Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 18 April 2009 (→Red Sonja: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

• Archive - June 2006 (part 1) (SFWA Worst 20 Literary Agents & Barbara Bauer)
• Archive - June 2006 (part 2) (Disemvoweling, mediation, WYSIWYG)

2nd XMonad AfD

Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:02 24 December 2007 (GMT)

Regarding Bauer

Hello. I am a freelance reporter on Wikinews. I am wondering if you can contact me via e-mail at jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org. I am wondering about your posts, now deleted from "Nielsen Hayden.com" that were allegedly critical of Barbara Bauer. Please contact me when you have time. DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 13:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

John Bigelow, IV

Can you expand on why you think BLP applies? Because I don't think it does. There is no contentious material in the article. The only real question is whether the material included asserts enough notability (and why or why not). - Mgm| 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Spun-out articles

Generally, the only accepted articles that rely on the parent topic's notability are lists, though even they are often disputed. Single characters don't fall under it because without real world information, plot information can always be cut down to a reasonable level or just left to the main topics. An article like Jack Brennan can be cut down to a few sentence and placed in the main article or a character list fairly easily if necessary. TTN (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• If that's the case, why does WP:WAF say otherwise? I note that it states that it's _rare_ to do it with characters, but when you're working with a series of the complexity and high level of detail of Known Space, I think it's reasonable to say that such a series is an exception. JulesH (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's mainly just to remain open to the slight possibility, though I don't think anyone would actually expect any exceptions. I would suggest starting a discussion on the WAF talk page if you think otherwise. TTN (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant Cheerleader

I made it prettier per film MOS, but the article still fails WP:NF. I did some deep searching and could not find sources independent of the subject. When this film goes to festivals, it may well receive some decent press, and then it might be welcomed back... but for now, the various write-ups in the two College of William and Mary school papers, just don't do it. Sorry. Schmidt, 02:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jason D. Wilkins

Thank you fo ryour input regarding the posted article. If you will note, there is no sooner finding or published article containing a definition, copyright date, or otherwise known history of the form than can be found at www.shadowpoetry.com. The first known date to be found in the style and name is that of Jason Wilkins in year 2000. Rompues (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Rompues

Thred taper

I replaced the speedy tag at thred taper. It's just an ad. See http://www.thredtaper.com/ NJGW (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert, but see my comments at the AFD. I think the discussion should run its course. JulesH (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Speedy tags should only be resolved by administrators. I thought you were an admin closing the tag, but I don't see your name at the list of admins. NJGW (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? The text in the speedy template reads "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." That doesn't suggest only admins should remove it. I think you misunderstand how speedy deletion is supposed to work. JulesH (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct on that point, but according to "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." it does qualify for speedy. NJGW (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it's exclusively promotional. Mainly, it describes what the machine in question does. It's badly written, but doesn't seem particularly promotional to me. JulesH (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't describing what the machine does promoting it? NJGW (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say describing what the machine does is the primary purpose of an article on it. Describing how to acquire one, or why it's better than competing products, or going into too much detail about its benefits, these would be promotional. The article doesn't really do this, IMO. JulesH (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article does not give any indication of notability, it is purely promotional. If it really is the best, that's notable. Imagine if the Pepsi article only said "it comes in a can and tastes good". That's purely promotional, with no indication of notability. NJGW (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if it said "a vegetable-extract flavoured soft drank, sold in cans", that wouldn't be promotional, yet still doesn't establish notability. Which would then be up to an AFD to establish. JulesH (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at the history, User:Nyttend has previously declined the speedy and is an admin. Let the AFD discussion continue. JulesH (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium

Hi there, could you please revisit this discussion? The claim that IUPAC has documented these elements may not be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi

In how much detail do the publications you listed describe this and could you use them to provide inline citations (and perhaps a bit of expansion)? - Mgm| 13:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Check Buenos Aires (Landmarks), which now holds the content of the article on Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi as the first section. Not much point having a main link from the section to the article, when they are identical, so I would turn the article into a redirect to the section. That way, people who look for the monument will jump to the section, and may then browse other landmarks. People who look at landmarks in general will also see it. If an editor wants to add significantly more content on the monument, it will be easy enough to split it out again as a separate article. This is not a topic on which any editor will say "once deleted, always deleted". Aymatth2 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Battle Hill

Thanks for your efforts salvaging that article. I had lost hope for it. But it is a very principal issue about deletion policy. The time I spent on it was not a complete waste of time then. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

notability question

MODx‎ discussion cont here because it is more about the awards.

Maybe my wikipedia argument is not the best but... you are saying Packt is a reliable source and one of the newer things the company does is an awards competition and if a product wins said award, in any place, they are notable. My thought is should the award/competition be notable, have significant, independent reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's absolutely necessary. The way I see it, the award, in itself, is a reliable source. Not only that, it's a particularly good one: it says that in the (reliable, professional) opinion of the award's authors, the product given the award is one of the best avaiable. My argument, basically, is that that is as good as two reliable sources just giving information about the product: it testifies to its importance, and importance is a component of notability. JulesH (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I disagree... If (notable) company X creates a new product it isn't inherently notable. 16x9 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Investigations Unit: Part One

Incomplete film

That is because the film is currently in production and being filmed.

actors do not seem to be notable (one of them turns up in google as author of a book, the other doesn't seem to turn up in google) at all

GOOGLE DOES NOT HAVE EVERYTHING ON EVERYONE, Are you on Google? If you type Galactic Investigations Unit: Part One into Google, you will find that GIU is one of the first Articles.

production company named after the main actors

So. You going to go after Jerry Bruckheimer next?

chances are this is just somebody's personal project

This "personal project" if you bothered to look at the external link, is actually an Australian Film Commision Film, financed by the Australian Film Commision.

You may want to double-check your information instead of going around and asking for stuff to be deleted unless you have the correct information.

Samuel 09 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Samuael 09

Merger proposal: The Open Organization Of Lockpickers

I saw that you took part in the AfD discussion regarding the article and would like to invite you to comment on my merger proposal. Arachnowhat (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Warganism (or whatever) AfD

Thanks for that. I tried to fix whatever was done to the headings but seemed to only make it worse. CaveatLector 09:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Frank Smith (fireman)

I've opened a second AFD for Frank Smith (fireman). As a participant in the first AFD, I thought you might want to review and contribute your opininion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam in Nokia Sports Tracker

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Nokia Sports Tracker, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Nokia Sports Tracker is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Nokia Sports Tracker, 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) 10:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why did you remove the endorsement I put up on Jack Jones (banker)? I find it strange that I express my agreement, and you remove my agreement. You may add your disagreement, if you so like, and remove the prod, but by what right do you touch my agreement with it? Perhaps it is something I do not understand? Debresser (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

{{prod-2}} should only be used on articles that are proposed for deletion via {{prod}}, but this article is being considered for deletion via WP:AFD, which is a separate process and doesn't use the prod-2 template. JulesH (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I changed the proposal to RFC on a merger here: Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant#Merge. Please comment, as it is kind of a mess right now. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stan Nicholls

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stan Nicholls, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Almost no references, and it has not been edited in almost half a year. If nobody wants to improve it, it needs to go.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Alan16 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

L'Absent

Hi JulesH! The article I created, L'Absent, has been improved, expanded and kept since you last viewed it. I would be truly obliged were you to take the time to view it again and give me your opinion. Thanks for your time and guidance.--Iswearius (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nokia Sports Tracker

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nokia Sports Tracker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable software product for a cellphone.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages'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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Notablility (populated places)

I would like to draw your attention to this discussion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inre Starfucker:

This search seemed to strike belgium gold:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Starfucker%2Bband%2Bbelgium&start=10&sa=N

However, I am involved with rescuing several other articles at the moment. Care to have a hand yourself at sourcing? Thanks, Schmidt, 05:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

. I'm failing to understand your remark. Do you think the chap is notable? If so, why would you want it afd'd? If not, why did you object to my deletion proposal?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol and sex

I have nominated Alcohol and sex, an article you removed a PROD from, for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alcohol and sex. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture merge discussion

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete as a verb

Added reply on my talk page. Some users like it on their own, some all in one place. Anyway it is there. Delete this if unnecessary. SimonTrew (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MikMod

Hi JulesH, you mention that this software is notable - are you able to indicate how? Any pointers to where it has received substantial coverage, or if it has won any awards, etc, would be ideal. Marasmusine (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your DRV blanking

What was this about?  Sandstein  20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Errr... dunno, I wasn't even trying to edit the section that got deleted. Some kind of screw up because I had the page open for quite a while, I guess. JulesH (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it in more detail, it seems that the Susan Boyle section was created _after_ I began editing the Unusual names section (which was shortly after 16:07, judging by where I was attempting to place my reply). Then I got called away from my computer; to ensure that there wasn't new content, I reloaded the edit page, and posted my reply. I guess when I reloaded it, the new content didn't replace the old in the edit box for some reason (possibly my browser trying to keep hold of changes to the edit box across the reload), leading to everything since I started the initial edit being deleted when I submitted my comment. JulesH (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for explaining! Best,  Sandstein  21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Sonja

Filming did not begin. I looked for sources that it started in October 2008, and since I found none, I tagged the sentence as needing a citation. In addition, IMDb usually indicates if filming is taking place, but it only identifies it as being in pre-production as of November 2008, after filming supposedly started. I ask you to restore the proposed deletion template because it most definitely does not satisfy WP:NFF. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)