User talk:Kevin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 20 October 2009

Deletion review for Kristen McNamara

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

		The BLP Barnstar
		Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches (in the happy event of your return)! ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lar. It's a pity it didn't gain more widespread support. Kevin (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed on the functionaries-en list and I think the protection standards at RFPP have moved a bit in the good direction, and it collected some good data so I think it was useful. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back

- welcome back to mopping tasks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 10:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve. I got talked into it, hopefully I'll fnd a path that suits me. Kevin (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I obviously don't have any clue as to how to use wikipedia or else i wouldn't be posting here, but it looks like you deleted the tommy sowers article. I'm not really sure why that was. It met the primary notability criterion... how do you decide? At what point does a poltiical candidate go from being not worthy to worthy? I thougth it was when the became notable based on independent press? That seems to have happened to me... There are at least 10 online articles in the past month about the candidate... Matth915 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Rutterschmidt

Hello there. I am leaving this message to you because you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt. The AfD was closed early because the article had been renamed to Black Widow murders during the discussion, and both Olga Rutterschmidt and its sister article Helen Golay have been merged into it. If you wish, please feel free to nominate this new article for deletion if you feel that the article does not merit a place on Wikipedia. Regards, NW (Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm glad to see you back around working hard with cleaning up our BLPs. NW (Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Arvin Nery

Obviously I'm fine with closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arvin Nery as delete, but the IPs were different. Same ISP, but different IPs.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed clear to be the same user to me, on a dynamic IP. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought they were different, because one wanted it kept and the other wanted it gone. Ah, the joys of IP edits. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally plausible I guess. That's why I kept A7 for a fallback. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Kristen McNamara

Could you explain how the sources discussed and linked to don't meet WP:N? Your basis for the close would seem to rely on your reading of the value of those sources so I think the close should touch on them. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the article to a Deletion Review

I've answered at the deletion review. Kevin (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In case you aren't following it, I've responded with a further question there. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedobaiting article

I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this article, but the perceived BLP issue could have easily been removed without deleting the entire article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that is is a magnet for BLP violations. Had the rest been sourced at all I would have done as you suggest. Kevin (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you feel that people would have started adding cases to the article? And if so, there are articles here that list well-documented cases of scandals, controversies, or even a case about this specific topic...such as the To Catch a Predator article (as pedobaiting does not only refer to true pedophiles). Some of the information on those cases in that article needs sourcing, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that that article has a definite scope of those portrayed on the show rather than just anybody. It is woefully sourced though. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you would note the difference in scope, but I still felt that I would point out that article as an example. My point is that I have seen plenty of articles at this site list famous or other such documented BLP cases relating to them...such as the Teenage pregnancy article. Granted, most of the BLP cases in that article were not controversial (especially the Pre-20th century section, where it was apparently not that much of an outrage for a man to take on a 13-year-old girl as his bride or to get her pregnant). But, anyway, I am not saying that just because other articles do this means that it is right. And, I stated before, I do not feel strongly one way or the other that you deleted the Pedobaiting article. I simply felt the need to address you with what I was thinking when I saw it now deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rosas

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rosas as delete based on the sources being about Al Rosas' farm rather than about him. However, none of the AFD participants raised this as an issue. Based on the discussion in the article, these sources were accepted as supporting notability. Please review. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but they did flag that the sources were inadequate to show notability. I was articulating what I saw as the basis for those opinions. Kevin (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who flagged the sources as inadequate? None of the editors advocating deletion addressed the sources that were raised in the discussion. The only editor contesting the sources actually changed from delete to keep after reviewing them more thoroughly.-- Whpq (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 editors offered unqualified delete opinions based on notability. Do you feel that they did not consider the content of all the sources? Kevin (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe they considered the sources that were presented in the AFD. But that isn't material. The delete was closed because "The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.", and nobody, including the editors advocating delete based on notability advanced that as a reason for deletion. I have no issue with an editor evaluating the sources and coming to that conclusion and advocating deletion. However, advancing it as a reason for closure when the issue was not even raised is not proper. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I closed it because I believed the arguments that the subject failed WP:BIO (i.e. insufficient depth of coverage) overrode the other opinions. I knew that those particular articles would raise question, so I made particular note of them. Perhaps I should have expanded my reasoning. Kevin (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I still feel it is out of process, and I'm sorry, but I'll take this to DRV. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, seems opinion is on your side there anyway. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking an article to DRV isn't something I take lightly. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Al Rosas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Rosas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen McNamara

Hi Kevin, if you have a chance there is a question for you at the DrV...Hobit (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Lighting AfD

Yeah, Twinkle failure. I'll have to wait until I get home later to fix it, unless you want to be a Really Nice Person and do it... :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but don'replyt know what your rationale would have been. Kevin (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald I. Meshbesher

Hi Kevin, I'd really appreciate it if you could answer a quick question. I'm trying to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines but the Ronald I. Meshbesher page is flagged. How can I get these flags removed? I have tried making the page more neutral in tone, adding credible sources, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. Lhc67

What you need to do is offer your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_I._Meshbesher, showing how he passes either of these notability guidelines: WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Unfortunately I do not think he does. You need to find something published where Meshbesher is the subject, and it is more than a trivial mention. I see hundreds og Google News hits, but they are mostly the type of passing mention you would expect to see of any trial lawyer. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Hey - I sent you a couple of e-mails - did you get them? -->David Shankbone 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, was it today? Kevin (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wiki email is a bit slow - send them to kevin@hennanights.com Kevin (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Birkitt

I'm surprised that you think Stephanie Birkitt is notable only for the alleged affair with David Letterman. The Wikipedia article titled Stephanie Birkitt was there for a long time before the news of the affair broke. She appeared frequently on Letterman's show for a number of years. Didn't you ever see her on the show? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. Obviously my opinion of what makes a person notable is different to the majority there, although I am uncertain as to how that makes my opinion "absurd". Kevin (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "absurd" is your statement that Stephanie Birkitt was not known to the public until the recent revelations about Letterman's behavior. If that were true, the article would not have such a long history. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually used the term "notable", which has a different and specific meaning here than "known to the public". Prior to recent events my opinion is that Birkitt was not notable as guided by WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I seem to be fighting a loosing battle there, and not even a quality, going-down-in-a-blaze-of-glory style one, either. I'm just going down hard! I think I'm starting to look more and more deranged :P . . . . I'm really not understanding the grounds for the vociferous defense the article is mounting there, given WP:N and a few other associated policies. Seems like a bunch of Letterman fans wanting to think that a frequently-recurring guest star is actually somehow encyclopedically notable. I should probably just take a step back (and stop telling other people to take a step back, lest I be accused of MPOV).

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for that protection on Austin St. John; I've been frustrated with the extremely dubious / libelous vandalism there for a while. It really got annoying when someone uploaded the pic and repeatedly uploaded it to the image. It took me a few days of ranting on Commons before I could get them to just speedy delete it as a copy-vio uploaded solely for (particularly egregious) BLP vandalism.

Yes, that battle looks to be lost. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming unprotection request

The temporary furore over at Global warming on cyclical variations / using the NYT as a source, seems to have abated (well, of course it's abated in the presence of a protect), but I think we have a solution (see down at the bottom of Talk:Global_warming#Note_cyclical_variations_which_lead_to_recent_cooling_trends) which is to ignore the larger question of suitability of newspapers as sources for solid science based articles (whatever one takes that to mean), and instead address the kernel that crystalized the dispute - to wit, replace the contentious NYT reference with the original source material. There seems to be support for this (and the absence of any disagreement), so ... could you unprotect the article again? If you're interested, I've got an updated version with the contentious reference replaced at User:Lissajous/Global_warming which is what I would replace the current (contentious?) version with. Lissajous (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's unprotected. Thanks. Lissajous (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!

I understand and agree with you. No problem to delete. Sorry.Regi-Iris Stefanelli (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection level of global warming

Prior to your protecting and unprotecting of the global warming article, it was semi-protected. Did you mean to remove the semi-prot when you unprotected it? -Atmoz (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, thanks for the note. I've restored the pre-existng semi-protection. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice =)

I like your style. Why do you call yourself a "former administrator"? ƒ(Δ)² 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got around to changing that yet. One day.... Kevin (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the recent AfD decided on the issue of notability for this person, in the negative. I looked at every reference in the new version, and see nothing at all that would indicate that he is notable. What you do from here is up to you though. Kevin (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who created the page for Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur) - please elaborate on what the issue was with the most recent page deleted. I don't understand how "KEVIN" went through every reference in my most recent version and saw "nothing at all that would indicate that he notable." The articles clearly validate the stated experiences of Mr. Andrew Bentley and not sure what I am missing here. Please advise Hyim1 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Harry[reply]

Notability is determined for biographies using the guidelines at WP:BIO. Bentley has not been the subject of reliable secondary source material in sufficient depth to show that he is notable. I did look at each and every reference, however in each case where the material was not self-published (i.e. a press release, Facebook etc), Bentley was not the subject, and was only mentioned in passing. If you feel that the deletion discussion linked above was closed in error, then you need to go to WP:DRV rather than recreate the article. Kevin (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, discussion going on on my talk page as well. Just thought I should add, I am aware I may have erred, I didn't notice the fact you'd declined the speedy until after I'd seen it as recreation of deleted material. I have userfied the article currently so the editor may carry on working on it to assert notability, though if you want as you declined the speedy I have no problems bringing it back to article space, and take it back through AFD process. Regards ^Khukri 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall declining a speedy on this one, think that was Eastmain. I deleted after a consensus at AfD. Kevin (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Ferrell

Hi. I was just commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination) and when I went to save I saw that you already speedied it. Since the original afd took place the case has received major coverage by abc news, I believe that this expanded coverage meets the first of the 'valid reasons for recreating a deleted page' under WP:RPDA. It may again be deleted but IMO it should be able to go through AfD again. Thank you J04n(talk page) 02:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would have turned the tide, but you're welcome to make the argument. It's open again. Kevin (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J04n(talk page) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Henderson

Hi, you deleted the Samantha Henderson page without giving me a chance to move the information to my sandbox. How can I recover that info? Vermiculite (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Vermiculite/Samantha_Henderson Kevin (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by RedeTV! Deprod

Deprodding of List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of programs broadcast by RedeTV!, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JaMarcus Russell

Thank you for semi-protecting this page. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Let me know if you see any other candidates for long term protection. Kevin (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kevin. You have new messages at Tedder's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey Kevin- do you mind handling User:Mariah-Yulia's concern in this section on my page? I think your AGF-o-meter is higher than mine on this, so I think you'd do a better job at it than me. tedder (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright

Kevin, the photo is legitimate on the "21 Magazine" webpage. If you have any questions, please talk to me first before putting up a deletion notice. I would appreciate it! Thank you! Have a wonderful day! Modelmanager (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager[reply]

what do you mean by "legitimate". It is clearly a magazine cover, and therefore not public domain. I placed the deletion notice to inform you of the problem, and give you an opportunity to remedy it. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, take a look at Vogue (Magazine), they have a cover on their wiki page amongst others. You confirmed my page yesterday which I do appreciate, now you are using up my time trying to finish up this page. I am allowed to place covers on the Wiki page. Have the owner of Wiki contact me directly if he has a problem with it. Otherwise, please let me finish this page, so I can move onto my next project. Thank you! Modelmanager (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager[reply]

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 Kevin, the photo is legitimate on the "21 Magazine" webpage.  If you have any questions, please talk to me first before putting up a deletion notice. I would appreciate it!  Thank you!  Have a wonderful day! [[User:Modelmanager|Modelmanager]] ([[User talk:Modelmanager|talk]]) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
 :what do you mean by "legitimate". It is clearly a magazine cover, and therefore not public domain. I placed the deletion notice to inform you of the problem, and give you an opportunity to remedy it. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
+Kevin, take a look at Vogue (Magazine), they have a cover on their wiki page amongst others.  You confirmed my page yesterday which I do appreciate, now you are using up my time trying to finish up this page.  I am allowed to place covers on the Wiki page.  Have the owner of Wiki contact me directly if he has a problem with it.  Otherwise, please let me finish this page, so I can move onto my next project.  Thank you!  [[User:Modelmanager|Modelmanager]] ([[User talk:Modelmanager|talk]]) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager