User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 2

Cecil H. Moore

I have removed the "This article or section has multiple issues" flag and added an additional reference. Apart from the fact that you Obviously did not bother to even read the first paragraph of the linked text- because this significant and important subdivision is in Tucson, Arizona not Phoenix. I think its important to understand that there is not a great deal of documentation on many of Tucson’s early important architects. Their contribution to the unique style a built environment of this city is notable. Moore's iconic buildings are scattered throughout the historic core of Tucson and are significant. Many are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and most if not all eligible for listing. Additionally Moore’s papers and architectural drawings are held by the University of Arizona Architectural Archives for continued scholarly research. Thanks. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by TucsonArt (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Zukhits

Could you please consider the proposal I have made for the Zukhits page? I have reduced the article to essentially a stub, left out "controversial" material, looked through wikipedia's guidelines and followed them to the letter therefore the problems with the page should be fixed. I'd appreciate it if you could take down the afD. Thanks. JPercy (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)JPercy

John Pemberton(anthropologist)

You may wish to counter my points that I have made while stumbling through the circular region of speedy, review and now afd of the article - it is clear than the Notability might not have been obvious from early edits - but he is and was notable for creating perhaps one of the most subversive texts about new order indonesia during the life of Suharto and got away with it - am still trying to find further RS and have tried to explain reasons for notability by expanding the article and also at the afd - trust you have more faith in the whole process of xfd's,and reviews etc - I have lost all when it comes to issues about Indonesian subjects that ditors try to grapple with - and I am fast losing my sense of humour or trust in the overall system - cheers SatuSuro 05:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The response is most heartening - I am trying to find something to get out of my obscurantism but hey there is a very very large percentage of geographically challenged wikipedia eds whom i have to try to maintain agf with :(- and my tact and age and etc leave me teetering upon things that are best left unsaid - the subversive nature of Pembertons book maybe be expanded upon over the weekend - i hope i have the time to find the rs - cheers and thanks - glad you understand the situation and i only groan to think how i have sufficiently insulted enough eds between you and where the art is now :( and :) SatuSuro 06:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and your points are noted (at Afd) - hey and may you survive the weekend as well :| SatuSuro 06:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Diana Bar

• If you read the article instead of just the title I wouldn't need to reply. I've removed the speedy deletion, because:

1. it is not a private company Carley.ashford (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)carley
2. Even if it was still a private company, which it isn't, it could be in Wikipedia, it is a Historic caffe, important for very relevant Portuguese writers (to name a few José Régio, Agustina Bessa-Luís).
3. Last but not least, It is a public library/ gallery, just the city hall didn't changed the name, for obvious reasons

I hope this help you to understand that you made a mistake, please read the article, instead of just the title.

--Pedro (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you stop playing around with the article, think a bit before labelling stuff, inform your self, or something, and avoind this useless conversations. --Pedro (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Just a correction: READ the article, before labeling it for speedy deletion or notability. please read: The BAR is just the historic name, but it is a LIBRARY and as a bar was HISTORIC for Portuguese literature in the 1940s. You don't think that's notable?! 17,900 hits in google. -Pedro (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• I checked all of the hits on the first page in google, and ALL refer to this Diana Bar! maybe there's the language issue, and you have a diana bar in some English-speaking country... can't tell, you just need to click on my link to transfer to google in Portuguese or you din't search correctly, you need to put "diana bar" with the "'. Anyway, it is just a library with a different name, but a bit different from a normal library. There's even youtube hits, here's one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSsMvXZlHkg during some book presentation, you can check it there, I'm trying to search info about the architecture of the building in some books. --Pedro (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ralf Stemmann

Please check Ralf Stemmann page again. It's not an advertisement now and it's re-written from a neutral point of view with more references added. Bolafik (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice

Hi,

Here is a conversation that was placed on Cirt's talk page regarding the deletion of the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. Cirt is listed as the one who deleted the page so that is why the response was addressed on that page.

The reasons for the deletion do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The deletion discussion stated the Laweyrs' Council was a "small" student group, with coverage only by a school, and was not notable. All three of the reasons were inaccurate. How the administrator determined the size of our organization ("small") baffles us because there is no listing of our membership size. The assertion that there is no outside coverage was also bewildering because we were covered by three outside organizations since we are an independent, nonprofit organization. The University of St. Thomas is one of our chapters. We have been covered by CBS news - here's the link to the interview and our very notable and important work regarding mortgage foreclosures (wait until after the commerical airs and the interview will start)-http://wcco.com/video/?id=32984@wcco.dayport.com - Our recreation of one of the most important Supreme Court cases - Dred Scott (which many believe was one of the contributing factors of the Civil War) was covered by the Minnesota Historical Society - http://www.mnhs.org/newsletters/localhistory/2008/February13.htm - Again, another third party source of our work.

We understand the need for administrators to be vigilant in their duties but we believed that they would follow the established policies of Wikipedia and our deletion for lack of notability does not comport with the stated policies regarding notability. Again, we're addressing the matter to you to follow the stated policy of how to begin the process. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added byLawyerscouncil (talk •contribs) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD, whoa...

Hiya..

I noticed that you tagged a raft of pages for speedydel. They're all part of a project I'm working on to bring various Canadian coats of arms up to a reasonable standard. Would it be possible for you to remove the tags? It's a slow-going process and I've been distracted by other things recently, but am aiming to have the bulk done this week.Prince of Canada ^{t |c} 13:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, have you ever heard of WP:CIVIL? Your response was overly-aggressive and completely unwarranted. Leaving the pages for a few more days won't hurt the project, and it saves me the time of re-creating everything.Prince of Canada ^{t |c} 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it aggressive, extremely uncivil, and speaking as though I had no idea what I was talking about. I made a very polite request, you responded with scorn. I suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Britannia Driving School

Hi, I posted an article on Britannia Driving School. I see that the posting has been deleted. Today, I noticed a speedy deletion tag, so I added a hangon tag. This School was established in 1993 and has trained over 165000 students and training instructors. I havent add a single section which would make it look like its for promotional reasons. This is like any other wikipedia article and I have taken great measures to ensure the formatting, citations, externals were all done in par with the wikipedia requirements. Please suggest how I can get this article back up and also let me know what I can do to improve the article. Looking forward to hear back from you Carley.ashford (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carley

Hi, Thanks for replying. I do believe that this is a valid posting. I also compared my article with several other schools for instance New England Culinary Institute and many others. This school has been training several thousand students and instructors and is definitely worthy of having an article on wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to get this article back up. If you want citations, I can provide them to you. Also there were some publications on this school in several magazines. This school also teaches their students eco safety driving which is now a must in UK to pass a driving test. I was unaware of leaving comments in the edit summary section after leaving a 'hangon' tag. Sorry about that.Carley.ashford (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)carley

I amnot too familar with the terms like COI, let me read up and get back to you. All i know is articles should not be posted for monetary reasons, and editors should not edit articles for monitory or profit and I amnot doing this for monetary reasons.Carley.ashford (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)carley

Hi, I went through the examples and I dont fall in any of these categories. Let me know how I should proceed.

1. Financial
2. If you fit either of these descriptions:

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,

1. Legal antagonists
2. Self-promotion
3. Close relationships
4. Campaigning
5. Promotional article production on behalf of clientsCarley.ashford (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carley

Hi again, I was thinking of posting the article again. Do you have a copy of my posting or was it another admin. Let me know. Also, do I need to email anyone from wikipedia so the article doesnt get deleted again. I do think this is a valid article.

Here is what I need help with:

1. A copy of the old article that got deleted 2. Email or id of the admin with whom I need to clarify certain on how to improve the article. 3. Also, I want to verify that I dont fall in the 'COI' category.. Carley.ashford (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC) carley

Please consider postponing AfD for Management Assistant

Please consider withdrawing the AfD for Management Assistant until the merger discussion is at least 5 days old. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are no other comments besides you and me, just speedy-close it with "speedy keep/administrative withdrawal due to ongoing RfD" with a note that you plan on relisting it on some future date, then remove the AfD template. Also put the old-afd templates on the talk page. Once someone else comments you'll want to get that person's consent before speedy-closing it. The WP:AfD page and related page show how to speedy-close an AfD.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page for the rest of this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

new page patrol

greetings Bongomatic! :) i think you're patrolling new pages? if so could you try and remember to hit the "Mark this page as patrolled" link in the bottom right hand corner of the page please? that way i wont spend time opening pages you've already tagged. of course, if you're leaving them that way on purpose so that others also patrol the page then please ignore me :) thanks. Mission Fleg (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

excellent, thanks and happy patrolling! cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you propose deletion of shouting match?

It is not a definition that is in that article. It has some encyclopedic content. So it is not a definition. You proposed deletion of it because of the rule "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". But please think about that for a minute. What is the "Motivation" section? A definition??? Please reconsider your action. -- IRP ☎20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it is supposed to be expanded. Please give it a chance! -- IRP ☎ 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How is my article not notable? Can you please tell me what you're doing? -- IRP ☎ 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Community Safety Accreditation Scheme

Thanks for your view on this. I agree there is a lack of third party sources. I have therefore begin by adding a section relating some (highly critical) press comments on the scheme. Dmvward (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

your idea of a "wikialmanac"

You know, I really like the idea you came up with on the Notability discussion page. Having a "wikialmanac" where peoplecan follow the "all information is useful" philosophy. I love Wikipedia, but only as a real encyclopedia - which is what I think Jimbo wanted it to be. I don't want Wikipedia to be an almanac of everything - but, at the same time, Iwould appreciate having an "almanac of everything" somewhere. Myabe you can repost your idea somewhere where more people will see it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Zukhits' Wikipedia Page

I would like to reiterate, if you take a look at other wikipedia pages you will see that the things you are referring to are prevalent. I truly think the article is notable. No one writes about anything they are not interested in so every article has a conflict of interest. I would appreciate any suggestions you may have to improve the article. Thank you.

JPercy (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

• I did not write the article. I simply renamed it from Crispiness to Crispness. I don't remember anything about the article but it is possible I added a quotation from the Oxford English Dictionary. The quotations in the OED are not the property of the OED, so if this was the case it was not a copyright infringement as the OED do not own copyright to the works they reference. I don't know if this is what you are talking about or not because I have no recollection of the article as I said. I'm sure that had it been a good article, I would remember it. So as that is not the case, I'm glad you deleted it.Mike Hayes (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

prod reason

we do not routinely delete if "unimproved in a week". Proposals to do so even after a year have been soundly defeated. If there are inadequate sources for notability, the best thing to do is to look for some. Some of your prods are probably notable, though some are almost certainly not. . An appropriate reason is something like "apparently nonnotable whatever. No sources for notability in article & not found in google, etc." There are several hundred of those a day that do need checking and deletion. DGG (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you propose deletion of Bundelkhand Ekikrit Party?

Bundelkhand Ekikkrit Party is a political party of India struggling for Bundelkhand state. For related evidence you can see the following also.. 1)Rashtriya Sahara (a leading hindi news paper of India)page number 9 dated 01-11-07 2)AMAR UJALA(A LEADING HINDI NEWS PAPER OF INDIA) page number 4 ,dated 01-11-07 (3)Dainik Jagran(Number one HINDI NEWS PAPER OF INDIA) page number 6 ,dated 01-11-07 (4)see www.jagran.com news of 5-12-07 page 2 the news related to Bundelkhand Ekikrit Party had been published more than 1000 times in several hindi news papers of India,you are requested to search in hindi please.So you are requested to advocate in fovour of retaining the above article on wiki please

please retain Bundelkhand Ekikrit Party on wikipedia

Bundelkhand Ekikkrit Party is a political party of India struggling for Bundelkhand state. For related evidence you can see the following also.. 1)Rashtriya Sahara (a leading hindi news paper of India)page number 9 dated 01-11-07 2)AMAR UJALA(A LEADING HINDI NEWS PAPER OF INDIA) page number 4 ,dated 01-11-07 (3)Dainik Jagran(Number one HINDI NEWS PAPER OF INDIA) page number 6 ,dated 01-11-07 (4)see www.jagran.com news of 5-12-07 page 2 the news related to Bundelkhand Ekikrit Party had been published more than 1000 times in several hindi news papers of India,you are requested to search in hindi please.So you are requested to advocate in fovour of retaining the above article on wiki please —Preceding unsigned comment added byBabligoswami (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You should see this

User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings -- IRP ☎ 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Meh, so it's an imprecise use of the edit summary. Mea culpa. That said, however, geopolitical entities - even defunct ones - are de facto notable. DS (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It meets notability criteria, it doesn't need a "may not be notable" tag. DS (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mogulus

I agree, it doesn't appear to be notable, you may wish to voice your opinion in the AfD.--Boffob (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Quaternionic vector space

Thanks for your comment on "quaternionic vector space". The article needs much more work as indeed does much of Wikipedia's coverage of the quaternions. You ask if the article is related to "quaternion" or to the see also section of that article. The answer to the first question is "yes" but you seem not to have noticed that the very first sentence ofquaternionic vector space includes a link to quaternion! I'm not sure how to make a relationship more obvious than by including a link in the first sentence, but I will try.

The answer to the second question is that none of the articles in the see also section of "quaternion" have any closer connection to quaternionic vector spaces than via their connection with "quaternion". This illustrates part of the problem, I think. However, I would contend that the stub is helpful to someone who already knows what quaternions are (e.g., through the quaternion article). Further, I would contend that the article is of no interest to someone who does not already know what quaternions are. Similarly brain surgery is of no interest to someone who has no idea what a brain is or what surgery is. Nilradical (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Shevell

Well, I'm glad that at least you understand the need to discuss rather than act unilaterally. In truth I am not even sure that a section on her should be in the McCartney article - as I said on the talk page. That the other relationships have more information reflects the level of significance the relationships have to his biography; who she works for, the circumstances of her appointment to the MTA, etc are not relevant to his bio. And until this relationship is reliably reported as one of some significance, I am not convinced that it needs to be in his bio at all. As for Nancy, she seems borderline notable, but deleting her article doesn't mean those details should migrate to his. And I am well aware of the revert rules - seems to me that your reinstatement after I removed the excess and the need to discuss was brought to your attention, is not in the spirit of reaching consensus. I removed it and opened a conversation on talk - before seeing that there was already a Shevell article that you were eviscerating - and so your reinstatement rather than discussing was out of line. Now I'd like to hear from other editors on the page. Tvoz/talk 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UN CSD tagging

Hi there. While page patrolling is appreciated, I want to ask you to review CSD #A7 for future usage. I have declined all your requests for A7 deletion of UN personnel, because in all cases notability was asserted. Please keep in mind that A7 does not mean that the person is notable per se, but that it's asserted. Assertion of notability can in most cases be derived from the positions the person held. Tagging a former Vice-President of a country for A7 for example is clearly not a case where A7 applies. I suggest you take it slowly and rather use WP:PROD and WP:AFD in such cases. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the above: Would you like to withdraw the AfD forGeorge Alleyne? Your question in the nomination has been amply answered now.Pegasus «C¦T» 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Raikut

Check Raikut. Still far from perfect, still various unreferenced statements, but I think now legitimate: more neutral, referenced and no longer orphaned. I will leave it to others to improve. Back to the paying job. Aymatth2(talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the article has seven (I think) different spellings of Baikunthapur? I love tracking down these ones. Don't respond. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for advice. The original author has put back a lot of material in its raw state that I tried to prune, neutralise, reference, organize etc. I think this is a large step backward, but don't want to get into an edit war with a minor article like this on which I do not have strong opinions. What is the best thing to do? Aymatth2(talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I dunno. Raikut did not take out much, but just pasted back big chunks of the original material in random places. So now a lot of it is repeated, in rambling ungrammatical style plus (somewhere else) in more compressed, neutral style. I don't think this guy is going to be responsive to advice. And it really is kind of marginally notable. I'm tempted to forget about it ... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In tribute to your fine work

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		In praise of your excellent editorial contributions to Wikipedia and in tribute to the intelligence, patience and vibrancy that you bring to this project. I greatly appreciate your input and congratulate you on your fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian de Walden

Please check Christian De Walden page again. It's re-written with more references added. Bolafik (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hamidah Khatun

I'm unclear why we would merge Hamidah Khatun, who is venerated in her own light, with Ja'far al-Sadiq. Maybe you can comment on the talk page about why you tagged it? ناهد/(Nåhed)_speak! 03:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Renehan Article

Check the Edward Renehan article now. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 81.173.5.240 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge notice

I have merged VORTEX and VORTEX2 into VORTEX projects. -- IRP ☎ 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

In the David Foster Wallace article, you are suggesting it was ok for the previous, anonymous editor to copy and paste the paragraph with all the sordid, unencylopedic info directly from the smoking gun site, leaving off any citation?

No, I'm suggesting that if you bother to make an edit, you might as well take a few additional seconds to (a) improve rather than revert the article; and (b) not leave an edit comment that suggests the previous edit was erroneous (especially if you knew that it wasn't).

Sarcasm aside, the point isn't to include information in articles, such as at the DFW article or Dagmar Bumpers, that can be verified with a cursary search... rather the idea is to include the verifiabiltiy in the article. In other words, it is incumbant upon editors to PROVIDE sources and citations. 842U (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the idea for other editors, then why not for you on these articles? You are never going to turn other editors into good ones by reverting changes and making sarcastic comments--indeed, you might never be able to do so at all. On the other hand, once you have taken the time to visit a page, you may as well take a few extra moments to "include the verifiability in the article" or otherwise improve it. Bongomatic (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Mawarid Bank S.A.L.

Yes, indeed -- it seems we all missed the bank's amusing role in accepting deposits from the Iraqi government that was supposed to be used to buy food for the Iraqi people. It took me a while, but I found two references backing that. It seems Saddam Hussein also used the bank for secret deposits, too. I have five references to back up the article (the stub, actually). How is life (mis)treating you? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

International Lighthouse and Lightship Weekend

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from International Lighthouse and Lightship Weekend, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I dug out some refs and stuck them on the talk page for now. I'll endeavour to clean it up a bit with those and some info in the external links. It's probably still a candidate for AfD but I think there's enough coverage in RS to avoid Prod.MadScot (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

235

Well, by claiming to be listed as one of the nation's largest firms and sister to one almost in the top 100, I saw this as a claim of importance. If you AFD this, I'd definitely support deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abt Saleem Sinai

I have explained why the article should not be deleted in its talk page. Thanks for the concern. I am primarily busy in South Asian wikipediae. So, havent been able to expand many articles that I have started here. I think the article meets notability criteria and hope that someone expands the article soon. Otherwise, it can stay as a stub for a while and I will expand the article later. Cheers!--Eukesh (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned that the character is the central character. The novel is basically about him, from his birth to death and everything. Besides explaining about his ancestory, there is not a single point in the novel where it deviates from what is going around him. So, I think that its a notable character. All the same, I will try to elaborate it. Regards!--Eukesh (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are articles about characters of novels in which the novels entirely move around characters. Eg-Yossarian,Scarlett O'Hara, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Ishmael (Moby-Dick), Lemuel Gulliver etc. Also, even though the novel is basically about him, it shows the changes in India during and before his time. Regards.--Eukesh (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Senior debt

ok, fair enough re subsidiaries in general now that I've thought about it. To be clear on what happened with WaMu... what the FDIC did was use their "super powers" for lack of a better phrase (which they have by law when a bank fails), to do something extraordinary in this case. The asked JPM to take on all the deposit liabilities (that the FDIC would have otherwise been mostly liable for) in exchange for giving them all the WaMu assets, presumably at a deeply discounted price (price and terms not known / will never be known / not competitively acquired).[1] The FDIC was happy because they relieved themselves of any liability. Depositors and the media were happy because the little guy was ok. The "senior" debt holders (bank / hold co / all) are left with basically no useful assets. Very unusual indeed. Which part is not clear, and I will find suitable references. Thanks! Deet (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The FDIC acknowledges that there will be senior bank debt claims: "Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired.". What more do we need here? By the FDIC's own words the assets are gone and unsecured senior debt is outta luck. Deet (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While you are right about the subsidiary issue, WaMu is actually a poor example, because as I've shown, there are no assets left in the operating company (ie, nothing to claim). That is why I was confused earlier in our discussions on this topic.Deet (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yang Yu-ting

I have removed your request for speedy deletion, as I do see sourced assertions of notability in that article.ViperSnake151 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

afd

I've just apologized on my page and removed that part from my comment entirely. It was affected by some other nominations, and to a certain extent by the part in the guideline about general lack of potential for improvement, which I think shows a superficial attitude to what can be said about major fiction (it may well be applicable to routine children's books and the like. Writing late yesterday--the customary time I see comments from what i assume is your time zone--I carelessly failed to notice that it was just a part of what you quoted, not your argument. Your own argument did not at all make the assumption, but if anything the opposite, and quite properly talked about potentials for improvement. (I think they've been fulfilled, by the way). DGG (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the retraction and (almost!) always enjoy getting to understand your perspective even when I don't share it.Bongomatic 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FCS Control Systems

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from FCS Control Systems, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I found four secondary sources fairly quickly; I think they are notable independent of their parent. MadScot (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Chošnau

The size of that discography, and the participation in television projects on major networks, make him notable.DS (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Linoesilva

Notability is obvious in the articles. Referencing ok. You are not being constructive at all, quite contrary to the wikipedia ethos. Please, stop persecuting my articles for no obvious reasons. The articles had been cleared several times before you by several editors.

Proposed delete of Geocap (mapping & modeling)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Geocap (mapping & modeling), which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Morrand (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gary A. Kowalski

I think you mean withdrawn-by-nom rather than speedy keep. Verbal chat11:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that category on WP:NAC, and indeed the first type of speedy keep defined is a withdrawal by the nominator. Is there a more nuanced list of non-admin closure categories than those? Bongomatic 11:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

SBSinTransit, SBS Transit Service 579

SBS Transit Service 579 is part of the transport nework of Singapore. Information is useful for this service. This is a CityShopper Premium Service brought to us by SBS Transit. So tell me why, why this article should be deleted?

My mistake in AfD

Sorry. Where did I mess up? If you let me know I'll try to fix it. I'm a little tired.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I should provide criteria for speedy? Is that the right bullet point? :) ChildofMidnight(talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about Cher Doll, I thought my first recommendation was to tag it references needed. As an editor added some references I then cast a vote for keep. But if you want me to cross out the bolded tag comment I will do so. Am I missing something else? Not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to make sure I'm on board as far as exactly what you're referring to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So cross out the entire original comment and then add the new one at the bottom of the page? Sorry... I will read the entire article you were nice enoug hto provide in the am... :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deltion of article Krasna zemljo

I have removed the deletion tag from Krasna zemljo, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. The lyrics of the anthem are directly taken from the official web page of the Istria county which is the only autorised entity in Croatia which can change the lyrics of it's anthem (a link has been placed at the bottom of the page so anyone can check it). Unfortunatly, there are no lyrics in english, so I can't post them. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! User_talk:Olafus 10 November 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Rex Carroll

Thanks for tagging. Those notability claims are too strong for speedy. You could try AfD. --Dweller(talk) 21:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)