User talk:RHaworth/2014 Aug 09

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion

[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]

Varsity Inc

Hi there-- I'm a nursing student looking for some information related to high school students and undiagnosed traumatic brain injuries and was wondering if the page for Varsity Inc could be made accessible? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.88.178 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• With pleasure. The entire content of the page was: "is a gay new show on espn2 fuck yea". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion of WUWM from Wikipedia

To whom it may concern, the nonprofit association World Union of Wholesale Markets (WUWM) entry has at some stage been deleted from Wikipedia. Following the deletion link brings me to you here.

I would like to understand why this entry was deleted. It was created in reference and follow-up to a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) article which explained what food wholesaling and food markets are (and WUWM collaborated with FAO colleagues at the time with regard to that article). WUWM is the only world entity to bring together nations and cities in support of, and promotion of, food markets. WUWM membership is mostly municipal management of wholesale and retail food markets. WUWM aims to help local and national authorities in their goal to provide a better service to the many millions of traders and consumers buying food from their local market. Local authorities, millions of small market traders, and the representative body for those markets - WUWM clearly do not have the logistical possibility or resources of 'supermarkets' to pay for mega advertising of a 'brand' name. Is that why our entry - and not those entries - are deleted from Wikipedia?

Traditional food markets are the oldest community service to be offered citizens, and are vital to the health not only of local economies and communities but also local food production the world over. There is much ignorance about the true and original meaning of the word 'market' in our world today. Please could you explain why you have taken the position of deleting us from Wikipedia? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.86.71 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why are you talking to me when your query is addressed to whom it may concern (talk · contribs)? The article was over long and, more importantly, totally lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

codeBeamer

Hi RHaworth, I just ended up on the page list of revision control software and realized that our page codeBeamer was deleted. I think your action is unfair since you didn't delete any other company from that list. Can you please explain why you decided to delete only and exclusively us but no other company with similiar entry? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvaIntland (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Curious that you should come to me - the only thing I deleted was a redirect at codeBeamer (software). The substantive article was deleted according to the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeBeamer. I will admit that the calls for deletion in that discussion were not exactly clamorous but kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your product is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons transfers

Hello.I see you're interested in working on the files; Therefore, I suggest that you

1. Transfer this file to Commons
2. work on delete these files.Thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Out of thousands of files why pick Annales … for my attention. It is a very poor quality image that deserves a decent burial rather than transfer. CAT:CSD is usually enough to keep me busy but I might go to the cst you mention if I am really bored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort Mall

Hi. You deleted Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort Mall as CSD G8. It had been restored and tagged with a {{Copied}} – see its counterpart at the top of Talk:Fort Saskatchewan – to attribute this merger. Following Fort Mall's deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Fort Mall, User:Milowent asked the closing admin User:Arbitrarily0 to restore and move it at User talk:Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010/May-June#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Mall. WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page describes the situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of Aeolian Research: A

Hi User:RHaworth. The bibliography article was placed in the public domain by the United States Department of Agriculture, and I linked to the license on the talk page. I was pretty sure that was sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. Am I missing something? Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And while we're here, I'll point out that WP:Listcruft is specifically prohibited from being used as a rationale for speedy deletion. See WP:NOTCSD #14. I'll start up the deletion review. — Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have commented at talk:Bibliography of Aeolian Research but I agree that other opinions should be sought at DRV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Let's see if I can figure out the official notice template, just for gins.... ok, I think that's right. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bibliography of Aeolian Research A. 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. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I spoke too soon. I can see the deletion review request here (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 20) but not here (Wikipedia:Deletion review). Can you see which bit of wikimagic I forgot to incant? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Now moot. I expect we got the right result, perhaps for the wrong reasons, and that's not a bad day at the office. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila

The article Dead language, spoken in Ermita, Manila has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

it is an unused and unreasonably long redirect

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iketsi (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

ALGOL 68G

Extended content

Hi RHaworth, re: wikify: First I - tongue-in-cheek - apologise for only providing a dead link to the ALGOL 68G page concerned... sadly the page was speedy deleted... :-) Notwithstanding: I am here because I note the page ALGOL 68G is gone... archive.org, and without a AfD << 2014_May_21 - ? - May_22 - ? - May_23 ? >> I reviewed the two criteria required to be meet for a WP:G11 speedy delete: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion There seems to raise a question about what "Unambiguous" means... Let me address the two points in G11, one-by-one. - "Pages that are exclusively promotional, AND would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." IMHO: The article is/was encyclopedic... simply describing features/extensions and deviations. Undoubtedly merely having an ALGOL 68G article on wikipedia could have the consequence of bringing some attention to the topic (indeed any topic). But that does not make the content un-encyclopedic, when the content is/was indeed encyclopedic, all-be-it boring and technical (to most). - "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion" IMHO: I can see no page text/content that is/was fails Wikipedia:NPOV... and, even if there was offending content a speedy-deletion has curtailed any chance to fix such NPOV fails. "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Hmm... IMHO the article is also saved be this third G11 keep criteria... which only would mean the article should now be restored. The "speedy deletion" did cite "08:51, 27 November 2005 Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs) deleted page ALGOL 68G" from Deletion log: ALGOL 68G. It seems to me the detail the page was previously deleted some 10 years ago is a distraction and even potentially misleading. So... I am suggesting that the page was actually removed in error. Probably the deletion could have passed through the regular AfD process, I am sure that AfD has a Smörgåsbord of other means of rationalising removing articles, especially as ALGOL 68G does not commonly appear in Popular Culture. For the record and background: ALGOL 68G is the most recent implementation and - IMHO - most comprehensive implementation of ALGOL 68. This has given ALGOL 68G a degree of notoriety in various blog circles... e.g. Rosetta_Code, but do bear in mind that I am also a member of some of these blog communities, hence I am not exactly neutral. Aside: I do sometimes ponder if entire chunks of wikipedia knowledge have "fallen off the edge" simply because the actual topic contributors do not log into to Wikipedia within the 1-2 week AfD cycle or the speed-delete cycle. My estimate is such experts topic contributors would only lookup/logon to wikipedia with a frequency of less than once a year. So it is rare that an topic contributor would actually get a timely alerted of an AfD or a "speedy-delete". Ultimately I recommend the ALGOL 68G article should be restored, and kept, and then only deleted if there is an outstanding reason delete it via a reasoned AfD. So:

Please consider a restore of ALGOL 68G. — NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My netbook, even zoomed out at 75%, can't fit the whole post on to my screen. Even at full screen! Be satisfied with what's present at ALGOL 68.--Launchballer 19:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• You talk too much. I had no hesitation in deleting the article because despite it having been around for eight (!) years, no one had found any indepenent evidence that it even exists, still less, that it is notable. I have emailed you the text. If, and only if, you can provide decent refs, re-submit via the AfC process. If it actually gets accepted, ask me or any other admin to restore the old version so that the text gets proper attribution. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your cheerful and encouraging response. It still remains strange to me that you deleted the article with WP:G11, when neither of the two WP:G11 deletion criteria are satisfied. And when I take a moment to point this out I get told ... "You talk too much." Sad. I agree with you that the references were weak, but when the page was create "eight (!) years" ago when weak references were common. A stub-marker and an email-alert to the contributors could have made the difference between article life and article extinction. Please, next time, think thrice. NevilleDNZ (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The eBay Effect

Extended content

*Beth, Mary. "What's Hot at the Antiques Roadshow". Kiplinger. Retrieved 2014-07-22. Call it the eBay effect. Once-scarce items now flood the online auction sites, tipping the scales of supply and demand and diluting values. Throw in the impact of the economic downturn -- during which some folks desperately scoured their attics and basements in search of anything to sell that could help them pay their bills -- and the result is a perfect storm: a decline in prices for most collectibles and antiques. 07:12 AM. "CNBC documentary "The eBay Effect" - AnandTech Forums". Forums.anandtech.com. Retrieved 2014-07-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "The eBay Effect - Inside a Worldwide Obsession" is the latest production from the Peabody Award winning CNBC Documentary team and reporter David Faber. It's an unprecedented look at the eBay you don't know, with exclusive, behind-the-scenes access to the world's leading online commerce site. "Goldmine Standard Catalog of American Records 1948-1991 - Martin Popoff - Google Books". Books.google.com. Retrieved 2014-07-22. The eBay Effect In general, eBay has not been kind to “old-line” record collecting. ... "The eBay Effect―At Home Economics 101". Buzzle.com. Retrieved 2014-07-22. "Antiques Roadshow says eBay effect has flooded collectibles market | Native American Jewelry Tips". Nativeamericanjewelrytips.wordpress.com. 2011-05-20. Retrieved 2014-07-22. "Concert Poster Articles". Artifacts Of Rock. Retrieved 2014-07-22. "An Inheritance of Collectibles". The Simple Dollar. Retrieved 2014-07-22. Fuchs, Cynthia (2005-06-29). "The eBay Effect: Inside a Worldwide Obsession". PopMatters. Retrieved 2014-07-22. Tom Horan. "Britain's rarest record – yours for £200,000 | Music". The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-07-22.

The eBay Effect article (not invented). — Septagram (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

May satisfy WP:GNG. Do bear in mind that not all your sources are reliable per my annotations; Wordpress sites are WP:SPSs, Anandtech.com may be reliable but forums are not; Google.com/url? is blacklisted, and the site that ref redirected to you had already listed and Popmatters.com doesn't have the fact-checking of other websites.--Launchballer 12:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• One can only wonder at the mentality of someone who puts a totally unreferenced stub into article space and then litters this page with links. Since no request was made, no reply is required to Septagram. Launchballer, this sort of behaviour is not to be encouraged. I have emailed you the text. If you think the subject is notable, feel free to put these refs up in a proper place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You could say thank you for taking the time trying to create an article that may be useful... Then make a few suggestions to us inexperienced users on how to do things correctly. — Septagram (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• You litter this page with external links but you feel that none are needed in the article itself. Why? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Verbal Jint

Hello, I was interested in creating a page for the South Korean musician Verbal Jint and the notice on the page said I should contact you before (re)creating one for more information. The WP:A7 designation seems to have more to do with the content of the previous article than with the subject himself and I believe my draft surpasses those requirements. Here is my draft: User:Asdklf;/Verbal Jint. I wasn't really sure how to go about this, but I hope this message is satisfactory. Thank you for your time! — Asdklf; (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Asdklf;

• The version I deleted was devoid of references. You have swung to the other extreme and provided an excess. Probably safe to simply move your draft into article space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Asdklf; (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;

A Dangerous Cure Photos

Hi, I keep being told that my photos for my page a Dangerous Cure are not to be used because of copyright. I know copyright is a serious issue. But these are my photos. I own them. I have given permission for the photos to be used as archival or historical elements. What more must I prove that I own these photos that are being posted to the Dangerous Cure page. Thanks, Helios718 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Come back if and when, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Dangerous Cure closes with "keep". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate files

I was working from a list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfan00 IMG (talk • contribs)

Dave London

Hi, You deleted a page about music producer Dave London. Dave is a pioneer of the music genre Florida breaks. I'm a Florida breaks music fan and have been listening to his music for over 15 years. He is a pioneer for electronic music for the genre of breakbeat. I hope you will reconsider the deletion as he is a major contributor to the electronic music industry. Thanks for your consideration. Sam Cole musicman47 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please learn how to create links and explain why you included an unrelated authority control tag in the article. If and only if, a) you have no COI and b) can provide decent references, then submit an improved article vis the AfC process. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite a Deleted Article

Hello,

I'd like to rewrite an article you deleted because is has content from another website. This time I'm reviewing everything to it don't happen again. What do I have to do?

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustedNutrients

Thanks!