User talk:Finngall

Greetings! Welcome to my talk page!
If you wish to leave me a message, please click here (this will place the message at the bottom of the page where it belongs).
I will normally place my replies here with a {{reply}} tag.
If you are here because I placed a deletion tag on your article, please note that I am not an administrator and cannot actually delete articles myself. If the article has already been deleted, you should probably take any protests to the admin who did the deletion, though I will gladly answer questions as well. Don't forget to provide a link to the article in question.
Finally, please always sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, and take care.

Hello Finngall! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal‎

There are several wiki pages for journals. For example, see the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bioinformatics_journals Why I am refrained to create the page for "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publications.assistant (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not a valid justification to create an article on a related subject. The speedy deletion nomination I made was rightly declined because you had added context to the article, but you have not demonstrated that this journal is notable enough to merit an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. On that basis, I will be momentarily nominating the article again for deletion, this time via a more formal process whilch will allow for discussion and consensus. You are welcome to join this discussion and make improvements to the article in the meantime. --Finngall ^talk 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Finngall, "Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" has been evaluated by PubMed Central committee and got indexed. Please see our editorial board and the scientific articles published in it. It is a NOTABLE open access journal in its field. I hope that you will let wiki page to go live without any hindrances. (Publications.assistant (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Publications.assistant: The PubMed link establishes the the journal exists, but nothing more. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). --Finngall ^talk 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Finngall,

"Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" satisfies the Criteria mentioned in the "Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)". For example, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal is indexed in SCOPUS. Please see http://www.scopus.com/results/results.url?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=2001-0370&sid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a30&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=15&s=ISSN%282001-0370%29&origin=searchbasic&txGid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a3 (Publications.assistant (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Publications.assistant, at this point you should make your case here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. Also you don't need to put parentheses ( ) around the 4 tildes in you signature, just type ~~~~ I hope that helps. Valfontis (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skills

I have never before seen an admin fix my changes so quickly. I guess you have a log of changes by new users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollpatrol14 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Blue Systems & Storage International, LLC

I have validity based on comments and likes from LinkedIn and Facebook company pages. I need guidance on what to do moving forward. This is a legitimate posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoleburn (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoleburn: Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies, then read up on verifiability of information and what we consider to be reliable sources for articles. Wikipedia doesn't care about LinkedIn comments or Facebook likes--anybody can write those. Have there been articles about BBI in any major media outlets? Any independent coverage at all? Press releases don't count. As I said before, without that, there is no basis for a proper article, and such coverage has yet to be provided. Feel free to come back here with questions, but please read the policy pages I've linked to first. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 06:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Radio

Dear Finngall,

I received your post regarding the concern over the promotional nature of my article. Please advise me on how to possibly rewrite this to allow it to pass the guide line rules. We have launched this new endeavor in our company after being in operation as a local organization since 1998 and I want to offer verifiable information for individuals seeking to learn more about who we are. Once we launch the organization internationally. We are a 501c3 Nonprofit. Not sure if that makes any difference in this equation or not.

Please forgive me. This is my first attempt at submitting anything to wikipedia and I want to play by the rules.

I looked at the page for EWTN which I referenced in my article and it obviously has passed the scrutiny of the wiki guidelines. How can I make what I want to convey more like what the EWTN page offers?

Any suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, 913leob (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 913leob[reply]

@913leob: First off, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn or Facebook. The article needs to maintain a neutral point of view, free of first-person statements, and free of peacock terms that make it look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Which in turn brings up root of the problem--that you're writing about your own company. We strongly discourage people from writing about subject with which they are closely associated, because that conflict of interest makes it difficult to maintain the necessary neutrality.

That said, none of the above even matters unless you can show that RLR is notable enough to merit an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Has RLR received any third-party media coverage? As an encyclopedia, everything in an article should be backed up with verifiable references to reliable sources which are independent of the subject. ETWN has received coverage in the New York Times and other major newspapers. Has any major news outlet taken notice of RLR? If not, then at best it's too soon for them to have an article. And besides, if the article were to get to a point where it could stay in place, you would not own it--it could be edited by anyone, including negative coverage if it in turn were properly sourced.

In sum, a subject gets an article into Wikipedia after it is already notable--this is not a place to go to try become notable. But if you wish to try to create the article again, please carefully read the various policy articles I've linked above before making the attempt. Feel free to ask further questions. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 05:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Union of Bilateral Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Hi Finngall,

I am the Secretary General of IUBCCI and I am in charge with the media and communication of our platform Chamber of commerce that was created in United States. We are an NGO and you are welcome to see our website at www.iubcci.com. I am seeing you proposed the article to be deleted from wikipedia and we want to understand your criteria. We are multinational chamber of commerce and we want to be aligned to other US Chambers of Commerce that already are visible on wikipedia. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact me at : (917) 530 6093 Isabelle Vladoiu - Secretary General of IUBCCI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivladoiu (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivladoiu: First, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest--we discourage people from writing about their own organizations. Next, please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Can you provide references that show IUBCCI meets the notability standard? --Finngall ^talk 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)km[reply]

Thank you for your reply and we reviewed the wikipedia's guidelines. It is not my company and I am volunteer for this NGO the same like you are doing for this Wikipedia. We are providing other sources in English and other languages that prove our notability.(www.theinternationalombudsman.com, www.uccbr.ro, www.economicdiplomatsclub.com...) In addition all the chambers of commerce are on Wikipedia and one of them is member of us.......I understand what need to be address in this page of IUBCCI in Wikipedia now and please take the restriction from this page ......thank you in advance,....

CONtv deletion

Greetings Finngall. I am not sure why you have deleted my entry on CONtv. If I removed the tag, I assure you, it was a complete accident. Please explain the difference between CONtv and other wiki entries such as Crackle TV or Netflix or Amazon Instant Video. All provide video content. After looking at those pages, I'm baffled. Why have you singled-out CONtv?--N0047283 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0047283: To be precise, I did not delete anything, and I have no power to do so. I felt it qualified for speedy deletion and tagged it as such, and the administrator who reviewed what I did apparently agreed with my assessment and did the actual deletion.

But to actually answer your question, those other sites have had a longer history and have received lots and lots of news coverage by major media outlets. All you provided in the way of references for CONtv are a bunch of links to pages which cover Cinedigm in general, but which said little or nothing about CONtv in particular. And without substantial coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject (a CONtv press release doesn't count), there is nothing on which to base an encyclopedia article, and nothing which showed that CONtv met Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies.

Which brings me to my other point, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool or a provider of free web space. The article as of the time of its deletion looked more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, with should rightly maintain a neutral point of view. (And while Cinedigm is certanly notable, its page here is also rather close to that line as well) If the article were to be recreated, it would need to be rewritten completely to achive a neutral tone.

And finally, the reason the article came to my notice in the first place was simply that one of my chosen activities here is to periodically scan the list of newly-created pages looking for spam, vandalism, subjects which obviously do not meet the general notability guideline, or articles which are mostly or somewhat acceptable but which need to be flagged for expansion or improvement by more experienced editors. Yours was just one of many new articles on a variety of subjects which I perused during that time.

Please take the time to read the policy pages which I have linked to above. It is not my intention to discourage you from trying to recreate the article again, if you can come up with better sources to establish CONtv's notability independently of Cinedigm. But instead of creating a new version in main article space, I would encourage you to go through the Articles for Creation process and create the new iteration at Draft:CONtv, where experienced editors can look it over and see if it meets Wikipedia's standards, provide suggestions for improvement, and move into main article space if/when it's "ready for prime time".

Thank you for your time, and please feel free to ask further questions. Have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brecher

Hi Finngall:

Thank you for your quick response to my article. I understand why it was deleted (because the same information was on Jeremy Brecher's website). It was put there originally so that folks could read it while I worked on his Wikipedia page. The bio has now been taken down. Thus, is it possible to put the Wikipedia article back up so that the link can be put on his bio page instead of duplicate information?

Cathysanfanandre (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathysanfanandre: The copyright violation was the primary reason for the page's deletion, but it wasn't the only reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore all articles herein should maintain a neutral point of view and not be promotional in tone. You're not generally going to get that from a bio that was copy-and-pasted from the subject's own web site, copyright or no copyright. Furthermore, while it appears that Mr. Brecher may very well be notable enough to merit an article here, the material for any such article should primarily come from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The subject's own bio can be used to fill in some blanks within the parameters mentioned above, but only as a supplement to material that can be found from third-party sources.

However, given that you appear to be closely associated with Mr. Brecher and/or his web site, I'll also direct you towards Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and recommend that you leave the creation of the article to someone with no such association.

All of that being said, I am not an administrator and have no power to delete or restore articles myself--indeed, I have no more powers and privileges here than you do, save for whatever reputation (good or ill) I may have gained from my activities here. Please peruse the policy links I have linked to above. If you still wish to pursue creating the article, then I advise starting from scratch using third-party sources as the foundation. If you still wish for the original article to be recreated, you are free to contact the deleting administrator, Bgwhite, on his talk page and make the request there. Please feel free to come back here with further questions. Thank you for your time, and have a good day. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Title track (song)

I suspect the problem here is I am uncertain whether it is appropriate to link the Wiktionary definition to the Wikipedia Title track disambiguation page. Uncertain whether this can be done in any event. Any cleanup/setup assistance appreciated.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadarthur: There's a {{wiktionary}} template which is used for links to the corresponding Wiktionary entry, and I have added it to the title track dab page. --Finngall ^talk 03:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. I agree that the page Title track (song) should be deleted, since it is primarily definitional. All one could end up with as supplementary material might be a massive list of title track songs, which doesn't add much, in my view.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Stelios Coucounaras

Hello Finngall, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stelios Coucounaras, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains a clear assertion of importance "His works have been performed in numerous European countries, in the United States, and in Israel". You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kallappadam

Suspicions of new contributors not understanding our rules aside, please revisit the deletion discussion and the article itself. Perhaps you might wish to reconsider? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Done. But, not being psychic, I don't appreciate being chided for basing an assessment of an article on what's there rather than what's going to be there. --Finngall ^talk 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have learned that topic assessment should be determined by sources being available and not upon a use or not to source an article. And too, there's a consideration under WP:POTENTIAL that tells us to judge less harshly upon how something may be written, and more upon how it can be improved. Those are the tools I have learned to abide by rather succesfully. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi Finngall,

I received your message about my new page being advertising. I noticed other people have company pages and thought I could create one as well. Can you confirm why this is considered advertising? I just would like to have a company page about my company similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFront_Financial_Solutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILEVEL Solutions (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. --Finngall ^talk 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ciorbă

Many thanks. Seems I've stepped on someone's toes.... - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hanson (Writer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hanson_(Writer)

You have flagged this page for deletion.

The reasons given - self-publishing, lack of credible sources etc are all completely incorrect.

Clear links to credible sources have been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihandle72 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikihandle72: Let's look at the sources provided thus far:

Taylor & Francis link: Book blurb on publisher's web site, not independent.
Zero Books link: Author page on publisher's web site, not independent.
Nyx interview: A monologue in a minor online journal that's really little better than a blog and which does not appear to be notable in its own right. The fact that they thought he was worth interviewing shouldn't be totally ignored, but at best it's pretty thin as valid sourcing for an encyclopedia article.

All told, there's nothing here that qualifies as the substantial, verifiable coverage in reliable sources (which are independent of the subject) which shows that Mr. Hanson meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies in general or authors in particular. Even if the speedy deletion tag is declined by administrator, I'm reasonably certain that the consensus at a more formal Articles for Deletion discussion would be to delete the article unless the sourcing were to be substantially improved.

Feel free to ask further questions. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More advice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hanson_(Writer)

Re page flagged for deletion:

Thanks for your initial advice.

I don't feel the judgement has been made after thorough investigation: The Taylor & Francis link is to a peer review journal article rather than 'blurb' for a 'book', as you describe it. If listed academic works are cast as 'in doubt' the entire operation is under question, surely. It has an ISSN number should this be used?

The Nyx journal is certainly not minor, by what criteria have you judged that? It's produced by the Centre for Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London, you seem to have made that judgement on the aesthetics ('like a blog') and you appear to be making a qualitative judgement on the content, what are your qualifications to do so?

The book exists, is an ISBN number good enough to list it?

Clearly this writer, his book and many other published works by him exist - and many of his fellow Zero authors have Wikipedia pages - so what would count as evidence? Book reviews? Awards? More books? Sleeping with famous people?

At what point does someone exist?

The most intellectual and original man I know has never published a book, but translated work by Gilles Deleuze, Robert Galeta, is he off the radar of Wikipedia because he is an 'unpublished' translator? He'd blow 90% of the listed writers on Wikipedia out the ocean after a drink or two, intellectually speaking of course. I was going to list him next...

To ask an opposite (speculative) question, how would Mr. Hanson ensure that Wikipedia never place an entry on him, in any language, on any part of their site? Is it possible for him to contact someone to put this embargo in place?

Thanks for your engagement.