User talk:Ktr101: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	October 2007-September 2008; October 2008-September 2009; October 2009-September 2010; October 2010-September 2011; October 2011-January 2012

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:35, 11 January 2012


User	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Userboxes	Awards	New pages	Humor	E-mail	Logs	Moves	Uploads

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Notability and Accompanying Photo

Dear Kevin, I am in possesion of a photo taken in New York in 2001 where the Whippany River Watershed Action Committee was given The 2001 Environmental Quality Award for Region 2 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia page.) In the photo is acting Federal EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as well as several members of the Whippany River Watershed Action committee. Based upon primary criteria in Notability (organizations) this is a source a Notability for the committee from a National source. I can't post the photo since I do not have enough edits. Can you please help me post the photo or direct me to someone who can? If I can't post the photo how can I reference it to give the committee Notability. Thanks in advance for your help. (LeonardC (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not really, because the award itself isn't notable. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help on submission for Ian Marchant article

Hello, and thank you for looking at the article I was trying to submit. I'm new to Wikipedia editing as you can probably tell, but I did have a look at people who seemed similar to Ian Marchant in terms of importance, and I thought I had as many good sources as they did (eg quality newspapers like the Guardian and Times, and organisations like the BBC and top publishing companies). The guidelines for "notability" say The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I do think this is true of my subject - I could certainly give you links to more reviews of the books, which were reviewed widely in the main broadsheet and literary magazines, but I hadn't wanted to overload my article with links. If you could give me any guidance about the sort of thing I should do to make my article more acceptable, I'd be really grateful. Thanks, Esther. Estherstephens (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not feel that he meets the notability requirements, but it is also in that gray area of notability. I would encourage you to resubmit it again so that someone else can take a look at it you can get their opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Ueberroth denied article

I was wondering if you could help me to write this article so that it does demonstrate that this is a notable person. I feel like the President of an international company and is well known in her industry is notable enough to be on Wikipedia but I'm not sure how to write this article so that it is accepted and so that it is not written as an advertisement. I've found a lot of third-party sources as well as company sources for her biography but can't seem to get this correct. Her profile is as complete as [Randall L. Stephenson] and I tried to write the article similar to that one. Thanks! [1] 24.14.103.171 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not feel that Lindsey is notable as being in charge of a large corporation does not necessarily make you notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ktr101. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Brief bulleted points as to what to do to pass the screen

Hi!

I clicked on the linked that was written here. But I don't exactly know what it (you) meant. I may just be tired so please understand my situation. I sincerely appreciate that.

If you don't mind, I'd like you to specifically tell me your bulleted analysis and what specifically should I do to pass your screen (also in bullet points, please; and briefly, please).

Thank you so much and Happy New Year.

(Coek (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I would advise talking to people over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts, as they will know more about the topic than I would. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Canyon (disambiguation)

Kevin, I was sort of working on this. Disambiguation of Green Canyon will only work if you change the main article title to something other than Green Canyon. Since they are not both primary articles, I added hat notes to Gulf of Mexico Green Canyon pointing to the Java Green Canyon. And, put in for a G6 speedy delete of the Green Canyon(disambiguation) DCS (Talk Talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they submitted it to AFC and I accepted it, so I am confused as to why you are telling me this. Also, I am confused as to what you are trying to say in general. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to nicely say, it should never have been accepted, because it did not do anything. DCS (Talk Talk) 14:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help in adding a company page

We have been trying to add a company page for Palawan Press Ltd for about three momnths without success. Please can you help us?

It is a very small private company which publishes limited edition books, mainly about Aston Martins and other classic cars. These books are collectors items, but also authorative sources on the cars which are profiled.

We have a number of external citations for individual books, but little by way of description of the actual company. Consequently our own description kept being rejected as it had no citations. Now the description is so short that it has been rejected for having insufficient information.

We feel like we are going around in circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Palawan_Press

Sue.Bramall (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the corporation is not notable. Sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spyder IDE Notability

Hi, Ktr101

Could you explain why do you find Spyder IDE not notable in comparison with other Python IDEs? You are welcome to continue discussion in this thread - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/spyderlib/xEmexCIGKz8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techtonik (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't feel notable, although you are welcome to ask someone to move it into the main space for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response Honor Flight Story

Kevin—thanks for tip—cut 2nd group footlist to 3 essentl. Stay safe. Sniperscout (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quickfire there, buddy—like that! —USMC Sniperscout (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for approving the article I had put up. A barnstar for you! Kind Regards from abdars (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding articles for creation: Meenuliyan Para

Hi Kevin, I've added the importance and significance of the place. It is a tourist spot that is currently not so popular, but is sure to attract attention in the coming years. So I thought an article in Wikipedia could be helpful for people to get information about the place. Hope you are having a wonderful new year :)

Visakh wiki (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Ling denied article

Thanks for looking at my article proposal. I'm new to wikipedia editing, however I don't understand your criteria: you mentioned A7 (no indication of importance). The article I was trying to submit gives indication and references about the fact that Ling is - among the other things - author of a revolutionary cell physiology model, and of over 200 papers and books, developer of an important device used in medicine, editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, his works have been praised by Nobel laurates and scientists, and yet your review said "subject appears to be a non-notable person". However Wikipedia has a whole page about Mae-Wan Ho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho) whose works, books, articles, are based on Ling's theoretical framework and yet no mention is given in that page. Then what makes a person "notable enough" for inclusion I wonder?

Wyrdfire (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gilbert is in a gray area, and I would encourage you to re-submit it to see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think, which is why I resubmitted for Wyrdfire who has been put off contributing in future, that he does meet WP:PROF.

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.

That's an extract from WP:PROF that I based my addition of links to 60 citations of his work. That's to two of his works - he has over 200 so the total citation count is probably in the thousands. I appreciate everyone is trying to do their best, but I think you are misjudging the response that using a second template messages on people's talk pages which does not specifically address why you aren't satisfied with the changes they've already made to address the points of the review (i.e., not making a specific point as opposed to relying on the template) isn't helpful. Also, as an observation, choosing to review the proposed article again yourself when you'd already declined it once with the comment that it should be resubmitted to "see what others think" was probably not the best thing to do. Both would be likely to upset the original contributor more (not me, I don't care!). Just a thought for next time - cheers. QU ^TalkQu 07:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to provide clarification here. I left this submission until the end of the backlog so that I could spend some time on whether or not it is notable. After a discussion with another editor, we came to the conclusion that it Gilbert is not notable. Their rationale was that there were not really any citations that would help to satisfy WP:PROF. Sorry about this, but he is not notable in our eyes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

click.to - Notability

Hi Kevin, I would like to say thank you for looking at my article. I'm brand new to Wikipedia and would like my article to stand, but I'm not sure exactly what you need more of to prove notability. I have several references and weblinks, is it the quality or the quantity of the references that is in question? I hope that this is the right space to ask these questions. Emeb (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't have the feeling of notability, but looking over it and with some Google searching, it appears as though it just passes notability. I'll go ahead and create it soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non_notable person?

Dear Kevin, Thanks for taking the the time to look at my article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Philip Michael Wolfson i am very new to Wiki so apologies if this is a really obvious question. But, I would like to understand why you feel the subject appears to be a non-notable person. I have included a a number of links and other references (including books). i wish to hope to understand how to make this a more notable subject and enable this to be uploaded onto the encyclopedia. please respond. MRPMorris (talk, 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not feel as though Philip is notable, and he probably will never be. Just because he is mentioned in many books and media does not necessarily make him notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help on my submission

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for reviewing my Ariane Lopez-Huici submission. Unfortunately you did not accept it. So I am wondering if you could give me tips to improve it and move it on the bright side. I would really appreciate it. She is an important photographer, supported by many critics - Arthur Danto, Edmund White, Carter Ratcliff, Julia Kristeva- and collectors in the US and in Europe. Thank you for your help and attention. Kind regards Ariane Lopez-Huici (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Anne[reply]

It appears as if you are not notable, although even if you were, citing to your website does not help to back up any of the claims in the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I misunterstood what goes in this links section - I am actually not the artist mentioned in the article but an independent curator. Shall I try to rework it and submit it from a different account/address ? Thank you for your help. Best Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariane Lopez-Huici (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afc John Tarrant

Hi Kevin, and thanks for your review on my Afc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Tarrant. I note your comment "Sorry, this person does not yet seem to meet our notability requirements for athletes and sports people. Please read WP:ATHLETE for more information."; yet looking at WP:ATHLETE I see one of the criteria is "7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body", and as the Afc states, he set world records for 40-mile and 100-mile distances.

I have, of course, also explained why he was unable to compete in the Olympics, IAAF events, or any of the international races mentioned in the WP:ATHLETE criteria (the only one he might have been eligible for, the London Marathon, was only established after his death). Indeed, it is partly the controversy about his ineligibility for these events that makes him notable - though his world record performances should qualify him as 'notable' as well.

Look forward to your reply, and thanks for your hard work as evidenced above!

Drjamesaustin (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought he might be notable when I was reading over that, but I cannot believe that I missed that part. I am so sorry about that, and I will approve it as soon as possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please cite his record stuff, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; and done (re citation)! I've added a list of his records and wins, in order to further consolidate his notability (despite his enforced absence from international competition).Drjamesaustin (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addit - somewhat off-topic, I know, but *wow* - just spent a fascinating couple of hours reading through the links from your user page; especially the RFAs (and picking through jargon and links arising therefrom). I've never really looked 'under the hood' of Wikipedia before. What an eye-opener - I don't think I'll ever see it quite the same way again. Thank you - and good luck! Drjamesaustin (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma (Japanese Playstation Game)

Hi,

Please refer to this article you rejected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Enigma

I spoke to Dragonfly on livechat, so I am not sure how this stands:

Basically, this game doesn't have any Western sources that can be checked as such, which is why I provided those, gamespot has been used for many games when they have full descriptions, gamefaq also for some games on Wiki.

Due to this title being Japanese only and never having been released in the west, I realised this before writing the article and read the rules.

However, since these sites are the only places that has information on the game at all, gamefaq, more specifically - then can't it be considered as gamefaq has hundreds, thousands of detailed faq records by players who have played games thoroughly.

The information from Gamespot was basic, Amazon Japan had no description whatsoever just box shots, Koei Japan's site was difficuly to navigate through and didn't have google translation available for the text. I have sent an email to Koei US, American customer service to see if they can provide information on the game with an outline of this article. If they can't, I have asked if they can forward to their Japanese Branch as it brings the game (an obscure one) to the wiki readership and raising awareness to general gamers or retro gamers etc.

Dragon fly mentioned if those are the only sources available (gamespot and gamefaq, then it shouldn't be a problem), but that is why I am checking with you.

The game is not in the US The information is available from those two sites (publicly)

What do you make of it? I don't think Koei will come back with anything being the US branch and contact with the Japanese branch - they are separate entities.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can place Japanese links on the article, it probably would not hurt, as long as it is marked in the references that the language is in Japanese. Other than that, I think it is pretty good to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin,

Sorry, not sure if you can edit previous talk section.

Again from above I checked http://www.koei.co.jp/koei_home.html

Their site is only in Japanese and won't translate with Google. However, their official online store does:

http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/products/

http://www.gamecity.ne.jp/products/products/index/

And roadblock again; they have other game systems/consoles listed, except for PS1!

So, it cannot be traced through their official website nor retail website.

I have also checked more Japanese online retailers and information is practically non-existent - possibly due to age/time of release?

There is one site that has a little bit more info on the game synopsis:

Anime Densetu

http://www.densetsu.com/display.php?id=134&style=platform

'a site dedicated to asian games and entertainment' repository of sorts. Can this also be used as a reference?

Have you tried Google Books or Google Scholar? They might have something.

From what I could see it's geared towards academia and legal stuff. Tried searching anyway - nothing of any relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does put the article in a pickle. Do you think you've done everything possible to try to find notability? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can wait to see if I get a response from Koei, no rush really.

And possibly put in the article about exhaustive searching of japanese/english sites for info.

Everything upwards is fairly exhaustive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help on submission for Tactical Network Solutions page

Kevin, you recently reviewed my article on Tactical Network Solutions. I was merely trying to resolve a broken reference in the Wi-Fi Protected Setup#Security_issues page. This page includes a link to the company named Tactical Network Solutions, so I created a stub page with basic information about the company just so that reference would be satisfied. Can you provide some more detailed feedback that can help me improve the article so it will be accepted? Thank you. 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eacmen (talk • contribs)

Ah, it seems as though someone added the link to the article, even though it isn't currently something I would consider notable, as it has ten employees and their only claim to fame is that. I'm going to talk to others, but if it is indeed deemed notable, I'll let you know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly formatted AFC articles

I see that you moved two articles, Joe Bowker and Phillip Glasier, from AFC to mainspace yesterday and left them with some very broken templates. Please be more careful. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's odd. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anomie ⚔ 20:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godsized (band)

Hi Kevin,

I think this band is way above the bar for notability since they have feature coverage in national music magazines Kerrang and Metal Hammer (meeting criteria 1); received live reviews of national tours with Black Label Society and playing Download Festival (criteria 4); and were spun on BBC's Friday Rock Show, a national radio show (meeting criteria 11). If I'm wrong will you please explain why? Thanks!

213.105.1.168 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kevin Carroll

Hi Kevin, Thank you for the insight on my article creation. I have made the recommended changes. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Kevin_Carroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theydidwhat (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Good Friend Award
		For remind me about the rule of Wikipedians. Aamuizz (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of minor errors

I've noticed a couple of minor errors on talk pages that you do as part of your AFC gig. You have my sympathies on AFC as that is one hard job.

WikiProject Biography should always be the first banner on living people.
The "living" parameter is required in the bio banner. If "living" or "listas" is not set, it goes into a tracking category which is how I find talk pages of yours.
For some weird reason, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television and WikiProject Literature do not include people. So, they don't go on talk pages of people. WikiProject Children's Literature and WikiProject Poetry do include people which gets me confused. Seeing how 81 out of 107 new biographies yesterday were for footballers, I'm amazed I can remember anything beyond football.

Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use Timotheus Canen's AFC script, which automatically places the AFC project first. I'm pretty good at adding those now, so there might be one or two that slip by a week. Yeah...it sucks...but hey, it's life. Other than the fact that I have realized that Wikipedia is becoming my life...which is seriously concerning because I am on break. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review of new article "Lloyd Kasten"

The new article "Lloyd Kasten", which I've just uploaded, has been assessed as C-Class, which I see on the Grading Scheme page means it is "still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material." So evidently it contains either too little or too much -- but I can't tell which of these two problems is the one to focus on. Can you be more specific about where the room for improvement is? Kotabatubara (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with it, although it could probably be a bit longer. Either way, don't read them literally, as it is just a "grade" which is placed there arbitrarily by some user who really has no huge knowledge on the subject. Honestly, don't worry about it, as it is a good article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, evidently this issue is as settled as it's going to be. Now can you advise me how to take your Talk Page off my Watch List? (Oops, almost as soon as I posted this I found the answer. Thanks for your feedback.) Kotabatubara (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

Thank you for your review of the biography of G.Ugeux. It is a C/Start class, so what do you see as the missing ingredients for a higher quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lip gloss for2 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just runs a bit short. If you look at other B-Class articles, they are a lot longer. Regardless, it should be a C-Class, so I have corrected it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/OBKB

Hello,

I am unsure as to why you have rejected this entry two times now based on "notability." I have read the guidelines on "Notability: TV Series" and this appears to meet those guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TVSERIES#Programming). I have included enough diverse sources from local news stations (WTNH News 8 coverage) to nationally syndicated talk shows (The Today Show interview about the show) to adequately demonstrate that this is indeed a series of notability as recognized by independent media/news outlets.

I have also consulted the Wikipedia Help Live Chat to find out what else is missing and the help desk concluded that with the number of diverse external sources added after the first rejection on notability (see References and External Links) this was deemed as notable and would be approved.

A nationally recognizable figure (Bill Cosby) is doing a nationally distributed series (OBKB)... Is there a way to have another reviewer chime in? Because I am not sure how else to convey notability to you.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydc201 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you just re-submit it, someone else can take care of the review process for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solomon Curtis

I'm curious as to why you nominated this as G6. I don't know anything about the AfC process, but is that common procedure? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, the submission is unreferenced and possibly (and most likely) a hoax about someone. In this case, it is allowed to G6 it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you say that the article was a hoax, since there is evidence that the person exists, even if the article was (very) fluffy. I'm just surprised that AfC's are deleted per G6. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person definitely existed, but a lot of the claims there made it likely that most, if not all of the material was a hoax. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was a hoax as much as a promo, but regardless, have you seen this? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, they are persistent. I'm going to remove the PROD tag an speedy that as it shouldn't even be in the mainspace, even if it is borderline. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Villyan Bijev

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Villyan Bijev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve this

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		For exceptional dedication to the AfC process :) Pol430 talk to me 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I didn't create the article listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Gavin (Australian Rugby Union Player). The person who created it was Matt Loneragan, as seen from his contribs Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, apparently you were listed as the submittor of the page, so the script notified you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Data Visualization (Software)

Dear Kevin,

the article rejection reason for the "Data Visualization (Software)" is not really clear to me. If I am not wrong you already reviewed this article twice and it has been rejected also by other two of your colleagues.

I already had also a talk with reviewer "A412" who explained me that a Wikipedia article should not be an instruction manual. I think that I have understood his hints and also the guidelines you reviewers were referencing me; however my impression is that:

there are several links demonstrating that the tool is real and notable (with more than 6000 downloads and rated by more than 200 users);
the article has been changed by me so that it cannot be confused with an instruction manual anymore.

Could you please tell me what's still wrong with this article and how it can be corrected so that it can be published?

I cannot believe that there are necessary thousands of links in order to demonstrate that this tool is notable (hundreds of published articles in wikipedia just have a little quantity of links quoted in order to demonstrate notability) and I don't believe that my quoted links are less reliable than several other links used to demonstrate notability for hundreds of published articles in wikipedia.

Please help me to wake up from this neverending nightmare...thanks.

Tervonen (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, none of us view it as being notable. To have three people review an article submission is a rarity, and if three people have said it is not notable, then it probably isn't. Some types of software are notable, but others are not. Besides, 6,000 downloads is nothing compared to a lot of the other software that we have here, so it really isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solving the Ice Cream Dilemma

Dear Kevin,

Hope you are in the best of health!

I would like to discuss one of my latest contributions - Solving the Ice Cream Dilemma - which you have edited. You have deemed it unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia under the notability factor. The wiki is about a book that has been recently published. My post has three reference links that clearly mention the book.

Can you please help me in making the entry more suited to Wikipedia standards, as I am not quite sure about what more is needed therein.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks Gauri (Gauri Batra (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It's not notable a this time, but if you wait a few years and the book takes off, it might be worth it to revisit the creation. Honestly, it wouldn't pass a deletion debate at this time as well, so it isn't worth it to improve it, since most likely everything is done to improve it that could be possibly be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin. I appreciate your response and shall keep your advice in mind. Gauri Batra (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review of the Paul R Hill page and any suggestions for improvement?

Thank you, and your colleague, for reviewing the above article and improving it (especially the format of the references). I was wondering if you had any specific suggestions regarding areas that I could work on to improve the article further, as I would like to try to get it to a higher standard than a C, over time? Anthony Mugan (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Anthony Mugan[reply]

Expand it, and add more references. Basically, have fun and continue doing what you were doing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Agha Shahid Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIS LIVE feedback

Hi, thanks so much for taking the time to check out my attempted posting. Must admit I've not posted to Wikipedia before and, despite being ok with html I'm struggling to get my head round the conventions of posting. For example, the SIS LIVE article I submitted which you checked needs a title, but I've no idea where or how to add this in, whether it's part of the markup language, or an additional box. Any further help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebailey1981 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it (we've had an issue with pages not being shown because of a substitution of a template issue), but I should have one that before I declined it. Sorry about that, but it is not also a notable corporation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Brito Vieira

Hi Kevin! I have a question for you regarding your editing of the new article on Monica Brito Vieira. Wikipedia rules state that anyone meeting at least one of the criteria of notability (academics) can be included in wikipedia, the first of which is "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". I have thus cited reliable, third-party sources asserting the notability of the person - I refer to a peer-reviewed journal and Oxford University Press. However, you still found that insufficient. Could you be so kind as to explain what criterion did you follow? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipe083 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't state how she is notable. Here is a good link to an article which states the notability of the professor: Sheldon Goldman. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Roy Walker

Dear Kevin

Thank you for reviewing the above article for creation. I would be grateful for any suggestions you can offer to help with the inclusion of Roy Walker in the history of St Ives Artists. In answer to your comment that 'the suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject' Roy Walker was a very important member of the Cornish art community in St Ives from 1965 to 2001, (over 30 years), He was Director of the Penwith Print Workshop, Chairman of the Penwith Society of Artists for many years, Founder member of the Porthmeor Printmakers, He was a member of the Newlyn Society of Artists, Plymouth Society of Artists and the Royal Society of Painters, Etchers & Engravers. There are samples of his work in the Victoria & Albert in London, the British Arts Council, Durham University etc. etc. He has had numerous exhibitions all over the world including Gallery 66 in Connecticut USA. In 1975 He was the subject of a BBC Peninsula Documentary ‘Windows of my Mind’. and is listed on the BBC website

Roy Walker lectured at the Plymouth College of Art, the Falmouth College of Art, Camborne College, the Royal Cornwall Museum and was Artist in Residence at Withywood School in Bristol. As well as running a St Ives-based workshop for Franklin College of Switzerland; he also took classes at the St. Ives School of Painting as well as the Porthmeor Printmakers.

I would think that all of this gives a valid reason for inclusion.

I look forward to hearing from you

Regards Tenteam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenteam (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean he doesn't seem to have done anything big, although saying, "he belongs to [21]..." does not help the matter. Regardless, I don't think that he is all that notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taylor (singer-songwriter) article for review

Hi there. I'm the one writing an article about one of favorite musicians, Kim Taylor. I don't understand why it continues to get rejected when the article has met at least two of the notability requirements namely Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. This latter requirement was listed and notated with her airplay on the nationally syndicated show the World Cafe with David Dye on NPR out of WXPN, Philadelphia. Is an NPR program not valid? I listed that she had been interviewed and linked to the NPR page that they have on Kim. I have also listed multiple, non-trivial, published works that Kim has appeared in (see references). I've also listed major television shows where her songs have appeared and cited them, including Flashpoint and Smallville. I'm stumped as to what else I'm supposed to list. I see many lesser qualified singer-songwriters listed in wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellery_(duo) -- with hardly any references listed that were accepted. Please advise. --1.973.1.974 14:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

I think that there is a bit of notability there, but not enough to warrant an article. Being on a local radio program does not really establish notability, and being on television shows does help, but I don't think that she is all that notable in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPR's The World Cafe is a nationally syndicated program. This is not local radio. This is national syndication. Kim is listed on NPR's website as one of their artists: http://www.npr.org/artists/15356397/kim-taylor. She meets two of the requirements for notability listed on the musician's section. Are you supposed to meet more than two? Please advise--1.973.1.974 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

I'm also confused why the first reviewer who reviewed this entry said that this musician was notable but I just need to add a couple more citations to back up her information? Thanks. --1.973.1.974 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhazy38 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it would be good to have some of the more trivial things backed up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Laing, British Actor

Although John Laing is not a famous actor, he is at least as well-known as many of the others listed, with biographical pages, under the Rose Bruford Alumni category pages. If they can be listed then why can't he? His biographical details, details of his work and a photograph can be found on the Northern Lights website; his award-winning play 'One Cool Cat' was published by Methuen and is still being performed in schools and in youth theatres round the country. I will add the link to the Northern Lights website. If this is not enough to justify his entry as a Rose Bruford alumni thus updating that information then I'll give up.

You can re-submit it, but if someone else declines it, it is more than likely that he isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pjl53 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyRates.com page

Please disregard the previous message. I figured out the error and resubmitted the page.

Renoeditorial (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Air Force Bands

I think this list strongly lacks notability. Only five items on it have their own articles. I was going to put it to AFD, but I figured if I brought the topic up with you that you might just CSD U1 it. In any event, I undid your addition to the {{US Air Force navbox}} at first because it was a red link but also because the list just doesn't seem to fit with the other items in the navbox in my opinion. All of the other items are of Air Force-level or MAJCOM-level significance. The lowest unit mentioned by name is the Numbered Air Forces. We already have a list for Squadrons and the bands should be listed in the Squadrons just like all of the other types of squadrons. See List of United States Air Force squadrons.--v/r - T P 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After realizing that the pages are not there, I'm probably going to form-create the pages within the next few days. We have a page for military bands, so I see no harm in keeping it for now, as merging it might create confusion amongst people. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line

Template:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired

There were also problems with the displaying of this template, but I think they are all fixed now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article - title change

Hi Ktr101

Thanks for reviewing the new article on Peter Hill. I wanted to check with you on the title change from Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur to Skateboarder for this new page. The article was intended to match the similar one on Peter Hill's brother, Stephen Hill, and as both started their careers as skateboarders but then went on to found a skateboard and apparel & footwear company, I figured it was more accurate to portray them both as company entrepreneurs, for which they are known rather than just skateboarders. Would it be ok to rename Peter Hill's article to Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur? Please let me know what you think? Thanks, Jbro68 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed name would make it rather long and unwieldy (the parentheses thing shouldn't be huge when compared to the name of the person/thing). If anything, putting "entrepreneur" at the end might be better, as it reflects his most recent career choice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about long & unwieldy! Is it straight forward to change both brothers to (entrepreneur)? I'm not sure on the process of renaming a page. I can then put the longer Skateboard and Streetwear Entrepreneur in the general description and on their disambiguation pages. Thanks again, Jbro68 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, thanks again! Jbro68 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabryan article

Hi Kevin I have read your guidance notes before writing but as a new contributor, I could do with some guidance. You have not outright declined my article but you suggested I needed to make it more neutral, which I did and resubmitted, but you then said it hadn't changed. I felt that (second time around) it was written in a suitable third-party way, not in an advertising style, and there are genuine published references for all my main points. As regards notability, I know that it is hard to talk about 'other stuff' but there is a directly comparable article on the competitor fashion company Bunmi Koko, which is I would argue more promotional in style and is similar in notability terms. Can you give me any further guidance on how to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmo13 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the issues that makes it hard to tell what has changed (a lot of times we just see what has changed in the differences on the body of text itself), is the fact that you placed a second copy of the text on the article, so one submission is better than two. Other than that, I would encourage you to re-submit the article so that others can judge it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I apologise for the doubling up, which betrays my newbie status, I'll try to find out how to avoid that when I resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimmo13 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

H Kevin,

You have raised a concern on notability for my page which you reviewed a few days ago. Can you please provide specifics? As far as I see, I am not violating any of the notability or references guidelines.

Thanks,

Also, how do pages such as these with no references get into wikipedia? I see quite a few of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Market_of_Turku

Shsomash (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have control over what others write, but I guess the article has sufficient notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Roger Brooking

Hi Kevin

Thanks for you feedback on the notability of Roger Brooking but your response is a standard format and quite vague. It does not say why Roger Brooking is not notable. In saying that I am aware that New Zealand is a tiny country at the bottom of the world and not much that happens here is notable on an international level. However, I have now read some of the information about notability in more detail and I could not find anything about the need for notability to meet international criteria. The page on Roger Brooking seems to meet the criteria for notability in New Zealand.

1) Wikipedia states that the basic criteria for notability is that “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

Roger Brooking clearly meets this criterion in New Zealand. Although I included about a ten different references from multiple sources, he has been the subject of many more than that and most of them are national newspapers, television channels and magazines with a New Zealand wide audience.

2) Wikipedia indicates that additional criteria include that “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour, or has been nominated for one several times.”

After you rejected the page, I included additional information that indicating that Mr Brooking has twice been awarded the John Dobson Scholarship. I’m sure you have never heard of this award, but it is the only award in New Zealand recognizing public contributions to advocacy in the addictions sector. Please check this link for more details. It is a very significant honour in this field in New Zealand and only awarded to those who make a contribution above and beyond simply performing the role or job that they have.

3) Wikipedia also says that a person is notable if: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (For instance) A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. “

Mr Brooking is not a politician but has made a consistent effort over ten years to highlight the extremely limited assistance which is available to the 100,000 plus offenders in the New Zealand justice system with alcohol and drug related offending. His concerns have been picked up by New Zealand media and received ‘significant press coverage’. Additional information has now been supplied in the page on Mr Brooking indicating his success at persuading the Government to provide alcohol and drug assessments on prisoners applying for parole. In other words his advocacy in this area has been taken seriously on a political level.

4) Wikipedia says: “A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.“

Mr Brooking has published a book on the links between alcohol and drug use and crime called “Flying Blind – How the justice sector perpetuates crime and the Corrections department fails to correct”. It has become recommended reading for criminology classes at Universities in New Zealand, been reviewed in a number of independent publications and cited by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal recommended it as a resource for the Corrections Department which is an extremely unusual and notable achievement. Generally the Court would only provide a decision on comment on the details of the case under consideration. In this case they went much further and commented.

“The wider issue of the availability of rehabilitation programmes in prison for drug offenders and the timing of such programmes is a matter of importance and some public controversy, as evidenced by Mr Brooking's recent publication on this subject. We express no view on this issue, but we invite the Department of Corrections to consider it. It is important that the Department's policies on this issue be known to sentencing judges so they may be taken into account as appropriate in sentencing decisions. We direct the Registrar to send a copy of this judgment and Mr Brooking's affidavit to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections for consideration.”

Mr Brooking’s book appears to meet the criteria for notability and contributes to his personal notability. I respectfully request that you review your decision about whether Roger Brooking meets the criteria for notability. Offender9000 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, I would suggest trimming some of the text so that it removes some fluff, but after talking to other editors, it appears to be notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Tule-Language Films

A tag has been placed on List of Tule-Language Films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir. I write to you with reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cult_%28book%29

You had declined the submission saying it does not appear notable. May I put forward that the notability guidelines mention that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The book has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including India Today and more. Can you please review the book again? Thanking you, Sincerely,