User talk:Adam9007/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Adam9007, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Adam9007!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sing (Sega Game Music) (May 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Yash! was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sing (Sega Game Music) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Yash! ^(Y) 15:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Enduro Racer page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. CutOffTies (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Further to your tag on my talk page - thanks for that - I wasn't thinking about new pages being put up as 'works in progress'. I will definitely be more charitable in the future. GLG GLG (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A recent edit

You added a speedy template here. I removed it. The user is simply trying to learn to add some text there. Please read WP:UPNOT. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I love pot brownies the taste and the feel. Baconfish69 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I just did it incorrectly. I want to create a page about this new app I think is cool (since one doesn't exist) but I have never created a page before. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btothemcg (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Marking pages

But most of these pages are very short and lacking in context, or they are nonsense, or something like that. I don't mean to bite the newcomers, but if that's what it's like, then I'll stop. But if I wait 10 minutes, then someone will likely have marked it before me. IllogicMink ^{talk about it} 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Compassionate727 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

help

i dont understand why my article acharya vinod kumar ji should be deleted ? like other celebrities m just trying to provide his life facts out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noorwalia (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's still some advertising there. Not to mention no claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Only deletion tags leave a note for the author. When you tag an article please remember to use the message fearure we built-in to the Curation Toolbar. It will help encourage creators to address any issues. For example, did you notify the creator of Green Russians? Fot more information please see WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

KH

Thanks for pointing out that the KH image is 99% likely a hoax, as it was used only in a hoax article. I've filed for its deletion from Commons (and done likewise for a 'related' image from the same uploader). DS (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, you said: "that article was reposted yesterday (on a similar-looking account) and deleted G4, but not before it was prodded for pretty much the same reasons." - I can't find where this article was? Tell me its exact name and I'll see what I can do about the person who submitted it. DS (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• • @DS, it was reposted under a different name: Kira Hara (game). Adam9007 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you; submitter has been blocked. DS (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Berkshire

Hello, Adam9007/Archive 1! I'd like to invite you to join the Berkshire WikiProject. It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Berkshire-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members. BaldBoris 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Entrevert

Thank you for reminding me regarding Speedy criterion - I may have acted out of emotion due to being annoyed with the idea of having a word such as "Entrevert" trademarked! Happy editing Samuel Tarling (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Samtar: This didn't occur to me earlier, but does CSD A11 apply, as it's not a real word and is owned by the author? Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Yunus-bek Yevkuryan

In case you hadn't noticed all those pages say the same thing, I sincerely doubt they're legitimate attempts at an article. C628 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @C628:Yes, I know. I've given up tagging them all because it will take ages. Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to CSD them but I can't figure out a good criteria. C628 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • They appear to be gone now. Adam9007 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I love it when something becomes not my problem. C628 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentorship

I need mentoring i have skitzoaffective disorder. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm the right person, sorry. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I've seen you trolling the New Pages feed lately. To continue, you're going to need a lot of these. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the article it's important for the scavenger hunt. Cyberateed (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Scavenger hunt? Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Battlefield

Hi, Adam90. I wanted to let you know I removed the "possible copyright tag" from the article and replaced with a CSD with the source of the text. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Seems to be an even closer match than I or the CorenSearchBot found! Thanks! Adam9007 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Lankadesigners.com

You are missing the point - award winning means nothing if there're no sources to back it up. A website design company in and of itself is not notable. --Cahk (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Cahk You're missing the point of A7. It's not about notability or sources; it's about the claim of significance itself, and I think there is one. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adam9007: My message to you was based on your edit summary ("award-winning isn't significant?"). A7 states "An article about a ... web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Further "....is a lower standard than notability." Just because someone said they are award-winning, it does not immune the article from A7. As an editor with significantly far more experience in CSD tagging than you do, I think you should read the policies more carefully next time.--Cahk (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cahk: Upon reading this, it looks to me like saying award-winning does make it immune to A7. It is plausible, and it may (though not necessarily will) lead to notability (of course, what the award(s) was/were and why it was awarded matters, but there is still the possibility). However, that is my interpretation, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also, please don't assume that just because I'm relatively new here, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Anita Page

Adam9007 You just notified me that the edits I made to Anita's Early Life were deleted. Please clarify. If you disagree with any of it please let me know. I hope I didn't insult you because that was not my intent. Being Anita's niece, I do have information not necessarily known by the public. I have in my possession family photos, letters, and Muñoz letterhead. I have done research on my ancestors, have located the consul information through US government documents, I have immigration documents, ships manifests, newspaper articles, the book History of Lower Manhattan, and the book Fatal Glory, Narciso Lopez. If you prefer I present the information in another way, please let me know. I stand behind what I said, and would appreciate my information not being summarily dismissed. I think it is right to get the correct information to the public. Many sites repeat the errors, eventually making them appear to be facts. I don't think including correct information can be labeled -not constructive. Envoyxuv Envoyxuv (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Envoyxuv:The content you added wasn't encyclopaedic in any way. Its tone wasn't appropriate, there was original research, and none of it was sourced. I don't think any of it belongs in an encyclopaedia anyway. Also, as you're her niece, you may have a conflict of interest. You may want to discuss this on the article's talk page, as I'm relatively new here and someone more experienced should be able to answer any questions about this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you prefer inaccuries. You may not agree with everything I said since it can be construed as solely my opinion; I have no problem with deleting those items. But I am surprised that an encyclopedia is not interested in facts. You can research the consul facts of both of Anita's grandfathers, their ancestry, and their citizenship. This information is in the public domain. I think it a disservice to the public to continue disseminating false information. I am extremely disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envoyxuv (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Envoyxuv: Not everything belongs in an encyclopaedia. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Oh, and I misinterpreted your edits as vandalism. As you've come to me with these concerns, I see now it wasn't. The way it was written and especially the last bit was what made me think vandal, so my apologies for that. However, that's a moot point; just because it wasn't vandalism (or even if it's true) doesn't mean it was suitable, and they would have been reverted anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm JustBerry.I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ex on the Beach because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JustBerry (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• @JustBerry:I think you made a mistake due to bad timing. I beat you to the vandalism, so you reverted it and brought it back! Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. Please see User_talk:DavidLeighEllis#Double_Revert. Let me ping DavidLeighEllis into the conversation, so we're all on the same page here. --JustBerry (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I was going to revert my own revert, but DavidLeighEllis beat me to it! --JustBerry (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved, no discrepancy or issue present.

Close paraphrasing

Hey Adam. You tagged Continuous Cover Forestry with a close paraphrasing tag. When placing this type of tag it's really good to provide the detail somewhere of what source(s) you are referring to, so this can be followed-up (such as on the article's talk page). In any event, here, a user has posted at the Teahouse, in this section a question related to this tagging. Can you respond? Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Fuhghettaboutit: Sorry about that; for some reason, Twinkle doesn't enable me to specify the source when applying that tag. I know I could have added them manually, but I wasn't sure what the correct way to specify multiple sources is. I've just done it as best as I can. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Adam9007, the simplest method is to create a new section on the article talk page, perhaps with a section name such as "paraphrasing" and write a short note about what you found, along with a list, probably a bulleted list, of the sources that are being improperly paraphrased. An indication of what section(s) or areas of the article include the paraphrased content would also be helpful. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vadym Dovhanyuk

Hi, the promotion aspect is that the article (such as it is) was written by User:Vadym Dovhanyuk. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Eagleash: That simply means there's a conflict of interest; not necessarily promotion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, that's why I put both points in the reason and said possible. Eagleash (talk)

Update: The deletion template has been removed by another editor (with only one edit). Eagleash (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I waited a bit and then restored the tag. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it paranoid of me to think it's probably the original author using a different name? :P Eagleash (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I think it might be. The system seems to think so. Adam9007 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

deletion for pure game guide

i only translate same article from Spanish to English — Preceding unsigned comment added by RezaMF2015 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• @RezaMF2015: That doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate for here. Adam9007 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

i delete sections that may appear to be Pure Game guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by RezaMF2015 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• @RezaMF2015: I'm still seeing what could be considered game guide content. If you can remove all of it and turn the article into at least a valid stub that complies with policies and guidelines, I'll withdraw the nomination. Adam9007 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Adam9007: what is the diffrence between the two pages i mention above? my article is a translated copy of its Spanish page, why Spanish one exist?--RezaMF2015 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sing (Sega Game Music) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sing (Sega Game Music), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jackson William Cowan

There was already a speedy deletion tag on this page when you opened an AfD for it, and the speedy deletion criteria clearly apply. AfD is for controversial deletions. Where an article can be speedied, an AfD is just a waste of time. —Swpb^talk 18:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Swpb:Yes, but the point was, I'm not sure the article can be speedied. Adam9007 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? I've speedied dozens of pages, and that's as speediable as it gets. There wasn't any sort of claim to notability, even an unbelievable one. Are we talking about the same page? The two-line autobiography of a middle school kid, where he "cites" his butthole? I think you should re-read the CSD criteria before going anywhere near New Pages Feed. —Swpb^talk 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:Yes, I'm serious. The claim of significance's credibility is unclear to me, as I'm not sure what "advanced soloist award" is supposed to mean. A7 is not about notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Then let me clarify for you. An unnamed award given to a thirteen year old kid is not a "credible indication of importance". Not even remotely close. Do my cub scout patches and karate trophies count? Don't answer that, and don't remove speedy tags from pages like that again. —Swpb^talk 18:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:If the award is potentially notable, the claim is credible. As I don't know what it is, it believe it is potentially notable. Also, I believe I am allowed to remove speedy deletion tags I disagree with. Can you tell me where it says I'm not? I was under the impression only the article's creator is not allowed to. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Credible, not potential, is the key word; any claim could potentially be significant. The signficance of this claim is not credible. It's not within ten miles of credible. The author didn't even assert significance. You can remove speedy tags for a good reason. You did not have a good reason. In fact, the sort of edit you made was so downright absurd that continued edits of that sort could be grounds for a reprimand. —Swpb^talk 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:Sorry, but I genuinely believe you are wrong. According to this, claims for winning potentially notable awards are credible. I never remove speedy tags for no good reason. All my speedy deletion tag removals are in good faith, which you are clearly not assuming. Adam9007 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm reading lack of COMPETENCE on your part. You are utterly misreading the CSD criteria, in both word and spirit, to a degree I have not seen in ten years on this project. If you choose to ignore what I'm telling you, you may well find yourself blocked for edits that impede the project. Don't take my word for it. Ask the editor who re-tagged the page, or the admin who deleted it, or any other NPP patroller. You are thoroughly wrong here, and you need to get comfortable with that. —Swpb^talk 18:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:A7 is one of the most misued criteria. Is is not about notability or verifiability. Only yesterday, I explained to an editor who has been here for 7 years what A7 actually is (he was tagging articles A7 on notability grounds). I am not misreading the CSD criteria; I have gone over all of it several times. A7 clearly states it's about credible claims. I seem to be one of the few who actually understands it well; I've had editors saying it must be speedied A7 because it's not notable and/or has no sources. They clearly misunderstand A7. If I get more of that sort of thing, I'll suggest the criterion be abolished because it's being misused and misunderstood so much even editors who have been on here for years do not understand it properly as a result. I believe I am correctly using CSD A7, and also that I am right in removing A7 tags in articles which I believe do have a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"I seem to be one of the few". You may have heard that we work by consensus here. If everyone, admins on down, disagrees with you, consider seriously that you are the one with the problem. A7 is working fine for the rest of us. You are not entitled to your own interpretation of the rules; I find your attitude incredibly disturbing. I do intend to check in on your edits and make sure you are not abusing the systems that others have created in good faith. —Swpb^talk 19:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:Even admins aren't always right. Isn't that one of the reasons we have deletion review? I've seen articles deleted A7 which I could have sworn had one or more credible claims described in the A7 mistakes page. I really do not see how I'm misunderstanding A7. If I think it's not notable and there is what I consider to be, or may be a credible claim of significance, I PROD it or take it to AfD, as suggested, instead. Non-notability alone is not a speedy criterion. Adam9007 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this argument. What I am going to do, if I find you removing appropriately-applied CSD tags and wasting others' time, is to give you formal warnings progressing toward a request for admin intervention; i.e., a block. If your behavior continues in this way, I have no doubt such a request will be obliged. —Swpb^talk 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:So far I have kept my cool, but I will not be bullied or intimidated when I believe I am right. I am not abusing the system just by following the rules, and I never once implied that any of the A7 taggings I disagree with were bad faith. I have been doing this for 7 months, and you are the only person who has threatened me over it. And it's not just A7 tags I've removed because I disagree with them. I also don't understand what you mean when you say "I'm not entitled to my interpretation of the rules", yet you seem to be, hence this dispute. I believed there may have been a credible claim of significance, hence I removed the A7 tag, and you disagreed. I think we should just leave it at that. Adam9007 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether we "leave it at that" depends entirely on how you choose to operate going forward. Faith, and intent, are irrelevant. There's the consensus interpretation of CSD, and there's your interpretation. Stick to the former, and you won't have trouble. If that "intimidates" you, so be it. —Swpb^talk 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb:I'm confused. "Consensus interpretation"? Are you saying that the "unofficial" meaning of A7 is non-notability? If so, I think te criterion should be abolished for being too confusing and misleading. Adam9007 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To me (working in the deletion area since 2008), it was a clear A7. I'm slightly puzzled by your edit summary "I'm not entirely sure about the claim's credibility. Also removing vandalism". A routine tagging at CSD isn't vandalism. It only is vandalism as a part of a harassment campaign, or as multiple random (or targeted revenge) tagging following a disgruntled user's pet project being speedied, or similar situations. The admins who work in CSD are fairly experienced, and we do detag things that do pass the policies, or take them to AfD or advise prod when we consider the tagging wasn't appropriate but another form of deletion might be. I'm not here to argue, just to make my position clear. You may take the article to review if you wish. I don't find many of my deletions being overturned, and it doesn't bother me on the rare occasions that they are. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Peridon:Sorry, I should have made it clearer by vandalism, I was referring to the "My Butthole" reference. Adam9007 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That reference was a giveaway clue... Peridon (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would advise both of you to cool it. You are welcome to ask an uninvolved admin (or two or three if you like) to have a look at the article and give an opinion. Peridon (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw this discussion mentioned at another page and I thought it might help to have another voice here - from an uninvolved admin, as suggested by Peridon. Adam, please get the message: you were mistaken about this particular article; it was a clearcut case of A7. You are even more mistaken to keep arguing that your interpretation of A7 is right, in this case and in general, and that all the people who are trying to educate you about it are wrong. You have been doing new page patrol for 7 months; the people who are trying to educate you have been doing it for many years. Wikipedia editing is a learning process, especially at first. Personally I made lots of mistakes or misinterpretations when I was starting out, nine years ago, and I am grateful to the people who helped me to refine my understanding. That's the attitude I recommend for a relative newcomer such as yourself. As for A7: the claim of significance has to be specific and credible, not vague and undefined. I have been told that my own interpretation of A7 is more narrow that most people's, but even I realize that an article about a 13 year old kid who plays the saxophone and is in the Scouts and may have won some kind of award does not belong at Wikipedia - not for any longer than it takes to tag it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• @MelanieN:Having reviewed all the info on A7 I could find (here, here, here, here, and here) I still believe my interpretation of it is correct. Maybe you mean my interpretation of what constitutes a credible claim of significance is wrong? Take the Lankadesigners discussion (no, this discussion we're having now isn't the first time an editor has confronted me about A7 tag removals) above. The editor who tagged it did so because of notability, which, to me, is clearly not what A7 is about. The claim "award-winning" to me was credible, because a Google search for "Lankadesigners awards" may well have established notability, if such notability existed. It's the same here. My understanding is that the mere fact that notability doesn't exist is not a speedy criterion, only the lack of indication of potential notability. If I'm wrong about A7, and if it is so open to interpretation, I think it should be scrapped for that reason. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Adam, I appreciate your determination to follow the rules. But you are taking the wording of certain parts of the guideline way, way too literally, while ignoring the rest of the guideline. From Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, I think this may be what is confusing you: At first it says "A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability." That's a very extreme statement, and that is what you are basing your opinion on. But the same guideline later modifies that extremely limiting statement in several places - for example "A good mental test is to consider each part discretely: a) is this reasonably plausible? and b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable?" and "Conversely, an article describing a subject whose main claim to fame is that they've been the top of their class for the last four years would pass a, since it's quite plausible for that to be true, but not pass b, since that kind of thing is not likely to lead to notability." Notice the word "notable"; it really is the bottom line here. The guideline also defines a claim of significance as "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical articles for deletion discussion to keep the article" - which would mean that some people would find the subject to be notable. In other words, there has to be some suggestion that the claim of significance is itself significant, and that notability is at least implied. That is not the case when, for example, an article describes the subject as "award winning" without any details. That is not a credible claim.
    To take a broader view: The reason we have speedy deletion and PROD is to identify and remove articles that do not qualify for a Wikipedia article, when such a determination is likely to be uncontroversial. It is to get rid of obviously unsuitable articles without wasting the community's time at AfD discussions. I took a look at your recent contributions and I see that you have repeatedly removed speedy and prod tags, even in articles that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. That really violates the spirit and purpose of those tags. I'll show you examples, if you like. But the bottom line is: please listen to what everybody is telling you, and bring your speedy criteria in line with the community's understanding. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @MelanieN:I'd have thought award-winning is significant, even without details, because not every company wins awards, and I'm sure the vast majority don't. I think it passes both a and b. And it doesn't actually say notable; it says lead to notability. My interpretation of that is that it doesn't have to establish notability, but merely point in the general direction, which I thought it did. That article was discussed at AfD and deleted on notability grounds. But anyway, yes I would like to see some examples where you disagree with my deletion tag removals, because I don't see how they were inappropriate; I wouldn't have done so otherwise. With all this confusion, I believe it is A7 that needs changing; what it says and the community's interpretation of it seem to differ significantly (no pun intended). I also feel I should point out I have Asperger's Symdrome; I believe it is in our nature to go for the letter rather than the spirit, as I said to Peridon. Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Adam, you are welcome at Wikipedia, and Apserger's is neither a problem nor an excuse; some of our best editors have various syndromes and conditions, disclosed or undisclosed. One of the reasons I am spending so much time with you is that I believe you have the makings of a fine contributor to Wikipedia; you are clearly here to build an encyclopedia. With that said, you ARE going to have to learn how things are interpreted here, and to accept suggestions and instruction from other people. You have a pattern of trying to impose your own interpretation of the speedy and prod criteria, rather than being willing to accept WP:CONSENSUS, which by the way is policy. (BTW with regard to your comment "I'd have thought award-winning is significant, even without details, because not every company wins awards, and I'm sure the vast majority don't." Actually, every company DOES win awards, or claims to; the "awards" they claim may turn out to be things like membership in the local chamber of commerce, or "one of the 100 fastest growing companies in this county", or "third runner up for best Mexican food in the city". Without a specific name of a specific award - one which might actually be a notable award - "award winning" means about as much as "his mother thinks he is smart".)

So, I looked to see if there were other articles where you have inappropriately removed speedy or prod tags, and then either sent the articles to AfD or just left them in the encyclopedia. I found several:

• Ali Mohamed Essa Eshaqi - The article is a one-sentence, unreferenced statement that the person is president of a non-notable sports association. It had been PRODded, quite properly. You removed the PROD, sending it to AfD. Your reason for removing the tag was "credible claim of significance", but that was not an appropriate rationale; that is the criterion for speedy deletion, not PROD. The criterion for proposed deletion is that the subject probably does not meet Wikipedia standards to have an article here - in other words, notability. PROD allows a week for anyone to object to deletion or to improve the article. PROD was the appropriate way to tag this article. It did not have to go through AfD, and there is no doubt what the outcome of the AfD discussion will be.
• Isaiah Bascombe You PRODded it initally, but it was appropriate for A7 speedy, and someone later it tagged A7. I see it is now speedy deleted per A7. It was about a high school footballer. The person who deleted it is an administrator with 10 years experience and more than 100,000 edits.
• Spanish Tutors Hong Kong This is a small private tutoring service. What was the "credible claim of significance" that you referred to when you removed the A7 tag? I have PRODded it.
• Nedim Malicbegovic You removed the speedy tag and sent it to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedim Malicbegovic, but it was speedy deleted anyhow, within the hour, per A7. It was about a 17 year old who plays online games. The person who speedy-deleted it is an administrator with 12 years experience and more than 100,000 edits.
• I'm not saying that all your tagging is wrong; quite the contrary. Most of your speedy deletion nominations actually do get speedy deleted, and I see that you are good about watching the articles so that when someone removes the speedy tag, you restore it. That's good. You are doing valuable work with your New Pages Patrol. You just seem to have this one blind spot with regard to A7 criteria. Please accept the advice of virtually everyone you have encountered here, and recognize when an article needs to be speedied per A7. As I said, Consensus is policy, and if you continue to insist on your own interpretation against the advice of virtually everyone, your future here could be in jeopardy. With that said, consensus can change, and if you are unable to accept the consensus people have been sharing here, you can go to WT:Credible claim of significance or WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, point out the discrepancy between one part of the guideline and another, make your case for a change of wording or of interpretation, and see how people respond. In the meantime, I urge you not to remove any more A7 tags until your disagreement with the community is resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:

• Ali Mohamed Essa Eshaqi - I didn't remove the PROD; the author did. Hence I sent it to AfD. And it was a speedy tag I removed on that basis, not a PROD tag.
• Spanish Tutors Hong Kong - "Currently Spanish Tutors Hong Kong is one of the accredited learning centres by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong" seemed a credible claim of significance to me. I see your PROD has been contested however, so it looks like it'll have to go through AfD after all. Adam9007 (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Nedim Malicbegovic - I wasn't sure if/how A7 applied, and have asked the deleting admin about it. Adam9007 (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You are quite right about Ali; I misread the history. You gave that rationale in response to an A7 tag. Since the earlier prod had been challenged, you are right that it could not be prodded again; AfD was the only option. I apologize for the error.
  • Re "Spanish Tutors", 1) being accredited by a local Chamber of Commerce is not a claim of significance; most businesses in most cities belong to a Chamber of Commerce; all it means is that they paid their dues. And 2) the link cited for that claim does not support the claim, or did not at the time. The author has now added a better link, but all it shows is that the Chamber of Commerce lists this company, along with eight other such companies - probably every such company in town. That's not a claim of significance. Yes, the article's author removed the PROD, as they have a right to do, so the community will have to make a decision on that one. Any bets on the outcome?
  • When you have a question about a deletion, asking the deleting administrator is definitely the best approach. Please do listen to what they say. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing that I'll add is that experience does come in in assessing articles. The admins that work in CSD tend to have fairly wide experience both IRL and onwiki. You can learn a lot about the world simply by patrolling and watching. Quite a few of our best admins have come 'up' through CSD and AfD. And I'm not including myself there - I stick to what I know about and keep out of the drama areas, and have just resisted an attempt to get me to run for the Arbitration Committee. I'd be a waif off the street put onto a Parliamentary Committee or the High Court. Back in 2008, I had never even heard the term 'drop a mixtape' (being into heavy metal rather than rap or hiphop), but I quickly learned what it meant and that it wasn't a claim to significance - the reverse being the case. If you've dropped one, you may or may not be significant. If yours is still being worked on, or you haven't even tried, you are definitely not significant. That's for rappers/hiphoppers only, BTW. Tarja Turunen hasn't dropped one. As to Chambers of Commerce, they're a bit like the old guilds. They're there to promote their members' businesses. Membership means no more than having a LinkedIn page or being a Microsoft Partner. This sort of stuff you pick up on the job. Awards can be notable - at national level. School awards aren't even significant. Do have a look at the CSD talk page, but go cautiously without laying down the law as you see it. And remember that some of the most severe voices there are never seen in CSD itself. Peridon (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

You can move this to your user page if you want to keep it. (I often forget to do it, and they end up in my archives.) Peridon (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Second the motion. Great discussion, thanks for starting it. Please continue to participate in it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And so, apparently, we continue (formally this time)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at GMovies (Get Inside, Not In Line). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Swpb^talk 15:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: This is not helpful. As you can see above, several of us are trying to educate Adam about the proper application of A7. And in fact, Adam's removal of the A7 tag in the case you are talking about happened BEFORE most of our discussion with him. I would appreciate it if you would wait a few days to see if education works, before applying templated threats. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right; I misread the timestamps. Not sure a few days are necessary though; the lesson either sunk in or it didn't. I don't see more leeway as helpful. —Swpb^talk 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I removed it because it was clearly not in any A7 category. Am I right MelanieN? Adam9007 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. The article as it was when you removed the tag was clearly suitable for A7. It consisted entirely of "GMovies is one of the first online movie ticket reservation app available on iOS and Android in the Philippines. The website provides movie schedules, reviews and features movie trailers." There is no claim of significance in that article. A7 applies to "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events"; this article is either about an organization (which includes companies) or a website. So A7 is quite appropriate to apply here , and "one of the first available on iOS and Android in the Philippines" is not a significant claim. The article has since been expanded a little and it now reads "GMovies is a movie ticket reservation app that provides an app for both iOS and Android in the Philippines. The app and its website also provides information on movies now showing and coming soon in cinemas, movie schedules, trailers, reviews and synopses". Someone has re-tagged it for A7, and before that the author himself tagged it for G7, so it should be gone soon. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I will pop in here and say that apps are a funny sort of thing. A7 applies to web content such as YouTube, web sites and games played on a distant server. It doesn't apply to software run on your own machine. Apps are software on your machine that access things online. The site is liable to A7, but the app isn't, IMO - but don't take that as gospel. Browsers access things online from the home, but they count as software. I don't think we've had a real test case anbout it. This leads to opinions about whether an article is about an app or about the website it's accessing. The title can be a guide, but it can be argued that even though an article is entitled 'Herbert Bloggs' it's really about BloggsCo as four fifths of it is about the company. While we're at it, what's the latest figure for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin? Some of the arguments that go on in Wikipedia make the mediaeval Church look quite sane and rational. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:The beginning of the article reads "GMovies is a movie ticket reservation app for both iOS and Android". It (to me) clearly identifies that the subject is an app; a piece of software. Software isn't covered by A7, and it only mentions the website in passing, so I don't think the article qualifies for A7. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's currently tagged for both A7 and G7; let's see what an administrator decides to do. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:It's been deleted G7 alone, so it looks like I was right. Adam9007 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks to you and Peridon. I learned something. Further comment: I thought of this article as being about a company, and so apparently did Swpb (tagging it as db:corp). But apparently apps are regarded as somewhere in the middle, not web content, not companies. I guess that made sense to somebody. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:I don't see how an app can be classed as a company. As for web content, just because it works on the web or is available on the web doesn't mean it's web content. It isn't a web app (which I suppose could be considered web content as much as software); it runs directly on a platform. I saw it as an entirely separate category. There is a similar situation here. Someone tagged it CSD A7 for web content, but I'm pretty sure it's platform software. The author removed the tag, but I didn't restore it in this case because I saw no sense in restoring a tag I disagree with. I have since taken it to AfD on notability and WP:GAMEGUIDE grounds. Should I have restored the A7 tag even though I disagree with it? Adam9007 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly, you should replace it and then remove it. Sounds silly, but if you just leave it, no-one will know that you disagree with it. The next reviewer will just replace it themselves. I've had inconclusive arguments about this before. If you're not sure but think something is wrong - look it up on Google. Then speak with a voice of authority and carry a reliable independent source. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Google? Really? --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon:@MelanieN:@Swpb:I've stared a discussion about A7 at CSD's talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, you marked PRINCIPLE TO AVOID CONDENSATION for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, but did not say what is is a violation of. When I checked several texts in the article I find nothing. So I have declined the delete. Please say what this is a violation of. It is poorly written enough that I suspect it is original writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett:A lot of it appears to have been copied from either this or this; I cannot tell which as they appear to be the same. As you've declined G12, I've listed it at Copyright Problems. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Bus parker Pokemon

The only Google results for "bus parker" "pokemon" are completely unrelated, except for the same article at bus-parker.wikia.com. I've just speedied the larger bus image over at Commons for blatantly being a bad photoshop of a particular stock clipart bus. I don't know the first thing about Pokemon, but this is clearly something a kid has just made up. --McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And ah, never mind, I see you've speedied it as made-up-by-creator. Seems more like a hoax to me - the article is earnestly pretending that the writer hasn't made it up and that it's really in the Pokemon game except you probably won't find it because mumble. But I guess the closing admin will get the idea either way. --McGeddon (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon:The way it's admitted on the talk page ("popular hoax"?) suggests to me to be merely made up, rather than a proper, malicious hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, hadn't seen that. The article itself doesn't describe itself as a hoax, though. --McGeddon (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon:Hmm.. The G3 criterion implies vandalism, which I'm not entirely sure this is (though it may be). Whether this is a hoax/vandalism or not I don't know, but it's certainly made up at the very least. Though all hoaxes are of course made up, not everything made up is a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if you've made it up but are pretending that you haven't made it up, it's a hoax. Since there are no sources to support it either being a real Pokemon or it being a "famous hoax", I suppose it's a hoax either way, really. A hoax Pokemon or a hoax hoax. Either way, it's gone now. Happy new page patrolling. --McGeddon (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Will you stop???

Stop reverting my edit. The last article was tagged for a REASON! So stop it! The Channel of Random (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• @The Channel of Random:Which is? You tagged articles for invalid CSD, which I'm not entirely sure they were even good faith because of the way they were worded. Adam9007 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AFK (webseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Chloe pullen

Hi, thank you for identifying and tagging this page for speedy deletion. I notice, in passing, that you welcomed the author. Someone with such a combination of edit and username is never realistically going to be a constructive editor and therefore I have indef blocked them. In such clear cases I think that the better course of action would have been to report them at WP:AIV. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Just Chilling: I think it automatically welcomes the user if he has no talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah; I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the heads up. I think that in such cases it is important to report or warn the editor. I have just indeffed User:Fucboi69 (the author of Pain 975). This is perhaps not an automatic AIV report but certainly at least needing a warning. Sorry if all this sounds critical, it's not intended to be because all your hard work is appreciated, but I notice that you might wish to be a sysop in due course and you might find these thoughts helpful. Just Chilling (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: Thanks. I would have done had he persisted. I only added that userbox today (well, technically yesterday I suppose), but I'm not sure if I'm quite ready for it just yet given certain recent disputes here on my talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sam Pilgrim

What would you like me to add to this page so you don't delete it? Rileyschneider (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rileyschneider: A Credible claim of significance, preferably notability, and preferably with reliable sources to back it up. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

About a speedy deletion tag that you removed

You removed the {{db-web}} tag from Trykaro, with the edit summary Not exclusively web content. Well, as it happens, A7 applies to websites too and Trykaro is solely a website. The person has supplied zero references and just an external link to source his clearly not NPOV content. Hence, I've reverted your edits. Hope you don't mind. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you undid my edits. Please restore the speedy deletion tag. Thank you. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: The article also states it's a mobile platform, which is software. A7 does not cover software. References are also irrelevant as far as A7 is concerned. Adam9007 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I've checked it out. It's just a website, the store's located at [1] which is probably responsive, hence dubbed as a platform. Also, I don't understand what you mean by references are irrelevant. References are required to establish notability, without which, an article isn't credible in any way. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits again. You're not replying hence I suppose you understood what I said. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Give me a chance. Adam9007 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Upon reading it, I get the impression it's about as piece of software that happens to be available in both web and platform versions. WP:A7 states references are irrelevant for its purposes. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, upon reading it again, it seems G11 may apply, but I'll leave it as it is. Adam9007 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page of the article. Also, please do not strikethrough other people's comments. The only time you should even modify someone else's comments if there's a typo/grammatical error or you're redacting it because of a personal attack. Going off for the night. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought my striking of your comment came under the exceptions detailed in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, but oh well. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

None of this matters, as it's a copyvio. Adam9007 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of DPI Specialty Foods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DPI Specialty Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPI Specialty Foods 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bazj (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: Why have I got this message? I didn't create that article. Adam9007 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors Bazj (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: I see. I had always thought that template was intended for the author only. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think most of the time the deletion sorting process ticks the box. Since your edit summary suggested you'd considered the issues, and HW restrained himself to one of his less offensive CSD removals, it seemed reasonable and unbiased to alert all involved editors. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer (video game)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ridge Racer (video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer (video game)

The article Ridge Racer (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ridge Racer (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer (video game)

The article Ridge Racer (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ridge Racer (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

hi

are you a single guy that is 12 to 13

Kawaiichicken111 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kawaiichicken111: No. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

how old are you Kawaiichicken111 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kawaiichicken111: I'd rather not say. Why do you want to know? Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

cause i am 12 and i want a guy close to my age to talk about football Kawaiichicken111 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kawaiichicken111: No. Sorry. You have the wrong person I'm afraid. Adam9007 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Atongko(Film)

The page Atongko(Film) was also previously deleted as a afd-so I put that as a deletion tag. Wgolf (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Gameguide

Hey Adam, thanks for your gameguide tags. I'm not sure how you're coming across them, but is there anything holding you back from addressing them yourself? It's sometimes easier to delete the offending section than to tag the article. Either way, thanks for your contributions and welcome to WP:VG. czar 23:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czar:Depends on the complexity of the case. There was a simple one in Thunder Force III I removed myself, but others had larger amounts of it and I'm relatively inexperienced in making such big changes to articles. Adam9007 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, of course, but don't be afraid to be bold. And if I can be helpful, feel free to leave a ping. See you around, czar 23:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Adam, just wanted to encourage you again to be bold instead of tagging articles, especially when the changes are relatively minor. If you know enough to identify something as out of place, you know enough to see how it can be improved. Otherwise, when you tag, someone (like me) has to redo the work of figuring out what's wrong—at least for the general cleanup tags. (For instance, what's the issue at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)?) czar 21:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I tend to tread carefully unless it's blatantly obvious, especially for games I've never played. I'm also wondering how you do it so quickly! It would have taken me a lot longer to go through and correct it all, even for obvious things. As for what's wrong with that game, I'm not sure about the soundtrack and "Curiosities" (a rather odd section for an encyclopaedia) sections. Adam9007 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the curiosities section is an easy delete. (Generally, I'd either tag unsourced paragraphs with {{citation needed}} if it could be useful to have them sourced, but if there's little hope, I'd just remove it per WP:V.) WPVG consensus is to only include tracklists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own, which it somewhat does in this place, with articles about the soundtrack itself. If it might not be obvious what needs to get addressed, I'd appreciate if you would note the issue in the gameguide cleanup tag. Also, for what it's worth, cleanup tags are usually reserved for big, sweeping issues—I know you've seen the articles with all sorts of video game trivia, so tagging for a single section (easily deleted) is a bit overkill. Remember that the intent is getting the articles into a readable state, not necessarily turning them around. czar 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: The reason I'm afraid to be bold is because someone might decide I'm wrong and, instead of civilly discussing the issue, have a go at me and call me incompetent and threaten to report me, as has happened in the past (not with video game stuff though). As for tracklists, I know Jaguar: disagrees and has encouraged me to add album info (is that different to merely a game's tracklist? I think it is.) to Ridge Racer (video game), which I'm hoping to get to FA status (I had already got it to GA before I added the album info), so I hope I haven't introduced WP:GAMECRUFT there! Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In the end, you have to do what's comfortable. One way to handle situations like that is to be bold and don't engage if reverted—you could instead leave me (or another editor) a message asking what we think as a neutral party, so the burden isn't on you and you don't feel any obligation to follow-up on the edit. If a soundtrack isn't the subject of dedicated articles, there likely won't be a need for its own section within the article. If there is coverage of the soundtrack, it would need to be included for the GA/FA "breadth" requirement. As for Ridge Racer, I wouldn't say the tracklisting is particularly necessary (given its lack of specific coverage in the one soundtrack review), but I wouldn't care too much to fight it. czar 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

ignore me

Accidentally undid an edit you reverted...Cursor jumped as I went to click on a link. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: Yes, I saw it and I hit rollback AGF but you beat me to it!. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Higher.

Hi, I saw your removing {{db-a9}} from Higher. Can you explain why you think it does not meet WP:CSD#A9? 153.207.192.143 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because some of the producers had articles. A9 requires that nobody involved has an article.Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Rush Website Copyright removal

Hi Adam,

I'm the webmaster (and ICT teacher) at St.Joseph's School in Rush. Thanks for your message about copyright.

I was puzzled as to how our school web intro was copyrighted but you rightfully spotted a copyright notice at the bottom of the old school website.

This copyright text was an artefact from a website template that wasn't taken out (and probably should have been). I know the former ICT head who wrote it and they certainly didn't apply for any copyright. In any case, as the person now in charge of the school website, I'm more than happy for wikipedia to use some or all of it.

I'm having the first year students do research and find new material and sources to add to the page (which I will add if it's up to Wikipedia standards).

So would your suggestion be to paraphrase this and reference rather than block copy?

Many thanks,

Mr. D Murray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcuish (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dcuish: Another possibility is that copyright was automatically granted without anyone having to apply for one. Content on such websites is almost always copyrighted, even without a copyright notice. This means that even if there wasn't one it would still have been deleted on the assumption that it was a copyright violation. There is no indication that the text has been released under a compatible licence (see the links provided in my earlier message), so for legal reasons we must assume it has not been. If you are the copyright holder and would like to use the text here you should read WP:Donating copyrighted materials, and as you are the webmaster and a teacher and are having students find material for the page, you should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Bear in mind that there is no such thing as allowing use of the text on Wikipedia only, because content on Wikipedia is meant to be freely distributable; the text must be licensed so that anyone can use it. Or you could simply write it in original words, without using any of the text from the website. You should do that if you do not want others using and modifying the text on the website. Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meow ^^ Thanks for reviews my wikipedia!

Samet Chan (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to use talk page

I do not understand how to use a talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzly420 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well you posted this message? Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag

You are not an admin; why did you remove the speedy tag from Office warranty? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it does not come under any A7 category; a real person, organisation, individual animal, band/singer, web content, or organised event. Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Nothing in the description of that tag says you have to give a category, and this abstract notion doesn't fit into any of them. How about we restore the tag and let an admin judge this? Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it does ask you to give a category; the template asks that you use one of the specific ones. A7 only applies to articles whose subject is in one of those categories, so there's no point in restoring the tag. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, using the template without a category is just fine. it is one of three examples there. I am going to restore it. Please do not remove it. If you are correct, an admin will remove it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but using the "plain" A7 template for things outside its scope is not fine. A7 clearly does not apply. And as I am not the page's creator, I am perfectly entitled to remove speedy deletion tags. You'll just be wasting an admin's time. Adam9007 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask - how do you suggest we nuke the article? Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There are other deletion processes. Adam9007 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, tell me which one you think is most appropriate. I am asking since you have intricate knowledge of things. BIG HINT - help solve problems. Especially if you are an admin hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have suggested PROD if you think this is unsalvageable. But as we're arguing about it and others may disagree, perhaps it should be taken to AfD instead. Adam9007 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

same page, already prodded it. I will not waste the community's time with an AfD. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm having trouble finding sources. But if this was speedied, it would have been sent to DRV, where it would likely have been overturned and sent to AfD. You should have PRODded it in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You don't need to be an admin to decline bad speedies; merely an editor who isn't the article's creator (check the fifth paragraph of WP:CSD). For what it's worth, I contested numerous speedies (personal favourite) before getting the tools; indeed, doing that was a specific plus point to get them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And also to add: Adam9007 is quite correct that A7 applies ONLY to the categories listed at WP:A7: "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". It applies only to those named categories and specifically does NOT apply to other things such as "books, albums, software, or other creative works;" schools are also specifically excluded. I have been tripped up by this before, for example when I tried to apply A7 to a product (companies are OK, but products are not). Such articles can be prodded or AfD'ed but not speedied. I have sometimes disagreed with Adam9007 about what constitutes a "credible claim of significance" in speedy deletion, but on this point about categories he is absolutely correct. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Last time most certainly won't count as a plus if I ever have a RfA. As far as he was concerned, I was disruptive, incompetent, and deserved to be blocked!. Though if I recall correctly, MelanieN: here disagreed. @MelanieN: Another thing that irritates me is editors thinking that can squeeze/force certain things into one of the A7 categories, such as apps (i.e. computer programs) into the corporation category if it happens to be named after the company that developed it, or into web content if the article mentions it's downloadable form somewhere on the web. Adam9007 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledged at WT:SPEEDY that Adam9007 was correct about the use of A7 and that I was wrong and I also noted there, that I acted poorly in the discussion above. I'm acknowledging that here as well. That is all my bad.

This dispute led me to look at other speedy removals by Adam and I agree that Adam's judgement when it comes to "credible claim of significance" is off too often. This was discussed at WT:SPEEDY and others have urged him to recalibrate that Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The distinction among web content, software, and apps is subtle, as is the distinction between companies and products; I have more than once been tripped up in that area. As for the discussion you linked to (at which I agreed with everyone else in finding your interpretation to be incorrect), that was quite a while ago, and I think you have listened and learned since then. You do interpret the speedy criteria very literally and narrowly. But to a somewhat lesser extent, so do I (as was pointed out at my RfA). --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Maybe it's not that my interpretation too narrow, but rather others' is too wide? I'm not saying I think that is certainly the case; it's just a thought. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. If you find that you are WAY out of line with what everyone else is doing, it becomes not a matter of who is "right" but rather what the consensus interpretation is. That's not to say there can't be a range of interpretation; of course there can, and there is. But if a person is a lone outlier they may need to soften their position per consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec x a lot)The problem I have with bad speedies isn't necessarily that I think the subject is super-notable and deserves to have an article praising them to skies. Rather, it is when people discover an article has been speedied, they get the standard boilerplate to refer to WP:CSD. If they believe what is written there contradicts their experience, they will think Wikipedia admins are bullies, because Wikipedia is a public place that anyone can read and inform opinions about. (I do have emails and private messages documenting this, but nothing that can be reliably proven by Wikipedian standards, plus I don't want to "name names".) So we must make absolutely sure that speedies are watertight and can always be backed up perfectly with policy if any are challenged. For the record, I am no stranger to deleting stuff, either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My understanding is that admins are not obliged to delete anything (expect attack pages and copyvios) even if it meets the criteria. I think a lot of editors don't seem to understand that apart from G10 and G12 (and possibly G3 and G1 too, though I'm not sure about those), meeting the criteria means that it may be deleted, not must be. That might explain why some editors get shirty when I remove speedy tags if they think it should be deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You are perfectly within your rights to remove a speedy tag; just don't be surprised if the nominator promptly tags it with PROD. If you seem to have a pattern of removing speedy tags inappropriately, you will hear from the community, as you have already discovered. And of course admins are never obliged to delete anything; our responsibility is to make the final judgment call whether to delete it or not. That's why we are admins. BTW some of us (hi, Ritchie) are known for sometimes declining the deletion and instead improving the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's step back and take a look at the broader picture. As I understand it (this was before my time), "speedy deletion" was in itself kind of a controversial creation. All other deletion actions provide for some kind of community input and deliberation time. But speedy permits instant deletion, possibly within minutes, with the input only of the person who tagged it and the administrator who deleted it. So they deliberately set strict limits on what kinds of articles could be speedy deleted. In the years since it was established, there may have been a kind of informal relaxing of some of the rules, such that many people now try to use speedy deletion as a kind of catch-all for any article that obviously deserves to be deleted. Most people still strictly observe the "categories" of articles that may be speedy deleted, although as discussed here there are some gray areas. But even some of the explanations at WP:A7 now seem to allow for a "notability" test, which specifically was not a criterion for A7 at first. Although there may be an unofficial consensus to allow this, it can be argued (under a kind of "strict constructionism") that the original intent of the criteria should be observed, and thus that articles may not be A7ed for "notability" as long as they make a credible claim of significance. That's where Adam comes from, and it's a defensible position. On the other hand, "credible claim of significance" needs actual judgment applied. Vague claims like "award winning" or "first" or "fastest growing" or "prominent" - these are not enough in themselves; the award needs to be specified so we can judge if it actually amounts to anything, the "first" needs to be significant rather than trivial, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I believe it was Peridon: that said I should go for the spirit rather than the letter, and I think that "unofficial" interpretation of A7 goes against the spirit as well as the letter. If the intent changes, I think it should be implemented as a new criterion to avoid confusion, like A6 was replaced with G10. Adam9007 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My mention of spirit rather than letter came (I think) in an attempt to defuse an escalating dispute. There are cases where determining the actual letter isn't easy - is it m or n, or i or j - or even ı? Here's three possible articles with different scenarios. An article entitled 'The Church of the Golden Heart' isn't immediately obvious from the title. Are they a Church, or is it a church? (Upper and lower case used intentionally there.) If, when you read it, it's about 12 people (on a good day) meeting in someone's front room on Saturday mornings. That's almost certainly an A7. If, when you read it, it's about a brick building that was built in 1920 and has fallen down three times (without killing anyone as it was disused at the time), then it's not an A7. It's a prod and/or AfD. Now for the crunch. This time, the article talks about the Church of the Golden Heart meeting IN the church of the Golden Heart. It's 12 people again, meeting in a ratty non-notable building that has been used under several different names by other sects/cults/faiths/whatever. As neither of them has any interesting history, the article is well balanced and totally non-encyclopaedic. It's 50% an A7 case, and 50% a prod case. The letter would probably say it must be prod and delay the inevitable for possibly two weeks. The spirit (the Spirit of the Great Iar, one of the gods of encyclopaedias) says 'Heck - A7 it'. Apps are fairly certainly not A7 - unless one is lucky and the company has the same name and the article talks about both. I admit to being baffled recently by something about a Wordpress plug-in. Is that used on your machine or theirs? I played the part of the Pharisee and happily went to play somewhere else (I wasn't Sad-u-cee...). (No, I'm not apologising for that one.) Now, to someone who knows about Wordpress, that would have been obvious. Just as to me (who can't really read Bosnian), an article IN Bosnian recently was a blatant hoax. (I do know something about scientific names and wildlife and it took only two words to decide me. I did look at the Google Translation afterwards purely out of curiosity.) Discussions like this are worthwhile, and we can all learn from them. I think you're learning, and we could well see you with a mop in a few years. And by the way, The Church of the Golden Heart is fictional and not a reference to Golden Heart Ministries (who don't seem to have an article here, but came up on Google). Peridon (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: If it's 50% A7 and 50% PROD, I'll PROD it. The end result is the same and it won't harm anyone it's up for a few days. It follows both the spirit and the letter, and a chance to fix it has been given. Going back to what constitutes a credible claim of significance, there's isn't much to go by, and MrX: says I shouldn't go by what little we do have. What's the point in having those essays then? It would make life a hell of a lot easier if there was an official policy that dictates what's a credible claim of significance and what isn't. With all this talk about consensus and common practice, people seem to be forgetting that I'm not telepathic. If the community thinks something, it should be made official policy and documented in writing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm encouraged by Peridon's participation in it. NPP is an area where experience and "clue" are more important than following a ruleset. When I first started reviewing new pages from new editors, I tended to tag a lot of articles for speedy deletion. Naturally, other editors and admins left corrective messages on my talk page, which helped me understand not only the importance of policy, but also the importance of using good judgement. I also started keeping a CSD log, to track and review my speedies. This feedback has helped considerably. 4500+ speedy deletions later, I still make mistakes, but I do try to learn from them. I would say that fewer than 2% of my speedy deletion nominations are declined by admins or other editors. When they are declined, and I still think an article is beyond salvation, I usually take it to AfD. I find that PROD is too easily removed, usually without explanation.- MrX 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• big picture here is that WP is awash in promotional editing - there is a firehose of crap being poured into WP (by "crap" i mean promotionally written, badly sourced or unsourced, "postings" - I won't even call them "articles" - that don't come close to providing the public with "accepted knowledge"). This is something that comes with being "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and being so important. Lots of people come here to promote themselves or to promote something; that is just human.

We all know there is an underlying tension in the WP community between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" - between those who are focused on growth and those who are focused on quality.

We just had an AfD on an article about a preacher Phil Waldrep that was recently dramatically expanded by his staff and was garbage. I gave a quick effort to fixing it - did a quick google search for sources and found nothing much so I AfDed it. An editor showed up who !voted to keep, and while the AfD was ongoing he completely re-wrote the artcile by using lexis-nexus and getting good sources with which to write good content. In response I removed my delete !vote as nominator and the AfD was closed "keep" and my withdrawal was one of the reasons cited. (the AfD is here) I respect what that editor did.

But blocking efforts to get rid of promotional garbage (WP:PROMO is policy mind you) and not fixing it, is hard for me to even understand. Please recalibrate your judgement on those speedy reversions, Adam. Please. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: They were A7 tags. If I thought they were promo I would have changed them to G11. Adam9007 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

is everything a nail to you? I am asking you to consider the problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think A7 is the only criterion I consider? Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't know what you consider. What I can see is that you removed speedy tags from four garbage articles and did nothing more to fix the problem they were trying to address. That is just unhelpful from my perspective. Please keep in mind the torrent of garbage. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that what Jytdog is saying here is 'Don't take a speedy tag off without addressing any problem that is there' - by retagging correctly, using other means, or declaring somewhere accessible why you think the article is worthy of staying as it is. Or by fixing the article, of course. My point about the 50-50 article is that was that deletion was inevitable - it wasn't an article intended to be part of an encyclopaedia. It was an attempt by one of the few members of the Church to get publicity ("those ******s at St Bogwith's have an article, why shouldn't we?"). Promo doesn't always consist of vast quantities of meaningless PR speak (I commented to one author that in all the paragraphs of his article, I could find no indication of what the hell the company actually did. I think I might have upset him. He never replied, anyway.) Artspam (article spam) is not as blatant as that. It's the stuff found in directory entries - telling the current position and products/services of a company that is not going to be shown as notable and is not shown as being significant now. There is an industry based on SEO - getting entries on Google to the top. Fairly obviously, they can't all succeed, but they don't give that impression to their prospective clients. Being on Wikipedia gives one hell of a boost to one's Google position, hence the burning desire of so many insignificant rappers (nearly finished the first mixtape, honest...), companies (founded 2015 and making loo roll for supermarkets), and student engineers (in second year at some technology college, and who were voted the 'most likely to succeed' by their class at school) to have a presence here. In with this lot are the advisers to government ministers, visiting assistant professors, and rock bands who have been big for 20 years in Twizzlewig, AZ or St Botolphs without the Valley in Devon. They aren't obvious G11 fodder. They ARE intended to promote, however, and are rarely credibly significant in any real meaning of significant. They are probably significant to their loved ones. The advisers might have a lot to answer for if anyone knew what they had advised, but usually the minister carries the can there. I didn't know all this when I started here. I learned by watching what happened, by being told off a few times, and by taking part in things like SPI and AfD. In the very early days of Wikipedia, the desire was to get articles in to make the place bigger, and thus get more visitors in. We're now trying to keep the crap out as almost everyone does come here, and we can improve the quality rather than merely going for quantity. As the quality improves, so does the status of Wikipedia, and the desire to get one's petty career, or ratty little back street furniture shop, into a better position - and they think that an article here will do it for them. They're wrong, of course. But often determined. You would think that having been deleted six times would tell someone something. No, he changes his name again and keeps on trying. (The particular one I'm thinking of now has a long SPI record, and possibly 20 protected article titles to his discredit. Seems to have stopped. I hope.)

The summary is this. It takes time to get an understanding of how things work. Any system of rules and guidelines is open to interpretations. 'Thou shalt not kill' - but what if you see someone with a sniper rifle aiming at the President? (OK, you will probably have trouble explaining why YOU had a gun there to shoot the sniper with, and why you were in the building without authorisation, and also with proving that he was pointing the rifle at the Prez.) 'Thou shalt not steal' - but is it OK to use the contents of the company first-aid box (and your time paid for by ScroogeMarley LLC) to patch up an anguished and bleeding kid who was just passing when he fell off his bike? Adam, you do tend to stick to the letter of things; as you has said, it is your nature to do this. Please try to accept that every rule is part of a whole structure. Look at the picture, not at each brush stroke. Read the book, not justeach word by itself. Wikipedia 'law' is a bit more like English law than American - there is a body of written law but also a large body of customary law and interpretation that depends on precedent. Peridon (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Can I just say, I LOVE the examples you come up with to illustrate your points (ratty little back street furniture shop indeed). Your posts here are works of art. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Isn't the letter meant to reflect the spirit? If the spirit changes without updating the letter, of course people are going to get confused. I'm not too familiar with American law and I don't know English law off by heart (despite me being English and living in England!), but is that another way of saying the spirit trumps (no, not that trump!) the letter? Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work with speedy deletions

Thanks so much for your work preserving the intentionally narrow scope of A7. As I've mentioned I've gotten worried about the scope of A7 and the willingness of editors to step beyond that scope. I've been working a lot in the A7 category removing tags that blatantly don't fit the criterion myself, but sometimes it seems like nobody agrees (and yet discussions about the actual criterion are always so contested). Appable (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: Thanks! Zoominfo Crawler was wrongly deleted A7 and overturned on that basis. And I see Swpb is unwilling to admit he was wrong and has PRODed NextGenSearchBotarticle saying it "Should have been speedied as a business". How anyone can say it's a business is beyond me. Even the admin who deleted Zoominfo Crawler (an almost identical article) has admitted A7 was and is wrong. I don't know if you saw it, but I recently started a discussion on the CSD talk page about editors assuming ownership after tagging for CSD (particularly A7), and I think his behaviour falls into that category. Adam9007 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are bragging that you "saved" Zoominfo Crawler, a promotional piece of shit that is very likely written by someone working on behalf of ZoomInfo, which is a company? Unbelievable. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: A7 did not apply, and it was not obviously promotional. It was (and is!) clearly still being worked on. Please do not judge an article until it is finished. And how do you know the author is a Zoominfo employee or is otherwise doing so on their behalf? Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually was the other way - it was created by someone who has an ax to grind against Zoominfo, who didn't know what they were doing. It is so easy to tell when there is advocacy at play. So easy, I was too quick to judge which type it was when I wrote above (I was angry and reached a conclusion of what the problem was too quickly in what i wrote there) but the fact that the "article" was garbage and going no where was blatant. I still cannot see how you can be proud to be only an obstacle and not a corrective, helping force. You know a lot, and I wish you put it to use to move things forward instead of just parrrying. I have asked for your advice below. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud...

What if A7 had a term in it stating something to the effect of "If an uninvolved editor removes a speedy deletion tag under this criterion in good faith, do not restore the tag."? I don't think A7, as it's used now, actually meets the first criterion for new criteria — objectiveness — but that might help a bit by preventing warring over speedy deletions and encouraging controversial speedy deletions to go to PROD or AfD. Appable (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: I think the essay Wikipedia:Why_I_Hate_Speedy_Deleters says just that, although it's talking about admins. I also think it explains the rest of the problems we're having with CSD very well; that nominators are not using caution, and that they're not aware (or simply don't care) that meeting the criteria means it may be deleted, not must. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, that's one of my favorite essays (along with WP:A7M). Agreed that speedy deletions absolutely should be uncontroversial, as soon as they're controversial speedy is obviously not the right process. Appable (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: And to think someone said on the big discussion that we shouldn't go by such essays as it violates WP:CIRCULAR! What the heck? Without those essays, there's nothing to go by! Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Hi, Adam9007. Thanks for your edit to Vicky A Clark. I didn't realize that such little time had passed since the article's creation, and I appreciate you for keeping an eye out and allowing for new users to have adequate time to construct the new article. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

advice

what is the correct speedy category for this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's been improved since you posted this, but I don't think it meets any speedy criteria. It would have been BLPPROD eligible (assuming it was in the article space), but a source has since been added. Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

what would have been the right speedy delete tag, for an unsourced autobiography for a newbie created as the category, Biography? Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Simply being unsourced is not a criterion for speedy deletion. What do you mean by category? Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes i know that. I am sorry i asked. The link I pointed you to was an autobiography posted at Category:Biography - look at the URL. Forget it though, really. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:In the future the best idea is to move it to article space or draft space and tag the category as uncontroversial maintenance. Appable (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Re I think there is a claim of significance; performing alongside notable people. A notability issue that you may not be aware of is that notability is not inherited. See WP:ITSA. Hope this helps.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim of significance isn't notability though. While notability is not inherited, performing alongside notable people in many cases is a claim of significance (particularly if they are notable on a global scale). Remember, claim of significance was deliberately worded to be much lower than notability, and merely offering a claim that, say, an actor played a role in a notable film (not an extra but an actual actor) with no source probably is a decent claim of significance — if there's enough coverage that the film is notable, it's plausible that there's significant coverage of the actors within the film. Appable (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: You know what, I think a change in terminology is in order, if not a whole rephrasing. The words significance and importance obviously aren't doing the job they're supposed to, because they're too often confused with notability. This is one issue I raised last time, a few months ago. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Your edit summary in removing this CSD seems to imply WP:INHERIT. I'll take it to AfD for discussion. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: According to WP:A7M, that is a credible claim of significance, which is not the same thing as notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay reflecting one editor's view point, not policy. Let me highlight the one part of the CSD's definition that he doesn't highlight... "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" which fits this example like a glove. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: So you think I should just pretend that it doesn't exist? I agree that being signed to such a label is an assertion of importance. Importance/significance is not the same thing as notability; it is a lower standard. Official policy states that. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooo... Notability is NOT inherited but Importance and Significance are? I see. I don't agree, but I see. Bazj (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability is NOT inherited but importance and significance are? Yes, exactly correct. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: No, I'm saying that is in itself significant. I did not say anything was inherited. Again, significance is not notability. Being signed to a significant label might not be significant, but being signed to a notable one almost certainly is. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INHERIT is an essay, too, BTW Bazj... one that doesn't apply to speedy. You should also read WP:CCS, which is an essay but linked from the CSD policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr Thanks for the link to WP:CCS. It's probably the best attempt at explaining the difference between notability & significance I've seen yet. Using the a/b tests it outlines, this case passes a but fails b because the best claim of notability the article makes is inherited from its record label, which isn't notability at all. Bazj (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mean this directed to you at all, Bazj — but this is why I think the wording on A7 is absolutely problematic. While it was never the intent of A7 significance to follow notability guidelines and policies, it's often interpreted as such. However, significance and importance were deliberately chosen instead of notability because on Wikipedia, significance and importance are entirely different (and far lower) standards than notability. Appable (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the only place that Wiki has developed its own lexicon. It boils down to WP:CIR; editors need to learn policy before taking on technical tasks like CSD. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: "the best claim of notability" - again, A7 only requires a claim of significance to fail, not notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little concerning that someone with hundreds of entries in their CSD log so poorly understands one of the criteria. To repeat, WP:INHERITED does not apply to speedy deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr if you're going to veer off on an ad hom there's no point continuing the discussion. Bazj (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You demonstrably don't understand A7. That's not an ad hom. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to User respect IP2 at User talk:Tk420

I did create Template:User respect IP2. By "they" I mean intellectual property rights in the plural e.g. trademark and patent as well as copyright. Tk420 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tk420: Someone saw my user page and thought it had been vandalised because of that box! They took it to me I can be a major pain. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Maybe it should be reworded? Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on

I'm not contesting the deletion of my user page, but it's actions like deleting pages that which make it so hard to do anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a unfriendly place. I agree I was in the wrong, but there should have been a better action than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamebear (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Significance of writing for a newspaper

Hi. I'm kind of gobsmacked by the idea that the simple fact of writing articles for a newspaper implies significance. And Puran Gurung doesn't even purport to write articles. He's a copy editor. He reviews submitted articles; corrects them for grammar, spelling, and style; and makes editorial suggestions. This isn't a position with visibility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Of course, writing for any old newspaper is hardly significant, but doing so for a notable one is. Adam9007 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I disagree with that. I look at the junior writers putting out mundane reports ("a debate was held yesterday over charter schools", "a new Home Depot opened in NoMA") of local interest in The Washington Post and I don't imagine that they, themselves, would have come to anyone's attention as a topic of discussion, let alone achieved actual notability as we define it here. And, again, this isn't a writer, he's a copy editor. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Have you seen WP:A7M? Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam--frankly, that argument is absurd--except for a very feew famous at the art it is a relatively low level position for beginners. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen SoWhy's perspective before. Are you implying that I should know to substitute SoWhy's perspective for my own? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If he was the lead copyeditor he might be significant but I don't think just being a copyeditor is significant (any more significant than another office job at a notable company like Apple, Amazon, Google, whatever. Regarding A7M — I agree with just about everything it says, and I do agree that writers in notable newspapers are almost certainly at least significant, but I don't view that as including copyeditors. Copyeditors are usually less in-the-spotlight, so it's significantly less likely that a random copyeditor will be significant (in other words, the threshold should be higher). Appable (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Even a major newspaper has people writing the articles on local house fires, high school sports, and so on. Unless an article spells out any significance the person might have more specifically—"international affairs reporter", "political columnist"—my reaction is, "Great, this person has a job. So do I." I wouldn't expect that a whole lot of reliable sources hunger to report at length about the person at The Washington Post who writes the commercial real estate transaction blurbs. Note: unless a person's lack of significance is abundantly clear, as when an editor writes about a 13-year-old's football activities, I do run a WP:BEFORE check before requesting A7 deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice the article doesn't say he's a Copy Editor; it says he's the Copy Editor. There's a difference; the "the" implies he's the only one, and therefore, in a sense, the "lead" Copy Editor. And as for essays, yes they are only advice, and yes we are free to ignore them, but please remember that we are just as free to follow them. Most essays have at least some basis in the policies or guidelines. Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So he's the person, at a paper so small that it has only one of them, who points out where the writer spelled "weird" as "wierd" and left out a verb and suggests that he move the fifth paragraph up in front of the second. What do you think the likelihood is that this occupation has led him to capture the attention of reliable sources? What percentage of the world's copy editors have been the subject of even one write-up in a magazine or newspaper? I'm looking at WP:CCS, by the way, which is, at least, a Wikipedia essay subject to input from multiple people, and not one single, arbitrary person's opinion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in consensus, see the discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puran Gurung, which was quickly closed as speedy delete, with three people besides me, including the deleting administrator, opining that it was an obvious A7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Schools

True, secondary schools are, for some strange reason exempt from A7 deletion but you are still inviting trouble launching a one-sentence stub in mainspace. Get into the habit of using User:Adam9007/sandbox until an article is viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Okay, but why is it in my sandbox, and not the creator's? Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I just created a new article here -->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_Kohli but somebody instantly tagged it for speedy deletion. I didn't have enough idea how to add content or source the article so quickly.. I have tried to put some sources on article's talk page. Can you please help and if possible, can you remove the deletion tag?

Thanks, Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: Well, VQuakr: has already removed it, and I agree with its removal. Adam9007 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

yes. many thanks. Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles Suggestion

Hello, could you please re-read the criterias for notability at WP:MUSICBIO, especially

• Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels

A drummer that has worked as studio musician does not release an recording, the band he has worked for does this: Matt Horn

A debut album is one album: 60 Wrap$$

Thanks -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 18:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: And can you please re-read WP:A7 and preferably WP:A7M as well. Matt Horn and 60 Wrap$$ both make credible claims of significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In both cases you gave notable label as edit summary. A recording or touring instrumentalist works for the studio or the band, but not for the label. What was credible significant with the debut musician with his debut album? Anyway, you are invited to the related deletion discussions.-- Ben Ben ^(talk) 18:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: Yes, I said the label is notable. Being signed to or releasing albums under such a label is significant (60 Wrap$$ makes such a claim). Being part of or working with a notable band is also significant (Matt Horn claims this as well as being part of notable labels). Adam9007 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: The core sentence in WP:A7 (at least for me) is The criterion [A7] does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. There is no guideline for credibility, it's up to you to decide. Here is an essay about, the last paragraph gives a simple rule for decisions.-- Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ben Ben: Well, there is a good chance that investigating those claims can establish notability (assuming it exists), thus they are credible. Adam9007 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: As I wrote ealier, you are invited to partizipate in or watch both diskussions to see what is going on after a declination of a CSD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60 Wrap$$
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Horn

Thanks, -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC) (The Matt Horn diskussion has been deleted (tTemplate, log and diskussion) by a vandal so there isn't much now. Author is currently blocked.)

IRacing NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Hi, I see you removed my A7-Web speedy from this article. Note, this is a Web-based nascar simulator league, see iRacing.com. All of the text in the articles this COI user is creating come from the regular Nascar articles, hence the appearance of claims of significance. This user is basically taking our Nascar articles and replacing the real drivers with ones from his online virtual league. Hence the web content is not significant, it is just another online league. Replacing the A7 with the G12 is also not correct, as that content came from our own NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. Crow^Caw 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: I did not realise it was a backwards copy, so thanks for that. But the article claims significance by saying it "is the top racing series of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing". Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes but if you compare to the NASCAR article you will see it is a bitwise copy. So it is not a credible claim. Crow^Caw 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: But that same claim did stop the other article from being A7ed. Just because it's a copy doesn't make it not credible. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• The other article is NASCAR, which was never going to be A7'ed. This behaviour is typical of a vanity page: for someone to take an existing article, e.g. a celebrity, and put their name in place of the celeb's. Thus one could claim that it was making a claim of significance, but being a crudely made copy, they are always A7'ed. This is really no different. This online league is using NASCAR's claims of significance and changing them to apply to it. The NASCAR page is the original source for being "the top racing series of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing". This iracing article doesn't even claim to be the "top virtual racing series..." They just flat copied the NASCAR article and added their name and drivers. Crow^Caw 23:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crow: If it's the same thing, better make it an A10, or a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• A redirect would be advertising for this league. I'm trying to engage the author but they seem aloof so far. We shall see... Crow^Caw 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Just FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRacing Sprint Cup Series 2016. Crow^Caw 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Incedo

Hi, you removed the speedy delete from Incedo, stating "There is a claim of significance." Could you quote the claim? I can't see it. What makes it special compared to other IT service providers? Thanks. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: They announced a patnership with a notable company. I see you noticed a PROD was contested on the basis of GNews hits; if that is true then it fails A7's spirit anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

[The reference used] lists some 60 companies just under letter "A". Whatever the partnership means, it does not look like a "claim of significance" to me. (Microstrategy is notable but are partners not.) Nevermind. Thanks for your response. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Significance is not the same as notability. I don't know why so many people don't know that. Sources are irrelevant; a credible claim is enough to fail A7. Adam9007 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I know the difference. It was you who introduced notability as a topic in this duscussion ("notable company"). I don't know why so many people are a hasty folk. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: No I didn't. I said being a partner with a notable company is significant. Merely saying the word "notable" does not in itself bring notability into the discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As you like. Anyway, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo. Just letting you know.--WikiHannibal (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: your edit to [[Special:UserLogout|罗宇]]

What's [[Special:UserLogout|this]] about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.154.226.169 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Very clever. It logs you out, that's wot it's all about! 188.220.244.227 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

@Lifesavers2004: Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Lagniappe Films, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make a case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Lifesavers2004 ^(talk) / _(contrib) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: I did not create that page, and therefore have every right to remove a speedy tag from it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Lagniappe Films, you may be blocked from editing. Lifesavers2004 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: Please read WP:CSD again. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lifesavers2004: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Lagniappe Films. Lifesavers2004 ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Administrator's note. Adam9007, feel free to disregard the uw-speedy* notices, since you were not the creator of the article in question. It is also your prerogative to archive or remove the notices per WP:BLANKING. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you. I have just notified another admin of this. Shall I restore my WP:IAR striking of them? Adam9007 (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider my message and edit summary to have done the same thing. Feel free to remove them entirely or archive them. It's probably a more-polite move to not strike-through them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I think I'll keep them on here (they'll be archived automatically anyway) in case I need to refer to them, and I have a strong feeling I will :). Adam9007 (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam, thanks for your note on my talk page. Looks like C.Fred has explained things well, and hopefully the user will no longer harass you about this. If they do, give one of us a holler. Thanks for handling this, Fred! --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Maybe I took this a little too seriously, because I knew the same thing had also happened to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: here (see also here), and he came out okay. Why shouldn't he have? He did nothing wrong, and neither did I. Adam9007 (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate fact of life that as we work to improve Wikipedia, we will occasionally come under undeserved attack. The best approach, if you can manage it, is to laugh. Other possible approaches are to delete troll posts (you don't have to keep them around or archive them unless they amuse you; you can always find them in the history if need arises), or to ignore them, or in extreme cases to ask for temporary protection of your page. If you are worried that the complaints or warnings might actually cause you some trouble, ask any admin as you did; your talk page is on some people's watchlists (pretty much everybody's talk page is on somebody's watchlist), so someone may come to your aid before you even ask. Above all, trust the community of Wikipedians to rally to your defense when you are undeservedly attacked. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In case you wondered, you have 18 page watchers. The number will undoubtedly increase, the more you do here at Wikipedia. Don't let that spook you; the vast majority of WP:talk page stalkers are friendly and helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, like I pointed out on WT:CSD, both of those ANI reports on HW were quickly closed, one of them with the reporting editor also getting blocked per WP:BOOMERANG. Always be open to constructive feedback, but in this case WP:DNFTT applies. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred, how did you become a administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifesavers2004 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) By not slapping loads of pointless templates on an uninvolved editor's talk page, I expect. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Zhejiang Young Cell

Hi, I believe you removed the speedy tags (A7, G11) on the article. I was however unable to find any credible claims of significance, particularly for a company that has been set up in 2015. In any case, I nominated it for deletion. But I am curious to know where exactly is the claim of significance in the article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: The article claims they're partners with at least 2 notable universities. Adam9007 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at this WP:CCS and according to point 5: Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical articles for deletion discussion to keep the article is a claim of significance. I'm not sure whether simply partnering with a university will persuade someone to keep the article at an AfD. (Reproducing original quote:"Young Cell's Research & Development centre locates in Shanghai, in partnership with Tongji University, Fourth Military Medical University, etc. Young Cell established a joint stem cell laboratory on 2016 with Tongji University, Medical School.")

The only claim of significance I found was this "the company operates majority in stem cell industry, including stem cell storage, stem cell anti-aging, stem cell preparation and detection technology ect." I just did not find it credible that a company whose research lab has been established in 2016 is suddenly the majority player in the stem cell industry. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of MixSCAN for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MixSCAN is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MixSCAN 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bazj (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Tennis (Master System), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your political forum

Please stop trying to spread Sanders' bias by spamming this ENCYCLOPEDIA with campaign garbage. Thanks in advance. Eightball (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: I did nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should read WP:PROD again. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me one reason a FACEBOOK GROUP ABOUT MEMES is notable for inclusion. ONE. Or agree that garbage page should be deleted. No third option. Eightball (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: Did you even read the AfD? Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I saw nothing but Bernie Sanders campaign slogans. So I ask again: ONE REASON. Eightball (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Keep: This is highly relevant documentation of a major cultural shift away from Silent Generation, Boomers, AND Gen-X toward the Millennial Generation that currently dominates labor markets and our cultural core" I have to ask, did YOU read the AFD? This is ridiculous. Eightball (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: No, what's ridiculous is your blatant ignorance of policy. There was no consensus to delete the article. Articles that have survived AfD are not PROD or speedy eligible, and if you think it should be deleted then you should take it to AfD again. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that not ONE SINGLE PERSON brought up a real reason to keep the article. The admins were clearly bullied by the sheer overwhelming number of Bernie Bros spamming the AfD with nonsense reasons. I ask you again: GIVE ME ONE SINGLE REASON THIS ARTICLE IS NOTABLE. JUST ONE. And if you can't do that, stop talking. I've already brought up this insane bias with the closing admin. It WILL be deleted eventually. I will not let this website be campaign spam. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself. Bringing politics into what's supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia. Despicable behavior. Eightball (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: If you disagree with the closing admin, that's what you should have done. Adam9007 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

One reason? Eightball (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: Several editors have made keep arguments in good faith. And there was no consensus to delete the page. Consensus is policy. The AfD is over and it doesn't matter what I think. Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Show me one of those good faith arguments. I see none. I see statements ripped straight out of Sanders' stump speech. Eightball (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: So they were vandalism were they? Remember WP:AGF. Adam9007 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. I also assume that I can drive when the stoplight turns green. But do you know what I do when I see a car running the red light? I stop. In short: I assume good faith unless overwhelming evidence tells me I shouldn't. And that's what I'm seeing here. There is overwhelming evidence that Wikipedia is being manipulated. Eightball (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: What is this evidence? I see editors discussing and giving their opinions in good faith. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That suggestion is simply not true. It is obvious what is happening and it is obvious that you a party to it. This conversation is over. I will take this to the admins and this WILL be rectified. Eightball (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: Might I remind you that you do not own the article? As for the good faith arguments, the one at the bottom is a reasonable one made by an admin. Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Sorry but had to say I chuckled at the "keep your cool" next to an image of steaming liquid. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Never a more important time. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Bernardino Luino. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Laber□^T 15:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: Not again! I did not create that page. Adam9007 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

re: Occupational therapy and ataxic cerebral palsy

If you look at the article past the first paragraph it is entirely about a single person, and a very BLP version of one, down to boyfriend and dog. It appears to be an end-run around a BLP article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: But the article as a whole appears to be more about Cerebral Palsy than the person. The person appears to be used as an example. Adam9007 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove my page

This is loubna berrada. I want this page removed. I never agreed on any of th info shared. How do i delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loubna berrada (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You do not own the page just because you're its subject. You should read WP:Deletion Policy. Adam9007 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

remove my page

It may be so but it is really frustrating to see others using my name and information to make false articles on wikipedia. Hope I did put in the right tab its very unclear how this works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loubna berrada (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

remove my page

The article has false information, first I am NOT a politician never was. Second I never rejected Islam and I never was brought op strict or any of that sort. And I am still muslim. How can you guys allow so much nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loubna berrada (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Need some help to update information

Hi Adam9007,

I would like to add information about NGA Human Resources (industry, type, headquarters, website, etc.) in a table (on the right side) But I do not know how I can do this, can you help me to find out ? I tried templates but it doesn't work.

Thanks! MasterDolly (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@MasterDolly: It appears to have been done now. Adam9007 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Thanks for the ping. I'll give it some thought before replying. Bazj (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Adam, Following my comments, would you like to raise an RfC proposing WP:A7M User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes be accepted as a guideline? I guess it ought to be raised by someone who actually agrees with the essay. I raised objections to one of its criteria 3 weeks ago which has got zero traction. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: Yes, I would, but I'm a little busy right now, nor do I know how or where. Adam9007 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of John Oliver Wilson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Oliver Wilson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Oliver Wilson 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Puzzle & Action

Your recent P&A articles have some good content, but there isn't enough secondary source coverage to warrant dedicated articles on each. Is there somewhere where we can merge their contents? czar 23:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Funny you should mention that; I've just found several sources on Tant-R (it took some searching), but I haven't got around to putting them in the article yet! Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I've added info and quite a few sources to the Tant-R article. I'm not sure if some of them warrant inclusion though (not because they're in Spanish), though I think the "Gamer" one deserves to be kept, partially because it's a secondary source that supports the article (its news page does). I don't know much about the third game though, so I'm not sure whether to do an article on that. Adam9007 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How many games were in this series? czar 03:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: 3. I've never played the third one; only the first 2. Adam9007 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to merge these three into the same series article. Puzzle & Action: Ichidant-R doesn't have any reliable, secondary source coverage and would be a candidate for redirection/deletion on its own. czar 19:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I notice the French Wikipedia has an article on the series, but there's not much info. Strangely, the third game has its own article. I know of a couple of sources about the third game, but they're both in Japanese. I don't know whether you noticed, but I have a guide book for Tant-R (I didn't know one existed until recently!), and I'm not sure if one exists for the other 2 games. I'm also having difficulty finding sources. Further complicating matters is the fact that the PS2 versions (both of them I believe) of Tant-R include games from Ichidant-R; it's almost as if they've combined the 2 games into 1. Tant-R has by far the most coverage of the 3 games. Adam9007 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

When you have a chance, you might want to check the sources in Tant-R against the vetted VG sources—many should be removed. Have my hands full now but let me know how I can help down the line czar 21:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Which ones need to be removed? Finding sources for such a game can be next to impossible. I had the same problem with Operation: Inner Space, and had to use what I could find. EDIT: Upon searching, I found that Tant-R is covered in at least 1 magazine I don't have access to. Adam9007 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The ones that have no reputation for quality (reliable source guideline). I'd limit myself to video game reliable sources custom Google search if I were not sure about a topic's notability. We don't keep articles on topics that only have primary sources (game guides and manuals, developer's websites). You'll want to remove Games Asylum, WordPress blogs, Nay's Game Reviews (Blogspot blog), etc.  czar 01:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Sorry for the late reply; I've been rather busy lately. For example, did you know there's a loophole in the guidelines which means the video game Operation: Inner Space (that's just one of many examples; I could provide a whole list of video game-related stuff) is classed as web content and not software? Is that insane or what? (I thought I'd mention that as we're dealing with video game articles) Anyway, I've removed some of the sources you mentioned, though I think there's still more to do. I also think the guide book for Tant-R is secondary because Sega didn't publish it (I don't think they authored it either). In fact, I have one game (Ridge Racer Revolution) for which I have 4 guide books! I doubt that Namco (or indeed anyone) would need to write and publish 4 guide books for the same game. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Tie Break Tens

Hi, Adam9007. I have an OTRS ticket from the author of the text at http://www.tennispanorama.com/archives/53928 attesting that he, not tennispanorama.com, is the copyright holder and, moreover, that tennispanorama.com had no right to publish this material with a copyright notice in the first place. Did you have additional concerns about the article? -- Rrburke (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tarar Media

Hi, I saw you removed the speedy on Tarar Media. I disagree with your reasoning, since having someone notable own a company doesn't make the company notable, especially when it's brand new and only referenced to company sources. However, in light of your opinion I wanted to seek broader consensus so I put it up on AfD and thought I'd let you know so you could chime in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarar Media JamesG5 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@JamesG5: A7's standard is lower than notability. Significance means, in essence, potential notability. Having a notable CEO and the like could very well lead to something that establishes notability upon investigation of that claim. Also, age in itself is no indication of notability or lack thereof. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, that's why I took it to AfD instead. JamesG5 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of EasyShiksha

Hi, my page EasyShiksha is deleted three four times. There are many more pages with same content and subject then why only my page is deleted ?? why their page still exist!! priya2255 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Priya2255: What are these other pages? Adam9007 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adam2255: Other pages like Shiksha.com and EduKart they have same content and subject like EasyShiksha page then why only my page is deleted and removed?? priya2255 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If they don't meet the criteria for inclusion, someone will likely at some point nominate them too. Adam9007 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

CultWine

Please enlighten me on what assertion of notability was made in the above article? Being a company is not inherently notable, not even if you consider the totally PUFFERY assertion that they are one of the largest. Distributing wine is not inherently notable. The only thing of note about this article is it was written by one of its owners seeking free publicity in the common mistaken notion that this is Facebook. Did I miss something? John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: "CultWine is one of the largest vintage and rare wine distributors in the world" is the assertion of significance. It is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

Adam, I see you marked Dayshell (Band) as reviewed, [2]. As of this writing, the article is uncategorized and unsourced. It is ok to contest a speedy and leave the article unreviewed, but please be cautious about marking articles as reviewed when they have outstanding, easily corrected issues. That defeats the purpose of page curation. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Actually, it does have one source. If I can't solve the issues (which is often the case) I leave tags to alert other editors. That's the whole point of tags isn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources in it as of this writing. The tags and leaving it unreviewed are not mutually exclusive. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: External links count as sources if they support the article. I think page curation automatically marks pages as patrolled. Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it might automatically review when you tag the article. You can always un-review it if there isn't a setting to suppress that, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I know Twinkle has an option to not mark the page as patrolled, but sometimes it's easier to use Page Curation instead. Adam9007 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aashir Sheikh

Okay it might be notable (Aashir Sheikh) also I wasn't paying attention to the time either. There was a page someone tagged too quickly recently but I can't remember the name and am trying to find it btw. Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many pages people tag too quickly. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah-I try to wait 10 minutes for most of them-but see them get tagged to quickly anyway. It also seems like the guy added his name to those pages with a logged off IP which should be reverted. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted those as there was no references (other then Facebook) for the pages it linked to-likely not notable. Wgolf (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should remove the hasty tag if you want-I'm currently looking at older articles that are unreferenced (to see if anything needs to be added) Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hey there, I protected your talk page for a couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I know. I would have been surprised if you hadn't, given what they were doing. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Hoback

Hello Adam9007. Can you elaborate on what you believe is a credible claim of significance in Raymond Hoback? Thanks.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand:"fought and died on D-day", "Fighting for the Allied Forces on D-Day", and winning the Bronze Star medal and Purple Heart. Seems fairly obvious to me. Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you will find consensus that fighting or dying in a notable battle is not a credible claim of significance (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Oliver Wilson). The medals make is a little closer, though I don't think either of these has been generally considered sufficient by themselves.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: I don't see in the above AfD that any sort of consensus regarding CCS was established. One person disagreed. "Consensus" (if you can call it that) on what constitutes a CCS seems to change every 5 minutes. Also, the person who said "

"Fighting in several notable battles is significant" is the sort of garbage rationale worthy of a trout slap." seems to be confusing significance with notability, as many, many people do. Significance is a lower standard than notability. Per WP:CCS and WP:A7M It generally means might be notable (I say generally means, because there's no clear, strict definition of it). If you ask me, only an idiot would think that such a claim has zero chance of establishing some sort of notability (not that I'm saying that person is one). Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that one the AfD established consensus; I am basing that on years of reading AfDs and reviewing A7 submissions. There are many A7s that are improperly tagged, and it is important work to sift through those. There is certainly a gray area about what constitutes a CCS, and I am personally OK with erring on the side of taking it to PROD or AFD. The Hoback article is arguably in the gray area, but Wilson was not. Almost all battles are notable, and fighting in them is (historically and sadly) one of the more common of human experiences. If you try to push the envelop this far, it will weaken you overall credibility. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but I do want to help you succeed on Wikipedia.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with Adam9007's ideas about CCS, but I do agree that just participating in notable battles is not a credible claim of significance, just as many people work for a notable firm, organization, or company but are neither notable nor significant (in the general definition of CCS). In my opinion, however, if an editor in good faith does revert an A7 tag it should go to PROD/AfD instead of being resubmitted – clearly it's not a (relatively) uncontroversial deletion in that case. So with the Wilson article if the tag was removed I probably would have disagreed with removal but allowed it anyway since it was contested in good faith. While many have won Purple Heart medals, I would say that it does give enough of a distinction as a CCS. I would not expect the article passing a review through another means such as AfD or PROD, of course, and that does seem to be the common objection to removing an A7 tag, but A7 is not designed to remove articles that merely likely would be deleted through another process. Appable (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: The thing is, if participating in just one notable battle is not significant, then participating in several is much more likely to be significant. The more battles, the greater the chance of notability. The more military awards, the greater the chance of notability. Not so long ago, I removed an A7 tag from an article about a soldier on the basis of awards (I can't remember if he participated in any battles). It was taken to AfD and, if I recall correctly, kept on the grounds of meeting WP:SOLDIER (albeit only just). I can't remember what the article was though. I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers who haven't participated in any battles of note, or won any awards. There are many problems with A7 and its current application, I'm thinking of launching an RfC to address them. I can think of at least 5 (yes, five!) points to raise/proposals to make. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: Yeah, I see a lot of people treat speedy deletion like snow deletion. They may seem similar, but they're not quite the same thing. Unless I'm mistaken, speedy is for pages that are so obviously inappropriate there's no point in going through a long process, and snow is for not-so-obvious stuff that doesn't meet the speedy criteria, but for which the chances of survival are still obviously zero, or if it's obvious that a discussion will result in delete (even more uncontroversial than PROD; in fact, I've even seen PRODded articles snow deleted without waiting for it to expire). In other words, speedy is for avoiding starting an unnecessary process, whereas snow is for avoiding finishing one just for the sake of it (though I have seen AfD'd articles speedied when it turns out it meets the criteria, but in that case, it's no different to snow) I do agree that if someone legitimately contests a speedy, it shouldn't not be restored, or at least not under the same criterion, because it's no longer unambiguous and uncontroversial. That's why deprodded articles cannot be reprodded. If there's even the slightest chance of surviving a discussion, it fails speedy's spirit. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Adam9007 on tyres!"

A vandal, Hoover Todd, moved your user page and talk page to "Adam9007 on tyres!". I moved your pages back (which I wanted to do without leaving the redirect but I didn't know how) and Acroterion got rid of the pages caused by the move. Linguist 111^talk 18:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: I see. It was page move vandalism? Are you an admin? Only they can move pages without the redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that's why it left a redirect. No, I'm not an admin. Yes, it was, if that's the right term for it, or a malicious move. It didn't matter that redirects was left by my moving your pages back anyway, because the redirect pages were deleted by Acroterion. Linguist 111^talk 00:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Elle Loretta Basey

Hi Adam9007, you declined a CSD tag on Elle Loretta Basey. The same article was deleted two days ago and I fail to see why it now passes GNG. Please explain? - Sports Devotee (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sports Devotee: I never said it passes GNG. I said it might do (i.e the person's significant). I believe secondary reliable sources are considered an implicit indication of notability anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael behrens

You clearly have a very odd idea of what constitutes an assertion of notability. The man clearly fails WP:ARTIST, he is just an upmarket trinket maker.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: "You clearly have a very odd idea of what constitutes an assertion of notability" A7 means no credible assertion of significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Where was the credible claim of notability, smartarse?TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Did you not read what I said, or the essay? You're still going on about "claim of notability", which is not what A7 means. I see 2 claims of significance; him teaching at a notable university, and attending a (possibly) notable fair regularly. Adam9007 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

These are not credible claims of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: You obviously don't understand A7 if you're still going on about "credible claims of notability" Adam9007 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh. In spades. I don't see that there is a claim of significance there either.TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: A7's standard is much lower than most people think. Adam9007 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Basically this man fails WP:ARTIST in my opinion, altho he has a couple of trinkets in collections they do not seem to be particularly important.TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Swpb. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Colin lippiatt, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. —swpb^T 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Roadwaywiz

I know generally it's good to wait to post a CSD tag, however...I have a feeling this is a not an editor who is here for a good purpose. The user name (rather vaguely similar to an established user) and the vulgar contest of the deletion makes me question their intent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And my instinct was right, sock of Starship9000. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Baffled

What was the importance you believe was asserted in the article about this made up band? Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. @Toddst1: the creator, Matt Howarth, has an article so there's a credible claim of significance there. But that's moot, because A7 is only for real people, bands, organizations, etc - not fictional entities and characters. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1:@VQuakr:It also has some bluelink members, which is also an assertion of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm joining a parade of editors who are baffled by your handling and interpretation of speedy deletion criteria. I was also baffled why you think this article "credibly asserts significance". The current version is not that different than the version which AfC declined its submission. The only thing close to asserting this article's notability is that the person is an assistant professor and dean of a university. Please explain to me which part of the article exerts notability. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Being a professor at a notable university is an assertion of significance, which is a much lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just being a professor at a notable university does not make the subject significant. Can you back up your views with a policy page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is teaching at a notable university not significant? It gives the subject a fair chance of notability. WP:A7 clearly states significance is lower than notability. Although an essay, WP:A7M also backs me up. Adam9007 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request about page Mashwanis

Some unknown are adding un-reliable sources to the article and attcking on the origin of the tribe living in Sirikot Pakistan. They are failed to present their studies and self made metarials. Please checkout the article and format it in good way. Thanks--Syed Saqib Imad 17:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

Cork Airport Hotel

Article contains an implicit assertion of notability? Where??? Being a snecking hotel???? Being in Cork. ????? Bollocks. And speedy tagging my sanctimonious Aunt Jemima.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Having any secondary reliable coverage means the article doesn't pass A7's spirit. That's why I said it implicitly asserts significance. Adam9007 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Dull run-of the mill coverage for a dull run-of-the-mill cuboid.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So, notability, or even significance (they are not the same thing) means the coverage must be international? Adam9007 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pedantic timewasting.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

???? Adam9007 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you have access to a dictionary.TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A7 is meant for articles whose subject clearly has no chance of being notable. Citing secondary reliable sources helps establish not just significance, but notability. Adam9007 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This misapplication of a WP:N to WP:A7 would appear to be common. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor:Yeah, some months ago, an admin told me to go for the spirit rather than the letter. That's just what I'm doing here. Adam9007 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, articles like Fractal (EDM Artist) are very likely to be deleted after an AfD. Timewaster.TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Which missed the point of CSD entirely. CSD, PROD, or even WP:SNOW are not for things that are merely "likely" to not survive AfD. By inappropriately applying speedy tags, you are in effect (whether you mean to or not) saying that the author's contributions are not wanted. Adam9007 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And, more importantly in a collaborative environment, circumventing a consensus driven deletion process (AfD) by applying private and misunderstood WP:N judgment when CSD tagging. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

civil

what are you on about old bean? The word "civil" does not even exist on User:Sphilbricks talk page. How did I say or not say that I didn't think it was very civil. Wikipedia is built about a lot of thing and one thing is to be civil to other users rather than assuming bad faith. Now shall I ask you to tell me and give me a reference to the conversation or shall I tell you to fuck off? Your choice. I am never anything but civil at Wikipedia. Mistaken, wrong, achieve consensus, have a joke, yes, all those things. I should like you to show me where at any time I have been not so much uncivil as rude. I can tell you one place at WP:RFD User:Legacypac said that admins had been rude to him so I added kinda a footnote saying that they are not allowed to insult you but I am. But that is because Legacypac and I have worked many years together on RfD and he will know it is a joke. NOW TELL ME WHERE I HAVE INSULTED ANYONE GENUINELY. You are getting the wrong end of the stick and beating me with it. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know. It wasn't clear enough that it was a joke. Not that it's an excuse, but I'm autistic and people like me sometimes miss these things. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No big deal, I'm genuinely appreciative that Adam9007 was trying to do the right thing. Si trew - you were too good - I got it, but I knew the back story. Let's move on, we have an encyclopedia to write and it isn't quite done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Shadab Restaurant

Do not revert back edits without verification the user who reverted the previous csd request was asked about the sme and declined to respond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz Provide a good reason for undoing my request or an alternate method.--Account2235 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Account2235: Sorry, but you were wrong to reinstate the speedy tag after someone (other than the article's author) had removed it, and Adam9007 was right to remove it. Speedy deletion is only for situations where the deletion would be uncontroversial. If someone objects, that means it is controversial, so speedy will not apply. Proposed deletion and AfD are the remaining options to delete the article. I see that you have now tagged it for proposed deletion, and that's fine, but you did not provide a good rationale. Shortcuts like A7 and G11 are for speedy deletion. For proposed deletion, you should explain in words why you think the article should be deleted. BTW a "proposed deletion" tag should also not be restored if someone removes it, because again, proposed deletion is for uncontroversial cases. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, you can't send an article to AfD, and then PROD it. Once it's at AfD it's no longer PROD eligible. Adam9007 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your assistance. I do understand it now and will take care in the future.--Account2235 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Point about redirect CSD

Your edit summary here is misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_Air_3&oldid=prev&diff=719285047 No Admin declined this redirect, but it was previously deprod'd for another reason when pointed at different target. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declined G3 in this edit. Anyone who is not the creator may decline a speedy, not just admins. Adam9007 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One user's opinion does not stop a different user from CSDing again. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find it does. Adam9007 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Legacypac, Adam is correct. Yesterday this article was nominated for speedy as vandalism, and that speedy tag was removed by an uninvolved third party, which means it cannot be speedy-tagged again. Speedy deletion is for situations that are unambiguous and uncontroversial. If some other user (other than the original author) disagrees with the speedy tag, it is no longer unambiguous or uncontroversial so it cannot be speedied. (I note that this article was tagged for proposed deletion back in 2015 and PROD was declined; that automatically should have made it ineligible for speedy deletion, but apparently nobody noticed the earlier PROD.) The only remaining method of deletion which is available to this article is RfD, where it is currently under discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question then, MelanieN, because I see editors reverting speedy tags and then another editor reinstating one pretty often. Is this true--that once a CSD tag is removed, it can't be reapplied--in all cases? The instance I was involved in was a page that was that I tagged for deletion because it was created by a blocked user and I was surprised to see the CSD tag removed. I retagged it and the tag was removed a second time and I thought deleting pages created by blocked editors were not very controversial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:I'm not MelanieN, but I think WP:CASD describes everything that's wrong with the application of CSD, especially the bit about may and must (a lot of people think that meeting a speedy criterion means it must be deleted, which isn't the case). As for the declined G5, are you talking about User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? I saw him decline a couple of your G5s, but I can't find them any more (have they been deleted?)Found them: The Hollies (Hollies album) and The Hollies (The Hollies album). He had a point though; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If it's likely to be recreated after deletion (deletion being purely because of who created it, not because of what it was), why delete it? It's a total waste of everyone's time and energy. It was going to be deleted just for the sake of it. Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was not going to be insistent about a CSD tag. I thought I had valid grounds but if another editor opposed it, I wasn't going to make an issue about it. It just wasn't that they were created by a blocked editors, I also thought they were bad redirects, unlikely terms that would be used a search terms. But, my question was more general. I agree that there are problems with how CSD tags are applied (see ANI right now). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: He also retargeted them, so G5 no longer applied anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! About blocked/banned users, it depends on the timing. If the page was created BEFORE they were blocked or banned, it does not qualify for G5. G5 applies to "pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." I also sometimes see speedy tags reapplied after one was removed by an uninvolved user. I think the situation may be that you can add a speedy tag for a different reason than the first. For example, somebody tags it for G2 "test page", but another person removes the tag saying "not a test page". I believe it would be allowed to tag it with a different reason, such as A7. As for redirects, I don't think there is a speedy criterion for "unlikely search term"; the only ones I see listed are cross-namespace redirects and redirects from implausible typos; but some admins might be flexible on that. As for "may vs. must", there is never a MUST requirement to delete something that has been speedy tagged. The tag merely calls it to the attention of an admin, who decides if it is a valid case for speedy deletion or not. (In my experience, admins do go ahead and delete them in the vast majority of cases.)--MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Greenwood

Hi, please only remove a BLPPROD if there is at least one reliable source. IMDb and the subject's own Twitter account are not reliable sources. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Read WP:BLPPROD again. It states clearly that it can only be placed if there are no sources whatsoever. The reliable source requirement only applies after a valid BLPPROD placement, which yours was not. Adam9007 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's good to read more than the first sentence: "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Notice the word "reliable" here? The phrase before that says "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." Note the word "support". A reference to IMDb cannot "support" any statement, because it is not reliable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• PS: also read the tag itself, it's pretty explicit about this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It also says "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject" Adam9007 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Funny, I just got into this very same discussion at Drmies's talk page. The BLP-PROD instructions look contradictory, but they are not. The BLP-PROD tag is to be added only if there are no references at all: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." That instruction (for adding the tag) does not specify Reliable sources; it says any sources at all. But if it was properly tagged for having no sources at all, and someone later tries to add sources, the tag can only be removed if the added sources are Reliable. "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added." The policy statement re-emphasizes: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag."

So IMO Adam was right to remove the BLPPROD tag (because the article did contain sources) and Randykitty was wrong to restore it. The person who got it all correct was User:Sam Sailor, who removed Twitter as a source, tagged the article for having only IMDb, and nominated it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was User:C.Fred who removed twitter. Adam9007 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In any case removing it was correct. Things like Twitter, Facebook, etc are never accepted as sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Syllabification of "Claudia" (using spaces)

Syllabification of "Claudia" (using spaces (space bar) to separate the syllables). 122.200.1.158 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

URu2Si2

Why do you believe the text should be preserved?Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

These Thousand Hills

I was really hoping people would leave this article alone and give its creator a decent opportunity to return finish their first draft. It was quite abusively deletion tag-bombed, one minute after a new editor began writing it. It was evident that the article was in the process of being written; the text broke off mid-sentence. And, unsurprisingly, the new editor was, at least for the moment, driven off. I know the BLPPROD wasn't quite accurate, but it provides a less hostile context and a friendlier opportunity should the editor return. See my comments on their talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I know, but normal PROD gives it exactly the same seven day grace period as you sought to give it. I'd also argue that it was outside BLPPROD's scope anyway, as it isn't a biography (even if it must comply with BLP policy), but about a band. Adam9007 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Moira Macdonald

Thanks for clarifying. In any case, I would have dePRODed it as there are sufficient sources to dispute its deletion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Hell Iz Home

Hi there! I undid your removal of the A9 speedy tag on Hell Iz Home because the criteria still applies to the article. There is no indication of notability (per WP:NALBUM notability is not inherited) and the contributing recording artist's page does not exist. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@RA0808:A9 also states "and where no artists have an article". WP:NOTINHERITED is irrelevant, as that's about notability, not credible claims of significance. Significance is lower than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The part of A9 that you quoted is exactly what I said, no artists who contributed to Hell Iz Home have an article. Producers are not artists (e.g. see Music artist (occupation)). RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@RA0808: From Record producer, "A record producer (or music producer) has a very broad role in overseeing and managing the recording (i.e. "production") of a band or performer's music". 2 of the claimed producers have an article. I'd also argue that that constitutes a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Having a "broad role" does not mean they are the artist. But fine, we'll take it to AFD. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 13:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Zulqarnain Zulfi

Muhammad Zulqarnain Zulfi has never been "reported in a notable publication". Or did I miss something? — kashmiri ^TALK 18:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: You missed something; 'He has reported from Kashmir and Delhi, among other publications, for The Indian Express, Indo-Asian News Service, Suhaib Ilyassi's Bureaucracy Today, Greater Kashmir, Etala'at, The Financial Express, and Kashmir Reader.' Adam9007 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I fail to grasp that how this fact alone would confer notability to anyone. Ever read WP:NJOURNALIST? — kashmiri ^TALK 20:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: WP:NJOURNALIST is irrelevant; read WP:CCS and WP:A7M. Adam9007 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither was any indication of significance there. Could you point out what was so significant about the person as to entitle him to an encyclopaedia entry? — kashmiri ^TALK 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I already did. Significance is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Writing for a bunch of newspapers does not confer significance. Please read again:

"Credible claim of significance" is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely: (a) is this reasonably plausible?, (b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

I don't see a single claim in the article that, after being confirmed or properly sourced, would cause the guy to be notable.

Moreover, if you see an obviously problematic article tagged with a wrong tag, why didn't you just replace CSD with XFD? Unless you prefer policing other users to building Wikipedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: 'I don't see a single claim in the article that, after being confirmed or properly sourced, would cause the guy to be notable'. And therein lies the problem; significance doesn't necessarily mean would be notable; it means may be. Adam9007 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you read the above quote once again and check for the verb used? — kashmiri ^TALK 20:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Because I don't need to; writing for notable newspapers absolutely might lead to notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No no, CSD is not about WP:CRYSTALBALL. Significance is about the fact that the person potentially is notable now but establishing this requires more research, more sources. It is not whether the person's current job might make him notable some time in the future. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Huh? What does CRYSTALBALL have to do with it? You utterly misunderstand CCS. I never said anything about the future. Whether a subject actually is notable or not is irrelevant. The article makes a claim that indicates there's a fair chance of there being something that establishes notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No. If the article said that a guy "received a government medal for his work", that would be a credible claim of significance, even if lacking the medal's title, date, sources, etc. But saying that Mr X published in 5 newspapers is NOT a claim of significance. There is virtually ZERO chance that publishing in 5 journals or anything resulting from it will confer notability.

Besides, you still did not address your unwillingness to edit constructively instead of policing. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Are you saying I'm being disruptive? As far as I'm aware, I'm under no obligation to take an article to AfD or PROD when removing a speedy tag. Maybe I didn't see any reason to; you're the one who want it deleted after all. Besides, I said writing for notable newspapers is significant. I did not say that writing for any old newspaper is.Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

No I was saying you were not being constructive. It's not the same as being under obligation to do sthg. Before tagging the article, I googled up the guy's name, looked through the quoted sources, checked out the newspapers listed. You just looked at the formal side and reverted the change instead of replacing CSD with AfD if you thought such a drastic measure as CSD was incorrect - leaving the unsourced article with no tags indicative of problems, nor submitting it to discussion. And no, having written for a notable newspaper is not indicative of significance, you are completely misconstruing the guideline.

Enough was said, I am ending here. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I left the article unsourced? What are you on about? And why do you think writing for notable newspapers is not significant? Unless I'm much mistaken, consensus is that it is. Adam9007 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of 9 references, 7 are to the guy's writings which don't even mention the article's subject nor support a single claim made in the article, and two are to a self-published profile. Do you really say they are WP:RS? — kashmiri ^TALK 22:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

So why did you say the article was unsourced when it clearly wasn't? Whether they're reliable or not is another matter, and irrelevant for the purposes of A7. Adam9007 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You are mixing up sources with references. Not a single claim made in the article is backed up by a single source, although "references" are aplenty. Get the difference? — kashmiri ^TALK 22:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh? How can it have references and be unsourced? You can't have a reference without a source. They're the same thing. You also cannot have a citation without a source. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Being linked to ≠ being a source of. WP:DEADHORSE for me. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. I'm seeing several reliable sources, all having inline citations. They also back up the claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

STOP EDIT MY SITE!

I read many other Simracing Sites and all of them look like my site, SO I GIVE YOU A LAST WARNING STOP EDIT MY SITE OR I REPORT YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspektor-marek (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Fiona Apple

I was working on Limp but then you edited it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Demarco200415: What are you talking about? I never edited that article. Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

sorry, could you please find out who did — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Find out who did what? Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that there is a song Limp by Fiona Apple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Limp (Song) says so. EDIT: Ah! That's the article you were talking about You had me confused. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Link to Limp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfTNpbraBbI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarco200415 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Aaryan Zaveri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaryan Zaveri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaryan Zaveri 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wicked Weather Watch

Hi there, I noticed you removed my CSD on Wicked Weather Watch, noting that the article asserts significance. If you wouldn't mind, would you explain to me where? Thanks! --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The charity was set up by a notable person. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly true but as I'm sure you're aware, notability is not inherited. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought you'd say that, but A7 isn't about notability. Therefore, that doesn't apply. Adam9007 (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A credible claim of significance does. See the two-part test on that page. --Non-Dropframe _talk 00:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It passes both parts. Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Weather Watch DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates to templates

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Thanks for the message on my talk page, it was definitely constructive and useful. But, as is obligated intergalactic wiki-practice, here's a customary trout for templating the regulars -NottNott|talk 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: And don't cite essays as if they were policy :). Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. Cheers! Y -NottNott|talk 08:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ridge Racer Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer Revolution

The article Ridge Racer Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ridge Racer Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Hello, you are kindly advised to stop reinstalling the PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia article, since the page is a obvious fake and there is no eligible source provided by the creator, about the existence and foundation of such club. Thank you. --BG_best (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And you can prove that? Also, it doesn't give you the right to replace the page with invalid CSD tags. Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"The prove" is the lack of sources, it's not my job to prove why something is fake, it's the other contributer job to prove something is real. Find me a rightful source for a club named PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia founded on 2 June 2016 and it all ends here. BG_best (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of sources does not equal lack of existence. Just because the article doesn't cite sources doesn't mean they don't exist. After a quick Google search, I have been able to ascertain that it does indeed exist. Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@BG best: And as for sources, such sources are already cited, and here's another one. Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bare in mind, that the only eligible sources for professional football clubs are the UEFA, FIFA and the local football union websites (not some suspicious noone-ever-heard-of sites) ;) No such club there, sorry, only PFC CSKA Sofia. This however leads to another prove why the page is fake - both PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia articles are listed with same * Website, Fans portal and UEFA Profile. So, tell me again, why we need two different articles, about the same thing? BG_best (talk) 0:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@BG best: How about this one? could this be the "Restructured company PFC CSKA Sofia"? Adam9007 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the official website of the local football union, but another "yellow" one... And still don't get why the administrative changes of a club should be portrayed in a brand new article, and not added into the already existing one? Can we have deal here to finish this nonsense once and for all and to avoid further confusion - I will transfer the text from this article into PFC CSKA Sofia history section, and you will delete the PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia one. In the very moment, when a club named 'PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia founded on 2 June 2016', appears on the UEFA website, you can gladly restore it back. Deal? BG_best (talk) 0:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable secondary source, and I'm not sure what you mean by "yellow" source? I'm not an admin, therefore I cannot delete pages. Besides, it's fully protected, so neither of us can even edit it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it, you're just a admin-wanna-be. Anyway, doubt you will succeed reaching that goal with such irrational contributions and unexplainable stubbornness. Take care ;) p.s. Yellow means made-up or false ;) BG_best (talk) 1:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So anything that isn't from FIFA or UEFA is fake? Nonsense. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Adam9007, please stop lying people, I am from Bulgaria and there is only one team PFC CSKA SOFIA, the team is established in 1948 now it changes its ownership and the structure of the club. Please remove this Wikipedia page because it is fake. There is no such team made in 2016. On behalf of the million fans of CSKA SOFIA remove it. This is just a childish joke from our biggest rivals the Levski Sofia fans. They are part of the gypsies community in our country and this is the type of jokes which they like to do. So please remove this fake page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.226.7 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me whether or not the page stays up; that's for the community to decide. Feel free to share your thoughts at the deletion discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Yatton RFC for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yatton RFC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yatton RFC 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

CareOnGo

Just out of curiosity: what credible assertion of significance? --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few references that cover the subject. Arguably satisfies not just WP:CCS, but WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CareOnGo DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

AfDs/speedy

I have just listed a number of the speedy deletion requests you have declined in the last two days at AFD. As its simpler than notifying you individually on all of them, you'll find them on today's aFD list at about this time of day. For some, I agree it didn't fit speedy; for others, I disagree. Personally, when I decline a speedy on an article because it doesn't fir the criteria, I usually try consider whether it might be suitable for PROD or AFD, rather than leave it for someone else to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) usually

@DGG: If there's nothing obviously wrong with the article I tend to leave well alone. More often than not it turns out I'm mistaken.

Going through my tag removal reasoning:

• Charles L. Deibert - He won several notable awards, including the second highest.

you're right , tho it will not pass afd. I was admittedly influenced by outrageous tone of article

• Unication Co., Ltd. - Having partnerships with multiple notable companies is a clear claim of significance.

disagree. It amounts only to a company saying that notable firms use their products. It's not signif. unless something more impt is asserted.

• Satellite.io - It wasn't obviously web content when I removed the tag. Only after looking at the .io is it made clear. I didn't see the bit about video games until afterwards.

it's the sort of thing I miss often myself.

• Frog Fractions 2 - Not a browser game. It says it's in development for PC, Mac, and Linux.

you're right--it's one of the gaps in the CSD rules

• Gotham Girls Junior Derby - Again, affiliated with a notable company.

again disagree in general, but you may be right for this one is more specific, the junior branch of the main organization.

• Philip J. Miller - Specialises in a particular field. Also cites sources (Though I haven't had a good look through them yet). Might be a grey area as I normally go by WP:A7M, which lists a similar claim, but for academics.

you seem to be saying all medical specialists pass speedy. They don't unless there's some reason to think they are an important specialist in some way. There's nothing here.

• Wallace Chang - Held a high position in a seemingly notable medical centre.

possibly, but I would be inclined more to notice the claim for writing a book by a major publisher-- it happens to be a completely false claim--he wrote only one chapter.

Have I missed any? Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please realize that I was not saying that removing most of these speedies was wrong, just that when one sends an de-speedied article to afd i think it polite to notify the person who removed the speedy. In any case, an error rate of 5% is about the best that can be reached,, and I consider 10% acceptable, but of course it depends on the type of error. I'm still unhappy of not marking them for further attention. Too many things get missed that way. One easy technique is changing a speedy into a prod -- just replace the "db-reason" in the wikitext with "subst:prod|" DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: All too often editors throw wobblers over my CSD tag removals. I'm keen not to "invite" anyone to do so, especially as some editors have me marked down as "abusive" when removing CSD tags. That will only lead to rows that will more than likely result in me being dragged to ANI by the ear and blocked, if not for being uncivil (which I'm never) then for disruptive editing. I get worried that will happen every time that happens. I've been accused of all sorts of things, including being WP:INCOMPETENT, going against consensus (which I don't; I try my best to follow it), and being bureaucratic. As for article problems, if I see any, I either tag them or fix them myself if I can. If I see grounds for deletion, I will nominate it.

Regarding CCS, most of those claims pass point #6 at WP:CCS. Partnerships is surely more than just using each other's products? A lot of people seem to think significance is notability, that is, such a claim would establish notability, not merely could. And there's the spirit of A7. I notice a lot of people go only for the letter in tagging articles, which, I admit, I used to do with removing them. As I understand it, A7 is meant for subjects that obviously have no chance of being notable. If there's any reliable secondary coverage, there's a chance of notability and therefore not an A7 (this seems to be the case with Philip J. Miller). A lot of people also think WP:NOTINHERITED applies to A7 and CCS. It doesn't. I've had that shoved down my throat several times after an A7 tag removal on the grounds of a notable creator or founder and things like that, and it's extremely irritating. Fortunately, there's recently been an RfC, where a consensus was established that significance can be "inherited" from notable subjects (provided the association is strong enough), effectively exonerating me. As you can see, I'm keen to avoid another such argument, so I tread very carefully around notifying people and whatnot, thus I'm usually content to explain my actions in the edit summary. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

More exactly, the close was "here's consensus that a strong association with something notable constitutes a credible claim of significance. To use an example from the discussion, an awardee of the Purple Heart wouldn't have a credible claim of significance on that alone. The creator of the Purple Heart would, however, as might the first awardee. In other words, significance can be inherited, but use common sense." Your A7 removals are in my opinion many of them in the category of weak associations. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Which ones are weak associations? You're also forgetting the second part; "significance can be inherited, but use common sense". I wouldn't have removed the A7 tags if my common sense didn't tell me there's at least some chance of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

that's the perennial problem with relying on common sense, of course. I didn't write that close & I try to avoid using the phrase in an argument. But I'm replying to your assertion to be that not inherited doesn't apply. The close, which I think a reasonable close, was that it sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't. The practical rule of thumb I use is that if what is said in the article is such that no person who understand the nature of WP could have seriously thought this sufficiently important for an encyclopedia, it's valid A7. I continue to think that in all fairness to others, when you make a close a7 call you should take it to speedy or afd. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: "sufficiently important for an encyclopedia" i.e., notable? A7 is not about notability; it's about whether or not it may be important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. And the close said, "significance can be inherited", that is, can be; it does not say that it is always so, or even often. And if it doesn't, that doesn't mean WP:NOTINHERITED applies to A7, because it doesn't. That essay (not a policy or guideline, which is another common behaviour I've encountered) is about notability (not significance) and deletion discussions (not speedy deletion). If you read the RfC carefully, they're saying (or at least that's what a couple of people, including myself, said) that significance isn't really "inherited", but that a strong association with something notable is a CCS in itself (inherited can imply automatic; of course nothing is automatically significant just because it is). On the other hand, inherited could also mean acquired from, so significance is in a sense inherited depending on how you look at it. It beats me how anyone can think WP:NOTINHERITED ever applies to A7. One of my favourite essays is WP:A7M, and frequently remove A7 tags from articles that make any of the claims listed there (which I happen to agree with), only for people to shove WP:NOTINHERITED down my throat. So, I asked User:SoWhy about his views on WP:NOTINHERITED and A7, and he agrees with me; it does not apply to A7 at all (mainly because that essay is about notability, not significance). In fact, I'm thinking of writing my own essay describing the problems and misconceptions about A7 I've encountered (many of which are absent form SoWhy's essay) in order to avoid having to keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over again to the next person who throws a wobbly, or otherwise challenges my tag removal. As for PROD or AfD, I simply don't have the time to check whether each and every article I remove an A7 tag from is PROD or AfD worthy. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is between plausibly in good faith important enough for an encyclopedia like WP as viewed by someone from outside who doesn't know the details of our guidelines , and being actually important enough to be notable by our own peculiar rules. As some frequent examples, no rational person could realistically think that being an attorney is by itself enough for an entry in an encyclopedia, but they could rationally think that being involved in some major cases might be enough. No one could rationally think a high school teacher with no awards suitable for an article; they might a college professor, even if the person turned out not to meet the technicalities of WP:PROF. Nobody could think running for the country sewer commission to justify coverage; but they might rationally think being a unelected major party candidate for the national house of representatives is. In those cases where notability depends upon complicated and contestable interpretations of our guidelines, it must go to AfD. In those cases where what is said might be considered notable , but there are insufficient sources to show it, the article must go to Prod or AfD so people have a chance to look for sources. If no conceivable sources would do it, then it's time to think about CSD. I see our guidelines as instrumental, designed to give the right result in the great majority of cases, and interpret them in that fashion; they are not a body of laws.

There's no point in discussing this much further between the two of us. I shall continue to list every one of you declined speedys which I think implausible for speedy or prod; I have so far not usually emphasized the that I think it should have been a speedy, but in those cases where I think it is really clear I shall start saying so and link to you in the discussion so you will see and can comment. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: "If no conceivable sources would do it, then it's time to think about CSD". Wait, I'm confused. I thought A7 had nothing to do with lack of sources? Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Avidan

The article itself may show potential promise. However, its "parent" article, Ninja Sex Party, provides more than enough information about the subject, deeming this article obsolete. I suggest that the article remains up for speedy deletion. Anthonymous 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article contains assertions of significance. Whether or not he actually is notable enough for his own article is for the community to decide, surely? Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: According to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and standards, no. It's up to the the quality of the information provided, as well as the amount of sources and their reliability. Anthonymous 20:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Cmhhmfo

Indeed he should, I've done it. Thanks. Hut 8.5 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Dan Avidan, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. I try not to template the regulars but the article does qualify for CSD, if you disagree take it to the talk page. Policy says you shouldn't remove the tag. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I am allowed to remove CSD tags you know. I'm not the creator. Adam9007 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Still take t to the talk page, nothing in the article asserts the Notability of the subject. See WP:GNG. Also there are no WP:RS for the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Which goes to show that you don't understand A7. Its standard is much lower than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A7 requires something to assert the notability of the person nothing in the article does that. I'd be happy to remove the CSD and just place it as XFD if you'd prefer. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598:"A7 requires something to assert the notability". No it doesn't, A7 only requires a credible claim of significance. And yes, I think it should go to AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Article has been sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: And what an AfD it's turning out to be! Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cameron11598: Please note that speedy deletion is used only for articles that are uncontroversially subject to deletion, according to very narrow criteria. Uncontroversial means it is so obvious that no-one disagrees. If someone removes a speedy tag - in good faith and not the author of the article - then that means it is not uncontroversial. "Take it to the talk page" is nonsense, because the article's talk page could be deleted at any time. The speedy tag should not be restored, and the person who removed it should not be scolded (much less templated with the wrong template). If a speedy tag is removed, the remaining options are PROD and AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood @MelanieN:--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I have started an AfD on an article that you contested the speedy deletion of, on incorrect grounds IMO, you can find it here Mo ainm~Talk 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my grounds were correct as NOTINHERITED doesn't apply to A7. Adam9007 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't meet GNG or NCORP either. Mo ainm~Talk 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Still not A7. Should have been a PROD or AfD in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

On what grounds does it not meet A7? Where is the indication of importance made in the article for this company? Mo ainm~Talk 12:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mo ainm, an article can fail our notability guidelines and still survive A7. In this case, being founded by a notable pianist with a Wikipedia article and having another artist with a Wikipedia article signed to the label is a credible claim of significance. Additionally, just minutes after it was tagged, the author (who has a COI, but that's unrelated to determining notability) posted on the talk page showing with a WP:RS that an artist on this label hit #2 on a Billboard genre chart ([3]), which is without a doubt a credible claim of significane. and renders the A7 non-applicable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Coby Browser

I was wondering why you removed the CSD tag from this article. I understand the opinion that it's not irreparably promotional as per your edit summary, however I did not believe that this was part of the A7 scope. Please let me know if I'm missing something at WP:A7, but from what I understand (and I've been gone for awhile, so things may have changed in my absence), A7 is a credible claim of significance, which this article doesn't have. I see you sent it to WP:PROD, but curious what the rationale of not getting rid of it per A7 was. PGWG (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@PGWG: A7 does not cover software. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I'll grind the rust off these gears. PGWG (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Conte

Please point out the valid source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Objecting: "To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp/dated until the biography has at least one such source." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: The website in the infobox. BLPPROD requires no sources in order to be placed. Therefore, your placement was not valid. Adam9007 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So your contention is that anyone with a personal website cannot be BLPPRODded? Shall we bring this to the community? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: It's not my contention. BLPPROD states "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)". Take it to the community? You mean AfD? I think user:Appable is planning to do that anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources usually mean reliable sources. I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people to see if editors really want articles solely sourced to Facebook, blogs, Linkedin, etc. to hang around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'll keep an eye on the discussion. But as it stands, it does say no sources in any form, not no reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed by you

• Hello Adam9007, you removed CSD tag here and gave reason "Article asserts enough significance to survive A7". What significance was asserted and how was it verified? Two weeks after the article creation, the only source it has is also a Wikipedia mirror site. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• talk page stalker Hi, the article asserts significance by saying that it broke many records and a single was published on a notable record company, meeting the requirements of a credible claim of significance. A7 does not require a sourced claim. Appable (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Appable: I don't think I saw the second one, but other than that, you took the words right out of my mouth! :). I think the international music tour might also be a claim of significance, but I'm not sure exactly what it means here. Maybe it's time I started writing that essay I was telling User:DGG about? Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bakrie Autoparts

The article just mentions what they produce and which group they are a part of. For my education, could you perhaps indicate what makes you think that the "Article asserts enough significance to survive A7"? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It says Bakrie & Brothers is a parent company. It also cites sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bakrie & Brothers is a redirect. Even if it weren't, why is that an assertion of importance? The sources are 2 links to the company website, one piece that reads like a press release, and one paragraph of unclear significance. In any case, where does it say that an article needs to be unsourced for A7? --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The website is for Bakrie & Brothers. Is it the same thing? Either way, it's probably a strong enough association for significance. Inclusion of sources can also indicate significance. Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So being a subsidiary of some outfit that does not even have it's own article is a credible claim of significance? And if there are sources, A7 cannot apply any more? --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Randykitty: I have seen A7s declined because the article cites sources. Especially reliable secondary sources. Subjects rarely have such coverage for no reason. Adam9007 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)