User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 8

'If you leave me a message here, I will reply on this page to keep the conversation together, so please add it to your watchlist. Likewise, if you are here to reply to a note I left on your talk page, please reply there—I will check it to see.

---

Archive 1

Talk messages though 25 September 2008 can be found here.

Archive 2

Talk messages through 11 November 2008 can be found here.

Archive 3

Talk messages through 11 November 2008 can be found here.

IMDB

I was letting you know that those questions are being asked of them.... not of you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, some benefit in reading the subject lines! Bongomatic 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I am hoping I can get a definitive answer from someone. Certainly they have to post legal disclamers and do a bit of waffling on their own website, but I'd really like to know just what their commitment to accuracy really is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Giant Squid (band)

Hi there. Before tagging articles with {{db-band}} or other subcategories of {{db-a7}}, please remember that CSD A7 only applies to articles that make no credible claim of notability. Articles that claim notability, even without sources, must be submitted to other deletion processes. In this case, the article makes multiple credible claims of notability (at first glance, it might even survive a deletion debate), so speedy deletion was not appropriate—please send it to AfD instead if you find it does not meet WP:BAND guidelines. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have reread the article and reread WP:MUSIC and I still fail to find any claims that if demonstrated would satisfy the notability guideline. Are you referring to guideline (5)? Bongomatic 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the claim itself does not need to be of something that satisfies the notability guideline, which is why it is considered "a lower standard than notability". Any reasonable claim of significance or importance suffices. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Akmal Cheema - remooval of speedy tag

Hi, It is of course fine to remove your own speedy tag but a more informative summary would help other editors. Happy editing! Springnuts (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Roses are red, Bongos are blue?

I'd probably lean towards a weak keep. I am partial to the ultimate standard of whether the article makes the encyclopedia better or not, so I guess that makes me something of an inclusionist. It's not promotional, advertorial, difficult to maintain, controversial, and its accuracy isn't disputed, so I think it's okay to include it. The individual is not especially notable, but I did see a small number of mentions on google books, and they have some notoriety it would seem. That's my 2 cents. Thanks for thinking of me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this article [1]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see my views on the page now :( Bongomatic 02:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would AfD it. It might survive, there's some claim to notability, but I don't think it's enough. I've tried to help the article creator and as I welcomed them, I can't bring myself to "push the button". ;) This one is a toughy in some ways: Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's tough about it? Seemed clear enough to me. Bongomatic 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, doesn't seem to be much of a case for inclusion. But I have respect for the effort of the article's creator and I empathize with their nto wanting it deleted. It's interesting reading, just doesn't meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Blog servers are free and plentiful, as are MySpace pages, Facebook groups, YouTube, and lots of other places where people can self-publish non-encyclopedic materials. People go to great efforts to create lots (hundreds of millions) of written works that aren't destined for Wikipedia. Their non-inclusion in Wikipedia is a slap in the face neither to their creators nor the subjects of those works. The beauty of electronically stored information is that it's easy to redeploy. People seem to personalize the effort and quality component of articles, and forget these facts in deletion discussions and considerations. This (in my view) skews their perspective and causing them to opine in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Bongomatic 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:D-Irie

I added a source for the German hit to the article. It could probably do with a better source, but I'm inclined to accept the cited source as correct. I couldn't find a lot more - there was enough to remove the prod, but it could go either way if taken to AFD.--Michig (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of 'hit' varies. WP:MUSIC doesn't define what is considered a hit, it just states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". Interpretation varies. For example, a reasonably high placing on any of the Billboard specialist charts (e.g. Country Music) is usually considered a hit here, even though that single may fall well outside of the top 40 of the main singles chart. Plenty of bands never get a chart placing on any chart - #49 in Germany puts him a level above those. WP:PROD is about deletions that are unlikely to be challenged. This one is borderline, so if you wish to pursue deletion you should take it to AFD. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Albert Beckford Jones article

Hi Bongomatic,

Would you please care to elaborate your reasoning behind the "notability" etc tags you added to the Albert Beckford Jones article/and or any other issues you have with it. As the author, I'd like to resolve the issues but I can't until I understand what specifically they are.

Simplynetworked (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simplynetworked. Thanks for writing.

Generally, I would recommend reading the guideline on notability and the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. In a nutshell, notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• I added the "Notability" and "Refimprove" tags because the notability of the subject has not been not demonstrated, and additional references would be required to demonstrate notability. The only existing references that provide significant coverage of the subject are not independent of the subject, and those that are independent do not provide significant coverage. (Note that a number of the sources that are cited—independent of the analysis above—do not appear to be "reliable" within the meaning of the policy.
• I added the "Resumelike" tag because the article reads like a resume, not a biography. Read other biographies in Wikipedia and you will find many that are resume-like and many that are not—it shouldn’t take much effort to figure out the difference.
• I added the "COI" tag because you have made significant edits only to one article, and one that is resume-like and does not read as neutral. This tag can be removed when other editors (other than sock puppets) make changes to the article.
• Finally, I added the "Cleanup" tag because the article needs copyediting, especially in respect of punctuation and reference / link formatting.

I hope that’s a helpful response to your query.

Rgds, Bongomatic 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Van Phillips (inventor)

I gave it a good push, I think you will like the improvements :) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for improving it.

Speedy keep

Thanks for the link. I'm going to cease contributing to AFD discussions. When the community can't even make up its mind about what the different opinions mean, it's time to quit. 23skidoo (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you had such fun with the last article I dropped in your lap...

Dominic Covey and Burning Lands? A google search was ummmm not helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa . . . nobody could ever accuse you of not knowing your spit from your spamola. Bongomatic 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gary Kurfirst

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gary Kurfirst, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Quite an interesting guy, actually. Bongomatic 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pineapple

Putting pineapple on pizza is sacriligeous and I'm deeply offended that this inappropriate food usage was posted on my talk page. What's next ham in a can called spam? There is an extraordinary pastrami pizza on offer nearby here. There's also a great place for arugula and prosciutto pizza. Of course a good margarita pizza is always a good choice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boot Camp (film)

Might I ask about your determination as to how Boot Camp (film) fails WP:NF? For gosh sakes... I found reviews from opposite sides of the world. I mean sure... its not a blockbuster, but international distribution and international reviews in reliable sources? And even the nom himself voted keep, essentially withdrawing the nomination. I am confused. Now I certainly expect it to be a keep, with just the one un-expanded dissenting opinion, but I am quite curious at to your reasoning. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I only saw one review, from JoongAng Ilbo. The rest appeared to me to be "trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews,' plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides." Did I miss something? Bongomatic 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did... and with the greatest of respects, as I'm sure it was an honest error... but the section of WP:NF that you quoted verbatim and responded to point by point is specifically a criteria to be used for determining the likelyhood of sources being available, not for determining notability of subject, as that is covered in other and specific portions of WP:GNG, WP:NF, WP:N, and WP:V. Using the section as it was intended, I found sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go... and only found and added because you pushed for more (mumbled thanks)... the film had an original title of Straight Edge which got a lot more coverage before than after the name change. Go figure. Aside from the new added sources (yes, reliable), under the (now found and sourced) working title of Straight Edge, the film was the first film to utilize a five-year-old incentive program that Fiji had designed and institued in order to create jobs while building a film production infrastructure on the island. So, a little film that actually had a first in something... for a country that did not have a film industry of its own... and I would not have discovered it if I had not kept digging. So thanks. It was worth it. Good show. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Frieden Article

Bongo, exceuse my first forays into wikipedia editing. But I think that Tom Frieden, who you posted a notability question on, clearly meets the Wikipedia standards for notability . As I wrote on discussion page -

Tom Frieden is an appropriate subject for a wikipedia entry: as a high-profile figure within the world of public health and policy his background and career are an important part of the public record. The New York City Department of Health is one of the largest public health bodies in the world and, under his direction, has taken a number of innovative policy stances such as smoke-free and menu-calorie labeling, that are the subject of a lot of interest, debate and research in the public health community and in those interested in New York City policy and politics. The community would be well served by having his background information on Wikipedia.

I agree with your other commentary: the entry needs to be reworked to conform to Wikipedia standards. Interested in your feedback, thanks. stvhamill

Please see reply on article's talk page. Bongomatic 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Autumn Misery

It is a tough call, and I am actually leaning toward acquiescing to an unblock inasmuch as I don't see anything disruptive. One of GG's tells, besides the laundered images, is that he often adds hoax stuff or writes about future episodes of TV shows as if they've already happened, And SAM doesn't seem to have done that, and the images are all properly rationalized and used. But for most of us not familiar with Phillippines pop culture, we have to trust the assessment of those who do because it requires familarity with it to spot the socks. And obviously this makes it hard for any new editor with an interest or knowledge in that area ("hey! He's editing stuff about Phillippines pop culture! Must be a sock of Gerald's!")

Blake's comment can be read either way. I tell you what ... I will post a comment there that he can be unblocked, because the only way we can be sure he's a legit account is to let him edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)