User talk:Ravenswing

If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.

I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.

Beyond that, I keep my AfD work over on AfD. Don't write me here to dispute my posts or (as is more commonly the case) lobby me to change my vote. Anything you have it in mind to say here is more properly said over there, for all to see.

• Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 - March 2006
• Archive #2 - Entries archived from March 2006 - May 2006
• Archive #3 - Entries archived from May 2006 - December 2006
• Archive #4 - Entries archived from December 2006 - April 2007
• Archive #5 - Entries archived from April 2007 - June 2007
• Archive #6 - Entries archived from June 2007 - November 2007
• Archive #7 - Entries archived from November 2007 - April 2008
• Archive #8 - Entries archived from April 2008 - July 2008

Re Article: Promotion_City

Hi, you recently deleted my article due to section G7. If you noticed, the top of my post (in red) was a message asking for help regarding making my article noteable for wikipedia. Could you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil-One (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so, no. First off, it's a definite offense to recreate a deleted article, and you are at risk of being blocked if you do so. Secondly, several editors now have found the subject just plain not notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article. The website has an Alexa traffic ranking of just under 700,000, and doesn't have enough page views to crack its graph. The only way an article can be sustained is to demonstrate conclusively that it meets one or more elements of WP:WEB; to wit:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
     • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
   • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

I couldn't turn up any evidence your website had met any of those criteria. Good luck.  RGTraynor  16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer some useful advice regarding the noteable criteria. I noticed that one of the points mentioned was regarding winning an independ award. I can proudly say that Promotion City have been nominated every year since 2004 in the Urban Music Awards (http://www.urbanmusicawards.net) which is a well known UK 'urban/underground' award ceremony that rivals the UK's popular MOBO awards (http://www.mobo.com/). And more importantly Promotion City were winners of the Best Website award back in 2005 (pic: http://www.promotioncity.co.uk/images/UMA-Winners1.jpg - if you look clearly, you can see www.promotioncity.co.uk sketched into the award that I am holding). As previously said, Promotion City were nominated in the Best Website category in the following years (2006, 2007, 2008) alongside Myspace.com and Facebook.com in 2007 (of which Facebook.com won). There are many published articles on the internet about the UMA's in 2005 which list the winners of each category - and show Promotion City as winners, here is an example on an archived page at the UMA's website: http://www.urbanmusicawards.net/_index.htm - Finally, Promotion City have also been nominees in another music/clubbing awards ceremony entitled Musik 4 You Awards (however Promotion City did not win this).

Although all these facts are based around "Awards", would this be reasonable enough reason for having a Promotion City article on wikipedia? Neil-One (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. Being nominated for an award almost never confers notability (unless we're talking about the level a Nobel or an Academy Award nominee). Beyond that, one rule of thumb for whether awards are notable enough to be the sole prop for WP:WEB is whether the awards themselves have a Wikipedia article (see Category:British awards). As far as I can tell they do not.  RGTraynor  08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

chelsea darling

I have spent so much time writing this article for Chelsea Darling for you to come up and just nominate it like that, I'm very upset. I am not hating, threatening, anything of the sort.. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. I am trying to become a better writer, I would like to know where I went wrong and what I can fix. Deletion seems pretty extreme if its just something I can edit or change. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylecmdftwe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was obvious to me that you did spend a good bit of time on the article, and in terms of meeting proper style and format, your goal of becoming a better writer seems well in hand; that wasn't the problem. The problem is the subject. This young model is obviously a go-getter and good at self-promotion; the world just hasn't noticed yet. WP:BIO specifically holds that a model must:

• Have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;
• Have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;
• Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions;
• Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or
• Have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

From what my own researches have turned up, she's done none of that, and so far the consensus of all other editors who've chimed in are unanimous. I'd certainly like to see a writer of your skill continue to contribute to Wikipedia; my sole advice to you is simply to verify with the appropriate criteria (WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS) whether a subject is notable enough for an article before proceeding with creating a new one. Good luck.  RGTraynor  16:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello RG, I think the article Paulina Gretzky, needs to be nominated for deletion. But, it probably wont happen. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

She probably passes in that independant articles have been written about her (possibly a side effect of her dad), though they should be referenced on her page. -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are just enough credits that I doubt a consensus would be reached. In looking a bit further, I see a feature article on her on CTV.ca, the writeup on the Flare cover shoot, a couple others.  RGTraynor  22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis T. Bowles and his role at Fore River. Arthur Busch's role building IJN first five (Holland Type VII) at Quincy.

For some reason, neither men are mentioned as being present at Fore River during the Russo-Japanese war. Mr. Bowles is not even acknowledged on Wikipedia. This whole entire story is distorted and (biased) no thanks to the mismanaged company known as Electric Boat. People like Lawrence York Spear and Frank Taylor Cable lacked integrity and "conspired in silence" to keep certain crucial information (about the origins of Electric Boat) at bay and concealed. Much, much more to this somewhat politically incorrect story that was never honestly rendered to begin with. The truth will not always be what "they" want us to know, nor can it always be Kosher, as "they" would prefer to have it be. It... (what is correct) will also (many times) be offensive to those who are. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of starting a new article about Admiral Francis T. Bowles, President of Fore River Shipbuilding Company.

Maybe you would see fit to start an article about this man... (Admrial F. T. Bowles) who once complained to Congress over the high cost of the A-class/Adder-class submarines developed at Lewis Nixon's Crescent Shipyard in Elizabethport, New Jersey. He didn't whine and complain over that fact that Rice moved "his" submarine operations to Bowles shipyard in 1904. Got Fore River "out of the red" at this time. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources relevant to the Electric Boat article, they may well be pertinent there. That being said, if you have reliable sources stating that Japan commissioned Fore River to build it submarines, I have no problem with that being in the article. Where I differ is in your inference that there was something sinister in this; the IJN had to have had the subs built somewhere, and that was during a time when relations between the Americans and the Japanese were good. Furthermore, I am unsure what is notable about Bowles' or Busch's alleged presence or "role" at Fore River or anywhere else ... the shipyard has always had superintendents and project managers, after all.  RGTraynor  20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Nixon and Arthur Busch

A great majority of the works of these two men (and the contributions they made to advancements in U. S. Naval Seapower) were downplayed and overlooked in the Naval community and (in some cases) by the companies they used to work for. There are reliable "sources" in "contricdiction" to other versions but one must know where to find these facts. Much of these mens story have been overlooked and underappreciated. I will say that the United States Government remained "neutral" during Japan's war with Russia in 1904/05. As far as having "good relations" as "allies" with Japan at the time; you could say they opened their doors to the west by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do have reliable sources, and they don't place undue weight on the accomplishments and actions of notable subjects, I'm sure the information can find its way to appropriate articles ... perhaps articles on themselves.  RGTraynor  23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article concering Timothy Hodge

i dont think the article should be deleted, regarding Timothy Hodge he is in fact a real person and have done all of the jobs that are listed in the artcle. Informations is on the world wide net and listed on various websites. I think its wrong and disrespectful for u to have deleted the article the first time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:RS for information on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and verification, but to phrase it more briefly, it's not our job here to "respect" the subjects of articles, but to apply the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. No one's suggesting that Mr. Hodge doesn't exist. He just does not meet the criteria listed above, and does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.  RGTraynor  00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

I was wrong about exactly what happened here. They just re-created the same article without the "W" to dodge the AfD, then blanked the original article. I have tagged the new one as a speedy, but I thought you'd like to know what was up. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple Line stations

Please explain your justification for redirecting every single WMATA Purple Line station stub to the central Purple Line page. Doing so is inconsistent with other planned Metro stations such as on the Silver line. In future it would be much less antagonistic to propose your changes on the talk pages instead of merely plastering over pages with a redirect.

Dkendr (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple: they are stations that at this time do not exist, may never exist (these are, after all, stations on a proposed line), won't for a minimum of seven years, have no notability or verifiability beyond the proposed line, and about which nothing is extant other than that they are proposed stations on the proposed line; this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, and preferable to them being AfDed outright. If indeed there are other projected stations on other projected lines with similar articles, they ought to be redirected as well.  RGTraynor  00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, inconsistent with other planned WMATA articles, and certainly not for you to implement unilaterally. What's more I find your argument "if I can't have my way by redirecting them I'll just have them deleeted" to be unconvincing and arrogant. Dkendr (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the purple line green lighted yet? Its still in the proposal stage right? ccwaters (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed my opinion, and whether that opinion is consistent with the way you've put together WMATA articles (which would be your opinion, would it not?) is irrelevant to deletion policy and whether these articles meet Wikipedia-wide notability and WP:CRYSTAL standards. I'm sorry if you've forgotten WP:AGF in the mix.  RGTraynor  15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, more in point: Don't assume you're the sole authority, because you're not. And don't assume you have the right to set standard, because you don't. And don't assume that just because you've memorized policy tags means you have the right to decide what applies. My opinion was that the articles could be stubbed in and later if found irrelevant by the usual jury process redirected or deleted. Your idea was that they were irrelevant and you didn't need no jury to back you up. Now stop blathering about policy; if you have an AfD nomination or two in mind, make them, and quit pretending the rules don't apply to you. Dkendr (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If what you want is for them to be taken to AfD, fair enough. In the meantime, perhaps you should take a peek at WP:OWN. Plainly you want to pick a fight, but I can't much be bothered.  RGTraynor  23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plainly, looking at your talk pages, your MO is to delete or alter pages, then quote policy you don't understand, then wave off complaints about your autocratic behavior as "bothersome." Grow up and stop playing with Wikipedia. Dkendr (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking at your talk pages, I see you have a history of vandalism and personal attacks, including at least one block for the same, and I even see that you've redirected pages without warning. I strongly recommend that you spend more time on learning more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and less on insulting other editors.  RGTraynor  15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ross Singers should not be deleted

The ross singers pages should not be deleted, do your research on them. --Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show us the results of yours. What elements of WP:BAND - and meeting one or more of these elements is required - did this group fulfill? -

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble, or works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
• Has had a charted hit on any national music chart or has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
• Has released two or more albums on a major label.
• Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
• Has won or placed in a major music competition.
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, or has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

And so on. Wikipedia policy does not require anyone to prove they are not notable - it requires the editor wishing to save the material to demonstrate that the subject is. So far the unanimous consensus is that these subjects are not.  RGTraynor  04:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

You nominated Timothy W Hodge for deletion but it got speedied. It has now popped up again as Timothy Hodge but I couldn't delete it G4 because the previous AfD had been superceded by the speedy so it is at AfD again. This is a courtesy call to let you know that I shamelessly stole your original nom statement (with due attribution of course) - it was too good to waste and was better than anything I could have come up with. :) kind regards nancy ^talk 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff!  RGTraynor  23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge, The Ross Singers, Musician artist agency]]

did u take the time and do ur reasearch on them , if u did i dont think u would be putting them up for deletions, and u talking about news paper articles, awards its all over the internet, i search for hours. --Sunpop (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008

I have a better suggestion. You do the research on them. Several editors, myself included, have spent time researching these non-notable people and groups, and we have found nothing: no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no movies or TV appearances, no released albums, no nothing. The premise upon which I am working is that no such sources exist. If you have found any, please feel free to include your sources in the article and let us know where you found them; nothing and no one prevents you from doing so. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you and Daisy404 stopped spamming my talk page unless you have new and concrete information to add.  RGTraynor  23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning - inappropriate edits

Please do not delete article contents especially reference citations, especially after an AFD and Deletion Review, and the "dust has not even settled yet". When you have a concern, please ADD appropriate "Clarify" or "Fact" tags/templates rather than deleting content and references. LeheckaG (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate to delete references that do not pertain to the subject of the article. If you can point out any references I have so far deleted that do contain direct references to the subject, I will be happy to revert them myself.  RGTraynor  21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see

...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#What is notable?, where we're discussing the notability issue relating to bridges. - Denimadept (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff; I've made some comments.  RGTraynor  20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey nicknames

Regarding the removal of nicknames; I had no idea the discussion was happening, since it occurred on the project talk page, and not on any articles I edit. It seems the decision was made with only project editors in mind. Asher196 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the consensus was determined on the Wikiproject, but that's the case on all the Wikiprojects; we presume, not without cause, that the editors involved in such projects constitute a quorum for discussions based on them. In this particular case, the ice hockey player infobox was created by a WP:HOCKEY editor, and has been edited and maintained by WP:HOCKEY editors; it's not particularly unreasonable for us to discuss what's to be included on it amongst ourselves, as has always been the case. You're certainly welcome to put your oar in, and try to change consensus to your POV if you wish.  RGTraynor  22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can create and use my own infobox and replace yours, including fields I want? You have no special authority over articles just because you participate in a project. Asher196 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No we don't have special authority, but the members of the project can revert your edit unless you have a consensus of other users to change it to your version. -Djsasso (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat surprising, since I see that you belong to a Wikiproject. Looking through that project page, it sure sounds like some folks are causing quite a stir by unilaterally changing the name of "Lighthouse" articles to "Light." Seems like WP:Lighthouses works with consensus as well.  RGTraynor  02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. My issue is that nicknames were removed from the infoboxes with no warning unless you were a member of the project. I have no problem with consensus. I also have an issue with having properly sourced infomation removed. Asher196 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The template was changed, and the warning came where the template was generated, which is out of the project. If your point is that we failed to notify the tens of thousands of editors who haven't gone out of their way to display an unusual interest in ice hockey articles -- and thank heaven we didn't, because no doubt ArbCom would have some very serious words with us if we spammed the system on such a scale -- I'd have to agree with you; so stipulated.  RGTraynor  02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notifying individual editors, but putting a notice on the talk pages of the articles that use the infobox. Is that a practical possibility? I don't know enough about Wikipedia in that area. Asher196 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be several hundred articles, anyway, and people updating just one or two individual articles without coming near the project page are far more likely to come in with WP:OWN arguments defending their favorite players anyway.  RGTraynor  03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3800 or so according to AWB, just for an idea of how used it is. Which is why if people are that concerned about whats on a template its probably easier to just watch the template itself. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooof. THAT many? Well now.  RGTraynor  04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

why are you deleting virginia association of counties?

And how do I create a page of my association without you deleting it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharter (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By submitting proof of how your club fulfills the criteria of WP:ORG and WP:V. Good luck.  RGTraynor  17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Gulledge

It seemed pretty clear to me. While the counts were similar, Brmo's rationale for his deletion basically trumped their arguments about the all-star appearances being notable. Plus, minor leaguers are not prima facie notable, even at the AAA level, they have to prove something else. Note that after Brmo explained his side as well there were no more people that voted keep. AfD's not a vote, and the delete voters simply had much stronger arguments. Wizardman 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league debate

They have reopned the minor league notability debate on the Baseball project talk page.. You might want to participate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)