User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2010/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

John Rodney

You proposed deletion when it was 10 minutes old. Give it a chance. He's a well-known character actor, with over a dozen major roles. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's not many regular Ghits, but on Google books, there's quite a lot, which makes sense, as he was active well before Al Gore. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty common name so going on Google Hits on the name, particularly in books, really isn't much good as a guide of notability.--RadioFan (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm unsual on what your talking about. I got references but, whats the problem? MirandaKool (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Miranda

The references seem random and are not specific to the article. If you have an article in USA Today which covers this person, you need to use the full URL to that article, not just the USA today website. Take a look at WP:CITE for more information. Claims that this person have appeared on various shows are not substantiated.--RadioFan (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Moon (film)

Hi Radiofan. Please see the talk page on Talk: Moon (film). I just want it discussed because of our dissagreement on the relevance of Duncan Jones being David Bowie's son to the article. We disagree so let's get other people's opinions on it. Kind regards, Phil Nolte (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, sounds like a good plan.--RadioFan (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

s3d designs new page

Hi Radiofan noticed you have put up the page for quick removal. s3d designs have been instrumental in the combination on various media types, and planned to use wiki to extend this knowledge to the world at large. although a company (UK) we have no interest in advertising that. The goal of the wiki page is to share information and research we have done over the last 10 years, freely. What i have put up there this morning was a quick overview, with content currently being written for research articles / journals etc to be cited. Let me know your thoughts regards Matt www.s3d.co.uk 12:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matyhaty (talk • contribs)

I'm not seeing how this company might meet WP:CORP. The article also reads very promotionaly. What is your connection to this company?--RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

s3d designs

I lead the research that we do. The research is funded by s3d, but not ever copyrighted, thus free for all to use.

Should I look to rephrase what is on the page now, or leave and get the content together over the coming days for re-evaluation?

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matyhaty (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You should stop editing this article. You have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your company.--RadioFan (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One Lone Car

I've seen One Lone Car on tour in NYC countless times with bigger groups. And I've heard their music all over MTV for the past couple of years. Being signed to Uranus Recordings is reason enough they should have a page on here. Have you heard of the Gin Blossoms? The singer of that band owns the label. I don't understand why you chose to delete a legitimate band page like that, when I've seen bands such as "Pomeroy" have a page on here. They don't even have a record deal, and they haven't ever toured the US like One Lone Car has. I don't understand why you chose to pick on the OLC page for no reason. Thanks a lot man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This article isn't being picked on, it's simply being held to the same standards that every other article is held to. Not enough has been written about the band to help it meet notability standards. As mentioned in the AFD, their record label isn't notable either.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Women%27s_Studies_Association

Hi,

This page was requested to be deleted by you. How do I request a 'hangon' for it? I am trying to build page about women's associations so building pages for those associations is crucial to make my point.

Kindly let me know how to proceed.

Thanks.

````http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Women%27s_Studies_Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustWind (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one misunderstanding. You obviously have no idea about the music industry. The fact the One Lone Car page was deleted is a loss for Wikipedia. People like you are making this website irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jerry A Shields, Delaware's Enviromental Maverick

A tag has been placed on Jerry A Shields, Delaware's Enviromental Maverick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. 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 biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. TTGL (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Take Off magazine

An article that you have been involved in editing, Take Off magazine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off magazine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sonoma Chicken Coop

Your speedy deletion tag to Mathue Tapper

I wouldn't mark your speedy deletion as G1. Gibberish text is more like sdgbfhyufjfsjckfsijldxhltgfgn or something like that. Please remember that next time you come across a new unreviewed article. Thank you. Minima c94 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for made up things

The article Kick madden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

   Wikipedia is not for made up things

You have plenty of articles about the Bible, which, in my opinion, is made up.... no evidence to say otherwise. :)

Actually half the stuff on this site is made up erroneous.

Regardless, I shall not attempt to repost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjamayne (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) By "Wikipedia is not for made up things" I presume that RadioFan is referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Which as you can see would allow made up things that are know to the rest of the world. Obviously we do not disallow all made up things, or we wouldn't be able to have articles on famous fictional characters and the like. Anyway, thanks for not reposting, with proposed deletion (what the article is currently going through) it will take a week for the article to be deleted. If you want it to be deleted straight away, you, as the sole editor, can simply add the text "{{db-g7}}" to the page. BTW, in future RadioFan, you may want to link to the WP:MADEUP page :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Sonoma Chicken Coop for Speedy Deletion

Shouldn't you talk about deleting an article before you nominate it for speedy deletion? -Skaraoke (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. When there is nothing in an article that indicates that it might be useful in making it a good article which meets guidelines for inclusion, it can be deleted by an administrator immediately. In this case, the deleting admin agreed that the article did not give the reader any idea how this company is notable and basically read like an advertisement for the company. The article can be rewritten but unless its done in a way which meets WP:CORP, including citations to 3rd party reliable sources, its likely to be deleted again. For more information, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy--RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should have marked it as a stub first. Also, the template that you left on my talk page mentioned the use of a "hangon" tag that could postpone the speedy deletion, but the article had been deleted before I even had a chance to read the talk-page message. As such, what was the point of mentioning it in the first place? Anyway, since deleting this article was so important to you, I'll leave the task of cleaning up the red links to you as well. -Skaraoke (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster

Hi there -- I'm not sure why you've earmarked the above page for deletion. This is a high profile and best selling book that has received praise from various quarters and has even been described in the Guardian as the definitive manual for those who doubt the theory of man made global warming. Best, Jprw (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not clear from the article. You must demonstrate the notability of the book with citations to significant coverage in 3rd party sources in order to meet guidelines for inclusion.--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not significant mentions in The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Spectator, The Times, The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday qualify as notable third party sources? Something else to take into account is the book's status as a best seller and emerging as the approximate UK equivalent to the book The Deniers (which has a lengthy Wikipedia article). Best, Jprw (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They do. Thanks for improving the article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but still a long way to go))Jprw (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Paul Longley

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Paul Longley. I do not think that Paul Longley fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because a professor with ten published books is an indication of importance. I request that you consider not re-tagging Paul Longley for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD . TN X Man 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Il Luster

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Il Luster, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Made an Oscar nominated film is a credible assertion of notability, plus other awards and nominations. AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 20:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim doesn't seem credible to me. "shortlisted for 2009 Oscars" is not the same as being nominated and is likely not a verifiable claim. The films imdb page says nothing about an oscar nomination.--RadioFan (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Oscar part is rather confusing, I admit. The other nominations seem more credible to me though, so I think there's still enough for A7. It's difficult to read, though, I admit. PRODding it would probably be the best next step. Ged UK 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Autontravel.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Autontravel.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Miss Earth Florida

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Miss Earth Florida. I do not think that Miss Earth Florida fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because a quick Google shows this is real. Maybe not notable, but real. I request that you consider not re-tagging Miss Earth Florida for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think this is not a hoax? Zero Google News hits on a "beauty pagent" doesn't give me much confidence.--RadioFan (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What Google considers "news" is not always consistent. If this gets mostly local attention it might well miss Google news. I found several online mentions that look unlikely to be fake. Notable, now there is another issue. in any case, for speedy, my t3est is if you have to check Google to be sure its a hoax, it isn't blatant enough to speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 04:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--RadioFan (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your prod

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth Florida. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Darryl Sloan

Hi, being a fan of Sloan's books, I made a page on wikipedia about him, but he was already mentioned in the article about Zombie Genocide. I don't get why you say he has a lack of notability, as he has both an IMDB page, a multi-subscribed youtube page, published books and over 390.000 google hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L E X commons (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Article 'synType CMS'

Hello RadioFan, I have tried to enhance the content of the 'synType CMS' article which was proposed by you for deletion six days ago.

How do think about that now?

I am a newbee in authoring here - and not I am a non-native speaker in English. Do you have any cues for me what I further should do to prevent the article from deletion?

Regards - Lazerstream (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra work on the article but unfortunately it still doesn't meet guidelines for inclusion. All the references you have provided are from the software's website. Wikipedia insists on references from 3rd party sources. If the software has been reviewed in a major magazine, that would be an ideal reference to add and would show the subject to be notable.--RadioFan (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. But if you argue like this you would find a lot of articles about smaller CMS in this List of content management systems with matchable lack of references and prominence. Should we delete all of them now?

If you take a look at these screenshots here http://www.syntype.org/?spg=69 it is obviously this software is the result of thousand hours of programming and it is not a flash in the pan.

And the article is not for advertising but for transparent, scientific information about a - for sure 'smaller' (it's mentioned in the article - but not irrelevant open source software project.

I guess wikipedia should give it a chance. - Lazerstream (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

other articles really dont enter into this consideration. If they dont meet guidelines for inclusion they will be deleted eventually. This article is under scrutiny because it was recently created. Only if it's clear that the article might meet these guidelines will it be given a chance. You should find some coverage in 3rd party sources if you want to see that happen.--RadioFan (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Moye Kolodin

Hi

I am writing an article about Moye Kolodin. Unfortunately, I saved to fast and you set this article for speedy deletion. I think Moye Kolodin is worth beeing in Wikipedia, he has won several prizes and is an upcoming pianist from Germany many engagements.

I will finish the article, please reconsider your deletion action.

Thanks! Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.106.174 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan, yes I made the changes on Moye Kolodin. How am I able to move the article to my user login? Just make from now on changes from there? Thanks for your help! ~Rombooth1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rombooth1 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved to User:Rombooth1/Moye Kolodin, you may continue editing it there until you feel it meets WP:BIO. Feel free to ping me if you'd like it looked over. Also, avoid editing from multiple accounts, stick with Rombooth1 and remember to log in rather than editing from an anonymous IP address.--RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NBA on Christmas Day broadcasters (proposed deletion)

The article isn't even remotely finished yet. So why are you insisting on jumping the gun!? I still have to polish it and finish out the 2000s decade. Besides, if you want a source, check the external links section! TMC1982 (talk) 12:03 p.m., 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Finished or not, I don't see how this topic will meet notability guidelines. Could you go ahead and add a couple of the 3rd party reliable sources you are using as references so that other editors can see how you plan to demonstrate its notability? External links are nice but they alone do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for references. You must cite your references using footnotes to make it clear where the information is from, how the subject is notable and ultimately why Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. The external link you provided does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as blogs are generally not considered reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well THAT's YOUR OPINION and your opinion only so far about whether or not a list for NBA broadcasters on Christmas Day is notable. Believe it or not, NBA games on Christmas Day is by now, considered a special occasion (a la NFL games on Thanksgiving). And like I said, I just started to group, so naturally, I'm not going to have all of the ducks in row relating to sources and the like. TMC1982 (talk) 01:10 p.m., 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As as user since 2005, you should know by now to have all your ducks in a row before posting such an obscure topic. And it most definitely is not notable, having occurred less than three times ever. Seriously. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not a matter of opinion, either the article meets notability guidelines or it doesn't. It sure looks like it doesn't. If you disagree, you should share your thoughts on the AFD page.--RadioFan (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of NBA on Christmas Day broadcasters

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NBA on Christmas Day broadcasters. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've added my !vote. I was going to let TMC1982 develop it a bit more before nominating it but this editor's approach to things isn't making me want to continue extending an olive branch.--RadioFan (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

William Preston Phelps clean up

Thanks for cleaning up! I like editing, but little green on the citations. Thanks again, Jjozoko (talk)jjozokoJjozoko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

No problem. Take a look at WP:CITE it has some good info on making your references look good. You might find Wikipedia:RefToolbar helpful, it makes formatting citation templates much easier.--RadioFan (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Boss Audio

Hey you started the article Boss Audio way back in 2006. I have recently contributed to it; I just wanted to know what you think or why you started the article. Do you know anything about the claim of them being known for being the first to attain 160 dB in a car? Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some detailed technical criticism of them since they are well known to way over-inflate their power ratings and falsely advertise; they also often only list max power ratings and leave out RMS. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism section is original research and cannot be included in the wikipedia article. If someone else has come up with these conclusions, preferable more than 1 someone, and its been published in a reliable source, it can be included. If you came up with these conclusions based on data obtained either from the company or elsewhere, then it's original research. Sorry, thats just the way it works with wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you nominate it for deletion; you have edited it before... 192.156.234.170 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How was it original research if it was sourced? If you look at it that way EVERYTHING on Wikipeida is original research. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research would be if I owned the amp and did tests on it; I don't. I took the amplifers rated power and it's fuse ratings and applied basic exlectrical priciples to prove false advertising and marketing fraud. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't matter how you came up with the conclusion, what matters is that you came up with it and no other referencable source has come to the same conclusion. Has there been some car audio magazine or other source that has done this kind of investigation and published an article about it? Unfortuantely without some other source to backup these statements, it reads like a soapbox.--RadioFan (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CSFI deletion

I am a new used to wikipedia, and I am simply trying to create a wikipedia page for my company. I do not understand what I am doing wrong and I am not trying to be biased or anything like that. Could you just tell me in simple english what I am doing wrong so I can fix it and get my wikipedia article up that would be great. I do not want to be blocked and I am just trying to do what my boss asked me to do. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks

CSFI (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, please share them with your boss as well:--RadioFan (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As an employee of this company, you (and your boss) have a conflict of interest. If the company is notable, someone else will create an article for it.
Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising.
You username is promotional in nature, and you will likely be blocked at that userid and should create another one.
The article cited no references and listed only the company's website.
It was not clear from the article how the company is notable. The fact that the company exists is not sufficent to meet notability guidelines.

Noise Won't Stop

Hi, I noticed you turned my article, Noise Won't Stop (song) into a redirect, seconds after I created it. I have a review from MusicOMH for the single, (http://www.musicomh.com/singles/shy-child_0507.htm), if that counts towards notability. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 14:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A single reference doesn't do much to establish notability. Take a look at WP:NSONGS. Generally, songs that have received an award or charted meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article. Otherwise, the song can be covered in the article on the album instead.--RadioFan (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

General_Directorate_of_Forestry deletion

I have sent below e-mail to 'permissions-en@wikimedia.org', should I do anything else?

I am an employe of GDF, (OGM in Turkish),I wrote that article for our official site and I hereby declare that I grant wikipedia permission to copy already online article http://www.ogm.gov.tr/english/background.htm. to use in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Directorate_of_Forestry .

Sadettin Kocak Sadettin (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You should stop editing this page as you have a conflict of interest. --RadioFan (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD

Why did you wait until now to propose it for deletion? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to comment on whether this article meets notability guidelines, you should do so on that discussion page.--RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (characters)

Trying to shore up the HUGE article for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen by putting the extensive character list on a new article. I've done it poorly for which I apologize. I will be working to correct it as time allows. Thanks, The Red Queen (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider working on the article under User:Redqueenar/Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (characters) first, then move it to main article space.--RadioFan (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am new to this and have started the page that you marked for deletion (please see below). I have it to the point where it seems to meet the criteria I am learning about. Can you get this active again, so that others might contribute to it? Thank you. Bernie

Bernie4321 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Bernie4321/San_%28artist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_%28artist%29

Speedy deletion declined: 360 Kombat

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 360 Kombat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Doesn't apply to combat systems. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you reflexively mark new articles for deletion?

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I find it curious that so many of your edits involve nominating articles for deletion. In fact, of your last 500 edits (as of the writing of this comment), no fewer than 233 of them contain the word "deletion" in your edit comments. It is not uncommon for you to nominate articles for deletion within five minutes of their creation. In fact on at least one occasion you nominated an article within one minute of its creation. As many experienced wikipedians know, many people create articles a little bit at a time. That's just their style. Some people will create an article and edit it a dozen times within an hour or two. Now, if you know that many people do that, why wouldn't you simply wait a mere hour or so before pouncing?

The problem here is that when you flag articles, and then the original creator adds more material, your flag often remains. Consequently, many people (like me) end up wasting their time checking out an article that seems perfectly fine. We then puzzle over why the article was flagged and wonder why we are unable to see the problem. Alas, there is no problem - except that the article was flagged for deletion prematurely.

Your drive to keep Wikipedia free of non-notable information is commendable. But please forgive me if I seem presumptuous in suggesting that you slow it down a bit and wait an hour or so before you initiate the article destruct sequence in the future. Humbly, Disambigutron (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you are new here and I can understand the confusion. I like many other editors, patrol newly created articles. We try our best to keep Wikipedia as cruft free as possible, especially focusing on articles that might create some liability issue for the Wikipedia foundation such as personal attacks and copyright violations.

Articles with any sort of problem (usually lack of references and notability issues) are tagged. The ones that meet the guidelines for speedy deletion are tagged for speedy deletion. Nearly all of the 233 you mention are likely in this category. If you were to look at my watchlist, you'd see a lot of red there as nearly everything I tag gets deleted by an admin. A number of others are proposed deletions. These are cases where speedy deletion does not apply yet the article still isnt up to inclusion standards. This gives the author a chance to improve the article and remove the tag themselves, you dont need to do it for them.

Also look at it from the perspective of the new page patrollers, WP:MINDREADER explains things pretty well. For every time you've wondered why we tag things for deletion, we wonder why you dont follow the guidelines. Like most misunderstandings, it's a lack of communication. How are other editors, such as new page patrollers, to know that the article is unfinished? As for the speed, I do often tag pages for deletion within minutes, sometimes seconds of being created (especially if its a copyright issue), as do many other new page patrollers. Keep in mind that it is the responsiblity of the article creator to ensure it meets guidelines, this shouldn't be left for others to do.

Please understand that I'm not the only one patrolling these articles, many do it and with the same vigor. I'm also not the one that does the deletion. That will be done by an admin. In the case of a speedy deletion, there are very specific guidelines that must be met. In the case of a prod, it wont be done before 7 days, plenty of time to make an article right, no mater what the author's style. In the case of an AFD, several days will also pass and the author will also have plenty of opportunity to make their case.--RadioFan (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no provision in notability guidelines that makes an article notable for a few hours after it is created, they are subject to the same policies and guidelines as articles that have been there for years. For editors that prefer to add information incrementally I highly recommend using the {{tl:underconstruction}} tag to communicate that you are not done. Also consider creating the article under your User space, noone will tag anything there.

Thanks for writing, I hope that sheds some light on why I and other new page patrollers tag articles in this way. I hope you continue contributing.--RadioFan (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I find that many, perhaps most, of the articles you mark for deletion are ultimately allowed to remain. Some of the articles you have flagged are truly puzzling - this one for example: Euronova Media Group. Or this one: Jabbar Baghtcheban. And let's not forget this one: Margot Rose.

Since you are an official Wikipedia "patroller" (and I beg your pardon for lecturing to the professor here), you clearly understand that there is a vast difference between something that is non-notable, and something that is notable but lacks sufficient support via citations. Large corporations, actresses who have been in dozens of major films and television programs, and pioneers in education are all notable and worthy of inclusion. If an article on a subject such as these does not have as many citations as you would like within 60 seconds of its creation, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Again - we distinguish lack of notability from lack of support for that which is in fact notable. Humbly yours, Disambigutron (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes admins do sometimes disagree with CSD requests, that's why there are checks and balances in place. I see you removed the prod on Margot Rose, you may want to weigh in on the AFD for this article.--RadioFan (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Margot Rose I believe it was first tagged for lack of references, but I have since added her IMDB page as the reference, a site which was actually used as an example of a reliable reference source. I hope this addresses your concern. As for her being an actress of notability, I know I have seen MANY others with far less accomplished careers in the Wikipedia pages. The credits I listed in her page were just a small part of her body of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinsdude (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

While adding a link to an actress's IMDB page is fine, it doesn't do much to establish notability. Like Wikipedia, it is user contributed information and anyone and everyone in the industry can be listed there. Wikipedia's guidelines are more stringent. Significant coverage in 3rd party sources has got to be shown here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is your concern then marking the article for deletion is improper. You are taking issue with the adequacy of citations. Since you are a "patroller" you already know the proper protocol for handling such matters. Does it call for marking an article for deletion? No. Disambigutron (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia. One of the few requirements of Wikipedia is verifiable evidence of significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Without this, a topic simply does not meet notability guidelines and must be deleted. It doesn't matter how we may feel about a particular topic or how surprised we may be when reliable sources turn out to be difficult to find. Either these sources exist and can be cited in the article thus meeting notability guidelines or they cant. It's not something that can be left for later either. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

about attar

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Dear

Thanks for your message.

abolfazl attar is in [1] fa.wikipedia.org . he is active................is secret .he is famous.I certainly do know he is not Steven Spielberg,he is an iranian filmmaker.................. if i were you , support him. Thanks & best regards Silvercine (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against this person, but his article needs to meet the same standards that applies to all other articles. Verifiable references are not optional and must be there to demonstrate notability. The links above do not meet the criteria of reliable sources. Other wikipedias can be (and are in the case) linked to the article but this does not help establish the notability of this subject.--RadioFan (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

tagging of It's Showtime 2010 Prague

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You tagged It's Showtime 2010 Prague for speedy delete as having no context. But the article as it was when you tagged it made it clear that this was a sporting event, and the article It's Showtime (not linked but an obvious search) makes the rest of the context clear. I have declined the speedy. I do think that when info in an article can be easily (within in less than a minute) be used to clearly indicate a context, a new-page patroller should do so rather than tagging for speedy deletion. We ought to help new editors and articles, not WP:BITE them. I understand that you want standards on Wikipedia to be enforced, and indeed to improve, and I agree. But i think it is more helpful to teach new editors how to make decent pages by example, rather than by deleting low quality but apparently good-faith attempts. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:New pages patrol

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I can't help but notice that the vast majority of articles that you propose for deletion are ultimately retained - even those that you mark for speedy deletion. Have you read Wikipedia:New pages patrol? You should. That page states very clearly, in bold face: "Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author.".

If you inspect a new page, and it is not complete nonsense or an attack, how can you possibly ascertain whether the notability requirements are met within sixty seconds? You cannot. Yet you frequently tag pages within a minute of creation. As a result, many people end up wasting their time explaining to you why an article should be retained.

Your time would be put to far better use if you spent more time adding radio stations that are merely licensed to operate and exist only on paper, and which never have and possibly never will actually broadcast anything.Disambigutron (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia, it would be better put towards improving articles than for focusing on other editors such as myself. The vast majority of the articles I tag are not kept, they are deleted. I don't know how you are gathering this information but I suspect it is in a way that does not show ones (such as looking at my contributions). Also keep in mind that tagged articles are not immediately deleted except when they meet the strict speedy deletion policies or at the completion of the AFD process. Yes some of the articles I bring up for discussion are ultimately kept, that is why it brought to a discussion, to bring many viewpoints in.

I'll gladly discuss concerns tags or edits in specific articles but I would appreciate it if you would stop pointing me to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You've been active for 2 weeks and have contributed 173 edits to 156 articles, I've been active for nearly 5 years and am approaching 60,000 edits and have contributed to some of the guidelines you are pointing me to.

I submit that it is no great accomplishment to make 60,000 edits that serve only to waste the time of others. The number of edits a person makes has NOTHING to do with whether or not they have actually added anything to Wikipedia. Some people make Wikipedia a little bit worse off with each edit they make, despite having the best intentions. Some people are obsessed with achieving a large edit count as if it were a measure of their self-worth or intelligence. Or perhaps they imagine that it makes them more attractive to the opposite sex. Who knows. Disambigutron (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the radio station articles, these articles are within notability guidelines as developed by Wikiproject Radio Stations as well as long established consensus on the topic. If you feel any are not notable, you may tag them as such, but I think you'll find your edits will be reverted with a reason of the general notability consensus of government licensed radio stations.--RadioFan (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided does not seem to address notability. That is covered here: WP:BROADCAST. I don't see anything suggesting that a radio station that has never broadcast a signal and exists only on paper meets the notability requirements. You are welcome to point out the language that makes you conclude otherwise if you wish.Disambigutron (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are any articles that you feel do not meet inclusion guidlines, please tag them for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		Civility Award
		I am glad to be the first to award you the barnstar of civility for how well you handled yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot Rose. It was very gracious of you to acknowledge that your initial concerns had been addressed and to then withdraw the nomination and close the AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Laser Resurfacing

Hey, just wanted to let you that since I redirected Laser Resurfacing to Photorejuvenation I've declined your speedy nomination of Laser Resurfacing since the copyvio text is gone. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

has the version containing the copyvio text been removed?--RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Laser Resurfacing was a copyvio stub. Photorejuvenation is a pre-existing article. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You have an alter ego.... 7 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm honored. Thanks for the heads up.--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just seems a little fishy, because user:Bongfondler (with no edits) was created in the same minute as that one... Have notified BongWarrior of this too. 7 02:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, BongWarrior and I should keep a close eye on this and pounce on any abuse or sockpuppetry.--RadioFan (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought for one horrified moment I had somehow mixed you up with User:Radiofan1010 but I think I got it right after all (I saw your reversion in my watchlist and I think we both were on the same wrong track for a minute). By all means let me know if this individual seems, like WP:Radiofanclub noted above, to be headed towards abuse or sockpuppetry or if you have other concerns in this area. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, we both mixed me up with that person for a moment. I reported RadioFan1010 as a misleading username, and an admin was kind enough to block that username permanently. I went ahead and asked Radiofanclub to choose another username.--RadioFan (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben Mercer recreation

Hi there. The article above, deleted per AfD, has been recreated by the original author; I thought I'd let you know as you participated in the original AfD that I've relisted it here per the WP:RPDA policy. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Warner Music Nashville

I reomved the copyvio text from Warner Music Nashville, and I think the article should be fine now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Les Percussions de Strasbourg

Hello RadioFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Les Percussions de Strasbourg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. This isn't your usual wannabe pop group article, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL suggests that references to establish notability can be found. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cole Smithey

Hi there. I'm hopelessly overwhelmed by the Cole Smithey article. The references are poorly formatted, but I'm having trouble deciphering which ones might establish notability. I think he might be notable, but I can't confirm the validity of the sources. Can you advise? The article is being edited by, it seems, Colesmithey (talk · contribs) himself. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of AfD

Hi. I noted that you closed the AfD on Sonicsgate as a non-admin closure. Unfortunately, there are several things wrong with what you did. First, you !voted in the discussion, and closings are not supposed to be done by involved participants. Second, the AfD did not run its prescribed 7 days, you closed it after only two. It's ok to close an AfD earlier under WP:SNOW, but there really weren't enough !votes there to justify a snow closing.

I'm not an admin, and I don't plan on doing anything further on this, but I thought I should bring it to your attention for your future reference, and to prepare you for the possibility that someone might dispute the closing because of the manner in which you did it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the note--RadioFan (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sonicsgate

I don't have any plans to pursue deletion of the Sonicsgate article further. I do feel compelled to say that I am surprised that the article was kept in the manner that it was. When I went to bed the article had two delete votes and nothing else. When I got back from work it was locked as a "keep". The documentary did not appear to meet any of the enumerated criteria on the page for film notability, and references to the film appeared to be contained to a few local media or sports media articles. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Aw, man!

You may be interested to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aw, man! You formerly proposed the article for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Monotreme Records

Hi, do we have to tag this for deletion, cant we just do the redirect like I did here?? why to tag for deletion?? MaenK.A._Talk 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be deleted. It's tagged for the existing redirect to be deleted and Monotreme records moved to the correct capitalization of Monotreme Records, just cleanup maintenance.

Luca Hinz

Hey, thanks for correcting my mistake but I misheard Deluga Heights as Luca Hinz. As I cannot move pages, can you change it to Deluga Heights? Thanks :) The Rage Conspiracy (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ARESA

You mentioned in the AFD for this article that you found some sources for this company. Could you post on the AFD with your findings? Note, also cross-posting to User:Bearian. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this one was obvious. I tend towards the deletionist side of things and it took me about 10 seconds to find dozens of reliable sources around the world there this company's work was the primary focus of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

KBXI

Just wanted to drop you a heads-up. You created this article about a month ago. The station that's at this call sign now actually got there by way of a call sign change back at the start of December. There was already an article at the former call sign that's been around for about 2 years + that has a little bit more detail. So, I'm going to delete your article to make way for a move of the other article to the new call sign.

Like I said, just wanted to drop you a heads-up - didn't want you to see it bombed off your watch list and wonder what the heck was going on! Mlaffs (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, your plan sounds like a good one.--RadioFan (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)