Jump to content

User talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DLT Solutions

I have rewritten Draft:DLT Solutions using sources from CRN Magazine, The Washington Post, and Washington Technology. At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 215#DLT Solutions, JohnCD (talk · contribs) recommended that I check with you before restoring the article to mainspace. Would you restore the article to DLT Solutions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks a whole lot better - give it a try. BTW I will usually userfy things on request that aren't copyvio, hoax, attack or unmitigated spam. I will email hoaxes if I think they're good, but do require evidence for the notability of corner newsagents or garden maintenance services etc before taking action there. Peridon (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
PS If I'm not around, MelanieN will usually do the same. If you're looking for things to rescue, I've got some linked on my user page (plus a start-up that I've not got any further with about a soprano that I hear on the radio as both performer and guest). Peridon (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Peridon. I returned the article to mainspace at DLT Solutions. I listed the article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion where I pinged you because I figured that if you were around, you would restore it, and if you weren't, another admin would restore it. :) I'll take a look at expanding User:Peridon/Ailish Tynan, which has many available sources. The other two topics don't seem to have as many available sources. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Article deleted

18:38, 10 February 2016 Peridon (talk | contribs) deleted page Alexandre Orloff (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hi there, My article was deleted, it was about Egypt royal family and their family tree. I cant understand this decision, maybe the article is not interessting for the person who delete it but its important for people who are interested about Egypt and their Royal Family. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswebhelp (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is now an article by that title about a painter who appears to be notable, but he isn't the subject of your deleted article. You can try again, after reading WP:BIO and WP:RS (about reliable independent sources), but you'll have to use a different title (and I would advise doing it in user space at User:Swisswebhelp/DRAFT to begin with anyway). Once you've got something you think passes our policies, you can ask for advice and opinions. However, as the last reigning monarch (I hesitate to say 'ruling' in view of his age at the time) Fuad II is still alive, and has two male heirs Muhammad Ali and Fakhruddin, and a daughter too, and your subject is the son of the youngest daughter of Fuad's father, I consider can't see much notability coming from ancestry, and I could see none in the subject himself (by Wikipedia's standard, that is - our definition of notability is not that of the OED or Merriam-Webster). Peridon (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Regarding deletion of Albanias Golgotha article per G7

Hi. You deleted the article Albanias Golgotha 1912 per G7 (which I flagged) because the author blanked the page. However, the talk page wasn't deleted and the author of the article contested the deletion on the talk page (after the page was already deleted) - so it looks like he wasn't actually requesting deletion by blanking the article. If I remember correctly, it was flagged under another speedy deletion criterion, but I changed it since the author immediately blanked the article following addition of a speedy deletion tag. My best guess is that the author thought he was required to delete (blank) the article since there was a deletion tag. Can you verify it's not a copyvio and potentially undelete/move to draftspace (dependent on whether it should be deleted under something other than G7)? Thanks! Appable (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It was only tagged 'no content', and I've explained about that to the tagger (and they seem to understand). To my eyes, it doesn't look like a copyvio (after a while here, you get a feeling for those even when you can't identify them), and I get the feeling that they don't know that they blanked it - it is possible to select all and delete. I'll restore it into article space, and would ask you to contact the author as I'm going off line any moment. You'll be able to see the history then. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've not bothered with the talk page - there was only the request on it. It can be restored by any admin if it's thought necessary. It was only created today, and wasn't around when I deleted the article page. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
However, I've just discovered that he's been checkuser blocked, so I'll ping @Bbb23: to see what they think here. At a quick look, the article looks reasonably constructed so I'll leave it up. I've got to go... Peridon (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
But before I do, the article was blanked before tagging, not the other way round. Could well have been accidental. But it might well have to go under G5. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the user recreated the article - I can't verify that it's the same though. But here's what I think is a recreation: Albania's Golgotha: Indictment of the Exterminators of the Albanian People. The title should probably be shortened a bit. Appable (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Heyo

Hello, Peridon/Archives/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yash! 21:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. Replied. Best, Yash! 02:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/February&oldid=710296081"