User talk:Olaf Davis
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Absurd
The page has no content and no references and I dount your bona fides, but I'm not going to waste any time looking into it.--Grahame (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't have no content: it gives a launch date. Anyway, neither 'no content' nor 'no references' makes the page unambiguously promotional, which is what it was tagged for. Feel free to PROD or AfD the page if you still think deletion is warranted. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I did, in fact, AfD it. This is a note. Dropped on you. So to speak. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch! Er, I mean, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.
This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Rescuing Wikipedia from some of its deletor editors (two parts)
You have been proudly referred to: http://rubenerd.com/wikipedia-problems/
http://rubenerd.com/rescuing-wikipedia-part-two/ Keep up the excellent zeal! --Zor2711 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Zor2711's only edits have been to place this message on the talk pages of editors, none of whom is mentioned in the linked pages. I can only assume it's meant to be irony. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"considered to be the pioneers of..."
That's a piece of puffery, not an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
El chapo grande
Hi Olaf. While I usually agree with your conversion of CSDs to PRODs and the like, I think that the article El chapo grande quite easily satisfies A7. The article is written about a family's own domino "tournament". I mean, it's not even a club game or something, it's just some grandmother writing about her family dominoes game. Could you tell me if there are particular reasons it's not CSD-worthy? Thanks, Kittensandrainbows (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- The PROD was removed by an IP contributor, so I've taken it to AFD. Regards Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kittens (if I may call you that). Thanks for your message. While I agree entirely that the article deserves to be deleted and contains no credible claim of importance, I declined the A7 since that applies specifically to people, animals, organisations and web content: I don't think a dominoes game, however unnotable, falls under any of those categories. This is one of those occasions where I find myself itching for a non-existent CSD criterion, but those are the price we pay for avoiding a free-for-all deletion-fest at the hands of rogue admins who feel like making up their own criteria. Anyway, I'm confident it'll be gone in a week so not too much harm done either way. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Chris and Jose of Menudo
You deleted Jose Bordonada Collazo wiki page on notariety but then why does Chris Moy stay when he is from the same new music group of One Call and Menudo at the same time period, is that not a double standard? Chris Page and compared to the page you deleted of Jose Bordonada Collazo located Here.
BTW see this page Band page that was deleted
Maybe you agree they both should go? Let me know. Take care.--75.74.208.55 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)