User talk:Neil4152

Speedy deletion nomination of Rachael kirby

A tag has been placed on Rachael kirby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses

Can you explain why this page was deleted. It was purely for reference and informative and relevant.

I see that you allow topics such as 'who likes the Simpsons' but choose to delete information on young up and coming english writers.

I also note that you did not contact me via my email address, or even advise of what your intentions were. It seems that you are the type of person to shy away from confronting me behind a computer screen. If all administrators are like you then I feel that this site is pointless and I will publish this fact.

You have the chance to contact me this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil4152 (talk • contribs) 2010-08-19T11:57:25

Are you the person who deleted my page on Rachael Kirby? If so why did you not contact me to explain your actions? Can you do so now. (not a question). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil4152 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the person? What does the deletion log state? "Why did you not contact me"? I think it is exceedingly cheeky of you to delete my message and then claim that I had not contacted you.

I did not delete the article, I merely tagged it for deletion. Are my reasons above for tagging the article not clear? Where was there any indication of importance? You claim she has been interviewed by All-review.co.uk, so why did you not link to the review? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are basing your reason for deletion on the lack of a link. I can not believe the self righteous importance you seem to crave over a petty reason. I would suggest you think about what you have done and correct the issue and have the page reinstated.

I have browsed over your own page and fail to see a good reason why it remains, if your reason for deleting mine is a valid point.

Reading between your lines, I get the feeling you may have made a mistake in this case, I hope you will correct it and restore my faith in your site.

Neil Kirby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil4152 (talk • contribs)

"I have browsed over your own page". Which page was that may I ask? RHaworth was created by vandals, deleted and salted a long time ago. You have created user:Neil4152 so why am I not allowed a User:RHaworth page? No, I have not made any mistake. Even if you had provided a link to All-review.co.uk, the woman's importance would have remained highly dubious since: "Rachael J. Kirby says: We are currently building a new book review site called all-review.co.uk"[1]  I also read: "my name is Rachael Kirby. I am 34, married to Neil"[2]. Come off it man, you are blatantly advertising your wife's work. You can raise the matter at deletion review but don't expect any support from me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"No reason was readable, no instruction that made sense and more confusingly not even an email." Neil4152 (talk · contribs · logs) [via email]

• I am sorry but I feel that the first message posted to this page was totally readable, made perfect sense and did not need any email to back it up. If you want a second opinion, I suggest you contact the person who actually did the deletion - via their user_talk page, not via email. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Given up

Ive given up now, but can you explain what is needed to keep the article from being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.237.102 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• You mean what is needed to re-instate the article. All of: review of Rachael's book by a reliable, independent source, an article about Rachael herself in a reliable, independent source and the article being written by a well-established Wikipedia editor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But not the last one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC).