User talk:Chrislk02

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


User:Chrislk02
   
User talk:Chrislk02
   
User:Chrislk02/Userboxes
   
User:Chrislk02/Contributions
   
User:Chrislk02/My DYKs
   
User:Chrislk02/Awards
   
User:Chrislk02/To do
   
User:Chrislk02/Other
   
Special:Emailuser/Chrislk02
Main
   
Talk
   
Userboxes
   
Contributions
   
My DYKs
   
Awards
   
To do
   
Other
   
Email
Archive
Archives
  1. Jul - Oct - 2006
  2. Nov - Dec - 2006
  3. Jan - Feb - 2007
  4. Mar - Apr - 2007
  5. May - Jun - 2007
  6. Jul - Aug - 2007
  7. Sep - Dec - 2007
  8. Jan - Feb - 2008
  9. Mar - Apr - 2008
  10. May - Jun - 2008
  11. Jul - Aug - 2008
  12. Sep - Oct - 2008
  13. Nov - Dec - 2008
  14. Jan - Feb - 2009
  15. Mar - Apr - 2009
  16. May - Jun - 2009
  17. Jun - Dec - 2009
  18. Jan - Jun - 2010
  19. Jul - Dec - 2010
  20. Jan - Dec - 2011
  21. Jan - Dec - 2012
  22. Jan - Dec - 2013
  23. Jan - Dec - 2014
  24. Jan - May - 2015
  25. Jun - ??? - 2015


Before you ask why I deleted an article, please see if one of the following FAQ's applies

Notice: If you are here because I speedy deleted your article, please do not email me about it unless it contains sensitive or private information that you would not like to discuss here. I WILL NOT reply to run of the mill emails answering your question, "Why did you delete my bands page, we are not signed yet but we really are notable," or other similar complaints. If you have a problem, post it here so everybody can see, and review it themselves if they so desire. If you post a complaint here please make sure you link to the article in question (even if it is a red link). I sometimes delete hundereds of articles a day and unless you tell me what you are talking about and make it easy for me to find it, it is unlikley I will address your concerns. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)



Deletion of Article FS Cat's-Eye[edit]

Hi Chris. Thank you for reading the article FS Cat's-Eye. I check the reason why you delete it is that it duplicate the Cymophane. Cymophane is a chrysoberyl with cat's-eye effect. However, FS Cat's-Eye is a NEW gemstone with cat's-eye effect, the chemical compostion is diffrent from cymophane and the appearance, opal effect, transparency all different. It is different from cymophane. I hope that you can recheck it and consider it again. If you think there are some words may lead to misunderstanding, can you let me know and I will revise it. Thank you for your consideration.

Bertho Driever[edit]

Chris - I would appreciate it if you would reconsider Bertho Driever based on the revisions I've made to this article.

Thank you. Theodulf 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talkcontribs)

RePack[edit]

Hi Chrislk02!

On May 19th, you speedy deleted an article I created. RePack is a disruptive, envinronmentally and commercially notable startup with broad media attention globally. The article was deleted due to A7. I am writing about remarkable Nordic startups and would thus appreciate any arguments for the deletion. Would more external 3rd party links help this? Can I, in any case, retrieve the deleted material for possible editing?

Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshore7 (talkcontribs) 07:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Abdulla al-Hadj[edit]

Hi Chris, I would just like to point out that a user added a 'hoax' tag to this article which you may have missed. Thanks, 81.152.196.240 (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

IOL scaffold[edit]

Hi Chris! Yesterday I started creating the article 'IOL scaffold' in order to provide educational information on wiki. The speedy deletion relating to the copyright issue with article (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.indiaprwire.com/pressrelease/health-care/200801226847.htm) has nothing to do with this article. I am trying to put forth the information on behalf of Dr. Amar Agarwal the inventor of IOL Scaffold & also the 'Glued Intraocular lens implant', the article that you mentioned. The sentences are also not similar & are of my own drafted yesterday. Regards, talk. — Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi You deleted the page about "Point cook netball club" I am new to Wiki and do not understand why it was deleted. It basically just contained a very basic history of the club and basic current info as well. Can it be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.182.117 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New Page[edit]

hi, I want to create a article about our company!? but wikipedia users says this is Advertising and wil be removed!! but there is many of article from other companies here!! like pepsi,coca-cola,ferrari and ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahidvision (talkcontribs) Moved in from archive as new message by User:Mcmatter


Deletion of Edureka page[edit]

Hi Chris, I dont know if this is the right place to ask the question. I created an article on Edureka today and it was deleted by you stating "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".. Now, I am new to editing/ creating articles on Wiki and so I didnt quite understand why it was deleted. It was written just like any other article on Wiki in a perfect encyclopedic manner. It contained general information about a company called Edureka, its history and what it does & offers. Is there any particular section which might have aggrevated you? Please let me know what change i need to make in order to reinstate the page on Wiki. Your guidance will help newcomers like me to contriute to Wiki in a better and a efficient way! Thanks.. p13amitp — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @P13amitp: I deleted the article because at the time, a huge portion of it was a listing of the courses offered which was considered promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to list the services/things it provides (e.g. universities do not use it to list the courses they offer). After further review, it appears that there were some notable citations, which led me to undelete the article and remove the promotional content. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chrislk02 - Thanks a lot Chris for un-deleting the page! What u said makes sense to me! Will take care of such things in future! :) Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by P13amitp (talkcontribs) 16:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tyndall National Institute[edit]

Hey, after you deleted that page it looks like it was copy & paste recreated considering how the user created it with the speedy deletion tag on it. Just thought I'd let you know, article might need to be salted if it gets repeatedly recreated. Pishcal 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Pishcal: thanks for the heads up! I will look into it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chris, You recently speedy deleted this article that I altered. I now understand now having read up on wiki rules that the contact was infringing on G11 & G4 of the Speedy Deletion Criteria. Would you be able to make the draft available so I can make the appropriate changes? I am working in the institute and I will work on this with the whole communications team to make sure it follows the wiki rules. I will take the page back to the form at which it was before I made these additions.Cian O'Regan (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issue at Viorel ilișoi[edit]

Hi. I was surprised by your edit summary at Viorel ilișoi when you removed the deletion tag for a copyright violation, stating that it was an "overlap". It was a nearly word-for-word translation of the source web page. Translation of a copyrighted work requires permission in the same measure as any other use of the work. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Largoplazo: If you had included the rest of my edit summary, you would have seen where I said "false positive, word for word overlap in proper titles" In the case of proper titles used in both a source and the Wikipedia article, it is not apparent copyright. As the rest of the article (except for the parts assumed to be proper titles) did not overlap word for word, I believed it to be a false positive. That being said, I am not a fluent translator, so I made my decision on word for word comparisons using the copyvio tool. As said before, reviewing the two in the copyvio tool, a majority of the prose did not overlap. Hope this clears things up. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I did see "in proper titles" but didn't know what you meant by it. If you meant that only the titles were copied, that's incorrect. The article was unquestionably a sentence by sentence, point for point (I shouldn't have said word for word, since a translation isn't word for word, but light paraphrasing even within the original language doesn't avoid a copyright violation) of the original Romanian text. As I said earlier, copyright includes rights over translation. You can't translate copyrighted text without permission. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Largoplazo: I want to clarify that I am not familiar with the copy-vio process/rules for translations between language, and am not a lawyer. What I will say is, that In my knowledge of language, very few languages are "word-for-word" translations, that the translations inherently has part of the translators interpretation of both languages in the resultant output which makes it not "blatant" (IMHO), at least on the surface. Additionally, as a scholar who has written literature reviews that have been peer reviewed and published, to summarize the results and findings of another author by starting with the central conclusion/point of interest and paraphrasing is appropriate and not considered plagiarism as long as you do not directly copy word for word without proper attribution. I disagree with the assertion you make above that "Do you know that, even within the same language, you don't avoid violating copyright by changing words around and paraphrasing in what's basically still the same text?", that is EXACTLY what you do to prevent violating copyright, you take some central concept, premise, finding, conclusion, etc of interest, and re-word it so that the basic meaning remains, but it is expressed with different words. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • And to clarify, I am not condoning copy/paste of text changing a few words around, I am saying that, some concepts or topics have a highly shared language/unique findings which form the "center" or "core" or the content being expressed. In situations where an article is a small/short article, the likelihood of overlap between the words in the article, and the words at the "core" or "center" of the topic the article is meant to express may overlap. In the case of this article, this was my particular assessment (Without taking into account translations). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The article was a translation of the source web page, not an independent piece that happened to carry a lot of the same information. I looked them over and I could see this, through one paragraph after another (other than that the paragraph breaks came in different places). If you're unfamiliar with the rules regarding paraphrasing and the rules regarding derivative works (which include translations), please see WP:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity and WP:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Largoplazo: First off, I have no issue with the articles deletion, I could care less whether it was kept or deleted, I just patrol CAT:CSD and do my best to keep it empty. Secondly, to reiterate, I chose to keep the article because in terms of English language copyright violation (the use of English language text in a manner that suggests copyright infringement), it was not an obvious, or "blatant" case as the usage of G11 requires. I took my time and analyzed the two as closely as possible, and inferred that the word for word overlap text were proper titles or nouns, which are allowed to be used word for word (e.g. an article on Ernest Hemingway may list all of the books he wrote in order of publication date. In this case, there may be significant overlap with anybody else who chose to report this information, but it does not mean it has to be deleted/removed from Wikipedia). Finally, I believe you, that it was a copyright violation of foreign language, but again, it was not "blatant" in that the word for word overlap was minimal. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Reischauer Chosŏn Chung'ang Pangsong[edit]

I was looking into this redirect when you deleted it. You deleted it as a WP:R3 and WP:G8. I do not see how it meets either one of those criteria. WP:R3 says it only applies to "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers." Since this was created in 2009, I do not think it was recently created. The redirect had a target, Korean Central Television. This is currently a redirect because it was recently moved by the editor that tagged the redirect for deletion. All that needed to be done is update the target to fix the problem. -- GB fan 16:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: Honestly, I generally assume good faith on behalf of the nominator, especially with redirects as they are easy to re-create. Additionally, ones with odd characters often fall into the category. Feel free to undelete it, I have no objections. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
So you see a redirect that is tagged for deletion and delete it without looking at anything? Speedy deletion criteria are narrow and should only be used when they fall into that narrow criteria. We as admins should be looking at what we are deleting and verifying that it does fall into the criteria before deleting, not just deleting on sight since someone else tagged it. I won't undelete, you took responsibility for your use of the tools, I am just raising a concern. Sometimes I think you are too quick with the delete button. -- GB fan 16:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@GB fan: First off, I STRONGLY agree with you when you say " Speedy deletion criteria are narrow and should only be used when they fall into that narrow criteria", I have and will continue to stand for this strongly, within reason. Secondly, In the big picture, I look at performing administrative tasks as a cost-benefit analysis: Administrators are limited resources, with a limited amount of time to spend performing certain actions. Each action has a required amount of effort to perform, and an associated amount of risk/benefit associated with it. I think this is why WP:IAR is important, it allows one to say "The rules are here, but they make the required effort versus associated benefit/risk mitigation is skewed here, I am going to just get this over with" Re my speedy deletions, there are times when the rules are too narrow, making it more difficult than necessary to perform the simple administrative task within minimal risk to the project overall, and in these cases, I generally argue WP:IAR. In this particular case, a surface examination that "Reischauer Chosŏn Chung'ang Pangsog" redirected to "Korean Central Television" was plausibly a mistake; In terms of the overall quality/content/goals of encyclopedia, if the redirect was deleted mistakenly, it has minimal impact (e.g. no original prose was deleted, just a placeholder that could have been found if the content was in another article to begin with). Finally, this is the English language Wikipedia, I doubted that there were going to be any direct searches for that redirect. Given all of that, I felt that the deletion was appropriate, even if it did not meet the strictest definition of a WP:CSD criteria. As always, I am open to debate on topics such as this, and appreciate constructive criticism, as I sincerely do try to find a balance that makes the best decisions overall for the project while most efficiently using my time towards the achievement of those goals. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox subsection deletion help[edit]

Here's the background: I created a subsection in my sandbox to develop an article, since I already used the sandbox mainspace for another article's development. When I finished the article in the subasection, I copy/pasted it to the article's namespace.

And here's the question: If I 'd moved the article from the sandbox's subsection to the article's namespace, would it leave a redirect? In this case can I delete the redirect page myself or will I have to ask for admin help al the time? Is there a way for me to create articles in sandbox subsections (or the sandbox itself), move it to the article's namespace and not leaving anything behind? Thanks in advance for your time. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hansi667: I believe that when you go to move the article, there is a checkbox for "leave redirect". Just make sure that this is unchecked if available. If you are unable to figure out how to do this and a redirect is made, feel free to tag it for speedy deletion, or leave me a note here on my talk page and I will take care of it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt answer. I'll try that next time. For now, cold you delete this one. I have created the article and it's of no use anymore. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hansi667: Yes check.svg Done. In the future, you can tag an article in your user space with the WP:U1 criteria for speedy deletion, and it will end up in CAT:CSD where an administrator will eventually get to it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Host Agent, LLC[edit]

Hi Chrislk02,

I create a page with limited, general information about a corporation in Arizona, Host Agent, LLC that was deleted. The reasoning was that the article didn't provide an acceptable claim of significance. I would like to recreate this article.

My concern is that claims of significance will seem like promotion/advertising. The company is different than any other in its area in what it offers—meaning it does have a claim of significance. However, all Wikipedia business entity articles that I've read that list such claims come off as promotional/advertorial. Of course, those are all large corporations. My guess is that a smaller company like this will immediately get flagged for promotion just as what happened for not providing proper claim of significance.

Is there something that can be done to post a small corporation article like this or do you only allow articles on large corporations?

Thanks!

Internet_Professional (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Internet Professional: first off, there is no "large organization" criteria that allows some organizations to be included while others are omitted, but a general set of criteria referred to as general notability guidelines. Is the organization you are trying to write about the subject of multiple [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]? If so, is there enough content in these sources to base an article on without using the organizations website? Large companies (such as google, apple) meet this criteria. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and info! I know there's no criteria for the size of the company, my thought was just that the articles on larger ones were less likely to get flagged. Just a thought. I think I understand now though. Thanks! There was one reliable source in the article, the Arizona Corporation Commission. I'll wait until I have more material gathered before recreating the article. Internet_Professional (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Internet Professional: No problem! Keep in mind that not all references are equal, and if the article goes to WP:AFD it will be scrutinized. IF you have a references to, say, popular science, that mentions the organization, AFD's for those are often kept. If it is a passing mention of the organization from a local/smaller source, these are often deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Chrislk02: Got it. That makes sense. Thanks again! Next time I'll be ready. :)Internet_Professional (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright deletion[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your quick deletion on User:Tshazid. Its been recreated with the exact same content, if you'd like to take a look at it again. I've left the user a quick note asking them to stop recreating it without addressing the copyright issue. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 18:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for doing it again before I even had time to save this page! Face-smile.svg Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 18:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@NickW557: Thanks for the note! When I am patrolling CAT:CSD I run into that fairly frequently (re-creations), and usually try to knock them out as quickly as possible. After 4 or 5 re-creations, I consider salting. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Jerad Noel[edit]

Hello again Chris, I noticed that you deleted Jerad Noel recently and it's been recreated, and I can only assume that it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. Again, just thought I'd notify you, and thanks for the great work patrolling CAT:CSD. Pishcal 02:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time that this editor has recreated the same article. It has previously been through an Afd discussion. The only sources that have been cited are facebook. Is there a way of ensuring that this editor doesn't simply recreate the article once it has been deleted.Dan arndt (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Dan arndtThe article could be salted, and in fact it's what I'd recommend. Pishcal 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Pishcal, I did think about that option but if at some time in the future Noël was found to be notable I wouldn't want to preclude the recreation of an article on him. Dan arndt (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pishcal: Looks like it was taken care of Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Citysuper (supermarket)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you speedy deleted Citysuper (supermarket), responding to a request by an IP. However, I've noticed that a series of IP accounts have been going around requesting speedy deletion on all Hong Kong supermarkets, and I suspect those nominations to be bad faith [1][2][3][4] etc. Can you restore the Citysuper (supermarket) page and let it go through the proper avenues to deletion? Citysuper is a sizable supermarket chain in Hong Kong and an article can definitely be written about them. _dk (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Underbar dk: looking into it now, get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Underbar dk: after reviewing it, it seems like a pretty obvious A7 to me, regardless of the intentions of the nominator. I say this for the the following reasons 1.) There is no assertion of notability, it is a mall, big whoop? Why is it encyclopedic? I should not have to guess, it should be laid out for the reader. 2.) There are no reliable 3rd party sources provided and 3.) It is just a listing of stores/resources available at this location (again un-encyclopedic). For now, I am going to leave it deleted. If you have some WP:RS it might be a different story, but in its current state, I would delete the article 10 times out of 10. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for looking into this. Well, without seeing the article myself I can't comment on the state of the article. Maybe it's as bad as you described, but I think the topic itself is notable ("...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability" - WP:ARTN). Without delving into topic too much, here is a Google news search about the chain[5], which shows that 3rd party sources indeed exist. _dk (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Baker (businessman)[edit]

You have called for the speedy deletion of the Kevin Baker page. Earlier an editor pointed out that it was not clear that he was prominent, as his company Thomas Lyte did not have a page. The company now has a page, which makes it clear that it is a prominent company. Further evidence to support that Mr Baker is a noteworthy man can be found in the article's references; he has been written about and interviewed by a number of media, both mainstream and trade. His company was awarded a Royal Warrant in January this year, and the company is the maker of a number of prominent trophies, as outlined in the article. Please advice on how to proceed. Many thanks for your assistance. ~~KingshillScott~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingshillScott (talkcontribs) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @KingshillScott: First off, I did not deleted the article for lack of notability (the A7 criteria), but instead for being written in an excessively promotional tone (the G11 criteria). For example, the line "Having made strong progressions with <person>, building the brand’s reputation as the pinnacle of British luxury and finery, <subject> is dedicated to the promotion and protection of English technique and artistry." does not read like an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a promotional line from a resume or bio, Additionally, there are many other lines like this where the prose is written in such a manner as to promote the individual or their interests as opposed to reporting on what makes them notable. My advice is as follows

Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @KingshillScott: FYI, I just deleted the Thomas Lyte for the exact same reason. It was in no way written in an encyclopedic manner. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt feedback. I would like to take another look at the article to make required changes. However, as you have deleted it I no longer have access to it. Is there any way of finding it in the system? ~~KingshillScott~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingshillScott (talkcontribs) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @KingshillScott: thanks for dropping a note by here, just FYI, you are not properly using wikipedias signature functionality, it is easy! Just put 4 tildes (~) at the end of your post, and when you click Save Page, it will automatically covert it to a signature with a date time stamp. Secondly, the G11 criteria for speedy deletion is for especially egregious cases of promotional content (as in this one), where it would be easier to start from scratch than it would be to try and re-write/re-word the existing content; that is the case with this article. I agree with this requirement/approach t because it requires the author to ensure that the content they have is from a reliable source that will pass muster if the article were to be taken to articles for deletion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for getting back to me. I welcome your feedback. You say the article should be based on reliable sources. The article is based on and carefully references The Telegraph, The Financial Times, BBC Radio 4, BBC News Online, Design Week, The Crafts Council, the Royal Warrants Association, The Mail, The Mirror and RBS 6 Nations own website. As such, I struggle to understand your objections with regards to reliable third party sources. If the sources are acceptable - and I would like to hear why they are not - then it will be a matter of tone, which in this case is deemed promotional. Once again, many thanks for your help. KingshillScott (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Austin Stark[edit]

Could you explain why you deleted Austin Stark under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria? Being the executive producer of a major film (see: Infinitely Polar Bear) and the director/writer of another upcoming major film (see: The Runner (2015 film)) at the very least would be a credible claim of significance. BU Rob13 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: I am looking into it now, get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: First off, I undeleted the article, the films this individual is credited with producing may be notable enough to be considered an "assertion of notability". The reason I deleted it is, there are many articles created by "executive producer" types who produced some some non-notable film. In this case, the way the article read (and the specific lack of wiki-links and/or reliable source citations made it seem like this was the case. In short, (At least in my assessment of an assertion of notability), "claiming to be an executive director of <film x>" is not an adequate assertion of notability. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking into that. I'm still working on the article (and wasn't the original creator), so hopefully it can get past the threshold of notability, which it's not at yet. BU Rob13 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible CSD Dan Sundquist[edit]

Hi Chrislk02, I just came across this article: Dan Sundquist. I was intent on nominating it for CSD G11, and maybe G12 for the copying of IMDB. But I'm a bit doubtful on it, the creator seems to put quite some effort in. Maybe you can move it to his userspace or something like that, your call. Keep on the good work at the CSD-deletions, loved your previous image on your userpage by the way! Crispulop (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crispulop: If you are doubtful, then it is likely other editors may also be doubtful. My advice is if you think it needs to be deleted, a.) tag it for proposed deletion and provide a rationale on the talk page (although I suspect it would be contested). if that fails, then b.) take it to articles for deletion. Honestly though, I suspect that it would pass muster at both (just from a surface inspection) or c.) be bold, remove the content that is promotional/inappropriate for an encyclopedia, do a little research and find some reliable sources and spruce it up a bit. I personally recommend the latter because, if you go to find reliable sources and can find none, then I encourage listing at AFD with that in the rationale. Hope this helps! (and cleaning out CSD does feel so good, I will probably put that image back at some point). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Austin Stark[edit]

Was wondering why Austin Stark's article got speedy deleted. It had 2 sources in the first 5 minutes it was up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyarrant (talkcontribs)

  • @Jimmyarrant: looking into it now, I will get back to you. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jimmyarrant: I undeleted this per another users concern, you can read the rationale above. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Rick Mather Architects[edit]

Hi Chris,

You recently speedy deleted the above page. I agree the tone came across self promoting so would like to work on changing that. I put a lot of work on pulling together the citations which all came from different sources. Would you be able to provide the content pre deletion so I can review and possibly re-write.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HrobinsonRMA (talkcontribs) 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @HrobinsonRMA: I have moved it to User:HrobinsonRMA/draft per your request. I will follow up by next Wednesday, and if satisfactory progress has not been made, I will re-delete it. If you get it to a state where you think it is ready to be moved back to the article space, feel free to leave me a note and I will look over it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Chrislk02:Hi Chris, thanks. I will work on this in the coming days and hopefully get back to you with a lean, factual and fully referenced article soon (without any promotional puff), ready for your comments. It's fascinating learning how wiki works! HrobinsonRMA (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Speedy Deletion removal[edit]

Hello

I did not originally intend to use speedy deletion to delete the article. I provided a different tag for deletion but wikipedia actually prompted me to use speedy deletion. Perhaps this should be addressed.

Drowz0r (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomertlhomes[edit]

Hello, my article on Jean-Marc Berthoud was deleted. I own the webpage the biography was taken from (zurichpublishing.org) and received permission from permissions-commons@wikimedia to donate my existing biography. They made the necessary changes to the Talk page. I own a publishing company and would like to see information about the authors we publish more accessible to everyone, via wikipedia. Please help me get the article back. Thank you. Secretary of Tom Ertl article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Berthoud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomertlhomes (talkcontribs) 14:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Death Laid an Egg[edit]

Hello, I just noticed a couple weeks ago you deleted this redirect page to "make room for an uncontroversial page move" but eventually have not proceed with the move. As long as this is actually the English title of the film La morte ha fatto l'uovo I think you should either make the move or restore the redirect, isn't it? or there is something I am missing? ;) --Cavarrone 18:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cavarrone: I do not get involved with the moves, just the part that requires administrative attention (the deletion), and leave the rest up to the interested parties. At this point, as the interested parties have not completed the move, I am open to whatever you think is best. If you want to perform the move, go ahead and knock it out, if you want toe redirect restored, let me know and I will do that, just let me know. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I just restored the redirect for now. Thanks for the explaination! --Cavarrone 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cavarrone: No problem, thanks for catching it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Royal Hawaiian Center deleted[edit]

per 05:51, 8 June 2015 Chrislk02 (talk | contribs) deleted page Royal Hawaiian Center (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I went to look for the latest Wikipedia entry on the Royal Hawaiian Center, a major retail space occupying some important real estate in one the world's leading tourist areas, and... it had been deleted. The reason given was that the article was *unambiguous* advertising or promotion. I very much doubt this, as when I first saw the article (created by someone else), I took out some ad-speak and tried to gear it to a more objective voice. Maybe someone thought this wasn't enough, but I would think the reasonable (not to mention polite) thing to do would be to just edit it further, or maybe put something on my talk page if you were too busy (after looking at the history page and seeing I'd made an attempt at such changes--people *do* look at history pages, right?), rather than slam it with a Speedy Delete.

I'd love to point to examples of what I'm talking about, but, well... everything has been deleted.

I am not employed by or at, have no financial interest in, have no friends or family with the latter, or even care about shopping at the Royal Hawaiian Center. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if its owners or managers care not a fig if the Royal Hawaiian Center has a Wikipedia article. The Center does however have a non-trivial place in the economics of Waikiki and by extension the state of Hawaii, which is why I bothered putting in time to edit the article some more in the first place, and why it should go back. Doprendek (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Sujit Meher[edit]

Dear Chris. When i was searching for Sujit Meher on google, I wondered why Sujit Meher's article got speedy deleted .I checked the reason about your deletion of Sujit Meher page is that G3: Vandalism and insufficient reference links. Sujit Meher was there for 2 years, then it speedy deleted by you which is a page of a famous young designer of India and placed among to 10 designers list of India[6] also his official page verified by facebook itself[7] because of this popularity and fan base. Please i request you to kindly go through this matter and try to restore it. I have given some summery about Sujit Meher with many media references and other valid articles. Sujit Meher (b. 1989) is a young Fashion designer cum entrepreneur based in Bangalore, India and an alumnus of National Institute of Fashion Technology. Sujit in his graduation days launched a label called "Tilottama"[[8][9] that aimed to create designs for social causes with main focus to preserve Sambalpuri Indian Handloom art. In September 2013 he collaborated with a Bangalore based social organized and showcased his first Handloom design collection with the theme name of Folk fashion. Sujit Blends Ikat with his signature handloom fusion style.[10]In 2014 Sujit awarded as Designer-cum-entrepreneur award by GCC, Group in Bangalore and became listed among top 10 influential alumni of NIFT. [11][12][1] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] I hope that you can recheck it and consider to republish it again. If you think there are some words may lead to misunderstanding, can you let me know and I will revise it. Thank you so much. I got to know that Sujit Meher page was initially tempered by "User:Rohtak camp" who is now in Category of Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vermapriya1986[20]. "User: Rohtak camp" was seen doing this kind of unexpected activities many times. Thanks Wikipedia for blocking "User:Rohtak Cam". So that it wont harm to public figure's pages like Sujit Meher.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebtech (talk

contribs) 07:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pierre Courthial[edit]

Dear Chrislk02,

You speedy deleted this article because evidence of permission was missing. However, there is a valid looking OTRS-ticket, ticket:2015060910023161. The text is a bit POV but otherwise usefull. What do you think? Should it be restored or should it remain deleted? Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Vonkje (talk)[edit]

Hi Chrislk02, Your deletion of article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ICD-8a_codes&action=edit&redlink=1 listing legacy ICD-8a codes due to lack of context was unfortunate. I was researching how Mountain Sickness may have gotten conflated with Traumatic Asphyxiation in the ICD-8a and how the ICD-9 teased out those two conditions. The driver for ICD-9's disambiguration of ICD-8a may have been been driven by the original passage of HIPAA, or at least I hoped this was the case. I will be looking at other sources for an authoritative answer to this.

Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Statistical_Classification_of_Diseases_and_Related_Health_Problems appears to provide sufficient context.

Vonkje (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Deletion of Javier Dunn[edit]

Dear Chrislk02,
I noticed that you recently speedy deleted the article for singer-songwriter Javier Dunn because of "A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". However, I feel that this was a wrongful deletion. I believe that Javier Dunn satisfies the criteria for significance and notability because: 1.) He was the lead guitarist in Sara Bareilles' band for ten years, 2.) He has released two full length albums, Winnetka and TRAILS, and is currently signed to Red Parade Music Group, 3.) He co-wrote songs with Bareilles, such as "Love on the Rocks" on the album Little Voice, 4.) He has composed scores for the film A Brave Heart: The Lizzie Velasquez Story.
I also read through your FAQ posted above and Javier Dunn seems to meet all of your criteria as well: A Google search for "Javier Dunn" returns about 848,000 results, passing the "Google test". And, here are some news articles/sources for more information:

I'm not sure if the original creator of the article had included this information, but let me know whether or not this is enough to merit the restoration of the page.
Thanks,
Tznunu (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion of Speedily Deleted Userspace Draft[edit]

Hi, Chrislk02. I am requesting the undeletion of a speedily deleted user space draft which you deleted.

Here is the draft that was deleted.

Here is why I believe this request is reasonable:

1. This was a user space draft and not an article. Instead of creating an article myself once I entered into a COI situation, I intentionally created a draft in user space, properly disclosed the COI, and sought out editor feedback via COIN (and subsequently via the Teahouse for a later draft) so as not to pollute name space with a potentially biased article. I intentionally sought out an article-creation approach which would support Wikipedia's integrity.

Here is my COIN disclosure and request for feedback
Here is my Teahouse disclosure and request for feedback

2. I was intending, after revising the draft based on feedback, to submit it via AFC, despite having article-creation rights. Instead of providing constructive feedback, however, an editor who saw my COIN disclosure and request for feedback marked the draft for speedy deletion based on CSD G11 (Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion), and you carried out the request.

3. While user space is governed by community rules, creating a user space draft on which to solicit feedback in COI situations is an appropriate use of user space, per here: Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F

4. Another editor's opinion indicates that s/he did not believe that a Speedy Deletion was justified: G11 applies to "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." On the other hand, feedback on the article's talk page indicated (to the best of my recollection) that the draft was perhaps a bit too promotional but it was nothing that couldn't be fixed. Also, G11 states, "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." (It is my understanding that the subject is notable based on meeting at the very least items 2 and 3 on the list of notability requirements for musicians.)

5. Regarding the propriety of speedily deleting user space drafts, one Teahouse host stated: "Speedy deletion is sometimes applied to userspace drafts. My view is that the transgression must be blindingly obvious to warrant the approach." Based on the other editor's feedback mentioned in item #4 above, my transgression was not blindingly obvious.

6. The speedily deleted draft is no longer relevant as I have revised it based on the feedback I was able to receive. Here is my current draft (link subject to change): User:Kekki1978/Draft3:Rick_Shutter This draft has been seen by others, and an earlier draft (Feedback2) was recently patrolled. I have received no comments regarding either of these drafts being exclusively promotional or needing to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. It would be helpful, however, to have the earlier deleted version available for reference purposes as I continue to edit.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ www.sujitmeher.com