User talk:Kinu/Archive 8

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Thank you

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here. Kinu, thank you for the fair deliberation on The Astute Recorder page. I completely respect the decision of you and your fellow editors and am taking the Wikipedia guidelines into consideration for future possibilities. Best wishes, Judy Asman —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsmanJudy (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here. Why did you delete the Retro Fox page? It's important to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFoxIsBack (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC) The article contained no assertion of notability. As a company, notability needs to be asserted and then demonstrated per WP:CORP. This is done using reliable sources. I was unable to find any and endorsed the speedy deletion. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; "important to [you]" is an insufficient criterion for inclusion. --Kinu t/c 01:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

you too, eh?
This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here. I didn't want to be accused of hounding, so I was going to take Hamed Minhaj to AFD after a few days. Guess you were thinking the same! It appears to be a hoax or entirely unsourced. tedder (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Carter Jonas

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here. Hi - I was adding an entry for Carter Jonas - factual and most certainly not advertising. It was deleted before I could include links to the sources: The Times newspaper being one http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article4407264.ece You cannot argue that you don't allow companies to have an entry - as you list 'The Coca Cola Company'! I await your reponse. Graham www.carterjonas.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamholton (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The article as it was written previously appeared to be advertising, and it contained no assertion of notability, which is needed to avoid speedy deletion as well (see WP:CSD#A7). I would recommend adding as many references as possible to indicate why this company is notable. Also, your e-mail address (which I have removed) indicates a possible conflict of interest, so please tread carefully in editing this article. --Kinu t/c 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Media Kitchen

This discussion has been archived and should not be modified. To comment, please create a new topic at the bottom of my current talk page by clicking here. Just a friendly heads up on The Media Kitchen. Per a request at WP:REFUND, I reviewed this article and can't see that it met either of the speedy deletion reasons you listed. The awards section is a claim of importance; although you discussed notability on the editor's talk page, importance, a lower standard, is all that's needed to avoid a speedy deletion. And notability may well be out there -- a quick gnews search gives articles in The Guardian and a number of others, such as AdWeek I also can't see that it met A11 -- if your only issue was the client list (which I advised the editor to get rid of), that's a quick edit, not a substantial rewrite. Naturally, you're free to take it to AfD if you disagree.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC) No worries. I suppose the client list was what led me to believe the A11 applied, although that is definitely removable. Perhaps if there was more prose in the article rather than lists, it would seem less spammy... perhaps an imperfect duck test, but it seemed valid at the time. Thank you for restoring the article for this user. I'll keep an eye on it and see if improvements are made. --Kinu t/c 00:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of whacking out the client list and adding some refs. Sadly, the best refs are behind pay walls. :( Prose is not my strong suit, so I'll leave it to someone else. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Hotel 626 page

Why did you delete it? It was so good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.197.66 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEB, WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for looking into the request of speedy deletion on the Talk:Agnes Irving (1862) and keeping this stub Best Regards Whodidwhat (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

*

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your speedy deletion work this evening is awesome. It seems that you have almost single-handedly reduced that C:SD backlog – for at least a little while, we won't have the dreaded banner. C:SD has been a bit up and down, but basically backlogged since a week ago. Thanks for adding some oomph to the process! JamieS93 00:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)