:Thanks! I appreciate that. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 02:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks! I appreciate that. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 02:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Frank Rouas page deletion. Hi, I'm wondering how my page could be deleted when I have solid references from 11 sources. I also have seen tons upon tons of wikipedia pages that are active that don't have nearly has many sources on their subject matter.
If you need help with something, feel free to ask. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:
If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.
Administrators, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions, however I do expect you to leave a message here explaining your reasons.
Hello, Reza Fariborz. I looked at the article in question. Due to the longterm edit war, I have temporarily protected the page. I hope that this will lead to discussion of the dispute on the talk page by the various IP editors. Please note that the article currently needs clean-up of its tone and style. I have also tagged the page for additional references as well as inline citations. It is always best if one addresses the article's maintenance tags and adds reliable inline citations for each statement. This will solidify one's position in any subsequent discussions. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CactusWriter. Thanks for protecting the page. I edited my comment into the article talk page, adding various sources regarding the translation of the word. I can't do much about the "tone and style" as I'm not used to Wikipedia, but I could implement the listed sources into the article once he'll be deprotected.
However, considering the multiple claims of the other editor (I guess it's only one guy despite the use of various IPs), about the fact he'll come back to revert back the article, I don't see a real solution. Because, from my point of view, this editor has an advertising objective. Thanks again for your help.Reza Fariborz (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Bill T. Reid IV article
Hi. Please tell me why the page Bill T. Reid IV was deleted. I only see the reason "Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block" but don't see the discussion. Was there any deletion discussion or it was speedy deleted? Would it be possible for you to recover this article content to my userspace? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bbarmadillo. As you saw, the article was speedy deleted per WP:G5 for being a page created by a blocked user in violation of ban or block. And no other editor had contributed to the page. There is no discussion about the specific article -- only the SPI case. The blocked user is a sock of an account which had been blocked several months ago for persistent violations concerning paid editing and spam-like articles. They were just one out of twenty-one of the blocked user's sockpuppets that were confirmed in October. And their articles qualifying for G5 were deleted as is our standard policy. The blocked account's edits should not be restored. By the way, the article's content read like paid advertising. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)00:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, CactusWriter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety Article Being Deleted Again And Again With Invalid Reasons
Hi, I can see the Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonu_ke_titu_ki_sweety is deleted by you, can you tell me why the page is being removed again and again?? It does not violating any Laws or anything else, I have full copyright of that article which I am placing in the wikipedia, but its being deleted again again without any messages or comments in the section. If you want me to add any relevant information that you wish so that the page can be published I can add those just let me know why that page is being deleted??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead.man8171 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dead.man8171. A discussion in October determined that the film did not yet meet the notability requirements for an article on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety. Since then, recreations of the article did not improve upon the original article, and they have been tagged and speedily deleted per WP:G4 (Recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion). You may wish to contact participants in the original discussion but I would suggest that an article is inappropriate until, at the very least, the film has been released. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)15:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:BodilIpsen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I wanted to convert this draft page into a main wikipedia article but was unable to do so because the title has been blocked from creation, perhaps due to lack of information and verified sources. I think, now this page has decent amount of data and references for it to be turned into a main wikipedia article, so i request you to kindly lift the block and convert this draft page into a main wikipedia article.
Hi Ghost No One. The original block was placed Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety due to multiple attempts to recreate the page despite the AFD consensus that it was WP:TOOSOON. The latest draft version includes only one new independent reliable source from the deleted pages. (Please note that YouTube videos and advertisements are not independent reliable sources.) I suggest the article not be placed into the mainspace until after the movie is actually released. At which time it will undoubtedly pass WP:NFILM notability criteria. — CactusWriter (talk)21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to provide copies of my deleted articles?
Hey CactusWriter, very nice to meet you. Well my situation is quite messy and odd. Basically, I've been struggling to write articles using one account, so I created new multiple ones to do it instead. The administrators then accused me of creating sock puppets and webhost abuse (the latter is absolutely nonsense, if you care you can do further reading here and here), so they deleted all of my drafts from all of these accounts and I really need them back. I’ve spent more than a year writing them.
Hi, Beyoncetan. I agree that your situation is "quite messy." You currently have dozens of deleted pages. I note that many pages were deleted at your own request -- which can be restored by requesting a WP:REFUND from the deleting admin. Additionally, some pages which you requested to be restored here already exist in the mainspace in substantial form -- and, therefore, do not need to be recreated as far as I can tell. Most problematic is that the deleting Administrator is reluctant to see these pages restored. I think it would be best for you to take this matter to Deletion Review. There you can specify which pages you would like restored, can give the reason why, and discuss the matter with others so that a consensus can be formed about your request. It's the reason DRV was created and, in the long run, works better than shopping around for an administrator. I'm sorry that I can't be more directly helpful. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page deletion question
Dear Cactus Writer -- I have recently discovered you deleted a page I created several years ago. Below is the comment. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the infringement comment. There should only one page for the artist Miley Tucker-Frost (my wife), so I don't know what "Miley_Tucker-Frost" is.
Hi, Hefrost. I apologize for the confusion of that deletion summary. I clearly placed the wrong address in the summary window -- it shows the address for the Wikipedia page that was being deleted rather than the outside web page address that had been copied. However, the Miley_Tucker-Frost page was deleted correctly for copyright infringement. It was created using text copied and closely paraphrased from this (now-archived) website: https://web.archive.org/web/20161101085939/http://www.mileyfrost.com:80/About.htm . I hope that clears up any confusion. — CactusWriter (talk)15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lewis (producer/musician) deletion
Hi CactusWriter!
I was creating an entry for Mr. Michael Lewis, whom I casually know from my work with other musicians. My entry was deleted for a reason I don't recognize: (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
I'm not sure which this refers to, as all of the references I cited were valid third-party information sources.
Please advise if I can resurrect this page and thanks, Chuck CStack3 20:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CStack3 (talk • contribs)
Hi CStack3. The page that was deleted per WP:G8 was not the article page but rather the talk page -- and it was no longer necessary after the article had been removed. I see that you have recreated Michael Lewis (music producer and musician) as well as the talk page already, so is there a reason to recreate the old talk page? Any issues about referencing and sources can be be addressed on the new pages. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, there is a large difference between "a hoax" and "a known fiction." The term Kingdom of North Sudan is not considered a hoax in reliable sources. The term itself, "Kingdom of North Sudan," received significant coverage in Newsweek magazine, Time magazine, The Guardian, among other sources. Although it should not be given a page among Wikipedia's dozens of articles about self-proclaimed nations, the redirect properly reflects its inclusion on the target page where it is used and explained. This kind of explanation of a term does not confer legitimacy on the idea behind the term -- it simply explains it. I get that you dislike the term. That's clear. But it exists whether one likes it or not. And your current action to redirect the page to HOAX is the definition of WP:POINTY. — CactusWriter (talk)18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer mentioned by name in Bir Tawil. Just like every other bogus claim to Bir Tawil, it is described but unnamed, therefore the redirect should be deleted. And these are hoaxes as no one, least of all the claimants, believes they are legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That's odd. It was there yesterday when my decision to decline the speedy was made. Wonder where it went? Regardless of the screaming bold italics and the angry pointy edits, the term exists and is used by reliable outside sources. Encyclopedias explain many things that don't actually exist without making them real or legitimate. — CactusWriter (talk)20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder, I took it out to make that claim equal to all the others bogus claims, none of which mentioned the name. As I said, we are under no obligation to give legitimacy to the bullshit of these poseurs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your position that Wikipedia should not be used to facilitate hoaxes or hoaxers. It's the same position I've advocated by investigating and deleting numerous hoaxes during the past ten years. However, I disagree that Wikipedia should never be used to explain "hoaxes" as/when defined in reliable sources. — CactusWriter (talk)19:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, CactusWriter. As you can see here (Anti World Tour), we are having a conflict because of the real boxcore of the tour, although that info is confirmed and I am adding a suitable source. I don't know why he or she is taking my editions down, but I didn't like it once he is not being accurate on what he's doing. Please, do something for that. Lustmoon (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lustmoon. Yes, I see there is a edit war at that article which began with the other editor's improper removal of sourced information without any explanation. And then continued with their persistence. I have given them a warning about edit warring. Please note that your own actions are treading close to edit warring, as well. In the future, you may wish to seek resolution from outside sooner -- before continuing to revert. (By the way, I also looked at their attempt to replace the Pollstar source with a Forbes ref -- however, the Forbes ref not only includes yearly income from all sources (not just a tour), it also quite clearly states those figures are from the year ending in June 2016.) Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter (talk)17:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Wang (cadet)
Thanks for taking on this complex AfD. Would you consider amending your close from "delete" to "delete and redirect", since that was what was actually done? Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Natureium. The merge/redirect would not include the entire article. Rather, as mentioned by a number of the AFD participants, only "some" of the information goes into the target article. Typically, only that which is relevant to the event and its aftermath. How much of the info is relevant should be addressed at the article. — CactusWriter (talk)20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why Peter Wang (cadet) should be deleted before it was changed to a redirect page. Why couldn't it be directly changed to a redirect page so that the page's edit history could be saved? Even though only some of the information goes into the target article, it does not mean that the whole edit history of Peter Wang (cadet) should be wiped out. Could you please consider restoring the edit history of this redirect page? Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium:Peter Wang (cadet) is not a page that not longer exists. It still exists (as a redirect page). And if a page is merged into another one, no matter how little the merged content is, we need the edit history to know who are the authors of the merged content. And, as CactusWriter mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet), "it is yet too soon to determine whether there will be enough continued significant coverage which might override BIO1E". So it is still possible that Peter Wang (cadet) will be changed from a redirect page to an independent article someday if this person receives enough continued significant coverage in the future. Then the edit history of this page can provide a good starting point and valuable sources to the future editors. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Neo-Jay. Normally, there is no need to have the editing history available. The page is deleted and recreated as a redirect. However, in this case, I see that the page had been copied and translated in its entirety to the Spanish and Chinese Wikipedias. Our CC-BY-SA licensing agreement does require we keep histories available in order to provide sufficient attribution. So I have restored the editing history. Thanks for the question. — CactusWriter (talk)15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The previous editor of this article added citations that were WP:RS compliant but the page was never approved on draftspace from AFC Submissions. I have moved the article to mainspace to get assistant from more experienced editors. I believe that notability is up to Wikipedia's standards. The only problem I had were those of broken links which I had to either remove or fix typos of. Please advise if you feel that I am being too shallow. I am willing to edit the article further and I appeal to you to either reconsider your nomination or move the article to draftspace.
Not by any chance. I copied this article as is from draftspace. I then edited the article to match up with standards of Wikipedia. I recognised that you have also protected this page and have associated it with it's previous version Khethukuthula Mhlongo. The previous editor user:Mightyprof7 nominated the page for speedy deletion themselves in good faith, I assume. Please indulge me as to the several concerns noted in the subject of this discussion. PhilipWebster666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipWebster666. First, it is important that you read and understand WP:MOVE. It is improper to copy-paste another editor's text. The use of another's text without attribution is plagiarism and a copyright violation of Wikipedia's Creative Commons licensing agreement. Secondly, the draft article was nominated for WP:G7 speedy deletion by you as the author of the page. I declined the tag because you are not the author. Finally, the page Khethukuthula Mhlongo has been deleted in multiple iterations by various administrators which eventually resulted in the page title being protected. The recreation of a page with a different title name avoided the page protection -- but did not address the primary issue that the page needs to be reviewed before it will be permitted into Wikipedia mainspace. I suggest that if you are interested in developing the page, you should work on the draft version with other editors by requesting a review. If passed, the protection of the title can be addressed by an administrator. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)23:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can only notify the original user:mightyprof7 editor of the recent developments. I can not risk my editing career with a plagiarised article. I will cease all operations with immediate effect. Can I have the draft reinstated so I can work with the original editor to improve the article.PhilipWebster666 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The copy-pasted article has been deleted so that it is no longer an issue. The important thing is to be aware of the guidelines at WP:MOVE: that another editor's draft, when it is ready, needs to be moved rather than copied, so that the editing history is preserved. If you wish to improve the article, the draft created by Mightyprof7 is still available for editing at Draft:Khethukuthula Mbonambi. — CactusWriter (talk)19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Aerodyne Group
Dear user,
I received a notification informing that the page I created was marked speedy deletion by a user before it was deleted by you.
Could you kindly help me revive the page? I would really appreciate your kind help.
Hi Aerodyneuser. The Aerodyne Group page was tagged and speedy deleted per WP:G12 because it was a copyright violation. The article was created with text copied from this outside website. As such, Wikipedia legal policy requires that it be removed immediately and it cannot be restored. Please note that the page was also correctly tagged for blatant promotion and advertising -- and this happens typically when an editor uses press releases to build an article and incorporates promotional language in the text. I suggest that you also review the Wikipedia guideline on Conflict of Interest. You're Username appears to establish a COI. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)14:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete assertions that are almost certainly authentic when a {{citation needed}} will serve? There would be people in Darwin who could find documentary evidence eg 1974 phone book for location of Finch & Associates (that wasn't quite the name; I know the name of his draftsman but can't remember that of his partner). Fred was president of two Lions clubs in Darwin and district governor of Lions District 201S3 (NT and half of SA) and can't document that either. He was the certifying engineer for the post-cyclone rebuild of my house on Trower Road, but that would be inadmissible as a primary source even if I could find it. With my assertion deleted no-one would know evidence was needed.Doug butler (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doug butler. In general, a business address or residential address of itself is not usually included in a BLP unless it's relevance is discussed in a reliable source. Onus applies here. Contact information for an individual is inappropriate except with an "official" website. Its relevance is especially difficult to argue in a bio Stub like this one, where that information would be trivial. I agree with you that your own personal knowledge or relationship with Mr. Finch cannot be a source -- and additions to the article should not be based upon that. By the way, the citation I added for the Lions Club entry does state that Finch was president of Lions Club of Darwin Casuarina, Zone Chairman twice and Deputy District Governor twice. You might want to check it out if you wish to include that info. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk)18:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is regarding the article Chakresh Kumar. First time it was deleted because it was considered Orphan article. But Second time I made improvements to it, but it was deleted even before I could explain anything. Please help me to republish this article by providing the instructions to make improvements to the article. If possible please restore the deleted article so the I can begin improving it under your guidance and supervision. Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sanjeev22mannan. You are entirely incorrect about the reason that the article was deleted. This was mentioned here when you asked at an administrator's page in March and again explained in detail here when you asked yesterday at the Help Desk. Please note that it had nothing to do with it being an orphan page. The article was deleted because it was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakresh Kumar that the person does not have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). It was also overly promotional. It was speedily deleted the second time (per WP:G4) because no improvements were made which overcame the issues -- the article was essentially the same. By the way, I see the same article still exists in your sandbox so there is no reason for me to restore it. You might wish to create the article through the WP:Article Wizard which would allows other editors to review and help. But I would suggest that you move on to work on other articles of interest -- and, perhaps, in the future there will be enough coverage for this person to meet the criteria for an encyclopedic article. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
I nominated it because they would NOT stop vandalizing the page with Thomas & Friends. So why in the world did you decline it?! Pls reply 217.42.129.40 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not delete any pages due to persistent vandalism. (If that were so, we would need to eliminate most every popular Wikipedia page because all are subject to almost daily vandalism.) While I appreciate your efforts at keeping misinformation at bay, the CSD tag was inappropriate and was declined. I did however temporarily protect the page from editing by non-confirmed accounts. For further information, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism (including the section on "How not to respond to vandalism"). Regards, — CactusWriter (talk)18:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what's the difference between it and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairaland
How about suggestions on how to improve it because that's just the first edit so I can still make changes to it so that it doesn't look like an advert instead of deleting without giving me a chance to explain myself or even letting me make edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onger321 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Onger321. Please note that internet forum sites are usually not notable unless they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Their existence alone does not make them notable. This is the reason that Kenyatalk has been speedy deleted, Prodded and removed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenyatalk. If you would like, I can place a draft copy of the article into your userspace so that you can add sources which might allow the article to pass Wikipedia notability requirements. Let me know. — CactusWriter (talk)14:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am messaging because I am trying to figure out why the article for Donald Hoobler was deleted? I was given no time to contest the speedy deletion and the page for Donald Hoobler already exists in the PortugueseJapanese and Korean Wikipedia why was it deleted here?
Also Is there a way to get back the data? I would at least like to add it to my sand box. I spent a significant amount of time on the article and now I can't even back up the data to my sandbox because the article is completely gone.
This is completely demoralizing when someone spends hours out of their day to create an article only for it to be completely gone the next day with no explanation or chance for a discussion.
Hi Sunfishtommy. As was mentioned in the notification on your talk page, the Donald Hoobler article was tagged for speedy deletion as a WP:G4 page. I.e., a page previously deleted per this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Hoobler discussion. This is the fifth time the page has been deleted since 2006. And, in fact, the version discussed during the AFD last September had much more referencing and detail than your version which only cited Find-a-grave. (By the way, please note that Find-a-grave has been determined to be useful only as an external link and not to be a reliable reference source for Wikipedia. See WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL) I do understand the difficulty in seeing one's hard work deleted and I'm sorry about that. You can always discuss this with the previous participants of the AFD or ask for a discussion at WP:DRV -- however, I believe the result would remain the same. I can also restore a temporary version into your sandbox if you wish to work on it further. Let me know. — CactusWriter (talk)17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Diplomatic Crisis 2018 Article
The act that was made by you and The Mighty Glenn was completely “unacceptable” because you allegedly accused me of duplicating a different article but it was not a duplicate. The article I created was the result of the poisoning (what happened next), that happened after the poisoning. The poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal article describes the situation in Salisbury of what happened. (That’s completely different.) I made a counter argument that it’s not a duplicate you didn’t even respond back to my statement, you simply deleted it “disrespectfully.” Pizzalover12 (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pizzalover12. The 2018 Russian diplomatic crisis article that you created consisted of one paragraph of seven sentences that summarized and was redundant of the much more extensive and earlier-created article Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. It was tagged properly per WP:A10 -- a recently created duplicate of an already existing topic -- and deleted. If you want to develop a Content Fork that isn't redundant or if you believe the current article should address a broader topic, it is advisable to first discuss this at Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal with the other editors involved in creating and developing the current page. A draft of previously deleted article can be restored to your userspace if you wish to work further on its development. Let me know. — CactusWriter (talk)23:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maude~Duggel:. The article had been tagged for speedy deletion per our WP:G4 criteria. It was a recreation of an article previously deleted because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Giebenhain. That discussion occurred only last month and the new recreated article did not eliminate any of the previous concerns. Please note that deletion from Wikipedia is not an attack on the quality of the subject's work or worth, but merely that there is not enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources for an encyclopedic article at this time. It is advisable to familiarize yourself with those two blue links (in bold) as well as the guideline on Wikipedia:Notability since these are the issues with which your recent articles have difficulty. — CactusWriter (talk)14:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Rouas page deletion. Hi, I'm wondering how my page could be deleted when I have solid references from 11 sources. I also have seen tons upon tons of wikipedia pages that are active that don't have nearly has many sources on their subject matter.
