Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2010 September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:RHaworth

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdlusky (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 17 August 2010 (→‎Archives). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Up to:
   

The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese

[Title width guide.]

Transistor Sound & Lighting Co.

Curious as to deletion of Transistor Sound & Lighting Co.. How is importance or significance guidline not met? NotionsUnlimited (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to track down stable web sources and add. NotionsUnlimited (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent revert of vandalism

Hi. regarding your revert here of an SPA account Asik5678, could you also take a look at these edits of his? They seem to be grossly POV, delete existing references, and contradict this section of the article, which is actually sourced. Thanks.117.194.200.171 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Please always log in before editing. The edit I did was something I just happened to notice as I was sorting out a different bit of nonsense by Asik5678. Sorry, I do not have the knowledge to do a general review. I will leave it to you but if you think a block is justified, please let me know. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 05:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Content Guru

Hello, I'm sorry you have seen fit to delete this. Can you explain why this article has been deleted on the grounds of unambiguous advertising when, for example, Outsourcery has not? Thanks. -- Scoguru001 (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that independent sources are sufficient to overcome the idea of unambiguous advertising. Note, for example, the statement at the beginning of the Outsourcery piece: "...the UK's leading provider of mobile-centric unified communications (Unified Communications) and hosted IT solutions (software as a service) for business". Where is the independent confirmation of this claim? Also: "...the company went through a dramatic organisational and cultural transformation from a ‘fly-by-night’ business mobile provider to the UK's leading provider of advanced communications and hosted IT solutions." This language seems somewhat subjective for the august pages of Wikipedia. And their logo is little more than an advertisement in itself. I do not begrudge the untempered presence of Outsourcery - or countless others who seem to me to be using Wikipedia as a promotional medium, notable or not - but I wonder why we have been singled out for exclusion, when they are not? Consistency is all I ask. Scoguru001 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then why not the Outsourcery example quoted? While I accept that everything is subjective, it seems to me that this content (and much other content across the site) falls short of the spirit and the letter of the principles in many ways. It would clearly be helpful if you could be more specific in what you mean by "unambiguous advertising", and why the Outsourcery example complies with the guidelines and Content Guru does not. Thanks. – ScoContentGuru (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean you are singled out, it means that Wikipedia is a big place that is not perfect. With thousands of articles submitted daily, certainly some survive that should not. On the other hand, Wikipedia also lacks many article that it probably should have. Now that you've pointed out another article, I'm sure it will undergo scrutiny too. Just my .02. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 11:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have tagged the Outsourcery article with a multiple issues tag. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 11:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The main lack of ambiguity lies in the person who is writing the article. I am close to applying a {{spamusernameblock}} to your account. Will you please have the humility to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it. See also WP:OSE. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WGSN

Article for WGSN (fashion forecaster), Worth Global Style Network. Hi, may I respectfully request that you reconsider its deletion. The article was of course not comprehensive, because it is meant to be a stub, to be grown by fashion insiders. It's notability should be clear from the fact that it is a dominant force in influencing the fashion industry. These details were included. WGSN is not well known to consumers, but it is well-known to fashion insiders. It is the single largest subscription-only news network of its kind. There is some controversy and mixed feelings about whether it is good for the industry. It should be clear to you that I am not connected to WGSN, whether Wikipedia has an article on it will not affect me, but I think that consumers would find this interesting. Please see: http://www.psfk.com/2007/09/is-wgsn-destroying-creativity.html http://www.psfk.com/2007/10/the-guardian-ignores-criticism-and-makes-wgsn-shine.html — Glueball (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hydra Sports Boats Deletion

There was a deletion of an article about a company which did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. I unfortunately did not indicate a work in progress and was unable to complete the relevance and importance that Hydra Sports Boats has made to the Marine industry and recreational fishing as a whole. — Kirk Lewellen (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Old page

I happened to come across User talk:RHaworth/Jonjoe as it was using an image I looked at. It seems like whatever it was documenting is ancient history, is there any reason to retain it? Fences&Windows 00:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • You presumably are not proposing the deletion of my archive user talk pages. How does the Jonjoe page differ from on of those pages? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead cat

Re Category:Pages where attention has been requested: Hi - I see you rejected a WP:CSD#C1 on this category in July, on the grounds that it was in use, even though empty. Could you possibly have another look please - as far as I can see, this category was only populated by template {{attreq}}, which now redirects to {{helpme}}. Therefore any use of attreq will populate Category:Wikipedians looking for help instead. I think it can therefore be speedied, but wanted to get your opinion before doing so. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios)

Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

KRMS speedy deletion

RHaworth, I see you deleted KRMS under criterion {{csd-a7}}. I'd like to discuss this with you, because I believe the deletion was in error under this criterion. I suspect you considered it to be a company, or organization, or group? If so, I urge you to consider that a radio station is actually a product. Consider for example, the radio station WCBS-FM. WCBS-FM, the radio station, is the product, whereas CBS Corporation is the company. While, in one sense, the radio station is usually a subsidiary company or a division of a company, the sense in which most people interact with a radio station is as a listener, and they listen to a product, not a company. While KRMS may not have been notable, it was not subject to A7, and instead should have been proposed for deletion by an advocating editor. If you agree, could you undo the deletion, please? (Also, if you happen again to take an action that conflicts with an earlier of mine, could you let me know on my talk page? I might have be mistaken in mine, so I'd want to know and learn from it.) Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Apologies. The version I looked at still had the speedy tag in place - see this explanation. But the article was really too stubby. Entire content: KRMS is a 1,000 watt AM radio station in mid-Missouri at the Lake of the Ozarks that offers news, weather and sports on 1150 AM and 97.5 FM.. I suggest you find proper references and then re-create the article. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that explains it. Yup, I don't disagree with your assessment of the contents of the article. But I'm not the creator nor a contributor. The article should be restored so that proper process can be followed to delete it, or so that the creator and contributors can have an opportunity to bring the article up to standards. Since the article is deleted, I'm not sure who to notify. Could you restore it, please? --Bsherr (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A radio station is an organization, but it is also a product. The article concerned the radio station as a product, not as an organization. It described the programs on the radio station and its broadcast frequency, not, for example, its corporate officers, its revenue and earnings, its stock ticker symbol, etc. Consider, as an example, Coca-Cola. An article about the Coca-Cola Company would be a proper subject for A7 (if it were unimportant, which, of course, it isn't). However, an article about Coca-Cola, the soft drink, the product, would not be a proper subject for A7. It is the same with a radio station. Does this address your question? --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I am not going to seen restoring such an hopelessly stubby article. If you re-create it, I shall not touch it. Does that close the matter, please? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to press, but I'm afraid it does not, because the page history should as of right be restored, and it cannot be reproduced by recreating the article. If it helps, I think you'll be respected for correcting an error of process, regardless of the content of the article. --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will if resolution is not possible here. One last try. Take a look at WP:PRODUCT, which distinguishes between organizations and their products and services. KRMS is the product/service, Viper Communications is the company. If I can't convince you that it's not an A7 subject, can I convince you that it's definitionally notable? Take a took at the first bullet of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. --Bsherr (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you need more time to reply? --Bsherr (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I might be able to change your mind. But I think it would have been kinder just to say you didn't want to discuss it further than to ignore my post. Most administrators I encounter are very respectful. --Bsherr (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for KRMS

An editor has asked for a deletion review of KRMS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bsherr (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Selective Sound Sensitivity

I have nominated Selective Sound Sensitivity, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selective Sound Sensitivity. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

We've both tagged this for PROD and/or CSD and the tags have been removed. I feel sure that IP 205.219.45.3 is a sock for the creator. Could you please look into it. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Phone Addiction Denial -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with questionable articles

Hello, I'm still relatively new here and attempting to help out with new page patrolling as much as I can. I've been confident in marking a page when I know it fit certain criteria for speedy deletion, however I found two pages which I'm unsure what to do with. I figured that since you're much more experienced than I and that since you also patrol new pages, I'd refer you to the pages in question and take note of what actions you take. My instinct was to mark them as copyright infringement for a speedy deletion, but I'm hesitant to do that since I don't know *exactly* what qualifies a page as such. The articles are Shakur Green and Shakur Greene. The introduction in the first and the entirety of the second is copied and pasted from (http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Shakur_Green). Also of note is the fact that the pages have only one reference (not the cited site) and google searches turned up almost nothing on a "Shakur Green" or "Shakur Greene". However, the articles do have unreferenced information in regards to notability. Thanks for your time. Velociraptors (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The page at ServingHistory is probably cloned from Wikipedia (with an invalid copyright notice!). The easiest way for you to get rid of Shakur Greene would be to convert it to a redirect. If Shakur Green gets deleted, a bot would eventually find the redirect at Shakur Greene and flag it for deletion. As for Shakur Green, I would probably be taken to task for using a speed tag: there is "assertion of importance" but no "evidence of notabilty". So probably a {{prod}} would be best, followed by AfD if the prod gets deleted. the AfD will probably spur people to find references and the article may get kept. But proposing deletion is certainly the best route rather than applying a weak {{refimprove}} tag. People such as TheInsider299 (talk · contribs · logs) need to be told very firmly that unreferenced articles are unacceptable. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outsourcery

FYI: Outsourcery -PRODed. --Kudpung (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

CEO (Band)

Could you restore the article for the band CEO? I don't see why it was deleted. They/him have/has a pitchfork review, radio airplay, etc, etc, etc. What more do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bncywargarretthero (talk • contribs)

  • What more do I want? I want you to sign your message properly and, since I cannot find the article via your contribution history, I need a link to it. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 06:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2010_September&oldid=379446260"