User talk:Frank - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frank (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 23 July 2009 (→Paul H. Carr (physicist): re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:43, 23 July 2009 by Frank (talk | contribs) (→Paul H. Carr (physicist): re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Home	Talk	Awards	DYK	Dashboard
Home	Talk	Barnstars	DYK	Dashboard

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Butner!

Thanks, I had discovered many conflicting press accounts on the city and was going back to undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Andrew Brown (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pornophonique

Hello Frank. Can you quick tell me what was the problem with this article? Is it possible, that you can restore it on my user page User:Micha L. Rieser/desk/Pornophonique. Thanks a lot. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article did not assert notability of the group in any way; hits on last.fm merely show that it exists. You'd need to have citations from reliable sources in order to establish notability for the group. I've copied the content into your user space as requested; please feel free to check over at either WP:RA or WP:DRAW for more info, or ask me. Frank | talk 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We succesfully discussed the notability in the german[REDACTED] . The main arguments were that the band is in the german speaking world the most famous band producing creative commons music. But this makes it difficult to prove that the band has a encyclopedic notability because they never have sales figures like other bands. So we argued that the band is most downloaded on the site Jamendo which distributes only free music. The press release tells that Pornophonique, (ist) die international bekannteste und beliebteste Electroband auf Jamendo (Pornophonique is the international most famous and most loved electroband on Jamendo) and that they had 150.000 streams and 20.000 downloads there. An other indication are the listeners on last.fm and that the band had more than one hundred concerts in different countries (Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Austria) what indicates that the band has not only a regional publicity. The band in fact has a international publicity on the European continent. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability established on German Misplaced Pages is fine for an article in the German Misplaced Pages; each project has its own criteria. Some of the other things you're referencing point toward meeting notability here on English Misplaced Pages; I'm not convinced yet but I'm also only one editor of many. The best thing to do is to find references that support it. There are plenty of folks who are "famous" on Youtube but that doesn't necessarily confer notability; you may find the same situation in this case (and maybe not). Frank | talk 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:Notability established on German Misplaced Pages is fine for an article in the German Misplaced Pages. Absolutely agree. We also argue that way. If there is a notability on the English Misplaced Pages we do not automatically assume the same notability for the German Misplaced Pages. But I think in this case the arguments would be about the same for both language versions. Because the notability of bands in both language versions are mostly a thing of sales figures. And that's the crux. A creative commons bands can never be measured that way, because they do not sell their music. - Do you think the article would be accepted here if I cited the download figures on Jamendo and the number of international concerts? --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be an uphill battle. And, though it may not reflect the project in its best light, I think it will be even more difficult if the few sources you can cite are not in English. I have seen it go this way: No sources in English; belongs in <other> Wikipdia. That's not universally true but it happens. I would say, though, that sales figures aren't the only requirement. If you can show notability in some other way, that would be sufficient. WP:MUSIC, as I recall, establishes additional criteria that could show notability; it does not restrict WP:NOTABILITY but rather expands it. Frank | talk 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I try to expand the article. I think if the additional criteria are suffied it will be discussed in a possible further deletion request. It is also a question of general estimation. Is there also a encyclopedic notability for artists of creative commons music and not only of artists of commercial music? If the answer is yes, there must be a notability for the few most successful musicians in this genre. And my opinion is that there is a notability for artists of creative commons music and in this case Pornophonique is one of the most important representative. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that notability is best demonstrated by sources that show it; our opinion carries less weight alone. If you create it, with sources, and it is nominated for deletion, then the discussion can be had. If it is recreated without sources and without a credible assertion of notability, that discussion can't be had. Also, don't forget WP:RA and WP:DRAW. Frank | talk 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I always use sources. I'm for an obligation of reliable sources of every article! But sources doesn't prove notability. It only prove the correctness of the content. Encyclopedic notability is an intersubjective definition an can never be objective. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Prove" is such a subjective word as well. The point is that sources definitely support an assertion of notability. I agree that the definition of notability is subjective; the sources are required to meet that definition. The community can decide what it means at any given time. I don't always agree. Frank | talk 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mikvah link removal

Hi Frank, You removed two links from Mikvah. We had a discussion about this here and here. Do you disagree? -shirulashem 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the discussions; I didn't see them prior to removing the links; I removed them because they are WP:SPAM links. Both sites require you on the front page to "log in" or "sign up" in order to proceed. They are not providing any information; they provide a service. Whether they get paid for it (directly or indirectly) is not material to the basic fact that they are spam links. Frank | talk 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but the thing is that mymikvacalendar.com is not for profit organization so there is no form of income involved. --Ntb613 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ntb613, from what I can tell, there is actually a guideline that states, "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." However, this is a guideline and not a policy, which means that it is advisory but not compulsory. If there's a policy about this, I was unable to find it. -shirulashem 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep this conversation on Talk:Mikvah. I rephrased my comment above and put it on that page. -shirulashem 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Sup y'all. Why you remove the page on comedy moustaches? Essential information, dude. Reconsider! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredOfMath (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to put up a page for CKR Interactive. I used an advertising agency that is up on[REDACTED] right now as a guideline. CKR's page that I wrote looked EXACTLY like the Bernard Hodes Group that is still left up. I do not understand. Please take off the speedy deletion for CKR Interactive and give me an exlpanation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY and, in the case of CKR, WP:CORP. A subject must be notable before it can be included in Misplaced Pages, and that notability must be supported by citations from reliable sources. Frank | talk 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But still then, why is Bernard Hodes Group up? Nothing is wrong with that entry- despite the lack of references and being written like an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Following that, the fact is that the article you mention, Bernard Hodes Group, is a borderline article in itself. However, it does have hits in reliable, independent sources, shown here. CKR Interactive does not; it is either blog entries or press releases. (Check here). Frank | talk 19:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far. I was wondering though if I mentioned in the CKR Interactive posting that they were formerly known as the CKR Group if that would make a difference. Because in the google archive, which you directed me to for the Bernard Hodes Group the CKR Group has more references. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=CKR+Group&btnG=Search+Archives&ne d=us&hl=en&scoring=a please let me know!MChunhoon (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...when you put quotes around it to search for the phrase "CKR Group", you only get three hits. Look, the fact is that most companies are not notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages. The community has set up policies which cover this, primarily at WP:CORP and, more generally, WP:NOTABILITY. I saw a reference recently to another site you might be interested in, and it has an article here; it's called MyWikiBiz. Alternatively, you might check out WP:RA or WP:DRAW to get others' opinions about an article here. Frank | talk 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChunhoon (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Children of Michael Jackson

This page needs to be SALT-ed. Unitanode 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done; let me know if you need any fries with that :-) Frank | talk 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Unitanode 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 7Million

Hi Frank. Why did you delete my article about 7Million? It is no spam or advertisement, as it is an article about a released MMO which tousands of people are playing and interested in (Well obviously you are not). I am a big fan of the game and there simply is no article on Misplaced Pages at the moment. When I look into Wiki I can find several articles about games or MMOs which are not even released yet. Example Dragon Age: Origins, Ride to Hell,... So you should also delete all of them then.

What is the problem with the article?Thanks for the feedback and best,stefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanEder (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was strictly advertising and made no claim to WP:NOTABILITY whatsoever. The only two references in the article were the company's own web site and a fansite. These do not constitute significant coverage in independent media. Please see WP:CORP and in general, WP:NOTABILITY. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for reasons why other articles are not important to this discussion. Still, having said that, ~~both of~~ the first of those articles does contain references from reliable sources, which the 7Million article did not. Frank | talk 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerem43's RfA

Hi! I left a response to your comment in Jerem43's RfA page. I hope you don't take it too personally—I just really don't think that CrazyInSane needs people dismissing his comments and reminding him of his failed RfA right now. You can answer on my talk page or on the RfA page if you like. Thanks for understanding. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I made no judgment, nor did I dismiss the comment. I merely provided some context for its placement in the RfA, for the benefit of others in the discussion and the closing bureaucrat. The oppose looked mighty pointy to me, and obviously I wasn't the only one who felt that way. It's particularly damaging to the chances of an RfA being given a fair look when an oppose is entered so soon after it is transcluded. Frank | talk 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Colt Egelston

Why did you delete this page? He is a published scientist, the references were cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutter25 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no assertion of WP:NOTABILITY in the article. Publishing a scientific paper doesn't automatically qualify a person. Please see WP:ACADEMIC. Frank | talk 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aspirin poisoning

I guess not. Good spot. --can dle •wicke 00:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily an expert; I just happened to have seen that article when it was split in the last day or two. I really don't know the protocol in this case. Frank | talk 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does not count in this case. It is an A5 I think. --can dle •wicke 00:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mercedes Rose

Hi, I see why you deleted the page; do you want mw to recreate it without the copyrihgted paragraph?--Launchballer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can't be in Misplaced Pages if it violates copyright. However, the subject must also be notable, so keep that in mind. Try WP:RA or WP:DRAW for assistance. Frank | talk 12:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject is notable. I've got six different provided sources (albeit two are from other Wiki's and another is from Youtube, the other three are impeccable though) to confirm its notability.--Launchballer (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what I saw in the article:

By my count, that's one YouTube, two wikis, one IMDB, and two promotional sites, for a grand total of zero independent, reliable sources. The IMDB and personal web sites could be useful as supporting material, but not as the only references in a biographical article. The lack of independent citations in reliable sources makes me question notability. I'm only questioning though; I am not saying this definitively. Please locate more and better sources; you can also check WP:RA and WP:DRAW for ideas, opinions, and assistance. Frank | talk 16:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is reliable or not…--Launchballer (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. But you can check out WP:RS and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for guidance. Frank | talk 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Frank. Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. :) Tim meh 13:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

NP, we're all in this together :-) Frank | talk 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Pincus

Hi there - you might want to check out a query I left at DYK re this article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bill Bradley

Replied on my talk page. Thanks. --Kbh3 talk 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tried that before

I just wanted to let you know that I really wasn't trying to be an ass but I have tried the "get more with honey that you do with vineger" approach before several times over the last couple years and about 1 in 5 articles I create (which has been a couple hundred) get this corenbot message. Well intentioned or not after a while it draws on the nerves and becomes a bit irritating. By the way, since 1 do only get it about 1 in five times that bot isn't looking at the site all the time because in theory I should get the message every time not 1 in 5 and since I used an inline citation to a different site (the Army Medal of Honor site) I should not get it at all. --Kumioko (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're upset because it doesn't tag your articles more often? And that makes it perfectly reasonable to tell another editor - a volunteer as you and I are - that he "needs to fix this"? I did look back to the last 500 edits on Coren's talk page and didn't see anywhere else you'd commented on this topic; maybe 500 edits isn't long enough but it just seemed a pretty strong message to lead with. I'm not involved; you'll get whatever response you get, but I thought it might be a better response with a different approach. Just my two cents. Frank | talk 13:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-delete

Thanks for the re-delete of the Amanda Imani article. I was a little slow in tagging the article, but the article was deleted anyways.-- Dspradau → talk 15:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chip Israel

This page was marked for deletion as advertising, but it is modeled after the format and layout/topics of existing pages of other notable architectural lighting designers. I am new to this process and I don't want to insult your intelligence by reposting it. Please advise me how this is considered advertising, as compared the pages for Chip Israel's contemporaries Speirs and Major Associates, George Sexton, and Motoko Ishii after whose ‘legitimate’[REDACTED] pages this page was modeled. I did try to conform to the Misplaced Pages standards and do this correctly, so I was surprised to see it deleted, but I’m sure I am not seeing the errors and want to make appropriate modifications prior to reposting. Thank you! Vero1982 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've looked at those three articles, and the first one is a good example of the right way to do it; please note that it has 14 sources, of which your article had none. The other two are borderline articles, and in point of fact may merit deletion themselves. But that is not of concern to you either way; if your article is about a notable subject then it belongs; if it is not, then it doesn't, and the fate of those two is not relevant. I would say to look for reliable sources to support an assertion of notability, and to tone down the promotional nature of the article significantly, as the Speirs article has (by comparison). I see you have a copy of the article in your user space to work on; I'll keep an eye on it and you can solicit advice from others as well. I would also say that it is hard to distinguish what the article is actually about; is it about the person or the alliance?

The overriding thing to keep in mind here is that I'm not saying the article can't exist. What I'm saying is that the original version was purely (or primarily, anyway) promotional in nature and not encyclopedic. That can be fixed, and if the subject is notable, it can remain. I will assist if requested, and/or you can check out WP:DRAW. Frank | talk 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. The person and the Alliance are one and the same. I'm new to this and appreciate the help, I tried to make a hybrid of those existing examples, not knowing which was more correct, and I think with this I can get closer to appropiate content with appropiate sources. Thank you!Vero1982 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lionel Pincus

On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lionel Pincus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Time-Traveling Jesus

I'm curious why my new page on the descriptive phrase Time-Traveling Jesus was deleted.

Splateaux (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Frank | talk 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We saw that in the initial description saying that it was deleted, but we couldn't tell which specific form of vandalism you thought it was. We're not trying to be abusive or destructive, but we've coined this new phrase, and would like to include it. The initial article did not have a lot of "meat" to it, but we were in the middle of correcting that. Splateaux (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Picking the right criterion under which to delete an article is sometimes a judgment call; this could also have been an WP:CSD#A7. Also, please see WP:NOT#OR. Frank | talk 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... So, basically, the description needs to exist somewhere else, before being repeated on Wiki. Gotcha! Splateaux (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's only a start. It needs to be notable, and it needs to be published in reliable sources. There are any number of business and Youtube performers whose names would generate hundreds or even thousands of hits in a Google search, but they aren't automatically notable, and they often have never been mentioned in reliable sources. Blogs and fan sites generally don't count for establishing notability. Frank | talk 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An BLP violating IP you blocked on Sally Perdue

...is at it again on Duane Gish, which is one of his targets. I'd rather deal with him than have the page protected. Can you re-block? Auntie E. 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) ETA: 204.169.161.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Auntie E. 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think those edits happened before the block, which is still in effect. Please let me know if you see otherwise. Frank | talk 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Duh, sorry, I just realised that. Thanks anyway... Auntie E. 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dr.Anantha Babbili page

Hello Frank....Thanks for recreating the page and redirecting it to Anantha Babbili. But can we have the new wiki page on google instead of the old page being redirected to the new page. when i type the name can i go to this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/Anantha_Babbili) on google instead of (http://en.wikipedia.org/Dr.Anantha_Babbili). If you can delete the old page as soon as you can it would be of great help.

We have no control over how Google indexes pages, and Misplaced Pages isn't for promotion anyway. Frank | talk 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul H. Carr (physicist)

Frank,

I would like to delete my birth date. I do not want to make it easy for anyone to steal my identity.

Thanks,

PaulCarr57 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)PaulCarr57

The information is freely available in any public library, which is how it got into the article in the first place. If you look at biographical articles in Misplaced Pages, you'll see it is standard practice to include them. I don't know of a policy that allows such information to be removed as you are requesting. Frank | talk 21:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)