggest that someone else write about a topic if you have a conflict of interest with respect to it; that is found at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Alternatively, you can simply declare your conflict on the relevant talk pages; the idea is that people should be able to identify any potential sources of bias and judge for themselves whether or not to accept statements of opinion.

Thanks for your comments about appreciating my time and input. You are probably aware that Wikipedia is staffed entirely by volunteers; if you'd like to make this encyclopedia a better one, and even have it reflect your own views, you would be welcome to join our community of volunteers. If there is any Wikipedian topic upon which you have questions, please don't hesitate to leave me a further note. One of the responsibilities I accepted with my administrative role is that of answering questions. Alternatively, I think that almost anyone you encounter here should be willing and even eager to assist you with anything you want to contribute here. If you would like the deleted keystrokes to be returned to a "sandbox" page where you can add secondary sources at your leisure, you have but to ask. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, completely understand that now. Not sure why I did not come to think of secondary references, thought I read everything. I knew it would be hard to do this. I've kept my work on a document and put it back onto a "work in progress" page using Wizard again. I'll work to fix my errors in terms of the references. You would think I never went to college after that mistake. Thank you again for your ideas. Mjkrifka (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

I was trying to find out my genealogy and I came across Ulysses S. Grant V, but it said that the page was not notable, if you could send my a copy of this page or something close, that would be wonderful, I really want to know my ancestry. Please? :)

67.190.163.72 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Young sack_zeven@yahoo.com

I have retrieved the deleted material and placed it into a "sandbox" page for you at User:67.190.163.72/Sandbox, but I am sorry to say I think you will be disappointed. I examined the articles about Ulysses S. Grant III and Ulysses S. Grant IV, neither of whom had any male children, and there is almost no information in the material that I retrieved; not even enough to make me think that this person actually existed. Good luck with your inquiries. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Crouch-DeVries deletion

I don't think Crouch-DeVries qualified as an A7 deletion; in fact I couldn't find any CSD criterion it clearly fell under, which is why I elected to decline the first CSD and instead nominate it via WP:PROD. I'm not asking for restoration; it really doesn't belong as it was written, but...it might if someone paid enough attention to it and actually wrote something more encyclopedic. (Unless, of course, it was a hoax to start with.) Frank | talk 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I felt that it qualified as being about a non-notable group of people. As near as I can make out, what this article was saying is that there is a group of people with the last name of Crouch, and another with the last name of DeVries, and that (in the enigmatic part of the article) these two names were going to be somehow joined. in other words, two people are getting married next year and this article is some sort of advance notification of that event. That didn't seem to me to be at all encyclopedic. I decided that I could treat the group of people named "Crouch-DeVries" as being a non-notable group. If you disagree with my assessment, I'd be happy to return the deleted content to a sandbox page where you could try to work out what was really being said and add references to that effect... I'm merely going on my "best-guess" assessment and would have no trouble with a different interpretation of the material that would form the basis of a useful article. Is there something you can suggest that makes any sense? Accounting4Taste:talk 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No biggie; I just didn't think it was a CSD candidate, which is why I prodded it after declining the first CSD nom. A7 is open to some interpretation, I realize (like so many things around here). Nevertheless, "not encyclopedic" - which I agree this article clearly wasn't - isn't a CSD criterion as far as I know. Frank | talk 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And, just for a bit of irony, the very next thing I did was A7-delete Mrs. Janack's Class. Oh well. I won't tell if you won't. Frank | talk 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And Mrs. Janack's 4th Grade. Frank | talk 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're right about "not encyclopedic"; I think what I was getting at is that I would work harder to preserve something with an encyclopedic germ at its heart than one I can't fathom. But I have to thank you for making me smile about the randomness of our chosen task. Sometimes I think as much as 50% of what I do here is contrary to my instincts about the material, but I always find new page patrol to be an endless source of new decisions to make. I promise not to give Mrs. Janack your home number if you'll return the favour ;-3 Accounting4Taste:talk 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I rather think she would prefer to remain anonymous anyway. :-) Agreed on the "encyclopedic germ", which further investigation showed to be completely lacking in that case... Frank | talk 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Poste Algérie

Hello. I found your user name off of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. (You were the first active editor.) Can you give me a copy of the version of Poste Algérie the was deleted in 2007? The admin who originally deleted the article has since left wikipedia. Thank you.--Banana (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the deleted contents -- an address -- on your talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much there to go on. : P Thanks for checking.--Banana (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request To Have Page Restored

Hello,

Thank you for your time, working to make Wikipedia better. I'm writing you today to formally request that the "Adam Dread" Wikipedia page, which was found to be deleted on April 1, be restored. It has been up for many years. There was metion of it being taken down due to lack "notabilty." A quick Google or Bing search will confirm notability, as a politician, lawyer, songwriter, author, radio persoanlity,"cat whisperer" stroke survivor, etc. As an attorney, in the past week alone "Adam Dread" has been quoted online on Foxnews, CBS, E!, TMZ, and countless other media outlets. Another point of possible confusion; there was mention as to a book not having "hign numbers" on Amazon. That does make sense, as the book is not distributed through Amazon, but sold privately at specific localized shops. Again, I would respectfully ask that the "Adam Dread" page be restored. Thank you.Adamdread (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page, although I personally disagree with its inclusion; I have found a record of an articles for deletion process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Dread where the result was a decision to keep the article, and I am bound to go along with that. Nevertheless I think, as was noted in the Articles for deletion process, that the article is (a) borderline in terms of notability and (b) replete with material that is self-promotional. My instinct would be to cut quite a bit of it; I'm actually going to consider taking this through AfD again. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I start write things to Talk:Respawn Entertainment

Can I start write things to Talk:Respawn Entertainment or do you guys have some special page for talk about this new studio and hows it coming along. I know this is pretty early stages but I want to start conversation about studio and the article about this upcoming studio. Thanks. --Dekonega (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As near as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't intend to have an article on this topic, or at least not until the subject is considerably more notable than it currently is. Generally speaking, companies don't become the subject of Wikipedia articles until they are already well-known, not "upcoming". Precisely because it is as yet "pretty early stages", you'll probably have to have the conversation elsewhere until three or four reliable sources have discussed the topic in venues like newspapers and magazines. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. --Dekonega (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam Dread

Please hang on. I can get all the verifications/citatiosn requested, but will not have time until later this week. Thank you. 173.162.30.84 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) Hangon tags only go on the page that contains the speedy deletion tag, please, not on talk pages. (b) I didn't put the speedy deletion tag into the article to which you're objecting, so asking me to "hangon" is not really useful. (c) I've removed the speedy tag and left a note explaining why on the talk page of the article (the article recently passed an articles for deletion process and thus is not eligible for speedy deletion). (d) I still think it would be a good idea to add citations; feel free to go forward with that as soon as possible. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Epocrates

I noticed that Wikipedia marked the Epocrates page for speedy deletion. I am hoping for some clarification (I read the section on your talk page), as the content was neutral and tried to keep to the appropriate encyclopedia format. Not product names were mentioned, no claims of superiority to other companies in the space, such as UpToDate and webMD, both of which are included in Wikipedia. The data claims (with one pending a citation) were all backed up by non-corporate links. The company in question is cited in 11 other Wikipedia entries (not added by my, or to my knowledge anyone at the company), which helps reinforce the use of the company's technology as a reference. As you stated in the "Respawn Entertainment" section above "Generally speaking, companies don't become the subject of Wikipedia articles until they are already well-known." I would classify Epocrates in the well known category. Its technology is used by 1 in 3 U.S. doctors. It is prominent in searches (225,000 Google returns and features in outlets from TechCrunch and Gizmodo to the Wall Street Journal as well as peer-reviewed journals). If there is objectionable content, I would prefer to delete that than the whole entry. If you need additional citations, I would be happy to provide. If it was the Steve Jobs comment that caused deltion, I am happy to remove that, I included that to showcase that other noted authorities also consider Epocrates to be a company worthy of note. Thanks.

Skrimgeour (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Skrimgeour

Thanks for your note, and I will try to clarify as you've requested. When you refer to "neutral" content, I have to disagree; "Software, such as Epocrates, is credited with helping clinicians reduce medial errors" is only neutral if there is a specific reliable source that says so, and since none was provided that falls squarely into the advertising category. Similarly, the entirely unreferenced third paragraph (telling people that there is a "Manhattan Research study" is quite a bit different than providing information on how to find that study) about how popular PDAs are seemed to me entirely focused on promoting products like those of the company in question that run on PDAs. In short, there was an awful lot of assertion and very, very little proof -- there was really only one valid citation and it proved that a single application had been demonstrated onstage in connection with a product that is not made by the company in question. You are correct to quote me as saying that companies don't generally become the topic of Wikipedia articles until they are well-known; however, those articles don't remain unless there is clear and amply-referenced proof that the company is notable, a small but important distinction. Since an article about the topic has now been deleted five times in the last three years, I'm going to decline to restore this article; I will take the contents of the most-recently-deleted article and place them into a "sandbox" page at User:Skrimgeour/Sandbox for your convenience. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, you do not require either my permission or my assistance to restore the article to the main body of Wikipedia; you can simply use the "move page" function. I suggest that you'll be dealing with the same situation with a different administrator unless the issue of citations is thoroughly addressed, but it's up to you entirely at this point. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The citations are there and I will add them in before restoring them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrimgeour (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem with the Committee for Melbourne Article???

A 25 year old not for profit organisation that has given out major awards and come up with big ideas for a city?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpmcewen (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)