User talk:Dank

1 (12/07-4/08) - 2 (-7/08) - 3 (-11/08)
4 (-2/09) - 5 (Mar) - 6 (Apr) - 7 (May)
Speedy deletion notes (Mar, Apr, May)

I'll reply to your message here; if I post on your talkpage, I'll watch for a message there.

Admin stuff

Copyediting

Images

Links

News

Shiny things

Speedy deletions

WP:Update

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BQZip01_4

Thanks for helping usher the process. I noticed that you stated "I'm agreed with the opposition that there really should have been a clear discussion of when and how IPs were going to be able to communicate when he's an admin.". If you'll be so kind as to pose a related question, I'll be happy to answer it and hopefully clear up any confusion. Alternatively, I can always add an addendum to my personal beliefs.

Short version is that I have no problem with criticism whatsoever. However, my talk page and user pages were protected due to death threats and accusations of murder. These edits were not meant as simple harassment, but as an attempt to publicly malign/discredit/defame me. Proof? Despite my e-mail having been available since I became aware of this feature of Wikipedia, I have not received a single hate-mail.

So on a related matter, I have put a disclaimer at the top of my page stating that new users should contact me via e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, all the information that people want to know should be on the RFA page, and this is something some people want to know, so I'll copy this over there and continue the conversation there if you like. Best of luck, and I think you'll make a good admin. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Deeds

In the case of there being only two uses of a title where on is an album and the other the title track from that album, it is standard for the page title to go to the album with a template:for link to the song at the top of the page. The album is the primary meaning.--Marcus Brute (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:Ironholds about this (I'm not good with bands after 1985. I'm serious.) and he said "it isn't something I've encountered before, but it sounds fair enough in that most people will be looking for the album". I think that's a "yes", so I'll delete per your request. Please feel free to give me guidance on music article deletions any time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, there's a problem, the history is huge, and deletion will lose the history (usually, as a practical matter). Could we move (i.e. rename) or edit the content instead? - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Night on Earth

Greetings Dank, and thanks for taking care of this deletion for me, I appreciate it. Mahalo, Skomorokh 04:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any time. Mahalo. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason Dodson

Thank you for your intervention on the Jason Dodson article. I am not Mr. Dodson, contrary to what someone thought, but I know Mr. Dodson, and the article is relevant and I'm glad you made the same observation. If possible, keep an eye on the article for awhile, because certain people seem to like to try and add deletion tags to it out of spite. Again, thank you for your help. 72.173.3.123 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC) SIDurbin 11:27PM 9 May 2009

Sure thing, I'm watchlisting. I declined the speedy deletion for a technical reason; there's rough consensus that one person shouldn't come along and delete when so many editors have made contributions over a long period of time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

United Concordia Companies, Inc.

[copied] Opinion? You added a COI tag after it was tagged for speedy, so I wasn't sure if that meant you were declining the speedy or wanted a second opinion. I (I think) made a username block, and when we only have one contributor with obvious COI about a company that provides services to other organizations (in this case, the US military) rather than to consumers, with no sources, I'm not entirely comfortable with simply dropping the question of deletion. On the other hand, the article seems to be well-written and there are a lot of archives/books/scholar hits. Suggestions? (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That was one of those bizarre instances where the article was well written, not copyrighted and the subject seemingly notable. In fact, I can't remember a similar situation. Given that, I thought it best to give the user a chance to change his/her username. I'm OK for a username block on the account based on the rules; hopefully, they'll establish a new account. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I had the same take on it. I won't take it to AfD (at this time), but I'll keep an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Question

You recently deleted the redirect page "Michael Muzek." I did not know that you couldn't make your real name redirect to your user page. Should I recreate the page? Muzekal Mike (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#R2. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Guildford Grammar School

You've just deleted this. There was a hold-on + further remarks on the talk page. Why not relist at cfd? The previous cfd was in 2007, consensus might have changed, we don't know what the contents were in 2007 etc. Occuli (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The one subcategory is currently being discussed at WP:CFD. Would a discussion there work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It would work for me - I can't offhand see why anyone should object. Occuli (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_10#Category:Former_students_of_Guildford_Grammar_School. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruby Summer

(copied) Carolwood Records is apparently owned by Disney; does that make a difference? - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But simply being signed to a notable indie isn't enough if they haven't done anything else of note yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the talk page, silly. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You could just ask at the main WP:MUSIC wikiproject talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division

Hi, has there been discussion at WP:MILHIST about this? (reply on my page please) - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that there has been not but there have been discussions with the findings that if there are articles that are unique in their existence, such as something titled "United States (country)", they do not need a disambiguator because of the fact that its pretty well known. In simpler terms, basically if another unit of the same nams doesn't exist, then the disambiguator is useless. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I'd rather see a discussion at WP:MILHIST on the name change. A lot of people have seen that page name and been fine with it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Hogan

Could you do me a favor and provide me with the text from the deleted page, Brandon Hogan? I've found some sources to give the page noteriety. Thanks, John (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

If you can do me a favor and give me your opinion occasionally on sports articles; I see you're a big fan, and I have a hard time with the deletion decisions sometimes. It's at User:Red Deadeye/Brandon Hogan. I will probably propose deletion after you move it to articlespace so that people can check your sources to see if they would produce a different result at WP:AfD. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot. Yeah, I'd definately add my opinion. Just tell me whenever you need my opinion on any articles. Thanks again. John (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony shore

Hi - Just a quick question - should every article/bio have an improper case redirect as in the case of Tony shore? I tried to clean this up because I think the search suggestion dropdown/autocomplete is so useful most of the time, but not when it is filled up with double / triple redirects to the same articles (which as you mentioned may not survive). If the subject was notable and the original proper case article existed, and then a new editor created a new improper case page I can certainly see it being a valid redirect... but that is not the case here. Similarly, if someone created Tony SHore - would that survive. Thanks (and sorry for the hypothetical questions - just trying to avoid wasted CSDs in the future). JCutter (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Tony SHore should be R3'd. I'll ask at WT:CSD about caps, you make a good point. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch there too. Looks like decltype agrees - we'll see what others think. (And thanks for catching my missing "not" in the suggestion dropdown. Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain and move on to the next sentence.) JCutter (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Madame Medusa

I have restored Talk:Madame Medusa as it was previously deprodded and speedy delete declined several times because of large amount of discussion, on what is now The Rescuers. Perhaps you can somehow merge the talk into that one's Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I had previously declined the speedy deletion myself. Thanks for fixing my mistake. I usually hand merges off to WP:SPLICE. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oksana (pornographic actress)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oksana (pornographic actress). 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. Hektor (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion PTE Academic

Hi

I wrote the article on PTE Academic. I work in the admissions departmnt of a university that have accepted PTE Academic scores and feel it important to have a presence as have the other test such as IELTS and TOEFL. Please could you suggest how I change the article for it to be acceptable.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsc00by (talk • contribs) 14:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article had no independent sources, only press releases. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A7 on Los Colorados

Hi Dank,

Just an observation as I was the original PRODer and have that on my watchlist, I think the page did make a tenuous claim about notability in its geographical region, the previous version of the article (the one deleted through the expired PROD I placed) also claimed an appearance on US TV (the Ellen Degeneres show or something). As per my comment on its talk page, I'd suggest sending the next re-creation (if there's one) to AfD to get the matter settled once and for all. Cheers, --MLauba (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed your "A7 is doubtful" in the history, sorry. I haven't figured out the line between acceptable and unacceptable promotionalism in band articles; what do you think? Was it a db-spam? - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I only scanned for notability and sources not present in the version which was deleted through my PROD, noticed what I'd have called a tenuous assertion of notability, considered whether to push it to AfD and decided to just leave a note on talk and let the reviewing admin judge. And had afterthoughts an hour later :) So if it was overly spammy (which wasn't the case in the previous incarnation) I missed it. I think it will be back though and unless it's a blatant speedy, I'd go for an AfD this time, to enable G4 until the band passes the GNG. MLauba (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Dallas Chaparrals

Thanks for the edit summary on this decline; I was actually just following the instructions at Wikipedia:Talk page redirects, but simply editing out the redirect and leaving a blank talk page behind makes perfect sense. I've dropped a note for the person who put that work package together to get his thoughts too. Mlaffs (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! It's nice to have a few comments thanking me for declines to balance out the other ones :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I'm only too happy to spread the love to anyone around here who forces me to think. Question for you while I'm leaving black on your page anyway, if you don't mind. I've seen your name pop up in discussions at various points, and I recall being impressed by how you conduct yourself, so I'm inclined to suspect that your opinion might be worth respecting. I've been thinking about whether I ought to put an Rfa together and it's quite possible that it would have to be a self-nom, given that I'm more than a little gnomy. Now don't worry — I'm not looking for a co-nom, or even for your support if it gets that far. But I wonder if you'd be willing to look at my contributions in a bubble and let me know what you think? Mlaffs (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but only if you submit an WP:ER; that gives me a lot more to work with. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much — done and done! I actually had no idea that little corner of the Wikiworld even existed. Mlaffs (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Corfu categories

I noticed you declined my speedy tag. You are aware that I am in the process of recategorising Greek towns and villages per discussion with the project. I therefore find the four day wait unjustified as the categories are being renamed. It has been discussed with the group already so there is no reason why we need to keep them. Besides which I'm likely to forget about the empty categories after four days so we'll end up with loads of empty categories hanging around for nothing, RegardsDr. Blofeld (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, but I am now. WP:CSD#A3 is for articles, but I could do a G6/housekeeping if there's no significant resistance. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#Proposed category overhaul for settlements, I'd prefer not to G6 it. C1 would work (as a practical matter, that means inclusion in the history from at least 4 days ago at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Empty_categories), or WP:CFD. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:Editor review/Mlaffs edit

Hi there! This edit broke the page at WP:ER into two, so I have edited your edit and removed the level 2 headline. The text in the headline is now in bold. You may undo my edit and check the contents box at WP:ER to make sure, but then please remove the level 2 headline. Thanks, AvN 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy decline

How is the number of editors working on an article related to whether or not notability is asserted in the article. The fact that so many have worked on it and it still doesn't say why it's a notable group of fuels is even more odd. See my notes on the talk page: there are no usable sources for this that I could find on google news. It's just an ad. NJGW (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The only discussion I've seen at WT:CSD was in the last part of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_34#Thoughts? As much as I'd love to make all the decisions about what stays and goes on Wikipedia, I'm not allowed to do that. When a lot of people, either by silence or by actively working on the article, have indicated that they think the article is notable enough for inclusion, you need a community decision to reverse that. I don't have an opinion on whether WP:AfD would be a good call, but I have no objection if you want to AfD it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about my discussion on the talk page of the article. There's no notability asserted and none findable on google news. The previous AFDs ended in no consensus and promises of further development which don't seem to have materialized. NJGW (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying that one person can't overrule community processes. Take it back to AfD if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What community process are you talking about? The one that created an article that fails the speedy criteria or the one that has no consensus on the suitability of the article to stay? I would see creation of the speedy criteria as a more important community process. I think maybe your personal interpretation of the speedy criteria may be keeping you from looking at the content itself. Do you mind reinstating the speedy tag and letting a different admin have a look? If they agree with you I'll take it to AFD. NJGW (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Better than having one more admin look at it, I'll copy this to WT:CSD and then a whole bunch of admins will look at it :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Consumer Cellular

The Consumer Cellular page was written to focus on the company's influence, NOT to promote their plans or services. The company IS important in the Portland community, and is relevant to use of cellular phones by senior citizens. External links were only to news articles showing Consumer Cellular's role in the Portland business community. The page is relevant to life in the Pacific Northwest, which is what my contributions focus on - could it be undeleted? Are there other changes that could be made to make the article qualify for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDX sunshine (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The page has been deleted 4 times by 4 different admins, so I can't offer you much optimism. See WP:CORP and WP:Your first article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I read those, and have adhered to my interpretation them - my first article was actually on a historic place. Is the article even being read anymore, or is anything related to Consumer Cellular just totally banned now? The version I wrote today conformed to everything I read in the guidelines as I understood it.

Try asking advice at WP:DRAW. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can the article be undeleted while it's reviewed by the community? Thanks so much! - PDXSunshine

Not in its current form. That's why you're asking at WP:DRAW, so you can get opinions from others. Another place to try is WP:N?. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Youtube Poop (craze)

Would A7 work then? Most of the other incarnations were shot down via A7 (non-notable web content, which it is). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you think of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_34#Thoughts?, particularly Moonriddengirl's point that "type of web content" is not the same thing as "web content", so it's not an A7. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I say just delete it per WP:SNOW anyway. Various other spellings have already been shot down six or seven times each, and if that doesn't form a precedent I don't know what does. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll be happy with my AfD vote I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Elizabeth

Regarding the new page: Naomi Elizabeth, which seems to have been nominated for speedy deletion. I would like to request that the subject matter is re-evaluated, it pertains only to the work of an obscure musician. The citations are verifiable and not frivolous. If there are specific changes that need to be made, please let me know. Thanks so much. Hhtttt (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Judson Pearce Morgan

Found your note when checking the article in relationship to another. I did not spend much time there, but was able to source his recognition for past acting and current awards and nominations for filmmaking. There was a problem with the author's COI, but if he leaves it alone and allows others to bring it into line, Wiki wil be happy... as there is stuff out there... just a mater of continued digging. I appreciate the wisdom shown by your removing the CSD7. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mukul Shivaputra Komkali

Hello Dank,

I was searching for Mukul and found a deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukul_Shivaputra_Komkali I agree that Mukul is not as famous as his father but he is certainly great and notable. He is not notable because of his father's fame but for his contribution to Indian Classical Music.

He is not so famous because he choose to live a different type of life. "He is a moody person. He likes to lead a reclusive life and has a habit of disappearing and then reappearing out of the blue," remarks one of Shivputra's close friends.

This google news link lists tries to put some light on the matter http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Mukul+Shivaputra&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&start=0. This list of Google news starts from 2002 but I have seen him performing as master in 90s as well. Even in 90s he was of the level that top Indian Classical musicians (e.g. Pt Shiv Kumar Sharma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Kumar_Sharma) agreed to adjust timings during an overnight concert for carving a slot for Mukul.

Whosoever has written the page about him may not have researched enough and seems was not able to provide enough references. IMHO it will be good if the page can be restored and left for development.

Thanks, Akshaymathur (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Akshay! This message was not intended for me, but I'll reply to it anyway. The article in question did not make an assertion of notability, i.e., it did not indicate why the subject of the article was important. An off-wiki site has a copy of the article here which it managed to obtain before the article was deleted. As you can see, the information is also inaccurate. Mukul Shivaputra Komkali was not awarded the Padma Vibhushan in 1990 (which would make him notable). It was, in fact, his father Kumar Gandharva who got the award. You may recreate the article if you wish, but it must follow Wikipedia guidelines (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV). Also, you may wish to read WP:FIRST. Best to you, AvN 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive of deleted page

Some time ago you deleted a page for the reason that it had become an attack page. When this happened the discussion page was deleted as well. Do you or the Wikimedia foundation retain an archive of the discussions and edits on that page? Please contact me privately if you would be able to provide that archive or direct me to someone who could. Sincerely, GDDANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDDANY (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing ever disappears, but attack pages and discussions about attack pages are the least likely pages to be reproduced for public consumption. Can you give me a link to the page? - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilde. It is unimportant for my purposes whether the page is publicly available or not. This is a law enforcement related inquiry, I can provide verification privately if you wish. Sincerely, GDDANY (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact us. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Content creation

I'm at work, so talk page posting was easier!

I was thinking about your comments about content creation last night. The ones to which I've pointed you to are really it, and I'd have to agree that none of them could easily be worked up to a GA or featured list.

Part of the problem is that there's never been anything about which I've had a burning need to write an article — even the baseball draft articles were about filling in gaps more than they were about adding to the store of human knowledge. I'm also working with words all day long at work, so even though I'm a trained journalist/editor, writing is about the last thing that I want to go and do in my spare time.

However, I thought that a list might be the right fit, and I've been looking at the featured lists to get an idea of what's already there and what might turn my crank. I'm probably most passionate/knowledgeable about sports, hockey and baseball in particular, and so my search is turning me in that direction.

List of Ottawa Senators players is one that's already featured, and so I immediately thought that List of Toronto Maple Leafs players could be good for me (favourite team). However, they've been around for so long that it would be an enormous undertaking. However, while baseball does have some featured lists, none of them are for the team rosters. Toronto Blue Jays all-time roster might be something to tackle then. All of the team roster pages look like this, though, so there's a possibility that this is a format on which the relevant project has settled — I'm going to check that out with them.

In the meantime, a couple of questions:

• Initial reaction to the choice?
• I'm assuming that the title doesn't have to be in the 'List of …' format, correct?
• In the case where you're significantly beefing up the content and changing the format of an existing page, such as would be the case with Toronto Blue Jays all-time roster, thoughts on the best way to go about it? My gut says to lay it all out on a user sub-page first and then copy it into the article over top of the existing content — trying to build it into the article as it stands with a giant "Under Construction" tag feels really ugly to me, especially if it's going to be done in bite-size pieces over several weeks.
• Unrelated, but what is it about 30 Rock (season 1) that makes it eligible to be a featured list? That seems like a full-fledged article to me, or is it just enough that there's a solid list within the article?

Mlaffs (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good choice. It's reasonably common for lists not to begin with "list of ..."; there are 5 currently at FLC. User subpage sounds like a good idea. And I don't know how "listy" something has to be to do well at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you ever want to work on an article and are unsure if it counts as a list, User:Dabomb87, User:Matthewedwards, User:Scorpion0422, and User:Truco are all great editors to ask, as they are really involved at FLC. As for that 30 Rock one; I'd say that it could go as either GA or FL, but I would go for the latter, as 30 Rock (season 2) is already a FL, and it is best to keep things consistent. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Not a lot of positive feedback at the baseball project to the idea of including stats in the list, so I'm probably better off to hook in with the hockey project instead — although perhaps starting on a team with a shorter history and smaller all-time roster! 30 Rock (season 1) actually already is a FL — I just don't quite understand why it went through that rather than the article process. Perhaps I'll see if I can hunt down the editor who started the process and get their thoughts. Mlaffs (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Logan Wilson

Hmm..I consider myself a huge proponent of G10 over A7, but that article didn't look that bad. What do you think? decltype (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not reproduce the content on my talk page, but it was previously speedied by 2 other admins as G10, and it had unsourced negative statements about his parents. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Seeing how everything went well in the end of the story, I figured it was a plausible autobio. Of course, the fact that it was deleted twice as G10 does affect WP:AGF. Thanks. decltype (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

Hi why did you delete the john Ng page? I had only started working on it 15-20 minutes ago... And now it's gone? It needed work-- YES. But Damn I did not even have a F'n chance to put the notable information in the article. This is why I hate wikipedia; people like you that have nothing else better to do than delete peoples work for some kind of perverted fun or something! --Duchamps_comb MFA 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is now restored, at User:Dank/John Ng. I've added a {{noindex}} tag so that it doesn't get picked up by Google; please don't remove that. See WP:BIO and WP:Your first article. Let me know when you think it's ready for mainspace, and I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Miike Snow (album)

How the hell is it not an A9? A9 is for cases where the album doesn't assert notability and the artist doesn't have an article. Miike Snow was just speedied; therefore, Miike Snow (album) is without its artist's article; therefore, it's a clear-cut A9. Speedy and AFD can overlap, you know, if the speedy fits. There's surely no reason to drag EVERYthing through afd for a week or longer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me check the deletion log before I respond. I get the impression that I'm doing the bulk of the CSD from roughly 8am to 4pm (Eastern US), but maybe that's just an illusion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh wait. I see. You agree that it's an A9, but you want further consensus from other users before putting the speedy tag on? Yeah, that makes sense… not. Process for the sake of process. I tried to make A9 as unquestionable as possible, so I really see no reason to decline it. I can't see anyone else looking at that and saying "it's not an A9!". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of days, including today, I do more CSD work than anyone else, at least during my "shift". One immutable rule of Wikipedia (and any workplace) is: the bigger your footprint, the softer you have to tread, because people don't like getting bossed around. Stopping an ongoing deletion conversation (other than for db-attack or db-copyvio) because "I've decided" would get roughly the same reaction that Bush Jr. got when he said "I'm the decider". OTOH ... I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with any of the people active in music-related deletion tagging, because I need more help with that than anything else. I've got that AfD watchlisted, I'm sure we'll get support for A9, and as soon as we do, I'll be happy to delete it with extreme prejudice. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleah. Far too many editors are overly cautious. I can understand your point though, and I think the A9 tag should at least be left up for another admin to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oooh ... that's a great idea, if you'll let me hold off until there are a couple more speedy votes at the AfD. Then I'll tag it and let someone else bag it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Prabal Gurung

Why did you delete Prabal Gurung's page I know there wasn't alot of informations but it's about an upcoming fashion desginer who debuted at feburary 2009..Please dun't delete it..(UserNepal (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)).

The folks at WP:N? are very helpful with new users, and feel free to come back here if they don't answer your questions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Out 100 list

[Copied back and forth from WT:CP]:

I don't understand why Out magazine's Out 100 was deleted. It says it is "unambiguous copyright infringement"? How is it different from Time Magazine's Person of the Year or any other list of honorees? None of the content from the magazine articles were included. Just the names of the recipients. Could you please undelete this article? Queerudite (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question; I think the answer is that there's been so much commentary on Time's Person of the Year that we can take the commentary as our sources. When similar lists have been reproduced, for example, List of America's 100 greatest golf courses, they've been either deleted, redirected, or shortened considerably out of copyright concerns. I'll copy this conversation over at WT:CP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I believe it makes it harder to get past the copyright problems that they aren't using measurable criteria; this is a completely subjective assessment of who's cool and out. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be the core issue as I understand it. If the selection criteria are creative, then the list is copyrightable. "most interesting and influential" is definitely a subjective, hence creative, list. Time's "Person of the Year" is also subjective, but what's being reported in that article is simply the winners who have been chosen and published year after year. We can report on People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" winners (and do here), but could not reproduce the entire list of "100 Most Beautiful People" or "25 Hottest Bachelors." (I have to admit that creative lists are not an area of copyright with which I've had much personal experience. It mystifies me that Billboard can copyright some of its charts, but it certainly does: "Use of a Billboard chart on any Internet Web site is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED without prior written consent from VNU eMedia, Inc." Are they blowing hot air? I don't know. I haven't put a lot of time into it, but I've looked a time or two for a test case or DMCA take-down, but I haven't found one yet.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but in practice, I don't think Wikipedia uses "creativity" as the core criterion for excluding award lists. See for example most any of the lists in Category:Award winners and its subcategories. All of the examples of "acceptable" content mentioned so far (Person of the Year, Sexiest Man, etc.) are "creative". I mean, I'm no lawyer, but if creativity is the primary criterion, we have a lot more deleting to do. Queerudite (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But those are annual winners, not a full list. For example of a previous conversation, see this archived conversation from 2004: a couple of quotes, "Compliation copyright occurs when the compliation has a sufficient creative element in it to recognize authorship in the list."; "In general, in US law, a list isn't copyrightable unless what is on the list has been creatively selected (a significant subset of all possible entries) or is in some other way either fictional or creative." Here's another archived thread from 2007. There are other threads. I've just added a search function to WT:C, if that might help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mustang Maniacs

Hey. I see that the page for the Mustang Maniacs was speedily deleted, and I feel that it may have happened prematurely. Looking back, I see that it did not meet the requirements of A7, but I feel that with some editing, the article could be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. The main reason why the article was deleted was for not sufficiently stating a reason why it was important enough, so I have worked to find some valid reasons why the group merits recognition:
1. The Mustang Maniacs, in cooperation with the Aggie Pack, put on the Battle for the Golden Horseshoe, a tradition that has merited its own page and has existed since 1939.
2. The Mustang Maniacs are charged with the protection and restoration of the Cal Poly P, a landmark of San Luis Obispo county and a nationally recognized historical place (working on finding external source)
3. The Mustang Maniacs are responsible for garnering the support needed to set the record for the crowd of 11,075 people October 17th, 2008 at Alex G. Spanos Stadium. This event goes down in history as the third largest attended college soccer game in all of the sports history.

I understand if the club still does not meet the requirements laid out by the standards of Wikipedia, and I appreciate your time and dedication to this site. Aceshigher (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Clow Cards

You recently denied a request for speedy deletion of List of Clow Cards, however the same user that requested the speedy deletion has now redirected the page to Cardcaptor Sakura. I'm reluctant to revert their edits because they will simply re-revert it back. As I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia, I'm wondering what I should do to resolve this situation properly. Thanks. zzymyn (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The request was denied because the previous AfD said redirect. As such, I have simply enforced the AfD (yet again). However, I will say that I do disagree with the declining to delete. Clow Cards wasn't deleted in the physical sense, but it was only redirected because it was a likely search term. As such, I feel that recreating the article under another name is the same as recreating deleted material as it was "deleted by redirect". In either case, three AfDs, as well as discussions on the main article page clearly show this content is not acceptable in any form, and so for now I have just redirected it per those consensus based discussions that are supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have also noted this on that List's talk page per Zzymyn's questions about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on the talk page Collectonian. This situation is new to me, so I was just wondering what Wikipedia's policies are on such issues. I hope that we can resolve this on the talk page for the article in question though. zzymyn (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Essay

Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY was improperly deleted. Please restore. Every essay has a short synonym. You just deleted a link that appears in 20 talk pages, you really should have looked at what the article links too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)