Why did the KOMY logo you added to its page say "KSCO"? That doesn'y make any sense. Please consider correcting, THX! Highspeed (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the logo added to KOMY? I'm not following you.--RadioFan (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No (and thanks for adding that!), I'm referring to the File:KOMY logo.jpg logo you added to the format history section. The file name says 'KOMY', however that file is of a KSCO 1080 banner. Please view the KOMY page. Highspeed (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now. That was the logo there, but it was removed without comment so I assumed it was a format/callsign change and moved it to the history section. I'll move it over to KSCO--RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
I'll try to find the government site, I couldn't find it initially thats why there are no references. I was just blue linking articles from the list of politicians drawn up by a Ugandan wikipedian on here. I did a quick google check and these names are notable. I hope he can expand these articles.Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their titles, I dont think there are any notability problems here. They just need to be referenced.--RadioFan (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Marion
I have removed the {{refimproveBLP}} tag on that page since this tag is only appropriate for LIVING persons. You already have tagged at least one other article in the same fashion and been advised of that. --Big_iron (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also call your attention to the section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_reference. Since the article in question is currently designated as a stub, the {{nofootnotes}} is somewhat questionable also. --Big_iron (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Designated an article as a stub does not excuse the article from being properly cited. This article has a single bullet point under references. This should be moved to a footnote.--RadioFan (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote from citing sources (the section already mentioned above): "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic.". That text appears in the same article as the referenced section about footnotes. A single footnote is not any clearer than a single bullet.
While the above is certainly true, {{nofootnotes}} encourages editors to do it the right way. Certainly this article wont stay a stub forever, why not properly cite it from the beginning?--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note for biographies, if the article belongs to a category such as [[Category:1910 deaths]], then it should not be classified as BLP. Biographies of living persons are generally held to a higher standard. Even so, there is a large edit backlog for BLP articles needing attention that goes back to September 2006, so adding dead people to the pile is not being helpful. --Big_iron (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for correcting this mistake on my part. I missed that this person was no longer living and added the wrong tag.--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
asserts significance with, "MRNB has toured in the United States and made two tours of Japan." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other admins disagree and have speedily deleted this article though I see it's been recreated a couple of times as well.--RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very strict in interpreting the speedy deletion criteria when I tag or delete. Others less so. Recreated, PRODDED. Not likely to survive PROD or AFD. Probably a SNOW at AFD. Asserts significance, a lower standard than notability. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's pretty clear that an article isn't going to meet notability guidelines, doesn't it make sense to save other editors and admins time and trouble though? I've noticed a trend, particularly with the articles on garage bands, to make a totally un substantiated claim of significance in an attempt to avoid deletion. --RadioFan (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it avails them nothing but a brief delay. I don't like the wording of A7 at all. But there it is. Some people will list an article like this at AFD just to get a WP:snow. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 01:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, A7 wording is in need of serious help. AFD is a waste of time in many of these cases but I guess it's the best we've got available at the time. Thanks for your efforts.--RadioFan (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Audacia Ray, 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! --maymay (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, i'm confused.
How many more references do i need?
I think 3 is good enough for such a small page.
