User talk:Phil Bridger/October 2009 – December 2009
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 October 2009 – 31 December 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Proposed deletion of Intellectual Genocide
The article Intellectual Genocide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This article is all WP:Original research. No sources that the expression is used, or that the thing really exists. The fact that it compares Pakistan to the Nazis is also a red flag.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Borock (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Classifications
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Cybercobra (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Classification, not Catalog Number
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Cybercobra (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you formulated an opinion regarding Dewey and/or LC Classification yet? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Scots Hoose
Hi Phil.
The reason I know the club was upstairs is that I used to go there every Tuesday. Of course, I realise that this isn't a verifiable source, and I can't swear the club wasn't in the basement at some other time.
The Bruce Dunnet article seems a good idea, but I'm very busy at the moment. I will do it when I have time if no one has beaten me to it. Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't mean to cast any doubt on your memories, despite the old adage that if you can remember the sixties you weren't really there! You spurred me into action and I've managed to find a reliable source for the club being upstairs. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your work on researching notability for A Lesson of Belorussian I am honored to award this barnstar. Some editors have better google-fu ability than others.... and you shine in that category. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
- Awww! Thanks! I'd like to wear that barnstar on my lapel, but there seems to something wrong with my printer - it doesn't spin when I print it out. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Infobox book
Again, your thoughts on the appropriateness of adding Dewey Decimal and/or Library of Congress Classification fields would be appreciated. I'm going to make the {{editprotected}} request relatively soon, so if you have any objections or concerns, now would be a great time to bring them up for discussion. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment here. I prodded this mainly to see if the original editor would fix it (he'd already done a better draft of the article previously), but no luck; so I've re-written it myself. Swanny18 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Findsources
I know it seems redundant, but more than one person had commented that they wished that it had a regular search function! I think there is enough of a UI issue that it justifies the redundancy. If anything, I would rather remove the search link that was there originally; the term itself, and keep the explicit search link. Would you like me to do that? Gigs (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
all villages are considered notable
Dear You commented Gochhi article as all villages are considered notable. If there strong decision taken taken, please give me the link. Thanks.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is documented at WP:OUTCOMES#Places, which itself is based on the fact that articles on villages that are verified to exist are invariably kept by consensus in discussions at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website
A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Kaveh Rezaei
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kaveh Rezaei, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaveh Rezaei. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GiantSnowman 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Refugee Blues
You rather forcefully questioned my prod on this article - I wasn't questioning the author, I was questioning the need for a standalone article, which was scant, and had no references. Thedarxide (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your prod rationale was "lacking context, no assertion of notability". I was simply pointing out that the opening sentence of the article, "Refugee Blues is one of W.H Auden's masterpieces", both provided context and was an assertion of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Hawaii Theological Seminary
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hawaii Theological Seminary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Theological Seminary. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ἀλήθεια 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Johannes Maas
I agree with you as to the notability of the person, but I wouldn't trust a Google Books search to verify whether a book contains reference to an individual or not, or at least not with a book that isn't viewable. In my experience Book Search is highly inaccurate unless the entire book is viewable. In this instance, it only finds three sentences that contain "Carter" and three that contain "Reagan", which to me seems unrealistic given that it's a 200-some page book largely about the Carter and Reagan presidencies. --NellieBly (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- When Google Books has only a snippet search available it will present a maximum of three results within the book, but, in my experience, if there are three or fewer hits it will display all of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Saltillo Engine, PROD and etc
Hello--
I do apologize that I hadn't seen the earlier PROD. If I wanted to be really picky I could say it was best to start there again since the article has shrunk so much since, but since you took it off that hardly matters anyway :) ...Anyway, thanks for adding that bit of info and sourcing. As-is now I can't see anything wrong with it as a stub. Thank you for keeping up my accidental current streak of people coming forward to help a pages just a little even after my head gets cloudy on it... much better result this way. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
:)
I have simply been trying to help out. I apologize for my mistakes but they are inevitable since I'm new.
Reubzz (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Miym (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Prod
Hi, the green eyed, so..what do you think should be done to improve the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's pretty self-evidently plenty that needs to be done to improve the article, but deleting it certainly won't improve it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
response
The talk page I deleted said "can someone change the title of this article so it is capitalized properly?"
This had been done.
Therefore, it had been dealt with, and the page was no longer necessary. DS (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Amsaim (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Diwe, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diwe. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Prod
OK, it's fine.-- fetchcomms☛ 19:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion 2nd nomination of Sambunot
I have nominated Sambunot, an article that you have edited, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambunot (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Notorious WP Admin: Ragib
You must be aware that notorious WP Admin Ragib is attacking many articles related to Bangladesh himself as well as with his socks in a mission to delete those for degrading reputation of the country. Now he attacked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustapha_Khalid with his infamous WP knowledge, just for your information.--Phil997 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Kalyan Dass Jain
An editor has nominated Kalyan Dass Jain, an article which you have created or worked on, 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/Kalyan Dass Jain and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns 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. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in the nomination for deletion of Shesh Paul Vaid. Shem (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
RfD nomination of MAYORS OF AGRA
I have nominated MAYORS OF AGRA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The Latter Five... resolved, closed, kept
Wanted to let you know, per your improvements, I've withdrawn and closed the discussion as non-admin close, withdrawn by nominator with no non-dissenting opinions given. I hope you don't hold it against me too much for this all, but I am honestly relieved if I can early close as keep any XfDs I open. It means people care about the article and will watch it, and only 1 in 5 AfDs I've opened had no response at the request for improvements and end admin close was delete. 2 were speedy keep per me upon improvements, other 2 were keep but weren't eligible for non-admin close since there were dissenting opinions (even 1 is too many, I was told). As odd as it sounds, it seems articles only seem to get attention they might need after an AfD... no one should CSD things like that, PRODs can always be removed, so the AfD pulls more information out of the woodwork. In this case I wasn't at all qualified to make improvements myself between the topic and self-administrated PoV restrictions based on a contributor to that article I indirectly ended up creating evidence against that eventually resulted in a block.
Thanks for your time on this, and being more proof that most anything can be resolved without possible blunt end results or the need to run even 1 full tier of dispute resolutions. :) Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- The important thing is that we got to the right result: a sourced article. It doesn't really matter how we got there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Nursing in pakistan
Please look up the diference between "original research" and "stuff being written about it". The fact that somebody has written about nursing in Pakistan does not make comments like "Pakistan nursing council always acts responsibly and professionally wherever the matter of health and medicine occurs" and "Pakistan has really put on valuable efforts in establishing and organizing many professional nursing organizations" anything more than WP:OR at best and WP:BOLLOCKS at worst. Ironholds (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're just picking off a couple of sentences that are original research. Articles get deleted for this reason only if the whole article is original research, but most of this article is not. You have an edit tab that you can use to get rid of the sentences that you object to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies - I should have pasted the entire article in here. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you actually think that the article author did his own independent research to establish that the Pakistan Nursing Council "is involved in improving and standardizes the public education and clinical nursing standards" and takes "care of ethics and general welfare of nurses" and "approves education programs and has the authority to examine, register and enrolls nurses, midwives and nursing auxiliaries of nursing council", or that "nurses are required to wear distinguishing devices like pins and colored epaulets to identify them as licensed professionals", rather than relying on previously published sources? This is way off from being an ideal encyclopedia article, but original research it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies - I should have pasted the entire article in here. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you endorsed the PROD on this. I can attest to the fact that "North Madras" is a term regularly used for certain parts of the city, as is "South Madras". The parts inbetween are the ones with no umbrella name. I haven't really found any sources for the actual structure of North Madras, but this shows some usage. Technically, it refers to the (old) industrial part of the city, but now of course, it's all one big mix. This definition doesn't have an exact overlap with the parliamentary constituency, but the overap is significant -- Madras North (Lok Sabha constituency). If I find something to actually show define the article I'll contest the PROD, but figured I'd alert you, in case you have some better luck. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Clathrina densa
I was just being a good doobie and doing some page patrolling -- didn't mean to get into a controversy. It does seem to me that 70+ articles (one genus, 70-odd species), each of which is only nine words with the same picture is a bit much. I understand creating stubs -- I do it a lot -- but these aren't stubs in any useful sense.
Anyway, I have no interest or expertise with which to follow this up. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Should you choose to respond, please do so here.)
Shirogane Tunnel
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirogane tunnel. Fences&Windows 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
foreign language source
I have no idea what basis Spike had for asserting that we need English language sources -- am surprised to see that coming from an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed, but not surprised. There seems to be a very vocal group of editors, including some admins, who hang out at Wikipedia Review and think that they just have to shout "BLP" and that means that anyone who argues in favour of keeping an article is the spawn of the devil. I'm afraid I don't have the energy to argue against them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You've done your part on that article. Otherwise I would have quoted at you, with a nod to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing"--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion about this is ongoing here:User talk:Cyclopia#What to do about BLP deletion problem. Fences&Windows 22:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- You've done your part on that article. Otherwise I would have quoted at you, with a nod to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing"--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Mike Farrar for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Farrar. This is a courtesy notification as you removed a prod for the article in January 2008 so you may have an interest. --Mkativerata (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The Hotchas
Thanks for catching the real name of the Hotcha Trio. Every now and then I find an article with so few Google hits that I suspect its title is erroneous, but aside from the {{hoax}} tag I know of no template or other mechanism to draw attention to the article. Is there a tag for a dispute/mistake in the title? Abductive (reasoning) 04:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is {{disputed title}}. I know it's not exactly what you are looking for, but it's the closest I could find, and combined with a note on the talk page it should do the the job. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)