User talk:Davewild

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

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of Tetteh Plahar[edit]

Hello David I am trying to get most of my deleted articles back on Wikipedia. I currently worked on Tetteh Plahar please can you look it up for me and see if it now meets the notability rule and merits being on mainstream Wikipedia?Regards--Rberchie (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, firstly I have moved the userpage back to the correct location - User:Rberchie/Tetteh Plahar. Secondly I have checked all of the references on the article and don't see the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required in order to establish notability. Indeed the first three references just point to the front page of a website not to particular articles. Without that significant coverage I'm afraid it would be deleted if it is moved back to the main article space. Davewild (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok what is happening now is the references I gave were covered in those newspapers before online evolution by the newspapers and as such they cannot be accessed online. What if I get those articles in the newspapers scanned and add to the references? Will it save the situation?Lastly can it qualify as a stub to exist on mainstream Wikipedia whilst I await some updates to be added?Thanks in anticipation. Regards--Rberchie (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed this reply until just now, sorry about the delay in responding. As I say above significant coverage in multiple reliable sources would be required in order to establish notability. Until notability is established it cannot be moved back to mainspace or it will be deleted again. If you can get scans for the articles and they cover Tetteh Plahar significantly (i.e. not just mentions) then we might be ok, but it would depend on the depth of the coverage. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life[edit]

Hi, I think you deleted the wrong Flower of Life page. The one that was marked for deletion was but you deleted instead! Please advise.

BTW, here's the page that was accidentally deleted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chad — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I did delete the correct article. The discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (fiction) and the article I deleted was at Flower of Life (fiction) which was about the term Flower of Life in animanga. The article you were looking for was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination) by Chillum, which was I think was about the same topic as User:Sloth_monkey/Flower_of_Life, but was not identical. If you have a query with that deletion you will need to speak to Chillum. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the clarification. The deletion became apparent when the image from the manga series by the same name showed up on my Facebook Likes section. I did not Like that page on Facebook, hence my investigation.

The original page that I had liked on Facebook was deleted because it allegedly did not have any secondary sources. Don't thousands of likes on Facebook serve as as appropriate secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines? If they don't, then they should. The tyranny of the few be damned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability on wikipedia comes from receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - see Wikipedia:Notability for the main guideline. This is because article need to be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in reliable sources as wikipedia does not do original research. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July/ 05/2015[edit]

what is reason that you deleted Ahmed Ibrahim Artan Sincerely that person is Somali whiter and politician who is running office in 2016 how come you deleted his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A326 (talkcontribs) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Haaji Ibrahim Artan Beeldaaje where verifiability and notability concerns were not addressed. Running for office is insufficient to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, usually politicians holding national office or being elected to national parliaments is sufficient, as this means that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can usually be found, which is wikipedia's primary notability criterion. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

About the deletion of Firnas Airways[edit]

Hello, Dave. I'm just want to create a page about Firnas Airways, but I found the was page deleted. Why was the page deleted? Firnas Airways is an airline will be operating in 2016. I hope there is a page for it. How to make sure it is not kind of "promotional"? Good day to you :-) --NewTypeDivision (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Firnas Airways was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firnas Airways, which unanimously decided the article should be deleted as it was viewed that the article was written in a promotional way and more importantly did not meet the relevant wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This is because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that wikipedia requires in order to establish notability.
As such an article about Firnas Airways can only be made on wikipedia once that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has been produced. As to addressed promotional concerns, you should have a look at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which explains how articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Davewild (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing Thomas A LaVeist's Page[edit]

Good afternoon, I was wondering if you were able to give feedback about potential edits I wanted to make to the Thomas A. LaVeist page. I wanted to add an external link to the publisher of his books (to give proof of them being authentic) as well as linking to other pages like Tom Joyner and Medical Care Research and Review as both made references to Thomas A. LaVeist. Thank you for your time. CHinds89 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)CHinds89

Hello. If the links you want to add to the Draft:Thomas A. LaVeist page provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then go ahead and add them, as they can only help in demonstrating notability, which whoever reviews the draft will be looking for. The relevant notability guideline for biographies can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people), which you might want to look at.
If you want to look at what wikipedia considers to be reliable sources then Wikipedia's guideline on what is a reliable source can be found here - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I would avoid adding a lot of links to the page if they don't help in establishing notability as they will only make the reviewer think that you are trying to hide a failure to meet the notability guideline through lots of links. If you want to see what the reviewer will be looking at you can also take a look here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions and in particular the Reviewing workflow section which explains what the reviewer will be looking for. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Ibrahim Artan[edit]

Hi Davewild

I'm A326 and I'm requesting undeletion for that article because there no reason to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A326 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained above at this section - User talk:Davewild#July/ 05/2015, that the article was originally deleted because it does not meet wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies, due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. User:Happysquirrel has provided some advice on his talk page in reply to your comment there at User talk:Happysquirrel#Ahmed Ibrahim Artan, which you could consider doing. The article will not be restored unless it has been demonstrated that the relevant wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (people) - has been met. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Elite SEM[edit]


I noticed that you deleted the article for Elite SEM. This is a well known company that has been mentioned on Crains, Mashable, Search Engine Land, and many more other high authority sites. The company's CEO, Ben Kirshner, is also a well known businessman. There was a long conversation happening on the talk section of the page with many other users contributing to the article and tweaking the content. I would ask that you please reconsider and undelete the page. I can help improve the article as well.

Thank You Tonyeny (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tonyeny: Hi, The article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elite SEM where editors unanimously decided the article should be deleted. This is primarily because the article did not meet the relevant wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as there was not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the company. Mentions do not do anything to meet the notability guideline, there needs to be a lot more coverage of the article subject. The nominator at the AFD explained on the article talk page about this before nominating the page for deletion.
Without meeting the notability guidelines, articles are always likely to be deleted and without the significant coverage required the article will not be restored. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For your hard work over at AFD and for not wasting time for the pure hell of it - It's nice to see an admin just delete an article instead of relisting it for weeks on end only to get the exact same outcome you would've got 3 weeks ago!

Anyway wanted to say thanks and keep up the great work :)
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 03:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Davewild (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :) –Davey2010Talk 14:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khan (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi Dave, thanks for your work at AfD. The actions of a nominator caused me to examine a discussion you closed about six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khan (2nd nomination). One participant recommended delete twice (accidentally, I assume), and the nominator, in addition to his nomination, recommended delete. Did you notice those irregularities? You didn't mention them when you found a consensus of delete. Factoring out the duplicates, the head count was nominator + 3 deletes vs. 3 keeps. If you found that sufficient or the arguments for deletion stronger, that's fine. I'd had no involvement with the topic until today, and have formed no opinion about its notability, but was surprised at the swing from the first nomination, which was unanimous (except for the same nominator) with 4 keeps. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: I honestly can't remember what I did or did not see when I originally closed the AFD, however reviewing the discussion again I remain convinced that it was right to close it as delete. The duplicates should rightly only be counted once, which on a strict vote count would make the discussion 5 to 3 for deletion. However the arguments for deletion were also stronger, in the main directly arguing that the article did not meet the notability guidelines, while at least one of the keep arguments was weaker and not based on the notability guidelines. As such I judge there was a consensus for deletion at the discussion. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Jose Angel Tasende[edit]

Could a new page for this player be created since he is on loan at New York City FC and will most likely be playing games for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursby16 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16: The article can be restored, or a new article created once he has actually played a match in Major League Soccer, as he will then meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Until then he does not meet the notability guidelines as per the discussion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Angel Tasende and per WP:CRYSTAL "most likely" is not sufficient. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. Wow sorry. I literally made one just before i got this notification. Em. Should I just delete the page? He is currently on the bench for the game today so could make his debut.Thursby16 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16: I have deleted the article per the WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria as a recreation of a page deleted at AFD. Let me know if/when he makes his debut and I will happily restore the arricle. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ay thanks :)Thursby16 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davewild .... could the page be restored now. He has just came on for his debut. :)Thursby16 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thursby16: Only just seen this now and I see the article was restarted anyway by another editor so there is nothing for me to do now. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

would you consider refund please?[edit]

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Mackle as delete; I can't argue with the consensus. I'd like to get your opinion on an undelete for the purposes of merging it with Ernest Mervyn Taylor, who was the primary subject of his research. If you think it's a good idea, could you please userfy the article for me please? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: I'm not sure how much (or any) will be possible to be merged, but I have userfied it to User:Stuartyeates/Tony Mackle as requested. Just remember to preserve attribution if you do merge anything. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Green Barrie[edit]

So just an FYI that we can't be besties anymore. Not that we were before, but now it's certain. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, please try not to take AFD's personally (which I know is not the easiest advice or most original advice ever). Davewild (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Timothy Smart[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timothy Smart. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for letting me know. Davewild (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Sabino Renteria[edit]

Hello I recently wrote a deletion review of Sabino Renteria. I feel like there was some misunderstanding on some of the sources that were used and I feel like with a little more information some of the editors may have kept it instead of choosing to delete. Thanks and have a good day. S2026090 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, am watching that discussion and may comment there at some point. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahbuba Islam Rakhi[edit]

I would suggest letting this go for another week since it was relisted (and depending there, maybe a third relist) to hopefully get more consensus. At least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerade went for three relists before closing as no consensus. BTW, I've seen you around at AfD and enjoy your work there, cheers! SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: My mistake. I found both of those two AFDs in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and as I did not check the date of the last relist as I should have done, thought they had both last been relisted 7 days before, rather than just minutes before my closes. I have reopened both of the AFDs as a result and hopefully they will get more participation before they end up back in the old AFDs. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Smart — wrongly deleted (I think)[edit]

Hi Dave. I see you were the closing administrator for the decision to delete Timothy Smart's biography, or rather, redirect it to List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar. I personally think that was a huge mistake. He was not only ambassador to Mauritius; he was also High Commissioner to Fiji (an position equivalent to an Ambassador in British Commonwealth countries). He's listed as such on the High Commissioner's article; people see the link there, click on it and expect to be taken to his bio, and instead end up in the Mauritius link. I'm researching Fiji, right? Do I expect or want to be taken to a list of ambassadors to Mauritius? No!

I restored the article twice. User:Dmol reverted me each time. At his request, I raised the matter here, but they told me that I should have asked you first. I apologise for overlooking that. Anyway, could we restart the discussion about the matter? Thanks! :-) David Cannon (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davidcannon: As it is already at deletion review I will comment there and will let the consensus there decide on what should happen. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough :-) David Cannon (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of my edits and informed contributions by Internet Troll: Baroccas.[edit]

To: Davewild

An internet troll "Baroccas" who apparently has opened up an anonymous account is systematically stamping COI labels on all the articles I have edited/contributed to in good faith (in my areas of professional research expertise and scholarship). How can I possibly have a COI in relation to someone whom I have never even met or communicated with in any way whatsoever (e.g., Francis Aveling) since he died 9 years before I was even born? Likewise, "Baroccas" has stamped COI labels on my edits of the Hans Eysenck article, the Carroll Izard article, the Raymond Cattell article, 16PF Questionnaire article, and the Lewis Goldberg articles, for starters. Baroccas who chooses to hide behind the mask of anonymity is just going around vandalizing everything I try to do in good faith. Although never having had any more contact/correspondence re research design or psychometric issues with Cattell or Eysenck, than with many other scholars such as Charles Spielberger, Lewis Goldberg, Andrew Comrey, Peter Salovey, Gordon Claridge, I am nbeing accused of having a COI on all these articles. These were just colleagues with whom I interacted occasionally in relation to research/writing only. So if having a PhD in, and over 200 publications in psychometrics, psychological assessment, and multivariate experimental personality research is to have a COI--then Wikipedia has a major problem. I only feel qualified to edit articles in my area of professional competence. Can you remove the vandalism of Baroccas please? Gjboyle (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gjboyle: I'm sorry I have very little experience of this area and don't think I would be a good person to get involved in this. I can only suggest trying to talk to Baroccas on either their user talk page or the article talk pages. If this does not work or you want some outside help from someone who has more experience with these issues you could post on either Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to get some outside views. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly not a troll, sir. Who do you think you are calling me that? On your own article Gregory John Boyle, that you personally created, you wrote "...based in part on his research collaborations over two decades with Raymond Cattell[8] and Hans Eysenck.[9] Boyle also collaborated with Carroll Izard at the University of Delaware,..." This is why I added legit COI tags on those articles and they are certainly warranted. Your 400 plus edits on the Raymond Cattell article have rendered it the most subjective bio article I have read and am in the process of cleaning up your mess! to a more neutral state. In my opinion it needs to be reverted to the state it was in, before you came along!Baroccas (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Now Removed tag from the Francis Aveling article after cleaning it up and removing peacock language. Further GJBOYLE is incorrect when he says I added COI tags to the 16PF & Lewis Goldberg articles. That's not true. The COI tags on the Eysenck & Cattell articles however, remain, to reflect the significant COI of this editor GJBoyle. A quick google search has uncovered this website and the truth about Mr Boyle, who above is professing to have no particular personal connection to both Eysenck and Cattell.
please click here:
"Gregory Boyle, Ph.D., D.Sc. .....Two of the greatest and most prolific contributors to the science of human personality during the 20th century were Professor Raymond B. Cattell, Ph.D., D.Sc., and Professor Hans J. Eysenck, Ph.D., D.Sc. ....While Ray pursued his academic career in prestigious USA universities (Harvard, Clark, Illinois),
"...........Both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck were my mentors and friends. Both men gave freely of their time, and their kindness and generosity was abundant. My own academic career was greatly facilitated by the intellectual support and moral encouragement of both these great men. I will remain forever indebted to both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck.
So, it turns out that you Mr Gregory Boyle, do have a very real connection despite professing not to and labeling me as a troll!! They were both his mentors and friends! He even refers to Raymond Cattell as Ray! The COI tags should remain and in my opinion Mr Boyle's 400 plus edits on these articles should be removed and the article restored to its original state.Baroccas (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore on the Carroll Izard article GJBOYLE just then, tried deleting his close and personal connection with this subject also, with removing this edit: "The DES-IV has been used extensively in both research and practice, especially by his Ph.D supervisee Gregory John Boyle at the University of Delaware." I retored it and correctly added a peacock tag to the article also.Baroccas (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baroccas: I see you have both taken this to User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji as well as here. I urge you both to take this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where neutral editors and admins who are experienced in perceived conflict of interest issues can help. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Yes I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I have been fully open, have made no attempt to hide my identity, and write only in my areas of professional competence. My informed edits are all backed up by reliable reference citations. Nothing I have written is not true. Gjboyle (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Novatel Wireless page?[edit]

Hello, the Novatel Wireless page was deleted. Would you please explain what happened?

I work for the company and attempted to make edits to the following sections: CEO: Alex Mashinsky (no longer "interim") Logo: Updated Logo Stock Ticker: Updated from NVTL to MIFI

My email is

Thank you, (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Anette

Hello, firstly you should be aware of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, as that guideline says you should not be editing articles about a company for which you work.
The Novatel Wireless page was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novatel Wireless where editors decided the article topic did not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This is because of a lack of significant coverage (not just mentions) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Where articles do not meet the notability guidelines they are liable to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DaveWild. I now understand the rule as stated in Conflict of Interest. Why was the page itself deleted if the issue was related to an edit only? The company is still in business and is cited by credible sources including publications such as PC Magazine, Wireless Week, ABI research, Berg Insights, IoT Evolution, and Seeking Alpha. What am I misunderstanding? Thank you, again, for your time. Anette (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above the page was deleted because editors could not find "significant" coverage of the company in reliable secondary sources independent of the company. Significant coverage includes articles dedicated (or largely) to talking about the company, therefore enabling wikipedia to verifiably write an encyclopedic article about the company and the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline considers niche coverage as less of an indicator of notability than coverage in for instance major national and international newspapers. Davewild (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DavidWild. I have a number of sources, including a one on one interview with our ÇEO from MSNBC. How shall I go about submitting the references? Thanks again for your help and patience. Anette69.43.128.172 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you not to and that if in future an editor with no involvement with your company thinks the notability guideline can be met they can write an article from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would also point you towards this essay, which applies to companies as well as people - Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you are insistent on continuing then see the advice at the bottom of the WP:YOURSELF page (again relevant for your company as well as people) about submitting an article through the Articles for Creation process. I would also point out that interviews do not usually count towards notability, as they are not usually secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DavidWild. Since there have been a number of news outlets that cover the company and out products, I thought that an interview would also be considered noteworthy since it is from a well known outfit. Nonetheless, your advice has been heeded. I see a number of our competitors on Wikipedia, and as I result, I was wondering if there was some sort of Conflict of Interest going on. Thank you again. Anette69.43.128.172 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Potok deletion[edit]

Hi Dave,

I just noticed that the page on me has been deleted and I just read the discussion about it. I just wanted to make a few points in favor of returning it to Wikipedia (or better, a more accurate version). I'm described in the discussion as just a PR person, an employee following orders, etc. I'd like to point out that I'm not a PR person -- I'm a subject matter expert at the SPLC. My current titles are Senior Fellow and also Editor in Chief of our investigative magazine, Intelligence Report. I've written literally hundreds of original-research articles about the radical right, along with chapters for in scholarly book treatments of the same field. I've testified to Congress, the Helsinki Commission, the United Nations and elsewhere.

I also notice that part of the discussion is that articles haven't been written about me specifically, making me non-notable, but that isn't so. Anyway, in the interest of not sounding whiney, I won't go on, but if you're interested in me substantiating some of what I say -- and correcting the many inaccuracies in the now deleted entry -- I'd be happy to.

Hoping to hear from you,

Mark Potok Southern Poverty Law Center

Hi Mark, As you say often Wikipedia articles unfortunately do contain inaccuracies so my advice would be that you leave this alone with the article deleted. Wikipedia does have an essay about this - Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing - and remember that every edit on Wikipedia is public.
If you want to continue then there are a few options. You can go to Wikipedia:Deletion Review and present new evidence that the notability guideline for people (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is met as there is significant coverage (not just mentions or paragraphs, not interviews and not articles written by anyone with any connection to yourself) in reliable secondary sources (i.e. not blogs, etc.). A seven day discussion would then be held and if consensus decides this is sufficient the article might be restored, but remember you would need to link to this significant coverage in going there.
Other options are to go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and link to the significant coverage on the relevant page there. If an editor thinks an article can be written then they could write a new article about yourself. Finally you could follow the advice at WP:YOURSELF and perhaps use the Articles for Creation process. Davewild (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I was just going through my old AfDs at the AfD tool and noticed you had closed quite a few, and really accurately summed up the discussion without any drama. So just wanted to say thanks for the great work around here! МандичкаYO 😜 03:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Davewild (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles on elections around the world, such as Mauritian general election, 2000 and Castle Point Borough Council election, 1999, and interest in our own, for close and keep, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 929th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Davewild (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tetteh Plahar[edit]

Hello Davewild please check the article and let me know what you think about it. Cheers--Rberchie (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about User:Rberchie/Tetteh Plahar again. I see two new sources have been added which reference the sentence added but they are not significant coverage of Tetteh Plahar himself. Significant coverage would be talking about him for all or at least a large part of the article. If you disagree you are welcome to take it to Deletion Review and ask for permission to restore to mainspace as there has been new coverage since the AFD, but I don't think it will be successful. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Davewild I wills still work on it till hopefully I get significant coverage.Regards--Rberchie (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnson K. Gao[edit]

You deleted Johnson_K._Gao. That is not conformed with mediator's post note - Do not delete this file. let it be discussed. Please follow the mediator's instruction. At least I can request a temporary "No Deletion".2605:6001:E48A:6B00:65D0:65D5:F1E3:78B0 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the mediator is that you are referring to and if you will see this. If you do the deletion was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson K. Gao and there was a clear consensus for deletion, which I implemented. Davewild (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Before you deleted that article someone in the community had already edited Johnson K. Gao article. Other people said the only not to delete that article is the academic. Please that you or other people read his book on PEG embedding, the book chapter of epipolarization microscopy and solid core liposome and re-edit that article and re-install that article. His academic rank is research professor. It may meet the criteria.

A good dictionary shall be able to find as many words as possible. A good encyclopedia shall be able to find as many as articles as possible.

But, some of your administers may be addicted to delete articles and let many possible useful article that couldn't be found in the future. We do not need to worry about the lack of storage space in advanced computer age. So, any articles, if it between it should be deleted or should not be deleted at the time it is not clear, and if it is not copyright un-permitted, it shall not be deleted. Thus, readers may not feel unhappy that he/she could not find that article wanted in wiki, but, it could only be found in other places or other encyclopedia.2605:6001:E48A:6B00:297B:ED2D:8B2E:16B7 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the clear consensus in the Articles for deletion that the article should be deleted there is no way that I can restore the article. If you think an article on this topic can meet the notability guidelines then you should use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to create a new draft which can then be reviewed by other editor(s) to decide if the notability guideline is met and if it can be moved to the main article space.
As to your general comments, if this person is in another encyclopedia then that would be a strong indication that an article could be written. The reasons for the notability guideline on wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements, which explains why wikipedia needs significant coverage of the topic of the article in reliable secondary sources (i.e. no connection to the subject of the article) in order to write fully verifiable articles written from a neutral point of view. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Why was the page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniersvpr (talkcontribs) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jay Markwick article was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Markwick decided that the article did not meet the main wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability - as the article did not have significant enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Frederic Colier[edit]

I was surprised to see that you went ahead and decided to delete Frederic Colier from your article pages. I say surprised since more than 20 references from reliable sources were provided as requested after JGZ cleaned up Ref/Spam in article, to demonstrate notability. It is also surprising that participating editors were not able to find secondary refs when it took me less than a minute to document. Can decision be reversed? Or is it better to start brand new article with adding sources? Odersel62 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the references you added and I'm struggling to find any that provide significant coverage of Frederic Colier himself. This was the main concern raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Colier (2nd nomination) and to meet the notability guideline for people - WP:BIO - articles need to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Can you point to which reliable sources provide significant coverage of Frederic Colier? Davewild (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand here, you could be climbing to the moon and if you have no coverage, you have no notability, whereas if you win the golden Butt-Plug for the best rectal scene in a porn film then that qualifies you (taking example from your WIKI pages)? Strange that article was up for 8 years while at the beginning it could have questionable, but since resume has exploded, 60 episodes on TV Series, 3 feature films, and three novels, and suddenly has no nobility. I know the guy and people recognize in the street! He has been on TV for the last three years four times a week. I am willing to rewrite, but you have to admit the process of selection of notability is rather puzzling . . . I do have cross-refs. Let me know if you want me to re-write or edit old version. Appreciate your getting back to me so promptly.Odersel62 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia notability guidelines are the most objective standard for which articles should be on wikipedia, that wikipedia has been able to make and while they are the guidelines, they are what deletion discussions will follow. The most notabile people, events, companies, etc. will get significant coverage and will therefore meet the notability guidelines. I am happy to userfy the deleted article to your userspace (For example at User:Odersel62/Frederic Colier) if you are going to add significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. If that is done then the article can be moved back to the main article space as the concerns that led to deletion would be addressed. If the article is just recreated or move back to article space without the necessary coverage being added then it is likely to be deleted without further discussion. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey David, thanks for taking the time to write back to me and explain how notability works. I still believe wikipedia's process is flawed at the core, because, reading you and others, it sounds like your admins reward the mechanical process of notability rather than the individual's merit for notability. Basically it is a contest in popularity and noise, no matter what content, versus an acknowledgement for the value of the achievement(s). I am writing an article for NYT regarding this rather strange experience and what I see, Wikipedia's complete lack of discernment at what really constitutes notability, at least in my eyes. I'm sure having such a mechanical guideline makes everyone's work easier, but it also opens the door to really questionable notability (ref: Golden Butt-Plug Award for the best rectal scene in a porn film). But we do no have to agree you and I. Be that as it may, thank you for your offer, I'd love to take another crack at the article and attempt to salvage it. Hoping, it will meet your criteria. Let me know how to proceed. Be well. Odersel62 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

An explanation of the reason behind the notability guideline can be found here - Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements. I personally try and think of it as a mixture of that we are covering topics that others have found worthy of notice (i.e. that others have already written about the topic) and that as wikipedia does not do original research and articles must be verifiable and written from a neutral point of view, coverage in reliable sources is essential to fufill the second of the core principals of wikipedia.
Anyway I have userfied the article to your userspace at User:Odersel62/Frederic Colier then you work on it to hopefully get it ready to move back to the main article space. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir, one last question. Can you save your edits as you modify the article without resubmitting for review? Or does everything have to be done in one session? Odersel62 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You can edit it as many times as necessary and (within reason i.e. not years!) take as long as you need to improve the draft. So you can take your time and make small edits when you have time if you want to. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pine Valley (All My Children)[edit]

I see that AldezD had this article deleted. Do you mind WP:Userfying this article for me, so that I can work on it at some point? Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Done, userfied to User:Flyer22/Pine Valley (All My Children) per request. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Page for Naveen Tewari[edit]

Hi David, I want to publish a page on Naveen Tewari. I see that a page in his name existed but has been removed. Can you please share the concern(s) basis which it was removed as I want to keep those points in my mind while creating the new page. In respect to the explicit concern of him not being notable. I would like to share just a few very recent articles about him and/or his company. - see number 15

Naveen's Recognition which will be linked to the respective sources in the article: ‘Future Leaders Award’ presented by Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister, 2015 Fortune’s ‘40 under 40’ most powerful, influential and important people in business, 2015 The ‘Pathbreaker of the Year’ Award, 2014 Forbes India Leadership Award for ‘Outstanding Start Up', 2014 ‘100 Most Creative People’, 2014 across the world The ‘Pathbreaker of the Year’ Award, 2013 presented by Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister ‘7th Most Important Person’ by Business Insider’s the Mobile Power List, 2013 ‘Mobile Top 50’ in The Drum, 2013 ‘2nd Most Important Person’ by Business Insider’s the Mobile Power List, 2012

Looking forward to get help from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the Naveen Tewari as a contested proposed deletion. I am taking the above comments as contesting the deletion. You can now edit the existing article to improve but be aware that if it is not improved to meet the notability guideline by adding significant coverage of Naveen Tewari in reliable secondary sources it will likely be taken to Articles for deletion and deleted there. Davewild (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I have updated the article. Please do share if you have any suggestions to make it better. Hope it aligns to the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnific27 (talkcontribs) 08:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave - Can you please review the page and accordingly either share your comments in respect to any problems or remove the 'contested - proposed deletion status'? - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnific27 (talkcontribs) 07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm personally not convinced that notability through significant coverage of the article subject in reliable secondary sources has been established. However I shall not be taking any actions myself. There is no "proposed deletion status", now it has been restored the Naveen Tewari article is just like any other article. If any editor thinks it does not meet the notability criteria they can nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion just like any other article. Davewild (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of OC&C Strategy Consultants Page[edit]

Dear David Please can you advise of the process to get this page re-published. I note from the discussion that it has been deleted primarily because there is a lack of notability from independent sources. If you could let me know the type of information you are looking for I will be able to provide. Thanks Mousom Roy (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You should have a careful look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which explains the Wikipedia guideline for companies and in particular the section starting "Primary criteria". Articles require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and the guideline explain this.
The article as written was not written in a very encyclopedic way and was very reliant on primary sources. If you think you can write a neutral point of article with notability established then I would suggest starting again by writing a Draft article and then submitting it for review. An editor can then review it and decide if it is ok to be moved to the main article space. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Villas[edit]

As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quality_villas, you may be interested by this BBC story. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Davewild (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Atul Srivastava[edit]

  • Delete, a handful of minor roles, but doesn't come close to WP:NACTOR in my view. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's usually harder to find written information on Indian topics than Western ones, but when it's a BLP we're talking about, caution is called for. Subject must have played minor and supporting roles in various films and TV shows, but fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mentioned only in passing in cited media articles (which themselves are mostly second-tier sources), and I couldn't locate anything more comprehensive. I saw the references but it doesn't talk about Atul Srivastava particularly. This is fake article, should be immediately deleted. David 06:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talkcontribs)

I have nothing to do with this article and will not be commenting about it, I would suggest you not canvass other uninvolved editors and admins. Davewild (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Davewild, the posting above is a new editor (they have also canvassed three bot-usernames). I left a note on their talkpage about desisting. The reason you got their attention is because you were the closer on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aakash_Pandey (cf [1]) back a few months ago, which was (apparently) User:ManishSrivastava1's first time to make a comment. Some of the deletion-rationale mentioned above, is also apparently copy-n-pasted from that earlier AfD discussion, e.g. mostly-verbatim contents of this[2] and this[3]. No opinion on the new AfD (or for that matter the old one), but figured I would fill you in on what was happening. (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks for explaining. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Joseph Warren Belluck[edit]

Hi David,

I hope you are doing fine. I'm quite new to Wikipedia and have been focusing on articles related to New York which I have a lot of knowledge on. I was wondering if you could review the deletion of Joseph Warren Belluck's page, you can see discussion here and check if you feel that the subject is not notable enough to be in wikipedia.

Thank you very much, you feedback is very much appreciated.Nwerner1 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi David,

I hope you are doing fine, I was wondering if you had received my message? I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks! Nwerner1 (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion Yaseen Anwer[edit]

Hello David,

Wikipedia article of poet Yaseen Anwer has been deleted by you after the discussion. It was pointed that article was created by some user named MySelfAnwer, it might be created by Yaseen himself, but how can we fully sure about it that, it was created by only himself. Well, Yaseen Anwer is a well known poet, enough media coverage about him and his work has received. So no question on his notability appears. I remember the page of Yaseen Anwer you deleted, there was less news references was cited. Hence, After the deletion page, I created a new article with good citations, and I was going to add more, but before I could proceed for adding more citations and information, which I received by Googling, the article was nominated for deletion under the speedy deletion policy of Wikipedia and finally was deleted by User:SpacemanSpiff. I contacted him, he said i have to talk to you. Hence, now it is humble request to you, Please undelete the article Yaseen Anwer, so that I can can add more information and citation. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history at that time, but on some investigation I've opened a thread regarding paid COI at COIN, FYI Davewild. —SpacemanSpiff 12:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

New page on Grace Sai[edit]

Hi David,

you previously deleted the page I created on Grace Sai and I have subsequently shortened it considerably, added new references from Huffington Post and two television stations where she appeared and also edited the style and tone. Could you please review and endorse it if that is the appropriate next step?

Tobias Tan (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Undeletding Kyaw Zin Lwin[edit]

Hi Davewild it's Inter&anthro, I contacting you to undelete this page about a footballer. The article was deleted (see here) because it failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, which the subject did at the time. Now however the subject qualifies these requirements by having recently played in a professional match for his country's national team (see source here). As you where the administrator who closed the deletion discussion that is why I am contacting you. Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kyaw Zin Lwin[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kyaw Zin Lwin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Research for 2 deleted articles[edit]

Hi there. I am wanting to get access to two deleted articles - one of which you were the administrator for when the article was closed.

I am not looking at resurrecting the article at all, I just want to look at the information, and especially the quality of the references that were used for the articles, with a view to adding/strengthening some of this information onto individual Club articles. Whilst i agree that these articles may not have been noteworthy in their own right, it may be appropriate to have a properly referenced sentence or two within the article on the particluar Clubs. Can you help me here ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)