Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Cup

[edit]

Could you bring back the pages for the 2026 and 2030 FIFA World Cups please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.14.81 (talk • contribs) 06:56, January 2, 2011

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

List of South American Supercentenarians

[edit]

Greetings,

The only two votes for deletion here (DavidinDC and JJBulten) are biased persons already involved in personal vendettas:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_South_American_supercentenarians

Note the false charges that the GRG is a "self-published" "raw data dump". Those are false charges. We can easily see the GRG cited by sources such as CNN:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/us/louisiana.oldest.african.american_1_mississippi-winn-gerontology-research-group-supercentenarians?_s=PM:US

We also see that there's an article on European supercentenarians.

I find it highly objectionable and biased that it's "OK" to have a European supercentenarians article, and not ones on Africa and South America.

I also note that four of the six votes against the List of African supercentenarians were persons with past vendettas: Tony and OhConfucius have been pushing to delete date links from supercentenarian articles (even though we see the media make the connection, such as "born the year X happened").

There is still something wrong with the above AFDs. The votes were based on false assertions and involved biased, involved editors for the most part (Edison and Bulldog excepted). However, for those two, Bulldog left no comment and Edison misinterpreted the "biography" standard of notability for what was, instead, a list.

The irony here is that these AFD's actually strengthen sources like the GRG, because it means the "supercentenarian fans" will have to turn to the GRG lists, not Wiki lists, for further information.

But it weakens Wikipedia's coverage and the public's knowledge of verified human longevity, and when we see, in particular, JJB carry out a "religious crusade" against secular, scientific mainstream material, we have a problem.

I note that JJB was self-concluding ArbCom discussions on longevity...since when does an involved party serve as the judge? JJB seems to operate under delusions of self-importance that are detrimental to the education of the general public.Ryoung122 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung, please note that as the procedural nominator of the AfD, I am neither in favor of nor against deleting the article. You should probably talk to the closing admin of the AfD, Spartaz. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Samuelsson

[edit]

Good call on this. It should have been a done deal with the slew of sources provided by Grsz 11 and I almost closed it myself per supervoteadmin's discretion. However, I felt a another keep !vote would make the call easier for the next admin who looked at it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

I object to the deletion of our wikipage "Commission on Filipinos Overseas"...

[edit]

I object to your unilateral deletion of the page "Commission on Filipinos Overseas.

I also object to your assumption that we are violating copyright issues. First and foremost, we are a government agency, and there is only one agency in the entire government of the Philippines with such a name. It is precisely because of our desire to provide accurate information about our office that we decided to put up a wikipedia page about it.

it is just decent that before you do delete and assume that there is copyright infringement, you inquire into the nature of the page. Have you checked if the items in the page are untruthful? Are there controversial "facts"? Because if there is none, I do not see why you should remove these pages without even a notice to the creators!!!

Please rectify your deletion or we will be constrained to formalize a complaint with the Wikipedia editorial board regarding your actions.


Phillip Ting Executive Assistant to Secretary Nicolas Chairperson, Commission on Filipinos Overseas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.86.195 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas Wiki Article

[edit]

I am the Information head of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CF0) under the Office of the President of the Phillipine Government. Please bear with us because this our first time to create an article at the wikipedia. Creating CFO article the wikipedia will eliminate the linkage problem when the CFO is clicked at the wiki pedia. As a government agency dedicated to serve the Public specially the Filipinos Overseas which is our main clients, a wiki page about us, programs and services is beneficial.

We have posted an earlier version of the CFO wiki but, and You “king of Hearts” deleted our post.

Please restore our post and also requesting for your help in editing the CFO wiki page in the near future.

Thanks! :) CFOENCODER (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to both this message and the message above. I am sorry, but all content on Wikipedia must be released under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses. Since you have not been verified to be a representative of the commission, you cannot release that material here. To confirm that you have the permission to do so, you must either post a statement on your website saying that the content is released under the GFDL/CC, or email OTRS to confirm your identity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Monkey Ministries

[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the help with AfD. I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sock Monkey Ministries as a delete. Additional references were added to the article during the AfD process. Most importantly, a reference to a full article about the subject[1] in the Houston Chronicle was added a few hours before the close. If I may ask: was the Houston Chronicle reference reviewed during your close? Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     08:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the close, also found an article in Friends & Family magazine (from the Alabama Farmers association), and a few more sources from the United Methodist Church[2][3]. But the Houston Chron article is most likely the strongest ref.

Also there's a small issue with the # of sock monkeys produced. 1200 was mentioned in the Afd, but references note more. this defense.gov article says 4800 since 2005, 2007 article in the Houston Chronicle says 5200, and 2008 article in Shelby County Reporter says 9000.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     11:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but other people who have looked at the sources do not agree that they are sufficient. And the number of sock monkeys produced really doesn't matter. Numbers never inherently confer notability or non-notability. Google is not intrinsically notable for providing 3 billion searches per day; because it provides so many searches per day, the media considers it an important company (as demonstrated by a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources). Numbers are correlated to notability, but only because there tends to be more coverage for high-volume entities.
I have a friend who was covered in two local newspapers (whole articles about him) for his accomplishments. Does that mean he gets his own Wikipedia page? That's the thing about local newspapers: they are generally accepted to prove facts in an article about an already notable subject, but do not count towards showing notability. The Shelby County Reporter sources would fall under this local category, and Friends & Family is of dubious importance. The UMC and DOD sources are not independent. Dallas News is an important newspaper, but the article is a blog, hence not reliable. The Houston Chronicle does work, but that's only one source. Since multiple sources are required, try to find one more that is 1) independent 2) reliable and 3) of national importance (i.e. big city newspaper). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think folks had enough time to review the newly added Houston Chronicle article. I'd agree that the regional papers (Shelby County Reporter, etc) wouldn't be enough alone, but they do add to the independent coverage of the subject outside of the Chronicle article. If you don't agree, would you mind if this goes to WP:DELREV? Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that. But there is an easier solution: Just find another source that meets the guidelines and you can recreate the article yourself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue to search for other refs, of course. In the meantime, what would you think of a redirect/merge into Sock Monkey? Might be possible to then mention 'Operation Sock Monkey'[4][5] also. Thanks     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     14:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the history and redirected it to Sock monkey. Your first link doesn't look like a major newspaper, while your second is minutes from a meeting, which is considered a primary source and not ideal for citation in an encyclopedia. But then again, if newspapers all the way from Alabama to Canada are covering it, it may very well be notable. The huge spread of sources do show "evidence of attention by international or national ... media" (WP:ORG). So when you're ready, replace the redirect with an improved article containing those new sources. (And of course you can use the ones I said were insufficient on their own since you're now using them for verifiability rather than notability purposes.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sock Monkey is a different organization, actually, so not usable for notability of Sock Monkey Ministries. I added them both to the Sock monkey article[6], but an IP editor removed the edits as spam. Any thoughts? Thanks     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, making section headers for them might look a little spammy. Typically articles on generic product don't make sections for companies/organizations that make the product. See fast food for example; McDonald's is mentioned, but not as its own section. Perhaps try to weave the content into the section "Sock monkeys today." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

[edit]

I’d like to move this article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. This way the original editing history for content related to that article is preserved & it can be worked on there for improvement. How do I do that? What I like to do is move the old article which is now a redirect, to the incubator. Then, create a new redirect at the County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida). The article was merged as a result of discussion here, but I believe it qualifies as a strand alone. What do you think? Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Available at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Many thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failure-oblivious computing

[edit]

You realize of course that WP:NOTCLEANUP is an essay not a policy and that it is utter bullshit to assert that references do not need to be attached to an article as long as someone hollowly asserts that they exist somewhere? WP:BURDEN, on the other hand is policy and states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." In light of this would you care to re-examine your close? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I typed a little hastily and WP:NOTCLEANUP should never be a keep rationale but rather a defense against a deletion rationale. What I really meant was that it is due to WP:GNG, which only requires that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." By NOTCLEANUP I am referring to your argument about the "lack of interest in fixing it." Besides, essays are perfectly fine to cite in AfDs as they're just like custom header files in C++; they don't have any intrinsic importance but simply allows the user to #include them rather than typing the entire rationale out when it's pretty much the same reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good but you were supposed to be closing the AFD, not participating in it. The position that a claim that references exist is enough for purposes of AFD is not supported by the GNG. For the purposes of crating an article in the first place that's fine but it's not enough at AFD, and I quote :"once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I guess "seldom" was enough for you in this case but I don't see it. If you discount such statements as invalid it looks to me like there is a consensus to delete or perhaps add the content to some future article that does not yet exist. Normally at AFD we require actual proof, not assertions that there is proof. I don't know why nobody but me seems to be able to understand that by pointing out that nobody seems to want to fix it I am arguing that is because it can't and won't be done. It's not an argument that the article should be cleaned up but rather an argument that it should be deleted. This must be at least the fourth time I have tried to explain that. As you have referenced some other computer gobbledeygook in your reply here I suppose I should have expected nothing less. What the people who edit computing articles don't seem to understand is that an article like this (or the apparent metaphor in the above reply) is gibberish to those of us that don't speak in programmer talk/geekspeak/technobabble/whatever you want to call it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, unspecified. Don't get me wrong, I have closed many AfDs as "delete" precisely because they claimed that there were sources without specifying them. I would prefer to see links, but mentioning "MMM-ACNS 2007 and ICA3PP 2009" (and of course we can't forget about the existing source, Rinard's paper) are specific enough. Stormbay's rebuttal that "The notability is not solidified by the sources indicated" does not make an argument as to why they are inadequate, so they stand. The precedent at AfD is that if specific sources are pointed out and are not refuted by the other side, then the article is kept even if the sources are not inserted into the article itself. Remember that other than blatant copyright violations, unsalvageable original research, etc., the main crux of AfD is notability of a topic, which is independent of the number of sources present in an article on that topic. We have no control over notability; it's the sources that speak for themselves. If you think WP:NOTCLEANUP is a misrepresentation of policy, then you can propose for it to be removed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view. of course presenting sources in an AFD (either as a URL or as a "book chapter and verse" for a print source) is preferable to a vague claim that sources exist somewhere. However, when Uncle G says there are sources, it usually means there are sources. I'm not saying he's always right, nobody is, but he's not exactly one of the super ultra inclusionists who will make any claim just to get an article kept. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you the point about UncleG, I'm not suggesting he was lying or anything, but shouldn't the sources actually be used, not just found? If we say they exist but the article is not expanded by a single word and the refs are not attached to it then what has been accomplished? And even UncleG conceded that it probably does not merit a stand-alone article, we just don't have anywhere to merge it to. In light of that userfication probably should have been considered so it could be stored until such time as we had an appropriate merge target. And again, in reply to King's last remark, I'm not suggesting that NOTCLEANUP misrepresents policy, I'm saying it is simply not a rebuttal to my point as I was not suggesting the article be cleaned up, I was suggesting it be deleted. I don't know why nobody seems to be able to recognize that distinction, maybe I'm not explaining it well. I think nobody has fixed the article not because they don't want to but rather because it can't be done. So far nobody has actually done anything that refutes that assertion. I don't know how to make that any clearer but nobody seems to get it and its frustrating that I keep getting the same irrelevant essay thrown at me as a response. It's a fine essay, I just don't feel like it actually refutes my argument and is being used as knee-jerk substitute for a logical rebuttal. Ok, I'm done ranting, I'll let it go I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could go on and on ... I agree, our main ideological difference is whether the article's not being improved because people are too lazy to do so or because it can't be improved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from relisting the discussion, I didn't participate in the AFD but I've come to the conclusion that the whole "cleanup" issue was a red herring. The original PROD rationale was No sources or other evidence of notability and that's the only issue that should have been considered in this AFD. If the issue is notability, then when we speak of sources, we are speaking of instances of someone "taking note of" the subject. Now these "instances" may or may not be useful as "sources" for information in the article but if multiple "instances" exist then the subject is notable and the article should be in most cases kept. Of course the problem with this view is that you may occasionally run into cases where there are multiple instances/sources that clearly establish notability but few or none of them are useful for writing a balanced article. This can be a problem for BLPs and it's an issue that Jimbo has addressed.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/I-P_editing_battleground_statistics

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you were the sysop who deleted the page I submitted. I apologise for using this account, and possibly confusing you however I managed to forget the password for my first account User:LARPing aint easy and I have created this new one. I looked at the discussion pages and at the I-P talk pages as well and it seems CaroleMooreDC has saved a copy of this deleted page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/I-P_editing_battleground_statistics. Shouldn't that page be deleted also as it is just a recreation of the deleted page? LARPing aint easy 2 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Elsa Moberg

[edit]

The article Elsa Moberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110121233043[reply]

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

[edit]

I became a Wikipedian watching my friend Tarun marwaha struggle to have his first article Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi get posted on the main page. I have learnt from his mistakes. This page, now adequately referenced, still continues to carry the tag inviting more citations which tag need no longer be allowed to stay. Similarly notability etc; of Seemab Akbarabadi and Malik Ram is beyond any doubt and therefore the extraneous tags the relevant pages continue to bear should also be removed. The page Ravinder Kumar Soni is an honestly researched stub that I had posted in good faith with the intention of having it expanded at a later date through my own further study or through someone more knowing who may agree to volunteer. The tags this page carries appeared out of the blue no sooner I had saved the first draft. These discouraging tags are bound to deter one and all. Something should be done about these tags as well. I do respect the learned opinions of my experienced seniors but if I were to approach each one of those seniors who placed these tags I am sure to miss placing my genuine concern. Kindly attend to this concern of mine if you please but protecting these referred pages. Thanks. Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steven Slater for deletion

[edit]

The article Steven Slater is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

deletion of topfive

[edit]

Regarding your deletion post at WP:Articles for deletion/Top Five, can you clarify how you arrived at the "delete" conclusion for me? Of the "Delete" votes:

  • one said that the site was defunct, which is not true.
  • the nominator said "meager coverage at best", but didn't present a counter discussion to the referenced coverage in mainstream media.
  • one said "cleanup tags had been there for years", but WP policy states that article cleanup is not a reason to delete.

I do agree that the article needed help, but in terms of meeting WP's notability and 3rd-party reference guidelines - it certainly qualifies, regardless of what the delete voters said. Certainly qualifies more than some articles that we all have seen and wondered about. Anyway - if you could copy the page content over to my workspace, that would be swell. Thanks much. SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first and third points are valid, but the fact that a few "delete" !voters have poor reasoning is irrelevant. It does not detract from the central argument regarding the "meager coverage"; once that claim is made, it is your responsibility to provide sources that can be discussed. Mentioning "NYTimes, ABC News, Jeopardy" does not tell us which particular articles you are talking about, so the participants cannot evaluate whether they constitute significant coverage. However, I have userfied it to User:SpikeJones/Top Five. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/01&oldid=1072223179"