User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2009/06

Paul Berry (musician)

Hi King of Hearts

You recently deleted the article Paul Berry (musician). I would like to contest this deletion but I am unclear on how to do this. Could you please help.

I believe that the article met the criteria set out by Wikipedia for notability and non-trivial coverage. Unfortunately, many of thsoe who posted to suggest deletion did so before the inclusion of details about BBC coverage, radio coverage and online reviews.

Bezza67 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the correct way to contest the deletion: talking to the closing admin first. Please note that after the links were added, Orangemike, Eusebeus, and others still !voted "delete," so I interpreted the consensus as "delete." If you still disagree with the decision, you may appeal to WP:DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The process all looks a little confusing to me, but it does state I should try and sort out the problem with you first. The main crux of the arguments for the article's deletrion stem from notability and trivial coverage, however my counter arguments gave clear references to Wikipedia's own criteria where these criteria were met. In effect, the deletion seems to be based on a perception of what notability and trivial coverage is rather than those set out by Wikipedia. For example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC The Wikpedia:Notability (Music) pages states "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." Paul Berry has been played on the BBC as recently as 31/5/09 and is featured on the current BBC6 Music podcast. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." Paul Berry has appeared on one independent compilation and is to appear on another by Subkulture Records.There was also an unanswered question by me to one of those proposing the article's deletion because of Trivial coverage. Unfortunately, the article was deleted before I got a chance to have my question answered. In effect, I think the article should be restored to allow for the arguments for and against to be completed and, hopefully, with people referring to Wikipedia's own criteria for what is notability.Bezza67 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had presented those references, and no one made any counterarguments against them, then I probably would have relisted the debate. However, other users (e.g. Peridon) have effectively argued that the additional sources still do not establish notability. If you want to try rewriting the article so that it meets WP:MUSIC (given that the artist himself does), I can userfy it to a user subpage at your request so that you can work on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm thinking that the the same people are going to jump to the same conclusions all over again if I do review and produce an amended article, regardless of Wikipedia's actual criteria being met in more than one instance. Peridon may have sucessfully got the article deleted, but the criteria for Notability ([1] was actually met. If the article met the criteria and was still deleted then I can't see it getting accepted next time - which seems a little strange and unfortunate. The whole deletion process seems like a good way of sorting out valid articles from the not-so-valid (of which I am sure there are many) but I feel that process was not followed effectively in this instance with 'perceptions' of what is notable being taken into account rather than Wikipedia's own criteria. I was also a little dismayed that you chose to end and delete my article without my last counterargument to Eusebeus being answered. For this reason, and to avoid wasting your time and my time, I will not be continuing with the article.Bezza67 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Maciszewski

I'm a little disheartened with the outcome of this deletion discussion. It's not only that I disagree with the outcome but that the people arguing to delete did not seem to address any of the points or really engage in it; the arguments to delete are merely assertions of non-notability; Eusebeus and Hekerui both cite MUSICBIO and seemingly ignore the fact that this person is an ethnomusicologist. Would it be out-of-line for me to recreate the article, starting in my userspace, making sure the article stays tightly sourced? I have absolutely no connection to the person the article was about...I simply found the article/subject very interesting and thought it would be a valuable contribution to wikipedia and could be written as a tightly-sourced article. Cazort (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, of course you can recreate it in your userpage. I'll userfy the article if you request. As for my decision, note that three people still !voted "delete" after you gave your sources. Vejvančický's keep !vote was based on WP:INTERESTING, not on notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you would userify the page! Thanks so much! Cazort (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, June 2, 2009.

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Tyw7

I would like to have you to be my admin coach. I have ran for 4 failed RFAs. I have been for Wikipedia for over a year. If you would be interested in coaching me, that would be great! --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to be your coach. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the admin coaching page. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Hi King, if you have a moment, can you have a look at Ted Cruz? One user using two IPs (at least, that's my suspicion) is consistently changing information--well, vandalizing the article--and really deserves a block of sorts. If you'll look at the history you'll see what I mean, I hope. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and it seems to be more of a content dispute than vandalism. I have therefore protected the page for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

75.103.12.146 is clearly a vandal (page-blanking), but 98.198.57.18's edits (while I doubt they are correct) do not constitute vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey King, thanks for looking into this, and with such speed! I appreciate that. If I may, this seems to be one of those cases where a content dispute quickly turns into vandalism--the replacing of "Christian" by "Roman Catholic" for instance, while innocent enough in many places, can mean a whole lot in the political climate in Texas, as does the addition of the claim that the guy was born in Canada--that's playing on xenophobia toward both sides of the border. But I do thank you for your attention, and I hope that this will all blow over. Now, I'd love to stay and chat, but Alton Brown is discussing a guy scooping marrow out of some bones, and it's pretty exciting. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing. --kelapstick (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi King of Hearts, I was just wondering if you have any more space for another coachee. Please let me know either way. Thank you, OtisJimmyOne 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to be your coach. I'm a little busy right now, so I'll get back to you in a few days; we'll start the coaching then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that Richardshusr created your admin coaching page, I guess you're working with him. Have fun! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Signature

Your signature doesn't have a direct link to your talk page. I suggest you linking to you talk page for easier reply postage. Thanks, --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does; it's the diamond. The link doesn't show up on my talk page because of technical reasons; try clicking on the diamond on any other page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Voodoo Six deletion.

Hi. Just a quick message for a quick answer please? I am thick with regards to the workings of Wikipedia,so please tell me why our page was deleted? Many thanks,Dave Cavill,Voodoo Six. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.245.236 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons are given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voodoo Six. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Person

You closed as delete. An IP involved in the deletion debate has recreated the page after another user made a redirect. I have redirected the page, but the IP seems determined. Should I nominate it for speedy as G4, or can you lock it as a redirect, I'm not sure what to do and thought that you may want some input. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a policy regarding what to do in this instance, so I'll WP:IAR and protect it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism originating at IP address 198.179.227.59 (and 58)

My apologies. This computer is located in a large bookstore with 50+ employees (and God only knows how many ex-employees who know how to access Wikipedia from the terminals on the sales floor). Those of us who respect the site attempt to keep an eye on things, but it is difficult. Also, I'm sure that some of the vandalisms are actually just stupid mistakes by inexperienced occasional users (if that makes a difference). I'm a registered user myself, and hate to see this computer blocked. If it gets to that point again, I will divulge my user name so we can discuss it un-anonymously.198.179.227.59 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're logged in, you shouldn't be blocked, because the blocks on that IP are all anon-only blocks. Do not divulge your username publicly. If you still have issues and must divulge your username, you can email me at Special:Emailuser/King of Hearts (when logged in). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Georgia–Slovakia relations

Can you move the information on Georgia–Slovakia relations so I can add it to the merged table on bilateral relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lily_Thai

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lily_Thai. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SPNic (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

lily thai

curious as to why u deleted the lily thai page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.84.157 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Thai and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 13. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Armin Shams

He has extended a major 'prime number theory' theorem and the journal paper reference has been provided. This is quite notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.170.77 (talk • contribs) 23:22, June 24, 2009

Please see WP:PROF. It must satisfy at least one of the nine criteria. It seems that #1 is most likely; however, it must have multiple independent reliable sources (i.e., not written by Shams). Try to find a few more sources and add them on there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Crittenden-Cavendish

You may remember this laughably over-the-top hoax, which I took to AfD and you deleted in January. Two things about it:

• in April an IP (probably James C-C himself, as the IP is registered to the University of St Andrews where he is a student) replaced the closed AfD debate with a complaint that it was slanderous; I don't think it was, it merely showed that his claims were faked, but I have in turn replaced his complaint with an {{AfD-privacy}} tag which seems the best way to spare his blushes;
• However, he hasn't learned - he's back with another hoax article Habsburg-Reuter awarding himself another title sourced to a dodgy-looking website. I am checking up on this one, preparing to take it to AfD: to help with that, could you email me a copy of the James Crittenden-Cavendish article?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. AfD for his rather more restrained reappearance as Graf von Reuter here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola at DRV

You closed this as "deletion endorsed", but it wasn't deleted, it was kept. I'm fine with deletion, but I don't think that what you intended. Also your "new message" link is broke. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I fixed it to "no consensus." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

asshole

Hey my Endangered Species Chocolate page wasn't blatant advertising; I was talking about the history and mission of a company. This is my first wiki page and if someone would just tell me how I could work on a page without it being live, then once it's finished I'll post it. But no one on wiki is helpful whatsoever. So thanks for DELETING all of my work!!! Let me tell you how AWESOME that was!!! Maybe instead of being an asshole you could perhaps offer some guidance and explain to me how I can create a page that’s not live and once it is finished I can post it. That would be a lot cooler than DELETING my page. Thanks. KyleWendling (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to User:KyleWendling/Endangered Species Chocolate, where you can work on it. Remember to use an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia and include multiple independent reliable sources that establish notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GiftZip.com

Good Afternoon, I am a senior in college working toward my major in English and Political Science. As per my internship adviser's request, I am attempting to author a Wikipedia page about a ground breaking start-up in the college town when I am residing this summer. I recently created a page and found that you tagged it for deletion based on the fact that it did not establish the significance of the company. I am clearly new to Wikipedia and I am unsure on how to ensure that my page will not be deleted. GiftZip.com is the first website with its business model and promotes green gift giving, it has won several business plan awards and prize money that are nationally recognized and was featured at the National Summit, which included the CEOs of major companies in the United States, including Google, Dow Chemical, American Airlines, Ford Moto Company, Microsoft and many others. The presidents of all the major universities in Michigan attended, along with the Van Jones, The adviser of Green Jobs from the White House Council, The Governor of Michigan, and The Honorable Aneesh P. Chopra, Chief Technology Officer of United States of America. I cited all this information in my article and included links to creditable resources. GiftZip.com has also been featured on CNN. What other measures can I take to instill the importance of this emerging business that started as an idea in a College class and has expanded to gain national media attention?

Any help that you could be would be greatly appreciated, I'm not trying to spam people, I'm genuinely interested in finding out how I can maintain a page on here without it being immediately deleted.

Also, is there any way you can restore my page, I do not have that particular version backed up, so that I may move it to a private page to work on?

Thanks, Mallory Malloryloren (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done - You may now find the page at User:Malloryloren/GiftZip.com. However, don't create the page GiftZip.com until you are sure that it meets WP:WEB. (If you believe that it does, move the page using the "move" tab back to GiftZip.com rather than copy-and-pasting.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

speedy nomination

I think your nomination of Wyman Park, Baltimore for AfD was too fast and does not contribute to a constructive atmosphere here on wikipedia. Such nominations, happening very quickly after an article's creation, are entirely appropriate in the cases where the article fits the criteria for speedy deletion, as with spam, re-created articles, etc. But this article was just a stub--and a perfectly expandable one as our very brief searches showed. Even if you still think it should be deleted (and I can respect differences of opinion on what is notable) it is not a clear-cut enough case to justify nominating it for AfD so soon. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a little bit more time to research topics before jumping the gun on AfD's. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried looking for sources. While many did exist, I didn't feel that they established the notability of the place. Anyways, seeing the number of "keep"s, I've withdrawn the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. Within one day of article creation was far too early to request deletion and was disruptive to the editing and article improvement process on Wikipedia. I was able to find sources that establish passing WP:NOTABILITY within a few seconds. If, for whatever reason, you felt those same sources which you say you found did not establish notability, then placing a notability tag would've been appropriate. That would've given editors time to improve it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can improve an article by adding good sources. You can't improve bad sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing "bad" about the sources supplied in the AfD (which were all found in a few seconds) which can improve the article immensely regarding the place's history and development along with current stats. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good/bad was just an example. I'm not saying the sources are "bad"; while they can improve the article, that doesn't mean they show notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually they do establish passing WP:NOTABILITY. That's why all the "keep" votes which prompted you to withdraw the nomination. Attempting to speedy delete articles with sources establishing notability so easily available is disruptive to editors efforts to improve articles. Considering your an administrator, this probably is apparent. --Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a deletionist, you know? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Yatauro, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terese Nielsen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terese Svoboda. I do look for sources when evaluating an article. The reason I brought it to AfD was to get other people's opinions, since I personally felt the sources weren't enough. And the result was that AfD served its purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)