User talk:Ttonyb1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:41, 8 April 2009

Archives

Click here to start a new topic...

Tilling Tactical‎

This company is developing significant military equipment that is controvevcial. They also have affiliates and connections in the same areas as other companies of intrest (Ie. Xe Company, Tripple Canopy, Barrett Corp.)

The owner/leader of the company is historically relavant in his affliation with NASCAR and the defence industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashfulswd (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article to support the claims of Notability. An affiliation with an individual does not necessary provide notability for a company. The article is about the company, not the individual. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellinga's Online Network, Three Brothers Golf Association, TBGA

Please do not delete these or mark them for deletion. The content on these is legit, this is a real organization and company created by Jon Hellinga. I just wanted to write about them so that people know about them.

Thanks, Jonhellinga (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one contests that they are legitimate organizations; however, unfortunately these articles do not meet the test for Notability. Sorry... ttonyb1 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost babies

I don't understand why you tagged LOST BABIES to be deleted. It was FEATURED ON ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY'S WEBSITE! I realize that this form of entertainment (movie) was not released in theaters, but how much more references are needed? Nothing is a reliable source unless its a printed newspaper, but most of WIKI is more bogus than what you claim this page is.

in the meantime - what is this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Fensler There are no article or references about this - it could be all made up, just like most of wikipedia. Please take back your suggestion for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgoodberg (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated in the Prod tag, the film fails WP:MOVIE. In spite of what you feel, Notability can be established in electronic form; however, there are certain criteria the item needs to meet.

I have moved this to a AfD to solicit further comments on the deletion.

I am not sure what you are referring to concerning Eric Fensler. If you have concerns about the validity of the article and can validate your concerns, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion.

My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Imaging Entry

Hi, We have made some major edits to our original submission. I hope that the latest edits would allow removal of the notability deletion warning. Our company has had a significant impact in the history and growth of the printing industry. I would like to see the reference stay active. If not, can you please give me a bit more guidance on what may be required.

Thank you!

SW2000 (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Kevin[reply]

Whoah - I am watching you in action 'live'! Very impressive

SW2000 (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Kevin[reply]

Thanks...

I think the article is almost there. You need to finish up what I have started.

Fix the links so the titles are correctly displayed.
Move any links that can be to the article itself.
Expand the article to focus on contributions to the industry.

Give it a shot and I'll take a look at it tomorrow or the next day. (You might want to remind me.) I'll bet the tag will be removed then.

Good luck... ttonyb1 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tutorial:). I cleaned it up and added a sentence or two. I can write more but if this is enough, I'll stop for now. Let me know if you feel it needs more on our contributions to the industry and if so, I can do some research on this. SW2000 (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Kevin[reply]

the artist known as Dead Poet

hi i been wondering why you deleted the page on the artist known as Dead Poet. his music is hard to find, actually any information is hard to find about him. i tried searching here in Wiki cause you guys have almost everything. when i saw that you guys didnt have anything on him either i decided to start the page. i should of mention it would be under construction, but you deleted it faster than i could log back in after the battery on my laptop died. so if no one can find anything about the artist here in wiki, my quetion is where else are they going to find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkom veg (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. To clear up a couple of things:

I did not delete the article, I only nominated it for deletion.
This is not a you guys vs. us guys environment. Wikipedia is a cooperative environment where anyone can make a contribution; however, these contributions have to meet certain criteria.

The article you wrote did not meet the criteria for a person or band. Notability is important in establishing if an article will stay on Wikipedia. See WP:PEOPLE and WP:BAND for a further explanation.

If you are going to recreate the article, I suggest you create it in a user/sandbox and when it is finished upload it to Wikipedia. Good luck...ttonyb1 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a Company: Divison 1 Printing

What is considered "notability of a company" other than a subjective review of Wikipedia?

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by EquityPR (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity has little to do with Notability. Wikipedia has numerous pages to help a new user understand what is required to establish Notability. Take a look at WP:COMPANY for the specifics related to establishing Notability for a company.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. McCabe Sr.

Someone has effectively removed the page from its online site (by screwing up the certificate). If you're pretty sure that the whole page was copyvio, I'll delete it, since you've always been reliable at CSD. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am absolutely positive. The cert is messed up, so I used a "throwaway" machine to access it and verity the copyvio. The text was almost exact and dated 2007 in its directory. Thanks for asking and confirming that I am on the right track with my CSDs. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey McCabe

Please do not delete my page for Casey McCabe. He is a new DJ on Amp radio, as well as he spent 1 year working for the world famous KROQ. If you look at the page for KLXS, he is listed as the airstaff, but he has no profile. He is a very good friend of mine, and if you have other DJ's (like Stryker) from that station on wikipedia, then it is only fair that he should have his biography on here as well. Unfortunately, he has not done any interviews that are available online for me to give as a reference, but I assure you, everything on there is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirRyRy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is nothing in the article to support the Notability for the individual. I suggest you review the section on Notability and see if you can add anything that would allow the article stay. Good luck... ttonyb1 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Womenomics

I understand the concerns about Notability, and I'm familiar with the concept, but am still having trouble determining what to include to clear this up. One example of a Wikipedia page I was looking at for an example of an upcoming book that doesn't seem to be having Notability issues is Giving Is Living... is theirs notable because the book was noted by an article on ArtSlant? The ArtSlant piece is wholly advertisement-like, with phrases like "The economic crunch is no match for this book—Giving is Living provides 101 easy ways to improve our lives. It’s simple: by doing good for others, we can feel great and begin to live our best lives." Given that the only other references are to sites sponsored by the book itself, Giving Is Living seems to have no other real Notability? I'm trying to understand what makes that book Notable enough to warrant and page but not Womenomics. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial by the authors of Womenomics on the topic of Womenomics, the inclusion of which in the page I though would increase the evidence for its Notability? Thanks so much for your help! Jocelynp85 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the WSJ editorial, ditto for the Reuters piece on flexible work schedules that's also in there now, citing one of the authors and referring to the upcoming book! Jocelynp85 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:23, 8 April 2009 edit Jocelynp85 (talk \| contribs) 97 edits →Womenomics ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:41, 8 April 2009 edit undo Jocelynp85 (talk \| contribs) 97 edits →Womenomics Next edit →
Line 127:		Line 127:

	I understand the concerns about Notability, and I'm familiar with the concept, but am still having trouble determining what to include to clear this up. One example of a Wikipedia page I was looking at for an example of an upcoming book that doesn't seem to be having Notability issues is [[Giving Is Living]]... is theirs notable because the book was noted by an article on ArtSlant? The ArtSlant piece is wholly advertisement-like, with phrases like "The economic crunch is no match for this book—Giving is Living provides 101 easy ways to improve our lives. It’s simple: by doing good for others, we can feel great and begin to live our best lives." Given that the only other references are to sites sponsored by the book itself, [[Giving Is Living]] seems to have no other real Notability? I'm trying to understand what makes that book Notable enough to warrant and page but not [[Womenomics]]. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial by the authors of [[Womenomics]] on the topic of Womenomics, the inclusion of which in the page I though would increase the evidence for its Notability? Thanks so much for your help! [[User:Jocelynp85\|Jocelynp85]] ([[User talk:Jocelynp85\|talk]]) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)		I understand the concerns about Notability, and I'm familiar with the concept, but am still having trouble determining what to include to clear this up. One example of a Wikipedia page I was looking at for an example of an upcoming book that doesn't seem to be having Notability issues is [[Giving Is Living]]... is theirs notable because the book was noted by an article on ArtSlant? The ArtSlant piece is wholly advertisement-like, with phrases like "The economic crunch is no match for this book—Giving is Living provides 101 easy ways to improve our lives. It’s simple: by doing good for others, we can feel great and begin to live our best lives." Given that the only other references are to sites sponsored by the book itself, [[Giving Is Living]] seems to have no other real Notability? I'm trying to understand what makes that book Notable enough to warrant and page but not [[Womenomics]]. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial by the authors of [[Womenomics]] on the topic of Womenomics, the inclusion of which in the page I though would increase the evidence for its Notability? Thanks so much for your help! [[User:Jocelynp85\|Jocelynp85]] ([[User talk:Jocelynp85\|talk]]) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

			In addition to the WSJ editorial, ditto for the Reuters piece on flexible work schedules that's also in there now, citing one of the authors and referring to the upcoming book! [[User:Jocelynp85\|Jocelynp85]] ([[User talk:Jocelynp85\|talk]]) 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)