User talk:Phil Bridger/January 2008 – March 2008

List of Afghan singers

Ok, thanks. I will provide the category link. BamyanMan (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

If you have sources to show that he had solo shows, I will most definitely undelete the article. That was a mistake, and I apologize to you for the inconvenience. Thank you. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I will undelete the article momentarily. I just don't want it to be re-tagged, causing you more trouble; people are more likely to tag an article without sources. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, don't hesitate to ask if you need any help, administrative or otherwise. :-) Happy editing! Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4

I've asked you to modify, strike or redact your statement at the above.[1] I for one am very conscientious when reveiwing RFA's and I find your comments insulting and assuming bad faith at best, and an attack (bordering on personal) to the supporters at worst. Please reconsider. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your respect and calmness in doing this. [2] Honestly, it's appreciated. I respect your oppose and stance, but sometimes comments run away from an editor and are against the collegial atmosphere we all strive for. Sorry if I came over as to harsh. Again, thank you. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't come over as at all harsh. You just reminded me that I don't have the right to assume bad faith just because I'm annoyed when someone else seems to be doing exactly that. I'll try to rise above that in future! Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said sir! Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Phil Bridger, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia.

-- AKeen (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

db-spam

You might be interested in looking at Artists' Quarter too.--Appraiser (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Mimi Pond

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mimi Pond, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of fans suspect Mimi Pond is a pseudonym, because she hasn't been involved with the writing process since and she has never been mentioned by the Simpsons producers once. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mimi Pond

An editor has nominated Mimi Pond, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Pond and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Offerdahl

Another unsourced British sports guy, is he notable or not? MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 January 9/Articles

I replied to your query.

• China at the Chess Olympiads (history · last edit) from [3]. I'm not sure whether this is a copyright violation or not, as the actual content just consists of raw facts, which are not subject to copyright, but the formatting has also been copied in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Homepage: http://www.olimpbase.org/ look at the right panel and sroll down

"COPYRIGHT

OlimpBase :: the online encyclopaedia of international team chess events

© Free to copy.

Please cite the source.

2003-2008

Wojciech Bartelski"

Humortueio (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Williams

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Doczilla (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sergio Villanueva Fernández

Thanks for your information about Sergio Villanueva Fernández. In the lead, could you make it clear to a non-footballer why he is notable? Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

British Chess Problem Society

Just want to say thanks for your contributions and references to this article! Voorlandt (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Economica

Thanks for fixing the sourcing issues on Economica. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, Phil. That A1 rule also applies to declarative sentences with little or no content. It was up to the original poster to provide the minimum content required for a good stub, i.e., at least a couple of paragraphs. A couple of sentences are better than this. Heck, no article whatsoever is better than this. These sorts of empty articles are (or at least were) deleted all the time and, IMO, it isn't fair to assume that someone is going to step up and expand this. Besides, anyone researching this subject already knows what it is he does as ambassador. Jimbo Wales himself has lamented over this lack of content; we shouldn't have the article simply for the article's sake and I don't want to disrupt the site to run this on AfD. On the other hand, I feel that this is setting a really, really bad precident by letting these sorts of "nanostubs" stay. Sometimes, these can be redirected but it can't be done in this case. Result: We're left with a single sentence (which makes this site look bad) and a bunch of expansion templates. I know nothing about New Zealand politicians, but it appears as if I'll be expanding this myself...and I really don't want to. Thanks for letting me vent. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolkonsky or Volkonsky

Hi,

You redirected Wolkonsky Serge to Sergei Volkonsky. Please note "Wolkonsky" and "Serge" is his own transcription, and his English books were printed under this name! So, please, undo this redirection.

Thanks, --Mart071 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the deletion template from Nanahughmilleria. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NYMagazine

Phil, I am not sure the NY Magazine list of best doctors is a source for notability. Can you explain to me why you think it is sufficient? DGG (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Anne McGinty

Phil,

Thanks for your contributions. I'm glad we were able to get the orphaning issue taken care of, and that you added some sources, but my primary problem with the article is that it satisfies no part of WP:MUSIC. Lack of notability is grounds for deletion per WP Deletion Policy, so I'm going to put the PROD tag back in place. Please review WP:MUSIC criteria for composers, and if you can get the article to that standard I'll welcome the changes. Cheers! SingCal (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil,

Apologies for my misuse of PROD. Somewhat silly mistake on my part. That said, I have filed an AfD regarding the article. My reasons can be found here. SingCal (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Boy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Burke's Boy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Burke's Boy. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I re-tagged this article. We really do not want to give every horse that wins an FEI four star its own wikipedia article, no matter how famous its rider, unless it goes on to do something else. Otherwise, there'd be a thousand new articles. it's the equivalent of, oh, maybe putting up an article on every winner of the Santa Anita Derby, just because they had a famous jockey or something. Not saying the horse wasn't talented, just challenging notability. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

NASDAQ

Perhaps you should read up on WP:COMPANY. Having a presence on NASDAQ is not necessarily a criterion for notability, nor is it an assertion. --WebHamster 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMPANY is not a speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#A7 says "This is distinct from questions of notability". A NASDAQ listing is enough of an indication of importance/significance to mean that the article shouldn't be deleted without consideration at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case then perhaps you'll point me to the place where it states as such. If there is no place then I can only presume you've unilaterally decided it to be the case. In which case I'd recommend you leave the CSD notice removals to admins who do know the rules rather than making them up as they go. --WebHamster 10:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just pointed you to the place, WP:CSD#A7, which, in the quote I gave you above, is clear that notability guidelines like WP:COMPANY don't apply to speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what that guideline is, I meant (and I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I meant) where is the statement that says a NASDAQ ticker has any relation to notability. It just means it's a publically traded company, nothing more. Are you sure you're not confusing it with Fortune 500 which is an assertion of notability? Now judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things, so I would suggest once again that you leave the CSD (and prod) removals to those who know what they are doing. --WebHamster 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, talking about assertions of notability, when I have already given you the quote which says that A7 is about indications of importance/significance, not of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They are the same to all intents and purposes, but regardless you still haven't pointed me to the place where a NASDAQ ticker is an assertion of "importance/significance". All it is is a symbol showing that the company is publically traded along with 1000s of other companies. So back to the start, please point me to the location where you picked up this factoid and this exchange can cease. If you can't then I suggest you re-appraise your rationale for removing the CSD. Incidentally, for your edification, the wording on the CSD-A7 only changed recently, prior to which it was "asserting notability". This is why I use the phrase out of habit. So, the location? --WebHamster 11:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If "they are the same to all intents and purposes then why does A7 say "This is distinct from questions of notability"? And as for the wording, it has said "importance/significance" since it was created in 2005. There's nothing that explicitly says that a NASDAQ listing is sufficient for this, just as there is nothing detailing precisely all of the thousands of other reasons why a subject may be considered important/significant. That's a subjective judgment which I propose that we should agree to differ about. Now, to come to your statement, "judging by the contents of your talk page it's pretty clear that you aren't totally au fait with these sort of things", could you please point me to specific articles discussed here where my tag removals were unjustified? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent change I referred to was the "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources.". You will also find that most of the admins dealing with the CSD notices as well as 'time served' editors use the phrase "assertion of notability". Just call it an auld pharts inability to change. As regards my comments about your talk page. I didn't mean about removal of CSD notices I meant about creating articles that don't fulfil the relevant criteria. You seem to have had a good size collection of articles which have been speedied or AfD'ed. For this to happen shows to me that you aren't totally au fait about what makes a justified WP article. I've been known to be wrong before though. --WebHamster 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't created a single article which has been subsequently deleted. You kept asking me for evidence to support my claims, so now I would like you to either do the same or retract your statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about being deleted? Regardless, this has gone on long enough and I really don't want to spend any more time on it, so as a means to end this I'll apologise and retract my above comments. --WebHamster 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Were running out of space to indent any further! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. I hope you had the time to review my answer to Q8 on my RfA before the RfA closed. I hope that if your questions about my ability to uphold Wikipedia policies could not be proven to you with those answers, that my future edits here will help you establish that by my next RfA. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most Phallic Building contest

An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I present this barnstar to Phil Bridger for reaffirming my faith in Wikipedia, and proving that editors can disagree, yet remain civil. Cheers! faithless (speak)

Matthew Freeman(footballer)

Is this guy notable Matthew Freeman(footballer)? MBisanz ^talk 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw he played in a "League One" and was payed, so that flagged it in my brain. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Actors who died in their 20s

I wanted to let you know that, even if I'm about to disagree with you, I appreciate that you gave a thought out response with policy quoted for your keep vote on the deletion discussion for Actors who died in their 20s. This discussion was frustrating me to the point of considering not participating in AfD anymore because all the previous keep votes seemed like knee jerk responses and irrelevant banter, with even an admin saying we should keep it only because the category was deleted. I wanted you to know I appreciate that and wish we had more editors like you participating in WP:AfD discussions. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural Edge Project

Thank you for expanding this article and saving it from deletion. Well done! Johnfos (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of North Marion High School (Oregon)

If you still think those templates are not the proper ones, please consider doing something useful and add the proper one, 'cause this article is clearly not encyclopedic. In case you're not able to find the proper template, I'll prod the article. Thank You. Victao lopes (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to go with this if you think it should be deleted is to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. WP:PROD is not appropriate because that is only for uncontroversial deletions, and high school deletions are always controversial. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaikhul Hind Mufti Mahmood ul Hasan

thought this article was earlier Speedy deleted for notablity.Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moeed1991ahmad Sorry if I was my mistake.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be eligible for speedy deletion as a repost the article needs to have been previously deleted after discussion at AfD - see WP:CSD#G4 Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

American College of Psychiatrists‎

It could be that scientologists prodded it, backlash from Project Chanology. Speciate (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds likely. I was rather suspicious about the prod coming from an IP user. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Radhaa Ki Betiyaan Kuch Kar Dikhayengi

You untagged this article yesterday on the grounds it didn't meet the {{db-nn}} criteria. You're absolutely right and I tagged it by mistake. You deserve recognition. Keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For excellent and valuable work preserving many useful articles from the chop. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Is this rugby player notable Sam Faust? MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be. I've edited the article to provide context. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Oldprodfull}}

Hello, Phil Bridger ... please see Talk:David Roberts (swimmer) and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

William Sichel

I have tried contesting the notability of this article the correct way, as it seems to me to be nothing more than self-promotion. You keep removing my tag and accusing me of removing sources which is simply not true. Why? 81.156.57.113 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it simply is true that you have been removing sources. I put references in the article to sources from the Sunday Times and the BBC to show that this is a notable subject, and you keep removing them. If you still think that the article should be deleted you need to use the procedure described at WP:AFD, which allows for consensus to be reached on deletion. The procedure which you have been trying to use, WP:PROD, only applies to uncontested deletions, and, if you read it, you will see that the proposed deletion tag shouldn't be put back once anyone has contested it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried, but I cannot make head nor tail of the procedure described at WP:AFD. 217.44.99.30 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Susan Kuronen

How does this article indicate importance/significance? See Talk:Susan Kuronen and someone's comment from May 2007. From your user name, I am assuming you are not even Finnish. This subject is not significant to us Finnish people, so I think it is even less important to people outside of Finland. It is quite easy to write insignificant articles to the English wikipedia because of its size and global user base. ---Majestic- (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says that her book caused "uproar and intrigue", and that she "continued to make headlines". That is enough for it to be able to avoid speedy deletion, but it may well be that, if you take it for discussion using the WP:AFD procedure, there will be a consensus to delete it. Also please note that this is an English language encyclopedia, but not an encyclopedia only about the English speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony Gibson

Good work saving the article. It's better to see one worked into shape than deleted. Cheers -- BPMullins | Talk 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

If you are interested, there was a follow-up question, 8.1, on my RFA that I'm certain will alleviate your concerns about A7 tagging. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

About your removal of the prod on Karen Arenson - could you provide the references on the talkpage as to her notability outside that one instance? Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rajac - removal of PROD

Thanks for this - I did not know that template existed, otherwise it would have been the first thing I would have done! - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD of K. S. Balachandran

I have nominated this article for deletion, due to the numerous issues. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of K. S. Balachandran

An article that you have been involved in editing, K. S. Balachandran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating articles

Well, I took your advice and created an article. Needless to say, it's a mess. I can't even figure out why the references are all screwed up. Travis Grant Enigma ^msg! 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I linked you to the wrong article. Sorry. Enigma ^msg! 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Abdul Haque (2nd nomination)

Hi Phil, you might be interested about this afd. Thank you--NAHID 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to rewrite the article to actually make a claim of notability? If you are trying to protect it from deletion, I guess, that is the best thing you can do. I have tried it twice (for Jayne Mansfield in popular culture and Whale tail), and both times it worked. The technique is called the Heymann Standard by some. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the Heymann standard - I apply it every day. In this case I don't really see what rewriting is needed to establish notability. The article already says "Muhammad Abdul Haque served as president for Sylhet District BNP for more than 12 years" which is his main claim to notability, and provides a reference for that. There are also wikilinks in the article for Sylhet District and BNP so readers can see the importance of this position. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the in-line citation provided does say nothing about that claim. No 12 years, no president. If there was no AfD running, this should have been removed immediately as unverified claim. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Phil! A few things:

1. It would probably be best to assume good faith on other editors in the future.
2. My opinion stands as it is.
3. The wording of the delete template is semantics (i.e., irrelevant to the discussion).
4. Your tone is uncivil.
5. I'm sorry that we cannot agree on the subject matter, but that is what makes Wiki great!

Unless there is any constructive things to be mentioned (without condescending overtures e.g., "...I'll spoon-feed you..."), I am done talking about this. However, if there is anything else that I can be of assistance with, please feel free to contact me! Cheers!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Salicio, I certainly didn't mean to cause offence - I was just expessing my personal opinion about that template, which, I'm afraid, I find irritating. I already said that I don't question your right to disagree. My next comment was not specifically addressed to you (note the change of indentation), but to "the discussion" in general. It seemed to me that notice wasn't being taken of my earlier reference to "basic searches", so I clarified what I meant. If "spoon-feed" was the wrong phraseology then I apologise, but I do think that you're being a little over-sensitive - I just meant that as a bit of friendly banter. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I moved this whole section out of the AfD (as it is an inappropriate place for us to have the discussion) I appreciate the sentiment. Just as an FYI, you might want to limit the friendly banter with those that you have an established relationship. We have to remember that others can only "hear" what is written! Cheers!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Carroll Consolidated School

Hi there, as the person who prodded this, I just wanted to let you know that I don't plan to pursue deletion further. After I tagged it, User:Gene93k added enough information to make it a good stub, which is a vast improvement over what was there before. I agree with you that school deletions are often controversial, but I don't think this one would have been if it stayed in the form that I tagged it. As it stands, however, it's fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thank you so much for not deleting Vijay Siva, and being bold in making the necessary edit. It is a pity that the editor who placed the speedy-delete tag on the article has been assuming bad faith in trying to go through all the articles I either created, or significantly contributed towards. Still, there was an ANI pending against him. In any case, your action in this matter has been greatly appreciated, by both myself, and the project. Thanks again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - WikiProject India Assessment Department.

User talk:Monkey29

I seem to be perpetually hazy on the {{db}} reasons, so thanks for fixing up Sofie McQueen‎. Question: should the same be done to User talk:Monkey29? (db-attack and blanking) Not a rhetorical question, as I've got to wend to bed, so I'll give my worries to you. ;-) Shenme (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ankle breakers

Phil, I see that you have found some sources for this -- thank you -- could you please add referenced to them to the article, so it won't end up going through the deletion process over and over again until someone either adds a cite or it ends up being deleted? -- The Anome (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar and Google Books searches show that sources exist for the use of ankle breakers in Roman fortifications, but unfortunately I don't have access to a library where I will be able to get the details needed to reference the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the searches to the External Links section for the article: it's much better than nothing, and may perhaps motivate someone with access to a library to come up with a direct cite. -- The Anome (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect DR JHON SPENCER

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DR JHON SPENCER, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DR JHON SPENCER is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DR JHON SPENCER, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD Discussion Link?

Could you please give me the link for this article's Afd discussion? I don't see that in today's log, other places. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no AfD discussion. I meant by my comment in my last update that you should start an AfD discussion if you think the article should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok sure, thanks. Could you please tell me how to start one, I haven't actually done much work on AfDs :-) Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudharsansn (talk • contribs)

Women's Action Network for Development

This is obviously posted by someone connected with the organization and is blatant self-promotion. A speedy delete is entirely in order here. Your removal of the speedy-delete notice is without merit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 11:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alacranes Rojos

You removed the prod template I placed on that article. I agree with your reasoning that a team in the third level of the Mexican football system must be notable. However, nothing in the article currently says that they are in such a position. Could you please add this information, preferably with a reliable source? I did a quick Google search but couldn't offhand find anything. Cheers. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says that they play in the Segunda División, which is the third tier. I've fixed the wikilink in the article so that it points to the correct "Segunda Division" - it was pointing to the Spanish one before. When I removed the prod tag I added a reference to rsssf.com which shows that they have played in that league. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The text currently says that they have played against teams in the segunda division, not that they're located there themselves. As for the reference, it isn't up-to-date, but I'll assume they're still in the segunda division, so I'll edit the text accordingly. Thanks very much for the clarification! -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A hand in the bush

• I'm surprised you took the PROD off this article. It is a first-person review of a book that is unsalvageable due to WP:NPOV. If someone were to submit an article for, say, The Old Man and the Sea as a review written by his own self, it would be deleted no matter how notable the book is. I took it to AfD, but please take closer look at articles you remove PRODs off of next time. JuJube (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The reference I put in the article, along with the sources available at Google Books which I mentioned in my edit summary, show that this is a notable book. If you object to the content of the article then the way to fix it is to edit it, not to delete it. Please take a closer look at available sources for articles you put PRODs on next time. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Again, the article is unfixable other than a total rewrite from scratch. I do not have the motivation to create a new article on a book just because some random jackass makes a crap article about a notable subject. You should have rewritten it yourself instead of appearing to condone policy violation. JuJube (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I did write a lead sentence myself, which is enough for a stub. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Lancome

• Her article doesn't meet criteria per WP:PORNBIO
• The awards need to be properly cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTools (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly the awards don't need to be cited to avoid speedy deletion, but anyway they are - go to reference number 3 and check out the nominees for the appropriate years. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• After checking Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival her article now passes the cirteria.

Battle of Charleston (1861)

You replaced the existing article with one referring to another event (see the dates.) While the second event has enough of a record to be notable (there are CSA sources to confirm it), the first was not and fit the criteria for deletion. Do you intend to actually write an article or leave it as two sentences? (The ancient Chinese saying goes: "If you save a man from drowning, you are responsible for him for life.") Red Harvest (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this refers to another event, or whether the original author simply got the date wrong, but, as you say, the battle now described in the article is notable so should have an article. I don't have the required expertise in this field to expand it any more. Maybe the saying should be: "If you try to drown a man and he survives, you are responsible for him for life."? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the original saying has merit. If the article isn't expanded at some point so that it is actually notable (a two sentence paragraph really isn't) then it will be up for deletion or merger into something that is notable (campaign or bio). The ACW task force has mentioned that there is a threshhold for these minor skirmishes and in its present state, the stub would probably fail. I've added a few reasonably documented skirmishes that can be tied to a notable campaign/person/or event and can can be expanded, so I take an inclusive approach. However, I might use Charleston as a test case to find out where they want the notability line drawn. Red Harvest (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chez Paul

Phil, thanks for your support on the Chez Paul article. I'm beginning to feel that Wikipedia has a bias against history. Too much emphasis on notability is placed on what can be found in the internet, which hurts anything that didn't exist before the last 1990s. And also, Wikipedia used to be the closest form of workable Communism that ever was, don't you think? No, I'm not a fan, but it used to be a place where everyone was equal and had to come together as a community to decide what was right. Now I find myself, someone who is not a regular, who isn't known by all the other senior/veteran editors often simply ignored or dismissed. I agree that keeping Wikipedia as "clean" as possible is good, but that seems to mean we're missing the 2-sigma stuff that is important but isn't "George Washington" or whatever. Lord we've got how many entries on counties in England? Yet the oldest French restaurant in Chicago doesn't rate? I end my short rant. Will Hughes (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EasyChair

Hi Phil, I'm the author of the EasyChair article. Thanks for your support, but actually it didn't help. Just a few minutes later I got the next request for speedy deletion. Now I don't know whether you are a fighter against speedy deletions, or whether you know EasyChair and agree that it's a notable topic, but maybe you could give me a hint how to prove the notability in an acceptable way.
Thanks, Langec (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Langec (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Footballers

Hi, I notice that you removed the PRODs from some of the few unsourced, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading articles on footballers created by user:Mario1987 without doing anything to make the articles demonstrate notability, or anything to improve the articles as requested many many times. Perhaps you are unaware that the creater of the articles created hundreds of other non-articles before he was banned for sockpuppetry. Perhaps you believe that articles that do no assert notability according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/Notability have a place here. Perhaps you like editors from Geman Wikipedia laughing at the slack standards accepted by English Wikipedia. If you are so keen for the articles to be kept perhaps you will improve them once I have nominated them for deletion. English peasant 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rant. Actually I did improve the first few of the articles I looked at which you had prodded, because I found that they were notable as being about footballers who had played in world cup qualifiers, champions league etc. That showed me that you were not checking the articles properly before you placed the prod tags so I took the rest of them off. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your compliment on the deletion page :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF merge proposal

There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Luqman Mohammed Kurdi Hussein

I know; however, in my opinion it is basically the same thing for both living and dead people in terms of that specific guideline. For example, if my neighbour dies because he's assassinated by a terrorist, I'm not going to create an article on him. WP:INHERITED also applies; not every victim of militant conflict in the Middle East will be notable enough to have their own article, even though many people push towards it due to the current nature of the issue. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

q

Google news to justify [4]? But I don't see any at all [5]. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with better known organisations with a similar name. --BozMo talk 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to click on "all dates" on the left of the Google News page, which gives you this. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Been through the first hadnful and none of them really look like qualifying for notability, they look like advertising editorial. I suggest at least you put a claim for notability on the article since I was in two minds about just speedy deleting it.

Okay. Done the list. There are a couple there. But the article as stands is still a speedy candidate --BozMo talk 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When I took off the prod tag I put two references in the article which demonstrate notability per significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok didn't see them. They will do/ --BozMo talk 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Property damage

Thanks for your comment, but I don't know where I'd begin. What is this article meant to be? And I have immense amounts of work to do already sorting out "... in English law" articles, not to mention dealing with the vandals and sockpuppets that assail my watchlist. Perhaps I'll do it in my sleep. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We all have limitations on time and motivation for improving articles. Note that I didn't say Keep in the AfD, because I'm ambivalent about whether there should be an article on the subject - I was just trying to point out that the fact that nobody is volunteering to improve it immediately isn't an argument for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. But if nobody is committed to improving a completely unsourced and thematically unfocussed article after three years of hanging around, it's a shed, a train-wreck of an article, and it topics are better dealt with elsewhere. I notice nobody voting to keep is volunteering to fix it either, so clearly enthusiasm for it is lukewarm at best. We have a ton of these leftovers from the early days of WP and they should either be improved or go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Kwatinetz

So you're basically saying that all the news coverage of him makes him notable, despite the fact that it was coverage pertaining to his company and not to him personally? I looked through the archive, and there was a lot of recycled material, most of which had nothing to do with Kwatinetz as a person, and most of which was said prior to the company's formation, and thus was only ideas and abstractions and possibilities. MSJapan (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point in having a discussion here in parallel to the AfD, so let's just wait and see what others have to say. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Phil Bridger. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Shaikhul Hind

An editor has nominated Shaikhul Hind, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaikhul Hind and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fast-Fix Jewelry Repair

If you examine the contributions and warnings of User:Ffkarin, you will see that this is in all likelyhood an SPA dedicated to spreading spam about the business. Their behavior indicates spam. The article as written previously indicates spam. You may have meant well, but spammers need to be run out of Wikipedia on a rail. It's better to deny them recognition than to fix an article such as this. DarkAudit (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob Nicol is not notable

A basic point is being missed here. Everybody is a unique individual, everybody is important. Nobody likes to be told they are less important than someone else. Rob Nicol may be a great guy, may play fantastic cricket, but according to this article, he accomplished nothing, except being officially on a team.

The burden of proof should be on the writers of the article. It's not job of an editor to do extensive research to prove that the person is in no way notable. (How would that even be possible, honestly?) It's the job of the writer to display that they are.

71.198.177.64 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be your view, but that is not the consensus that has been built up at Wikipedia, which is that first-class cricketers are notable. In case you're not familiar with cricket terminology, I would point out that "first-class" is an official designation, not just my personal judgment. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok, I'd like a link for that discussion about first class cricketers, if you wouldn't mind. But also, another point of order, the article doesn't say anything about him being a first class cricketer. Who has the burden of proof? If this guy is really important, why doesn't somebody go to bat for him, so to speak? 71.198.177.64 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited it a little. WP:CRIC has notability criteria FYI, anon. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, WP:CRIN. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dweller, I think you resolved this particular issue (and thanks also to Phil Bridger for patience in this). Not to get into anything which has been rehashed endlessly, but I read the cricketing WP:CRIC for a couple minutes. I didn't scan anything about "first class cricketing", but I did see this "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."

I'm concerned that the burden of proof should be on the writers, not the innocent copyeditor. My inclination, sadly, is more and more to ignore any article to do with music, sports, and games, because there always seems to be some avid defender for articles in those categories, regardless of their relative worth.

71.198.177.64 (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Fortunately, with cricket, we have quite robust notability criteria that make it easy for the WikiProject members to assess objectively the notability of most biogs - so we often pile in with "delete" opinions at AfDs. I also tend to avoid music issues, as the difference between (say) a commercial and a self-promoted release can be difficult to ascertain. Generally, though, reserve speedy tags for articles with no assertion of notability. Where there is an assertion, but it's weak and/or unverified, you're better off with AfD, where even the most avid defender is but one voice in a debate, and the closing admin will disregard non-policy arguments. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual can still be spam

I noticed you removed a speedy tag off of another SPA-written article that was considered spam by another editor. The article may, as you say, contain factual information, but it is obvious from the username and activities of the author, that the sole purpose of the Alensa article is to promote the website. No attempt is made to meet the guidelines put forth in either WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I would also like to point out that the author of the article you removed the spam tag from a couple of days ago, User:Ffkarin, had not only already been warned about spam, but after the article in question was deleted, they posted yet another spam article and was subsequently blocked. DarkAudit (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Josh Bloxham

Nice save. until someone chimed in about the NZ league, I was certain this was just another article written by the subject or one of his friends just to say they had an article up. DarkAudit (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AHM (magazine)

Please go back to AHM (magazine) page and put your 2nd opinons on the page; as the page has been updated. Whenaxis (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Going Ape! (film)

All though this article may not be a speedy delete, it should still be deleted. Now I can't nominate it because you removed the template. Mm40 _{Your Hancock Please}

There's nothing to stop you using WP:AFD if you really think it should be deleted, but I don't that that there's much chance of an article on a film that has been reviewed in the New York Times being deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)