User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive. Do not edit it.


Orphaned non-free media (Image:Andrade.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Andrade.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley[edit]

User:Awadewit and I have at last put Mary Shelley up for Peer Review. I would appreciate your comments, if you have time, as I know you are interested in the article. We're hoping to go for FAC, all being well. qp10qp (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pingxiang[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Pingxiang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. MattieTK 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm afraid you didn't do your homework on that one. The original version was a disambig page and A7 didn't apply. I've restored it. Chick Bowen 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration[edit]

Well it turns out that Franklin's "Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress" has been cited in a Supreme Court decision. Looks like I'll have to create a new article. Please send my regards to your friends on Mount Whoredom. :) DurovaCharge! 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress So help me, I've submitted it for DYK. Happy encyclopedia-building. :) DurovaCharge! 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Finlay Star.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Finlay Star.jpg. <template info redacted>

Not needed, deleted by me. Chick Bowen 01:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960s fads and trends in North America[edit]

Methinks we just tried closing it at the same time, starting at different points. Sorry for any confusion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep--happens. Not a problem--we had the same conclusion about the debate anyway. Thanks for dropping by. Chick Bowen 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Neves, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Great hook! --Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Chick Bowen 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Cheryl Oldroyd[edit]

Hi. Please don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not trying to be antagonistic! I just wondered whether or not instead of closing this AfD, it might have been better to relist for more input? I don't believe the subject is notable, and nor did the editor who also "voted" (I know...) for a delete - the only person who suggested to keep is clearly, from his/her user page and talk page someone who is keen on promoting the interests of Canvey Island - the hometown of Cheryl Oldroyd - and who might therefore be suggesting a keep on that basis... But I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'd just be interested in your views! Cheers, Pince Nez (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you dropped by, actually, because one reason I didn't relist it is that the original nomination was, I thought, a little too succinct to carry much weight. What I'd suggest is to renominate with a fuller nomination explaining why you feel the article violates the guideline. If the speed of renomination bothers anyone you can certainly cite this conversation. Chick Bowen 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DRV query[edit]

Is your summary that the category is to broadly defined a statement that Category:Chicago musicals can not be recreated or a statement that Category:Musicals with extended Chicago engagements can not be created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither--it's merely an attempt to read the collective sentiment as expressed in the DRV, and predict what the reception might be to somewhat different category. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know the answer to this, but is there a plausible narrower category that would be more similar to the Broadway and West End categories in that it would indicate something more significant about the show itself, rather than that a particular production of it happened to play in Chicago? Chick Bowen 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have though that Category:Chicago musicals was already a much narrower topic than either the Broadway or West End categories, given the small size of the Chicago scene compared to the large West End and Broadway scenes - so I'm not quite sure how one narrows it without getting a very verbose category. Nfitz (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Once again, my closing reflected my reading of the discussion. It may be that those in the discussion misunderstood the situation. Personally I have no knowledge of the situation, so I can't really comment on these issues. There might be a category that would work, and there might also not be. I'm genuinely sorry not to be more helpful, here. Chick Bowen 04:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but I now realize what you're asking, Nfitz. By "narrower" I meant the breadth of the definition, not the number of articles in the category. The concern at the DRV was about individual articles for which the justification of the category was vague (that is, musicals that played in Chicago among lots of other places but have no significant association with the city). Chick Bowen 04:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, got you ... yes, I guess there are musicals based in Chicago, but haven't played in Chicago that might fit in this category without much thought. Not sure I grasped that in the original discussion. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack Wilshire DRV[edit]

"also not clear that the coverage qualifies as significant". I'm surprised by that statement, given the hundreds of media articles in the last month alone and the list of particularly noteworthy articles published in major newspapers across the world that I listed in the DRV. Added to that there's a picture of him in today's Independent. Are you sure about that? Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My advice, then, would be to retry with a better userspace version, as I said. Chick Bowen 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole process is absolutely derailed. The guy started today for Arsenal - one of the best football teams on the planet. He had massive media coverage in the last couple of weeks, because he was a new member of Arsenal, and would clearly be important for the team. And all we have is people too engrossed in WP:BURO instead of having WP:CS. I'll start another DRV, though if you could simply restore in the meantime, that would be easier. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So your suggesting that the article should be improved, and then brought to DRV for a third time? If so, can you drop a copy in my userspace. Nfitz (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Should I take the deafening silence as a no? Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Responded at your talk page--sorry! Chick Bowen 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I never got around to adding the necessary references and relisting the DRV for this. But magically he is now fully notable after having played for 6 minutes for Arsenal today [1]. Ignoring the bizarre nature of this - the copy of the article with most of the edit history is at User:Nfitz/Jack Wilshere, however the restored article at Jack Wilshere hasn't got the edit history, as it was a simply a copy made by a user at User:Hashmander/Jack Wilshere. There doesn't seem to be any overlap (apart from your own edits moving). Can you merge the edit histories of the two articles? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done. Chick Bowen 02:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jack Wilshire[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. Chick Bowen 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You might want to speedy close, as the nominator made a mistake in re-nominating. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I never close two DRVs on the same subject. Never have, never will. Chick Bowen 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, someone else has done. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonic shower DRV[edit]

Hi. Your close of Sonic shower DRV here as "userfy" effectively endorsed the AfD closure, which confuses me. I have to disagree with your assessment that "one editor's insistent view that the close was "nonsensical" is not shared by the community". Many editors believe the close was bad - against consensus and based on a verifiability issue that has been easily proven wrong. ("Nonsensical" may be a bit of an overstatement, but in his defense, I entirely understand how questionable deletions can irritate editors...)

Some clarification is requested. a/ Do you endorse the AfD closing statement or do you think there is consensus for deletion in the AfD (which made the fact that the closing statement was wrong matters less)? b/Do you think there is consensus for userfying the article in the DRV? Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. The sources provided during the DRV are far broader than the narrow fictional sense in which the article was written. I felt there was consensus that an article based on those sources would be fine under WP:V, but one based on fictional sources would not be. That's the issue. I also felt that the tone in which the DRV was conducted was unconscionable, and do not agree with you that it was understandable under the circumstances. In answer to your questions: I don't think those calling for deletion or userfication at the DRV were endorsing the spirit of the close in all its points; on the contrary, the interpretation of WP:V that emerged in the DRV was rather more nuanced than that of the original AfD. I see no problem with that--it often works out that way. Userfication allows for rewriting to address the articles's issues, and simply makes sense given the situation. My close was something of an attempted compromise, and I understand that probably makes it less satisfying to everyone. But I didn't perceive consensus for a straight overturn. Chick Bowen 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the rationale. It made sense. I was under the impression that since sources are available, editors in favor of deletion should argue for the inappropriateness of these sources in an AfD, not a DRV. It doesn't seem right to delete claiming sources don't exist for a subject when they evidently are. I'm still troubled because the deleting admin specifically said that s/he "discount[ed] all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there"" because no specific ref was mentioned. You have a point about the fiction/non-fiction aspect of this topic, though. Userfying is probably the most reasonable solution. I think I'll desist from complaining. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm still hoping this results in an article, somehow. And queries are always welcome, of course. Cheers, Chick Bowen 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Block shorten[edit]

Absolutely not cool. Way, way out of line. Further comment omitted due to too much anger right now. Tan ǀ 39 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect to you--only trying (perhaps failing, for all I know) to diffuse a complicated and difficult situation. I apologize if I have done the opposite. Chick Bowen 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I must log off now due to outside commitments. If my silence is noted I want it clear that that is the reason. Chick Bowen 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You quoted, on Carton's talk page, a "consensus" to shorten the block. First, there was no such consensus, there were at least four editors, three of them admins, who supported the block. Secondly, setting a precedence that any admin can step in, "be bold", and essentially reverse a decision (one that I have a feeling you didn't properly research) is dangerous and undermines the entire purpose. Now the block is a "cool down block", now the block is a slap on the wrist. You are condoning egregious uncivil behavior here, and condoning the right of a few editors, saying "hey that's too long", to dictate admin actions and policy. While I realize we are a meritocracy and us admins don't need to have "power", this action merely contributes to the massive bureaucracy and deadlock that permeates Wikipedia. I researched the situation as a completely uninvolved admin. I weighed the evidence. I made a decision, and set a block length. For you to reverse it with no consult of myself (and with no retort from the blocked user himself) was out of line. Tan ǀ 39 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I can only protest that I did not and do not see myself as reversing the decision. Given that you see otherwise, I can understand your anger, but I wish you'd made clearer either in your block summary or on the editor's talk page a rationale for the length of the block. I don't see this as a slap on the wrist, though--on the contrary, it demonstrates a clear precedent for future escalation if necessary. I'm taken aback by the strength of your anger here--I regret causing it, of course, but am still a but puzzled. Chick Bowen 01:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I'm not spitting on my monitor or stomping around my office. If you were confused to my rationale, you should have consulted me. There was no clear consensus for reducing the block length. I'm not going to act on it, so issue over - perhaps just think about consulting the blocking admin in the future. Tan ǀ 39 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfD discussions[edit]

When you relist an AfD discussion, it would help prevent people like me from making silly mistakes like closing the AfD early if you either comment out or delete the original transclusion. As I'm sure you know, the page the transclusion is on can be found at WP:OAFD. Thanks. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

True, and I have scolded others for the same mistake. Won't happen again. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 23[edit]

Hi, I noticed your closure of a couple of these. There is significant reason to think these deletions were in breach of WP:ADMIN, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?. I would never delete articles I had been involved in the deletion debates for, except for WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE reasons, would you? --John (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There may be reason to think so, but the purpose of DRV is to determine whether the deletion was valid, not to evaluate the conduct of the admin. Since you ask, I have serious concerns about the behavior of Future Perfect myself. But I don't see them as reasons to overturn those specific deletions. This holds particularly for copyright-based deletions--I cannot in good conscience restore an image that violates our copyright policies because of the circumstances under which it was deleted--surely as an experienced admin you wouldn't either. Chick Bowen 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand. Just a heads-up. --John (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confused[edit]

You recently closed an article for discussion on undeletion. That article was titled Pete Draganic (on the page for August 21). There was only one opinion on the article that agreed with undeletion but you made the ruling that there was enough interest so you would uphold the deletion. Allow me to reitterate... The only opinion stated was to undelete the article. --Pete Draganic (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't overturn a valid deletion debate (I mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Draganic, which was unanimous) based on one opinion, sorry. Chick Bowen 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The debate you speak of overturning is from 2006. Much has happened since and Pete Draganic has since been twice elected to office. With the new developments, I think this is worth considering.--Pete Draganic (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but you'll have to convince more people. I don't know why the DRV attracted so little attention but we really never overturn under those circumstances. Chick Bowen 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see. How do I generate more interest? I would appreciate any tips. Not only have there been many changes since the 2006 article deletion but there have also been many changes to the article since DGG first commented on it in Deletion Review. Following DGG's comments, links were added to substantiate facts in the article.
    • I don't know. To be quite honest, I think making a case for an article on a city councilman of a town of 12,000 is going to continue to be tough. Chick Bowen 15:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV[edit]

Please read my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Response_to_Chick_Bowen.27s_comments_in_the_section_above. Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AN[edit]

The MFD seemed so bizarre that I brought the same idea to AN. I'll leave it at that for now. At least I think others also think it's bizarre, too. 903M (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

OK, I understand. I guess it would have been clearer if you'd said that at AN instead of written it up like a proposal. In any case, it's well settled now. Thanks for dropping by. Chick Bowen 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

CarloscomB[edit]

Hi Chick,

I see CarloscomB's temporary block has expired. He's back to creating pages with dab links in them (HD 123657, BP Boötis). You may also wish to review the contributions of IPs User:189.68.164.110 and User:189.68.200.29. I don't recall either of the two IPs having problematic edits but they do appear the day after CarloscomB was blocked and edit the same category of articles as him at approximately the same time as him. NB. I haven't tried to contact CarloscomB about this, but when he's ignoring his talk page... Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've started a new thread at WP:AN. I'm not sure what to do about this--his IP range looks way too big to block, and that would be excessive anyway. He doesn't have e-mail enabled. Well, we'll get through to him somehow. Thanks for the report. Chick Bowen 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alured Ransom[edit]

I understand you closed the AfD discussion on Alured Ransom. Would you please move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Alured Ransom and make a note at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach when you have completed that task? We have interest in further pursuing and improving the article in question. This was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alured Ransom‎ but you may have missed it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I saw your note--that's why I invited you to ask me for it, to confirm. Chick Bowen 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Yes AC and Alured are the same person, but the status of the articles were totally different. Curious, did you consider the additions to the article and still draw the same conclusion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it did get a bit complicated since I tried to take both AfDs into account. You certainly have pretty good material for a DRV if you can put together a really great userpage version (and you can quote me on that if you like), but I think the key would be independent sources--the only trouble with your additions was that the sources were mostly from Ransom's employers. It was an improvement but not enough to overturn the questions about reliable coverage raised at both AfDs. Are there more period newspaper articles that can be turned up--preferably an in-depth profile rather than a mention? Chick Bowen 01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm confident that more information can be found offline. That is just about always the case with college coaches, even small schools. There just really aren't many coaches that "coached only for one year" and then did nothing else... in fact, so few that they are notable for not doing anything else! But with 58 AfDs hitting me in a few days on historical topics during the season, I'm figuring that we'll lose a load of articles, port them to the user sandboxes, improve them at our own pace, and then re-list. But Since you don't mind, I'll look at a Deletion Review of this and one other that has been deleted so far. Thank you again!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaxtr[edit]

So this is from a page you deleted a few times over a year ago, so it's kind of a blast from the past, but it just seemed like common courtesty to run this by you. The page Jaxtr was salted a while ago, but I was contacted about a rewritten version of the article, currently located at User:IveFoundit. The article seems well sourced, and seems to fit the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); I will admit, however, that I am not as well-versed as I would like in assessing notability, so I would appreciate you opinion (even if just to confirm that it all looks fine) on if it's find to de-salt the article. Thanks, -- Natalya 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. The problem wasn't notability--that would have to be determined in an AfD--it was that the previous versions were clear advertisements. A sourced, neutral version would be fine. Chick Bowen 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DVR Image:National Nine News Darwin opener.png[edit]

You never gave me time to explain myself[2] which I was about to do after a rather long few days at work. Bidgee (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The DRV was open for the usual time. Plenty of arguments were made on both sides. I called it as best I could. I'm sorry, and I understand that you were busy, but there's no precedent I know to reopen a DRV that wasn't closed early by request. Chick Bowen 05:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible for me to ask for another Deletion review? If not then it should be reopened for another 24 hours MAX. Bidgee (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the precedent that reopening it creates. But you certainly deserve to be heard. If you write up your rationale here, I'll ask other admins at the noticeboard to take a look at it and respond. Chick Bowen 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Semana_de_Arte_Moderna.jpg[edit]

Ti scrivo in italiano, non so scrivere in inglese. Se ho capito bene, questa imagine l'ai messa tu nella common? Se fosse cosi, sarebbe bene eliminare la mia versione. Puoi dire come trovo la tua imagine? Grazie. --207.13.77.11 (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Alfredobi nella W:es.

Il diritto d'autore per quello immagine é un po' complicato. L'immagine é nel pubblico dominio negli Stati Uniti ma non in Brasile. Commons non permesse immagini se sono sotto diritto d'autore nel paese dove sono stati creati, ma le wikipedie permesse questi immagini. Allora, é neccesario cancellare l'immagine nel Commons e caricarlo a ogni wiki dove è necessario. Scusa! Grazie, Chick Bowen 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Will copy at Commons

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Innocence[edit]

I see you commented on the usage of this image on its FP nomination page. I have removed the image from the article Good and Evil, as per discussion. If you would like to give your opinion on the image, please do so on the nomination page. Thanks for your interest and comments. Jordan Contribs 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TMA change[edit]

Hey there! When you showed up in my watchlist, I thought "wow, there is a name I have not seen in a long time." Generally speaking, I completely agree with your change [3] to the TMA article ... however since I took the picture I figured I was biased and did not want others to feel I was just whoring my own photographs. Regardless, it is nice to see that you are still active on the project! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Same to you! I see you've become an admin since we last crossed paths--glad to see it (I must have missed your RFA). Thanks for dropping by. Chick Bowen 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny ... I was thinking the exact same thing! We also both appear to be members of the super-exclusive group of editors who had zero neutral or oppose !votes in their RfAs. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
True. I'd try to make something of that (tends to be quiet types, I guess), but it's such an odd group. . . Chick Bowen 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Brigante[edit]

Have you even looked at the sources the article was using? They were all reliable. And just because a bunch of deletionists get to the article before everyone else is not a reason to delete it. The reason they weren't likely to change their minds is because they don't care. There was NO consensus for it to be deleted, and as such, it doesn't matter what the result of the DRV is (eventhough the stronger arguments came from the overturn votes). It should not have been deleted in the first place. Again, the deletionists endorsed with nothing backing them up. I even got an editor to change his vote after he looked deeper into the situation. Just un-delete it already. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the cited sources quite carefully. The NOW Toronto article linked states, "From Drake ghostwriting for Dr. Dre, to Circle Research getting a distribution deal in Germany, to Isis’s Thuderheist project blowing up and Bishop Brigante working with Nate Dogg (and possibly Snoop Dogg!), plus many more Canadian/international collaborations and blooming business opportunities, there are many reasons to believe." This is offered as a citation for a statement that Brigante is releasing an album this year that features those people. This is not a responsible use of sources. But ultimately it's not my call--my reading of the DRV was that there was no reason to believe the AfD had not been closed properly. I still don't think so. My advice, I will say again, is to wait until this album is in fact released; if it gets coverage, this will all be academic. Until then, I continue to believe that the deletion process worked the way it's supposed to here. Chick Bowen 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That's one source, which also happens to be the one I didn't add. Whether he released an album or not isn't the issue, as that's only one of the notability requirements, of which he qualifies for a couple. Again, deletionists getting a hold of the process with little to no substance behind their delete/endorse votes, when the keepers actually have a valid argument, is not a reason to delete an article, as Wikipedia is not a vote. --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent close[edit]

This was definitely one of the better closes in my opinion.

Finding a solution at the heart of the difficulty, and reminding everyone of the issues and still being civil (honestly, seeming genial)...

Also, you may or may not be aware (or honestly care : ) - but there was a fair amount of (not sure of the best word - contention? consternation? disruption?) "controversy" due to the concerns about the CfD. I won't bother you with the details, but if you're interested, here's a link, and here's another.

Anyway, all that aside, and honestly even without thinking about the related controversy, that was an excellent close.

(You've definitely re-affirmed why I appreciate being able to come to you (among others) for advice : )

I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Yeah, it's not surprising, but it's unfortunate. There's been a lot of bad faith assumed all around. Thanks very much for your kind words, and here's to all of this moving in the direction of closure. Chick Bowen 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Aqua Connect[edit]

Hey. I noticed you put the article for Aqua Connect in AfD. Thank you for doing that. I created the article. I wanted to know what I can do in AfD to improve the article. I have a new build which is way better than the existing one that I think will suffice as notable and relevant and with credible secondary sources. Should I edit the page on AfD? Thanks for your help. MacJarvis (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice would be to add more material to the article demonstrating impact in the world, by citing independent sources. I would remove the "Benefits" section, which sounds a bit like advertising, and instead discuss press coverage of the product in neutral terms, including both praise and criticism. Chick Bowen 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost Hills Books[edit]

Hello, I made an attempt to save the AfD-targeted Lost Hills Books. Can you please take a look and let me know if it makes the grade? Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)