User talk:RHaworth/2019 Dec 21

Deleted Page: Truck Lagbe

Hello, a page created by me Truck_lagbe is deleted for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm new in wikipedia so kindly let me know what went wrong and how can I resubmit it with required changes. Thanks TL Ronie (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing went wrong. You posted a page which was considered spam and it got deleted. I suppose you could try again at draft:Truck Lagbe. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

SAUF Article deletion - Need help.

RHaworth Sir, Thanks for taking time out to read this post. This is regarding the Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation article being speedy deleted. I believe the key reason highlighted is promotional article. The article is not intended to promote the SAUF organization. The purpose of creating the Wikipedia article is to make people aware about the organization and its activities so a lot more people can benefit from its services.

Discarding this article as promotional and tagging it for speedy deletion is not aligned with the Wikipedia principles of democracy. If there are content/format changes required, we are welcome to all the suggestions. SAUF has a website which talks about all the work and achievements. https://aniruddhafoundation.com/ We would really appreciate if you can help us to rewrite the article so that many more people all the over the world become aware about SAUF and benefit from its services. — Prasad Chaubal 07:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaubals (talk • contribs)

• It was an heavy copyvio. Recreate in you own words via AfC, leave it in draft space and submit for review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ariel, Israel‎

Hi, I see that you undid my deletion request. FYI: Ariel (city) is not in Israel (it is on the occupied West Bank). Presently there is 0 links to Ariel, Israel‎ (and I cannot see any reason why anyone should need to link to it.) So why not delete it? Huldra (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Now at RfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Robinson (Record Producer, Mixer)

Hi Roger, I see you requested a speedy deletion for this article Draft:Eric Robinson (Record Producer, Mixer) under a G12. I made a novice error by including this link as a citation. I realized the text from this link already appears verbatim in another citation. Would you consider restoring this article with the improper G12 citation removed? Thanks. --Cordon8 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cordon8: Out of curiousity did you create Draft:Eric Robinson (Record Producer, Mixer) because I was looking for a speedy notification on your talk page. It also may be the case RHaworth was acting on someone's speedy nomination. In any event I too would like to see the draft as I have G12 issue before and concerned best practice under WP:DCV may not have been followed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• What is this rubbish about "including this link as a citation". Including a link is fine. Including text from the target of the link is copyvio. The article was created by Cordon8. The speedy tag was applied by Bkissin at the same time as declining the draft. OK, Bkissin should have notified Cordon8 but I am not going to criticise them for not doing so. Although PhilipKhoo disagrees with me (see #Article deleted above), I stick firmly by my view that it is not my job to do partial restores. Text emailed to both of you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:NASLite

? Draft:NASLite g12? g11? : Indirect scummering Arbom candidate Barkeep49? : Ho hum. Couldn't make it up could we? — 31.50.16.186 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• I know you have to rely on the NPP guys before of the amount of work you but I am somewhat minded they are getting a tad trigger happy in Draft? (I was 31.50.16.186 down the line). Ta. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 31.50.16.186's message is incomprehensible and Djm-leighpark's is not much better. Take it to DRV is you insist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is at DRV for consideration ... prepping was started at 12:15 and mostly done by the time of this message. Unlucky. You were sold a dog. — Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Switchere.com

Hello, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Switchere.com&action=edit&redlink=1 I got the review deleted due to a speedy tag. I changed the review and deleted all the mentioning that may sound promotional so I'd like to submit it once again. The system message told me to contact you prior creating the new version of the same service review... So, can I submit the new version and that's it or how should I proceed? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donator777 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Feel free to re-submit but don't get too hopeful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Recently deleted TERROIR_(company)

Hi RHaworth, ref: TERROIR_(company) : I have reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion in reference to it and believe that the article complies to Wikipedia’s requirements. I am writing for further clarification on which part of this article was considered advertising or promotion. All links were to external reference other than the company. Any assistance would be appreciate or if you could reinstate the page so I can make the necessary improvement in order to comply with your concerns, that would be great. Thank you in advance for your feedback, Annmaree Ainsworth (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• A syndrome I see from time-to-time where a well-established article gets converted to spam and then deleted. Non-spammy versions restored to Terroir (company). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Green Gold Gourmet Foods Incorporated

Hi, I wrote an article Green Gold Gourmet Foods Incorporated and it has been nominated by AngusWOOF for Speedy deletion due to the submission appearing to "read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

To be honest this is my first time writing in Wikipedia that's why I didn't know any other way of writing the article and saving it than publishing it right away. I intend to edit the article but it took me time... by the time I was supposed to rework on it again the article has already been deleted by you. I hope the article be un-deleted; if not please allow me to write the article once again... I also don't mind you can provide me with guidelines on saving the article rather than publishing it right away, and if there are any editing tools we can use before we finally publish it so that it will fit Wikipedia's requirements. -- CMOnineza (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am happy to email you your text - read this. Note that we do not put TM or ® in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael O'Dwyer

Hi.. Could you check the editing/editor here? I reverted a recent edit. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot help agreeing with the strong words Osama Razi used about a person who could call the Amritsar massacre a "correct action". But we don't use them in the way he did so I have applied an admonitory block. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...it was looking messy and certainly not the correct way of editing. I might do some research on it. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:NAS4lite

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:NAS4lite. 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. Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:NAS4lite. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Draft:NAS4lite has never existed and there is no deletion review for it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for delay spotting this. Draft:NASlite / Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:NASlite should be the links. WP:TROUT me one for that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Belle Delphine

Subject has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by general notability guideline. Subject is not required to have sustained coverage after having previously already established notability. Though I can understand why it was deleted back in June, when the article looked like this. There is a draft that appears to have some promise, but needs some sprucing up and the youtube sources removed, replaced with higher quality sources, of which there are plenty. I am contacting you because you were the admin that salted the article title, to politely request that you remove the article title protection, so I can properly move the draft when I see fit to the main space. — Tutelary (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• You provided several links but not to the page you wanted me to deal with! Someone at the AfD dismissed her as "attention seeking" which is very true. But she has gained a lot of attention from reliable sources so she probably qualifies for an article. Unsalted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, providing the red link slipped my mind. Thank you so much! Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Department of Fi$Cal

Re: Draft:Department of Fi$Cal, please email the deleted text or restore the draft so I may improve. Thank you. Iokevins (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Text emailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time <3 — Iokevins (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for BDB Pitmans

Morning RHaworth. My reason for creating this page was part of greater transparency for UK Parliamentary agents. On that page there are several firms listed, only some of which have wiki pages. I am going about replacing links to external sites with internal wiki pages to ensure the public get a balanced view of these significantly important companies. The BDB Pitmans page was the first, a starter page which I hoped would then be developed by the community. Can you let me know what steps I should take to restore it and what text I should ensure is on there to demonstrate the importance of it? Thanks Hunner75 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Restored to draft:BDB Pitmans. What text? At present the article does not even mention Parliamentary agents! And you must provide independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi, this is about the deleted article, I would like to retrieve the text of 'Amjad saqib' so that I can save it for further improvement and correction. Could you please assist? thanks. Jugni (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• How do expect me to find the text if you don't provide a link? Text of Amjad Saqib emailed. If you re-submit, do so via AfC and submit it for review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Hi, I am a student at Fordham University Roman Art Class doing research on Prima Porta Augustus. This morning you deleted my page with the reason "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." However, the contexts I wrote are all scholarly theories that already published and peered reviewed. You might believe that the contexts I wrote are all opinions instead of facts. But please be aware that the archeological founding spots of Prima Porta Augustus, and many other ancient artworks are undefined. Books and scholarly articles offer the knowledge of the potential finding spots; they should be eligible for Wikipedia. If you still believe my page is not eligible, can you please restore my page so that my instructor can have a look, and we will fix whatever it needs? This project is worth 30% of my grade for the class, and I don't have a backup copy. If you insist the page can not be restored, can you please email me the text with all the citation I have included in it?

Also, if you want me to move my writing to my sandbox, it's perfectly fine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 青巷忧颜 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:青巷忧颜 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 青巷忧颜 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hi! A student's user page was deleted as promotional - I was wondering if I could get it restored so they can work on fixing what was wrong. It's the user page for User:青巷忧颜. I think what caused concern was that they were describing the location where the statue Augustus of Prima Porta was discovered and they used non-neutral wording. It will definitely need some work if they are to move anything live, but I can work on that with them. — Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please learn to sign talk page messages with ~~~~ . I cannot see any trace of advertising. I deleted it because it was not the sort of stuff we put on a user page. Restored to User:青巷忧颜/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Fayomi

Could you please spare some time to review my drafts? An article was deleted by you while composing the article but right now i am done writing. Could you please check this draft out for an approval? Draft:Martin Fayomi. Thank you. -- Goldie19 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't do draft reviewing but I hope you will allow someone who does do reviewing to do so. Ie. do not move the draft yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest feedback, Do you have an idea of someone who does draft reviewing? I have dropped a message for some but haven't gotten a response. Thank you. -- Goldie19 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• The article has now been reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Surfbouncer

You deleted Surfbouncer. I restored and moved it to User:Julia759/sandbox as they wanted to work on it. — CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Un-delete request … for Draft:Raj&Pablo

Hi, I spent 30+ hours creating a Wiki page draft:Raj&Pablo - my profile is LisaThorne007 - and they took so long to pay me (5 months+) that when the finally did, you'd deleted the article. Can you please un-delete, so I can submit it? Thanks (in hope!), Lisa :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaThorne007 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Lisa, restored under WP:G13. My first reaction was "far too much bold". If you do not make proper paid editing declarations, you are liable to find yourself blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Page of Lugano Scherma

Hello. You have been deleted the page of Swiss fencing club Lugano Scherma. The reason is non profit info for Wikipedia. But this Club is home club of World Champion and European Champion Michele Niggeler and Elia Dagani. I kindly ask you to restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.varfolomeeva.v (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited. If you can find independent evidence that the club is notable in its own right, re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vanags

Hi — You deleted Andy Vanags per CSD G6 and the closed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vanags. But the closure was by a now-indef-blocked user and has been reverted. Do you think the article should be undeleted so the AfD can proceed, or did you want to just close the AfD again? — David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this! — David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure why but I first restored Hayden B. Siegel - which was another K6kw crime but which was definitely not worth restoring. Then I did Andy Vanags which is a bit more promising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft : Zendyll Records

Dear RHaworth, I would like to know the reason for the deletion of this draft article. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for unambiguous advertising or promotion and needs to conform to WP:SOAP. However, as this was a draft article and was meant to be improved, I do no see why it has to be deleted. It was also stated as A7. However, I can assure you that the subject I am currently writing about is credible enough to have its own page. It has been talked about on news articles and magazines and has worked with notable companies and people. I've spent the past week working on this article and would really appreciate if you are able to restore it. Thank you! :) Chlchqy (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Learn wikilinks. I strongly suspect that you should be making CoI and paid editing declarations. Draft:Zendyll Records restored. Creffett, please allow it to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Melania Trump replacement theory

Requesting restoration. Existence of the conspiracy theory clearly not a "blatant hoax" as it is well reported in reliable sources. For example: The Mirror, "There's a conspiracy theory that Melania Trump has been replaced with a body double and it's pretty unsettling"; South China Morning Post, "‘Fake Melania’ conspiracy theory about body double is ‘deranged’, says Donald Trump"; Esquire, "The 'Fake Melania' Conspiracy Theory is Back"; several others were in the draft. Reality of theory itself is irrelevant to whether theory exists (Bigfoot, Atlantis, Moon landing conspiracy theories, New Coke#Conspiracy theories). @Govvy: Hyperbolick (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a place to build pages about fake news, hoaxes and silly tabloid reporting like what you made there. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Emotional Speech Blocks Deletion Syndrome

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

Contesting speedy deletion of AnyChart page

RHaworth hello, I created this article about AnyChart (among several other articles I created about JS libaries and other subjects these days) as and consider it to be a legitimate article which cannot be subject to speedy deletion in particular on the basis of G11 according to my understanding. I do not see how the article can be considered exclusively promotional, and moreover, it actually describes the subject from a neutral point of view in my understanding (honestly, I do not have another point of view here as in any other article that I have created so far, only neutral) and, in particular, G11 says that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Unfortunately, you and user Jaclar0529 (by the way, Jaclar0529 have multiple warnings and vandalism claims oh their talk page) did not let me even contest the speedy deletion nomination. I am close to considering the deletion of AnyChart vandalism or error (Update: I am terribly sorry, did not mean it is vandalism, just was afraid it could be, but I am not thinking even like that any more thanks to additional research, thinking, and kind explanations from other editors. Please accept my sincere apologies if that hurt somebody of you guys. — Avbgok (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)).

Would you be so kind to restore the article as the nomination for speedy deletion and deletion itself seem to be unwarranted and made by mistake. If you feel any edits are needed, I would suggest that we work on improving it together with you and (or) other editors, because that is what Wikipedia is all about as I understand it. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For your information, the user who initially placed the G11 tag on the AnyChart article has just replied on my talk page: "The article has already been deleted. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator, which in this case is RHaworth, as I cannot assist you further. — jaclar0529 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)" - could you please look into this issue with deleting the AnyChart article again and restore it? That user jaclar0529 even has been warned with "Final warning on vandalizing Wikipedia on their talk page, so the nomination is likely to be just another vandalism attempt from them. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• You do not deserve it. Within seven minutes of doing your first edit here you had left a pointless message at the Teahouse about it. I consider it perfectly acceptable if someone has to wait seven hours for a reply from me. I find your use of the word "hurt" very curious. Experienced Wikipedia editors do not feel hurt: For those of us who work in the deletions area the only emotion is a resigned acceptance that we are going to see the same inappropriate rubbish for ever.

Regarding your piece: I have to admit that by the time I had got to removing the fourth link to the page I was thinking that possibly you did not have a CoI. Restored to draft:AnyChart. Please leave it there for a regular draft reviewer to look at it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lactobacillus Acidophilus MPH734

Greetings! I read your notes on creating a wikilink. I am still unsure that I have succeeded though it seems it should look like this: /wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Lactobacillus_Acidophilus_MPH734 or /wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Lactobacillus_Acidophilus_MPH734 perhaps?

I found a fascinating substance—specifically a bioengineered bacillus—that was absolutely stunning in its functionality. It is capable of completely eliminating the symptoms of lactose intolerance. I performed a significant amount of research to find out all about it, but strangely found nothing at all on wikipedia. Since I had done all the research already, it seemed logical to compose an article about it and share what I had discovered. I waited for a fairly long time and had all but given up receiving a response, but when I looked in today it had been G11'd or "speedily deleted". I am not associated with the company that created it, and have no financial interest in it. At best one might suggest that I have a bit of enthusiasm for it, but the reporting seemed to have been fairly innocuous and even handed, in my point of view.

Maybe you can help me out by indicating where I went wrong? And I'd just like to emphasise that I have absolutely no financial connection to the company; there is no money to be made here. My joie de vie is entirely aimed at sharing knowledge and reducing ignorance. Specifically it was identified by this: RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Lactobacillus Acidophilus MPH734 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — CanadaSFwriter (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Since you had worked out the correct way to link, you should have deleted your two cack-handed attempts at links. But you did not manage to link to my user page even though there are several specimens already on this page! Article restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

user:46.69.115.235

User:46.69.115.235 is abusing her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk • contribs)

• Learn to sign talk page messages with ~~~~ . Why do you say "she" - the IP address has been using some distinctly unladylike language. Has been blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)