User talk:Dugwiki/090910 archive

sources

Just because an article is not cited well now does not mean it should be eleted. Articles need to be around to grow and develop. If you delete them, they will not be able to mature. Some articles are around a very long time before they are developed into a good article. Instead of focusing on deleting, a focus on building will truly help Wikipedia plus build a positive atmosphere rather than a destructive one. Ontheradio925 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, there are numerous cases of articles which are not cited well because they will never be cited well. I'm all for allowing articles to develop, but there is a very minimal bar of verifiability that needs to be met. Removing articles which are not properly referenced helps clear out the invalid articles. Keep in mind that deletion is not permanent, and there is no reason a deleted article can't be moved temporarily to a user space and eventually reintroduced with proper, minimal citation.

So, as they say, sometimes you have to tear things down in order to build something better. There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that fail to meet minimal standards. My two cents. Dugwiki 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles just removes the work and research by those that started the article. What a waste of time. I agree some articles need to grow, but just deleting them does not help. People need someplace to start, and creating stubs, ideas, and other elements let Wikipedians work off of something. When you delete you leave nothing to work with. I view it as highly disruptive to the project. I know it is harder to create than destroy, but I hope you can be a creationist. Good luck to you. 13579create 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with stub articles provided they actually appear to have an opportunity to expand. However, articles which don't appear to be properly verifiable, even when given ample opportunity, and/or which are so short that they could be merged into another topic should be merged or deleted as appropriate. Deleting articles that can't meet the minimal standards and policies of Wikipedia isn't disruptive - keeping such articles is. Dugwiki 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foramt at WP:N discussion

HI.

Please put your rebuttal comments in the rebuttal section. Just for the one area, where we are trying to keep each editors comments in summary. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. FYI, though, when you moved my comments it became less clear what I was replying to. My comments tended to start with "I disagree with this", and now that they're moved it's not as clear what "this" is. Dugwiki 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that Steve accidently reverted your paste of the original statements to rebuttal. I think that is a good idea. Any assistance that you can give in herding the comments to the right corral will be appreciated. Sincerely! --Kevin Murray 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

Please look at the context of the area you are working in. Look at the instructions above. This is an effort to bringing peace and understanding to a very contentious page which had to be protected. This is an experiment. Please help! Kevin

--Kevin Murray 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what help did you need? By the way, I appended the context comments to my replies on the WP:N talk page, so I think that's ok now. Dugwiki 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television program cancellations by year

Last month, you commented on this CfD - you are encouraged to join the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#TV_program_debut/cancellation_categories to gauge consensus on whether to rename the cats, and to what name. Dl2000 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pi day!

$\pi ={\frac {\ln(-1)}{i}}$

Cheers! --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation category

What will this {{Category:{{1}}{{2}} in film}} exactly do? I mean, this navigation is only transcluded in the series of Category:YEAR films. Hoverfish Talk 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably made a syntax error. I was putting in the automatic parent category of "Category:YYYY in film" for categories of the form "Category:YYYY films". The intent is to have, for example, "2003 films" show up as a subcategory of "2003 in film" (which would include not only films released in 2003 but also film awards for 2003 and film related events that occured in 2003). Of course, it's certainly possible I made a typo when I set it up, so if the new parent isn't showing up properly please feel free to let me know or simply correct the typo. Dugwiki 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this explanation to the talk page of Template:filmyr. Any other questions or problems, let me know. Dugwiki 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good with these tempates that assign categories, but I had such a problem once as another template present in the page had "includeonly" categories. So maybe it's not a syntax error but another competing template. Have you checked this possibility? Hoverfish Talk 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this morning and the current version seems to be working properly. For example, Category:2003 films is showing up as a subcategory of Category:2003 in film. Dugwiki 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the discussion in the categorization department and commented there. It seems what you are doing is making the individual year-in-film articles harder to access from category:years in film. Hoverfish Talk 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellations

It matters not if the category's creator set that as its goal, obviously that goal is disputed - and - has no consensus backing it, to conclude: do not reinsert without a consensus and a verifiable source it was cancelled, barring that you'll more then likely be reverted, again. Matthew 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moving discussion to Matthew's talk page Dugwiki 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to messages you left for Matthew) It DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE DESCRIPTION SAYS! The bottom line IS that the cat IS NAMED xxxx cancellationsIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22 for cfd for rename to "series endings" to remove ambiguity. (And you're wrong about the category descriptions not mattering for inclusion - we go by the descriptions, not just by the names). Dugwiki 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 lamps ministry group

You added a notability tag to this article. Could you explain why as I have tried to add all sources I could find on the matter, and unless I should cite quotes from the bishop of bath and wells I cannot find many more sources. As this was a recent thing no published references are avalible yet.

Cheers Gazab1 10:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazab1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

In order to meet basic notability criteria as per the guideline WP:N and its proposed revision WP:INCLUSION, an article should cite multiple published sources written independently of the subject over at least a minimal timespan. The main reason is that, as described in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not intended to house individual articles about literally every local organization. Thus the multiple independent citation guideline is meant to ensure that the article has the potential to be reasonably substantive and also will have more than just a highly localized interest and usefulness.

In this particular case, the 10 lamps ministry group article has two references. Of those one is the church's own website (which isn't an independent source). The other is probably independent, although it's difficult to tell if it's from a reliable publisher. Either way, at most the article has one independent published source cited that talks about the group.

So the notability tag is there to advise interested editors that the article might need additional citations to help support keeping it on Wikipedia. Articles that don't meet WP:N run a risk of eventually being deleted or merged into a related broader topic article (such as possibly including this group as an entry in a list article of church groups in that region).

Hope that answers your question, and good luck with the article. :) Dugwiki 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that does, thank you. Gazab1 09:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazab1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cat:N Sync

I nominated this at your suggestion, if you wanted to weigh in on it here. Otto4711 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Otto. I replied with a recommendation to delete, as expected. Dugwiki 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case...

Since you are also a categorizer and since I am lately repopulating a big category of films that was emptied (without prior notice) in favour of cross categories, I would like to let you know that in films we have decided to keep 3 primary categories all inclusive. These are: Year films, Country films and Language films (this last one I'm not quite happy about but others seem to use it a lot). If you wish, I can also give you good reasons for the first two. In any case, if you ever plan any large scale recategorizing in films, please let us know in advance and discuss about it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Categorization. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there has been a proposal for renaming to "series" some of the nominated categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Comedy films by actor. If you think it is a correct way out of the dilemma, please assist. The prospect of nominating the whole of Category:Film series is, of course, very scarry. Hoverfish Talk 07:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "all inclusive" I guess you mean that all films are being categorized "by year", "by nation" and "by language". Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, let me know. I'll also take a look at the cfd you mentioned. Dugwiki 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I posted my comments (keep as an optional template that guideline authors can use or not use at their discretion). Dugwiki 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

Could you please consider reviewing your vote on category:Settlements in Israel as the reason you put forward for opposing it is an exact reflection of the reason it was nominated in the first place. It is not the category for the settlements in the specific Israeli sense. The category I think you thought you were voting to keep is Category:Israeli settlements. Oliver Han 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look. Dugwiki 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Dugwiki 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for redirects

Per your comment at the CFD for Category:Huxtable family I'm curious about Category:Redirects from alternative names and Category:Redirects from other capitalisations. Are these for maintenance or should they be deleted? Otto4711 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck trying to get those deleted, especially Category:Unprintworthy redirects. Beyond that, Wikipedia:Redirect merely says, "Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page" (emphasis mine). That would seem to apply to this particular case, but the suggestion of a much broader rule than we actually have worries me slightly. Not a big deal, but I just wanted to point that out. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is pretty common sense and straightforward, I think. Category tags should only be on the actual article page, not pages that redirect to it. Otherwise you'll end up with duplicate article listings in categories. The only real exception I can think of offhand would be if you are specifically categorizing redirect pages for maintainence reasons, to make it easier for editors and bots to find and fix certain types of redirects. I haven't looked at the categories that Otto mentioned above, but it's possible they'd fall under the class of redirect-only categories I described. Dugwiki 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting lift of autoblock on IP (blocked due to another user's vandalism?)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 63.111.163.13 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who GuyBannister is. Another user on the same general IP? Or someone spoofing the IP? Not sure. Dugwiki 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user on the same IP address. This could possibly be your ISP's web proxy, though. --Yamla 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. Dugwiki 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD release articles

Generally such articles are created as sub-topics per WP:SUMMARY. They end up categorized in the show's category and/or Category:Videos and DVDs. Otto4711 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wasn't sure about the standard procedure for DvDs. Dugwiki 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holidays

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article The Holidays, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Goodnight mush^Talk 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're telling me about this because...? Dugwiki 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle identified you as the creator of the article, as you figured out I think, and gave alerted you rather than the user who removed the redirect and expanded the page. Sorry to cause confusion. Goodnight mush^Talk 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. :) Dugwiki 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

Hi, I noticed on the Do no harm discussion on Talk:BLP that you were for a pure applciation of BLP in the sense that if an item is properly sourced and not given undue weight then it should be included in a bio. I am having a similar discussion on the BLP page [1] and in the following two sections. I think the policy is becoming bloated with weasel words like "sensitivity, titilating, responsibility, tabloidism, and conservatively" which are being used to trump reliably sourced material. If you can be bothered, I am interested in your comments. Sparkzilla 07:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll take a look at the discussion you're talking about. Thanks for the tip. Dugwiki 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News reports

I like the addition you made to WP:NOT [2]. It makes some of the points in the essay WP:NOTNEWS for which I had great hopes some time ago. If the same thing can be accomplished by a provision in WP:NOT , so be it. But NOT would still seem to leave us with no basis for deleting a watercooler story (fat cat stuck in dog door) which was covered by just enough sources to satisfy WP:A and WP:N. Edison 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt any policy will be perfect, I'm pretty sure that a story about a watercooler wouldn't receive sufficient independent published coverage. More likely would be multiple publications of the same wire information in a short amount of time. So while it's hypothetically possible for some articles to be kept that probably shouldn't be, it hopefully would be a fairly minor issue. Dugwiki 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists

Hi, thanks for your input on the CfD for this category. As for repopulating the category with entries from Category:Pseudoscience, you should be aware that I had already moved many biography articles into various sub-categories, so not all of the people you want to list in Category:Pseudoscientists will be found at the top level of Category:Pseudoscience. I'd prefer if you held off on recategorizing any of those people, but wanted you to know about them in any event. I'm skeptical of treating categories as lists, especially for controversial topics, but I do appreciate your help in cleaning up these categories (which is after all my primary concern here). I'll be gone for a few days, but would like to organize a more inclusive discussion on these issues (probably at Category_talk:Pseudoscience) when I return. Cheers, --Sapphic 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've already completed my pass at it so the works pretty much done, I think. In fact what I did was include things professions for things under Category:Pseudoscience as subcategories. So since Category:Homeopathy is a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, it follows that Category:Homeopaths is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscientists to house the associated bios. I explained it all in more detail in the category description and cfd, but basically by including the subcats that took care of a lot of the work. The remainder was moving "generic pseudoscientists" from Pseudoscience to Pseudoscientists. I only moved bios of people whose articles explicitly talked about them advocating a position that was placing their stated discipline and scientific beliefs under Pseudoscience. Dugwiki 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You managed to get the pseudoscience category page to under 200 items, so it all displays on one page. I'm still not sure I agree with the category you used to do it, but you did manage to beat me to my ultimate goal. No fair! :) Now all I have to hope for is that you'll see the light on list categories vs. topic categories and we can find a way to keep it to one page but dispense with the problematic "controversial list categories" that should probably be disallowed (especially for living people). Anyway, thanks for your effort here, it is very much appreciated. Cheers, --Sapphic 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Glad to help. Dugwiki 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

"prematurely adding link to a personal essay page about news"? What's that supposed to mean? What's "premature" about adding a link to any essay? Essays aren't policy, right? Morgan Wick 07:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, essays aren't policy. Therefore they shouldn't normally be linked to from a policy page since they are, by definition, just an opinion piece by an editor or handful of editors. Doing so implies that the essay is somehow officially sanctioned by the policy, which isn't the case. Dugwiki 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California porn stars

A category you created, Category:California porn stars, has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to contribute to the discussion on the topic, which can be found here. Tabercil 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I made my comments at that cfd and also noticed a minor mistake in how the category is set up which I corrected. Dugwiki 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD Category:Anti-creationism

You have either edited Category:Anti-creationism or contributed to the previous discussion[4] about its encyclopedic value.

This a courtesy notice that it has again be nominated for a deletion discussion[5].--ZayZayEM 02:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[6]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Category:Cabaret Voltaire (band) albums

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Cabaret Voltaire (band) albums, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Cabaret Voltaire (band) albums is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Cabaret Voltaire (band) albums, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald P. Scott (Malibu, CA)

I've found more reliable sources, and am busy footnoting the page - the official report of the Ventura County District Attorney. Since I am not going to remove notices from an article I started (conflict of interest) I invite you to take a second look at the article and see if you feel it is proper for you to remove either (or both) of the NPOV and RS tags. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look but haven't removed the NPOV tag because the main problems still seem to exist. While you've added citations for the facts about what happened (there was a police raid), you haven't added any proper citations for the speculation about why it happened. Without any evidence backing it up, most of the article comes across as tenuous conspiratorial speculation. So at the moment it still reads like an article intended to simply say the raid was malicious without actually providing any evidence to that effect. Dugwiki (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Television program debuts by year

Category:Television program debuts by year, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

AfD nomination of Cellini (play)

An editor has nominated Cellini (play), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellini (play) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

An article in which you have had an interest, List of bow tie wearers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Lemonade (play)

A tag has been placed on Lemonade (play) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Call me Bubba (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tongues (play)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tongues (play), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

nn play

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American federal lawyers

Speedy deletion of The Wild Party (album)

A tag has been placed on The Wild Party (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Canniba loki 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Alabama lawyers

I have nominated Category:Alabama lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Lawyers from Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ennui (film)

The article Ennui (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not assert notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]