Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Laron Pierce

I agree that a different standard applies to speedy deletion from mainspace and to speedy deletion from draft space. I only tag a draft in draft space for speedy deletion as G11 if something "ticks me off" about it. (More generally, I only tag a draft in draft space for speedy deletion if something "ticks me off" about it.) In my case, what ticks me off to tag a draft for G11 is the person of the pronoun. I usually will tag a draft for G11 if it uses the word "we" (or occasionally "you"). There are a lot of "G" for general criteria for speedy deletion that really shouldn't apply to drafts, such as test pages or even patent nonsense. (Patent nonsense is a valid test. It just shouldn't be submitted to AFC, and gets sent back.) I agree that we should be relatively tolerant of crud in draft space. The question is whether the crud can be improved into encyclopedic content. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not look into anything like possible notability or availability of sources, just whether it was G11 eligible or not. As such, it's borderline. You can tag it for G11 and see what another admin does. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The version that I declined doesn't have any references. I declined it on notability grounds, because it doesn't have references. The promotional tone was an additional problem. If a draft has multiple problems, I usually decline primarily on notability grounds, but mention the other problems. The advantage to a notability decline is that the standard decline template points the editor at the specific notability guidelines, in this case the music notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I had not noticed that the AFC draft had already been submitted when you deleted the mainspace version. That makes me disinclined to assume good faith, because it looks as though the author is trying to game the system. What is more common is for an editor first to submit the draft to mainspace, and then, when it is deleted, submit it to AFC, which is what should have been done originally. In this case, it appears that the author did both at the same time. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

I am informing previous editors of this article that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Majid Rasulov

I had to remove the BLP prod on Majid Rasulov as the article says they died in 1993, so it is ineligible for that. Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your timely speedy deletions! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedily deletion of Comparison of programming languages (types, enums)

I see that you have speedily deleted the page Comparison of programming languages (types, enums), giving A10 ("Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic") as a reason. As Comparison of programming languages (types, enums) was intended as a split page (see [1]), I don't think that reason applies. – Tea2min (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I checked the article enumerated type and all content in the article that I deleted was present there, so A10 wa appropriate. I see that the deletion of all this material from the enumerated type article had meanwhile been reverted. I also see from the different discussions on this topic that the split was not uncontroversial. Please complete that discussion and if a consensus is obtained, you can either re-create the article, or I can undelete it. Please note that when you split an article, you need to use the following two templates {{split to}} and {{split article}} (using the correct revision numbers) to ascertain correct attribution. Simply copy-pasting content, even within WP, is a copyvio. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • > I also see from the different discussions on this topic that the split was not uncontroversial
    • Could you please provide link to this discussion? Ushkin N (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr sanjay pratap singh

A page that you deleted, Dr sanjay pratap singh, has been recreated by the original creator. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability question

My question is copied below from Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) because no one has responded there yet.

"Does a journal having a SCImago Journal Rank qualify it as notable under this guideline, like having an impact factor does? I'm asking because I'm thinking about creating Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, which doesn't list an impact factor on its website but does list a SCImago ranking." Everymorning (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • At this point, we don't list SCImago scores and rankings. However, a journal can only be in SCImago if it is indexed by Scopus and (again, at this moment) we do take that as satisfying WP:NJournals#1 (see note 1). Scopus listings can be checked here. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Category changes of Occupational therapy journals

Occupational therapy (Rehabilitation science) should not be confused with Occupational medicine (Occupational safety and health).Jeandédé (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

George Dziov Article Error

Hi! There must've been an error. When I finished editing the article I found out that it's not out and more than that, deleted. Is there any way I can actually finish and submit the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dziov is the link.

Would be thankful if you let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Dziov (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no, that was not an error. The article as it was did not indicate in any way that Dziov would pass our inclusion criteria (see WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NMUSIC). Even if Dziov would pass one of those guidelines, it still would be better if you don't write an article about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). If you still want to work on an article about Dziov, I recommend that you do this in draft space, where you would have more time and also could get help from volunteers patrolling such drafts. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Gamma

I am baffled at why this was deleted as I am the founder and national president of this fraternity. I have the articles of incorporation to show we are a legit 501 and 509 organization as well as us having a website. Why was the page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truladypleaser (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasnt promotional language it was talking about the fraternity the same way other pages speak about their organization. We were listed in an article in this magazine: http://www.militarygreeklife.com/#!subscribe/mkh6z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truladypleaser (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I just had another look at the article and I fear it really is promotional. Perhaps there are other articles that are just as promotional, but that's not a reason to let this stand (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). In addition, parts of the article seem to be copied directly from the organization's website. Not only does that ensure a biased POV, it also constitutes a copyvio, a big no-no here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have NOT knowledge of fraternities or what a promotion is. pro·mo·tion·al prəˈmōSH(ə)n(ə)l/ adjective of or relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness. Every fraternity or sorority listed on his is INFORMATIVE about it or even the people but its fine. We dont need to be listed on this site that is ran by incompetent people who think they are powerful because they have the right to DELETE pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truladypleaser (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Insulting a Wikipedia administrator as to their ability to understand Wikipedia policy is not a useful way to advance your agenda. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Powwownow deletion

Hey, not sure why the powwownow article was marked as deleted under WP:G11. I've researched everything from national and business media that in my mind was factual and highlighted company scale. I am still working on gathering a section to discuss the marketplace and controversies but haven't had a chance as you deleted the page. Would you mind un-deleting it so I can finish writing it up, happy for it to go into a Draft:Powwownow first so you can review it before it goes live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJGlobal (talk • contribs) 10:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• btw, I've already been to WP:Refund nothing got resolved and now my query seems to have been deleted without any solution :S

 Done I have moved the deleted article to Draft:Powwownow as requested. When finished, you can ask any admin to verify that it can be moved into article space (not just me). --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Multi Art Academy

This page was recreated within minutes of your speedy deletion of it. ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Ghostwriterff

He's just not...getting it. I think he may have worn out his welcome. HalfShadow 07:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Girls for Gender Equity

Hi, I was just wondering if there is anything I can do to change this article it won't be deleted. GGE is a very influential non-profit organization based in Brooklyn that is helping strengthen local communities, so it is "worthy of notice" by Wikipedia. You mentioned that the page was taken down because a lot of info was taken from the GGE website at ggenyc.org. Should I reference the website every time info from it is used or just rewrite certain parts of this article in my own words? Thanks!

Valreed93 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Valreed93

  • There's a multitude of problems with this article. To start, significant portions are copied from the organization's website (http://www.ggenyc.org/). The result is 1/ a violation of copyright and 2/ a very promotional text that is absolutely unencyclopedic. 3/ The use of in-line external links is unacceptable. 4/ As indicated by Kudpung in his PROD of the previous version of the article (which seems to be identical to this one), "Among the plethora of sources, most of which are blogs or bear only a fleeting mention, there appear to be none that are genuine mainstream press actually discussing the subject in depth. 28 mentions on the web do not add up to notability per WP:ORG." So, yes, the organization seems to be "worthy", but not "notable (in the WP sense). Please note that worthy/unworthy has nothing to do with being appropriate for a WP article. What counts is whether a subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
I am going to delete the article again as a copyvio. Please do not restore it in this form again. Repeatedly creating copyvios is considered highly disruptive and the next time you do this, I will block you from editing. I suggest that you work on an article first in draft space (at Draft:Girls for Gender Equity), using your own words (NOT material copied from the organization's website), and including significant sources that show that this organization meets our inclusion criteria for organizations or our general criteria for inclusion. Hope this helps and explains. --Randykitty (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining things to me, I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning how to properly use it's services. I'm sure you can understand that all of the websites functions can be hard for a begginer to comprehend. I didn't mean to be disruptive by recreating the page, I just didn't know any other way to edit it. I will rewrite the article and remove sources that are blogs and only refer to mainstream press.

Valreed93 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Valreed93

Nomination of Aaryan Zaveri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaryan Zaveri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaryan Zaveri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Adam Hunt (disambiguation)

Why do you act like a taliban vandal? It is not my fault, that the article about the chessplayer was not yet written. Perhaps you move the dartsplayer instead to free the subject and avoid the (disambiguation) in this way. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Please note that calling somebody a "taliban vandal" is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. You're going about this the wrong way. First you create an article on the chess player, then (and only if appropriate) you create a dab page. In this case, even if there would be an article on the chess player, a dab page is not warranted. With only two articles, a {{for}} template can be placed at the top of each article, redirecting readers to the other one. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of One Radio South Africa

"If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly"

Hi

I spent over 2 hours researching the page that was created. Instead of just deleting, could you not have assisted me as the idea of Wikipedia is for people to add constructive information.

You have a page on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_South_Africa, that has many pages that do not exist. Why would I bother finding information for these pages if they are just going to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy wazza (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:One Radio South Africa, where you can work on it until it is ready for the main article space. However, you still have a lot to do. I have removed some links (Facebook and Twitter) that are trivial and spammy. You also need sources that are reliable and independent of the subject of the article. These sources have to show that the subject is notable (in the sense used by Wikipedia, see WP:GNG and WP:WEB). Please do not move the draft back into article space without it having been checked by an admin (not necessarily me) or a more experienced editor. The easiest way of doing this is by placing this template at the top of the page: {{'''AFC submission'''}} Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Dear Randykitty, Please do not injure my feelings. I try my complete best to improve Wikipedia, since the day I started. So, please. I am just making a polite request. I learn something everyday. I am not here to injure other people's feelings, only here to help. So if you notice me doing something wrong or if I have made a mistake, we'll just talk it out on my talk page.

Kind regards, East Anglian Regional (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:RS. Wikimapia is a user-contributed site and as such not considered a reliable source. Adding Bing or Google maps links won't help either. You have to show that this company is notable. It is not enough that it exists. I have provided more links to relevant policies and guidelines on your talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, one editor apparently thought that was sufficient to remove the CSD tag. But something does not become notable just because an editor says that it is important, large, or whatever. What counts are the sources. If no sources can be found, I'll open a deletion discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope we are friends now! Sorry that I was being a bit rubbish :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Anglian Regional (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's OK, I have a thick skin... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to put your name down on my mini anti bullying campaign. :) East Anglian Regional (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Song dynasty speedy deletions

I've done a bulk-decline on them; Wikipedia practice has generally always been that anyone of whom records have survived from antiquity is prima facie notable, even if there's very little that can be said about them (see Iulius Placidus, Vilbaldr Dufþakrsson, Cozbi, Wulfnoth Cild, etc). Feel free to create a bulk AFD if you really don't think they're salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 15:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Evansville DoubleTree Hotel

Randykitty, there are tons of pages that exist with buildings that are still under construction. Here is one of many [2]. I can continue to link more if you'd like. Please tell me why I shouldn't or cannot undo your change? The picture I can remove, if I'm doing something wrong there. This is my first contribution, so I could indeed be missing out on something.Donnieath (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't know about that Arena. WP has millions of articles and only a limited number of editors, so some non-notable subjects may slip through. Eventually, somebody will get to them, although I would expect that well before the 2018 world cup starts, that arena will have garnered some significant coverage. Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for the DoubleTree hotel, I don't see anything that would make it stand out from among all the other DoubleTree hotels. What is needed here is that you show that the subject is notable (in the WP sense), meaning that it has garnered significant coverage in WP:reliable sources (please read these links, I'm not putting them there just for show). An additional problem is that on Wikimedia Commons you declared that you work for the company that owns this hotel. Please read the appropriate policies and guidelines: WP:COI, WP:Paid-contribution disclosure, and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't work for the company that OWNS the hotel. The company that owns the hotel was listed in the references and where I got the information. HCW LLC [3]. Yes I understand there are millions of articles, and MOST of them are the same as mine. --popular chain-- -----> popular chain specific location article. The only thing that came from my company was the picture, we did photography for the hotel. I will read over your links, as this is my first article. Also, I don't see why I can't make an article for a specific doubletree hotel that is unique as it is a convention center hotel that connects to the ford center in Evansville. Also the first time you redirected the article it was based on it not existing yet, now you're saying it's not unique? or is it because I work for the company that owns the hotel? which is also wrong. The photograph is the only thing that came from my company, which I will happily delete. The hotel, and the information comes from HCW LLC which I do not work for. Evansville, Indiana has a Tropicana Evansville what makes them so unique they can have their own page? There are tons of different Tropicana Casino. I feel like you're being quite unfair in this. I will happily delete the picture, but redirecting the page doesn't seem to be the right course of action, and to go back to the hotel not being unique.... Look on the Evansville, Indiana Article! There are tons of internal links with a popular chain specific location.... tropicana casino is just one example, the ford center, and TON of others. I can also link these if you'd like. Donnieath (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Please sign your posts using three tildes (~). I didn't redirect because it didn't exist yet, I said "not notable, doesn't even exist yet". Whether or not you work for the hotel is trivial, and frankly I'm hardly interested in your professional position. Whatever the connection, it looks like you have a COI here. And as I said before (but more politely): WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I stumbled upon your article, listing cases that are just as bad is not making the fact go away that you have not listed a single independent reliable source to establish notability of this hotel. If it is as unique as you claim, it should not be too hard to find significant coverage, so I suggest that you spend your time on that, rather than complaining here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If I could chime in here - making this a redirect is the appropriate decision. I strongly doubt this article would have been notable - and it saved us from having to go to AfD. Also, COI editing is not helpful in this situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Singularities

Hi Randykitty, could you please take a look at Worldwide Center of Mathematics. There is much that is wrong (IMHO) with that page, including an attempt to embed a "subarticle" for the academic Journal of Singularities. I think the editor of that article could use some help in fixing up an article on that journal that doesn't read like an advertisement. I am feeling a bit out of my depth here and would like to defer to someone more familiar with the ropes of this type of article. Thanks for considering this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • That article is indeed rather bad. I've slapped some tags on it, but then decided to propose it for speedy deletion as spam. Let's see whether another admin agrees. If not, some slashing and perhaps AfD will be needed. --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. It seems to have survived one speedy deletion at its inception in 2011. I was somewhat hoping that the journal stuff (if it is notable) would make its way to its own page. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that the journal is notable. Their website is strangely uninformative. Normally, such websites will indicate at least some of the databases that a journal is indexed in, but here I see nothing. Checking some of the usual databases didn't show anything either. --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Samantha Steffen

You recently salted this article after multiple WP:CSD#G5 deletions from @Bbb23: and @Acroterion:. However, I had previously seen the article tagged for WP:CSD#A7 and declined it, and also removed some puffery and did some copyediting, so I believe G5 does not apply. I was tempted to send the article to AfD (I have no strong opinion on whether the article stays or goes), and I would prefer to that. As an admin, I can undelete the article myself and send it there, but I'd prefer consensus first. What say you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The sock master will be very pleased. He's recreated that article so many times I've lost track. Why you would want to keep that piece of dreck around is beyond me, even if it's rewritten.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I really have not any opinion about the article. Far as I recall, I followed some editor's edits, saw that this had been recreated multiple times, and salted it. If Ritchie wants to give it a try, that's fine with me. Being an admin, I trust they won't recreate it unless it meets our notability criteria, so that we won't have to waste our time on another AfD. If I were Ritchie, I wouldn't unsalt immediately, but create a draft and only if other admins agree that it meets WP:NBIO, move it to article space. It's not something that I would want to spend my time on (there's enough subjects needing attention that are not being pushed socks), but who am I to tell Ritchie how to spend their time? --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Basically if I can add a reliable source (broadly construed, I realise the HuffPost is not considered a particularly great source, but to just fact-check 'a' was in 'x' or say 'x' thinks 'y' is probably good enough) then it absolutely should not be speedied, barring narrow exceptions such as the entirety of the rest of the article being a copyvio, for example. The "sockmaster" has created the article 4 times, all within a 48-hour window, which is what I might expect somebody who doesn't understand Wikipedia very well would do. User:Newzealand123's user page just says "checkuser says the user has used multiple accounts" without linking to any alternative accounts or SPIs, which doesn't give me anything to go on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What does Newzealand123 have to do with anything?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You deleted this article twice with a rationale that it was created by a sock of this account. (Randykitty, if this conversation is disrupting your talk page, I apologise in advance and we can take it to another venue.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I remember now. It was nominated twice by the same user. They mistakenly thought it was a sock of Newzealand123. I saw the G5 in the default box on the delete form but didn't notice it was the wrong master and failed to correct it. The accounts recreating the article were all confirmed socks of New Editor 121 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

European Forest Downstream Services

Hey there buddy! My name is Gavin! I help Wikipedia. I see that you made a bad faith edit. I would like to settle this; How about I revert your edit and you can add the link to the page instead of deleting it all! It's a Win-Win! Does this sound good? Tell me if you agree. Gavin Sch (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Sch (talk • contribs)

  • Hey there to you, too, buddy! I see that you fail to assume good faith by accusing me of making a bad faith edit. How about we settle this. Perhaps you can start with perusing WP:NORG. After you have done that, please check the "sources" for this article. You will see that most if them are not independent. In fact, a majority is to the home pages of organisations that don't even mention this project. Of course, this kind of European grants are not consortia of these organisations. Rather, they are a collaboration between individual researchers working at these organisations. Individual researchers cannot sign such a grant agreement, so a signing official does this on behalf of the organisation. Not the same thing. Ephemeral projects like this are a dime a dozen, but their participants often create an article for it on WP. Once the project is over, everybody forgets about it, nobody ever writes about it again. In short, whatever notability there is is fleeting. We habitually redirect such projects to the respective funding programs (except for a few very exceptional cases where the project actually turns out to be notable). So I would like to settle this. You read those policies and refrain from further personal attacks and I restore the redirect, removing spam for a non-notable project. It's indeed a Win-Win! Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WittyFeed

I did not understand why you have deleted that page instead you could have asked to delete the matter which was meeting the speedy deletion criteria. It takes a lot of efforts to contribute to page in wikipedia and mere deletion of page is no solution. --Garima Singh710. —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I am sorry that you feel that your effort was wasted. However, the article was such that mere editing could not solve the intrinsic promotional way in which it was written. The best way not to see your efforts go to waste is to write in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I have already responded in more detail on the talk page of Nscharan007 (here). --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm recreating the page 'WittyFeed' and made sure that there is no such promotion of the firm. Please check and let me know if there are any more changes I need to make. --Garima Singh710. —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community

I come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community where I was surprised to see such a notable topic deleted. The redlink indicates that

13:41, 1 July 2016 Randykitty (talk contribs) deleted page Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Enlargement of the European Union)

A10 seems inappropriate as it does not apply to articles that "expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect." Please revert the deletion and reopen the AFD so that further discussion may take place. Note also that there is a complaint of WP:BITE in the AFD. An apology to the good faith editor(s) who made a start on this topic may be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The complete text of the deleted "article" was "The Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community which was then widely known as the Common Market took place on January 1 1973 although the UK had first applied to join back in 1961 which was vetoed by French President Charles de Gaulle". Feel free to re-establish it, as it was deleted per A10, G4 does not apply. The whole subject is treated in much more detail elsewhere and I really don't see why an apology is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I could, of course, start afresh and perhaps do a better job but I am concerned that the good faith editor(s) who have been affronted by this action would feel further slighted by this. As the edit history for the article is not currently visible, I am not able to consult them myself. If you do not revert and restart the AFD, I shall take the matter to WP:DRV. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Having had another look at it I think the A10 was indeed overly hasty. I only stumbled upon it during new page patrolling, so I'm not watchlisting it. Ping me if my input is needed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Neuro-Oncology

I was hoping you could look at the above page, which seems to have a very weird category at the top that's not displaying right. The category is called Articles with outdated impact factors from 2015/2016 and there's a reference tacked onto the end. Everymorning (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CIAPS

Hello, 

I am impressed by your commitment but we don’t understand why you have deleted the CIAPS articles.

All efforts have been made to make it neutral.

We have also noticed that it is more neutral than approved articles of the same category like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Business_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos_Business_School

We have carefully looked at this two and others to see we went wrong but with no luck. Anthonykila (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Military Technical Courier

The content of http://www.vtg.mod.gov.rs/about-journal.html (and other pages on that website) is licensed under a Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Serbia license (see http://www.vtg.mod.gov.rs/index-e.html). Is this still a copyright infringement? Lessormore (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but I would appreciate if you answered my question. --Lessormore (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, sorry about that. Somebody else posted around the same time you did and I didn't notice immediately that there was more than 1 post. To get to the point: either I missed that CC-A at the bottom of their pages (it's small), or it was added recently. Whatever may be, it seems you are right that this should not have been deleted as a copyvio (CSD#G12). However, while it is generally fine to copy material that is not copyrighted (provided clear attribution is given) from sources like public-domain versions of Encyclopedia Britannica, it usually is a bad idea to copy material from websites like this. The reason is that publishers have a website to promote their journals, not to provide neutral and encyclopedic information. I had another look at the deleted article Military Technical Courier and if it were to be restored, I would immediately put another speedy deletion tag on it (CSG#G11: promotional material). The article was (not surprisingly) not neutrally written, contained lots of non-encyclopedic intricate detail and was basically sourced exclusively to the journal's own website, plus a number of links to show that the journal is indexed in a number of databases, none of them selective in the sense of WP:NJournals, however. So if you want, I'll restore the article, but will put a CSD tag on it (I won't delete it myself again, but let another admin evaluate it). A much better solution, though, would be to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. The author of the article was new to Wikipedia and I was in the midst of editing the article, trying to improve it, when it was deleted. As we wouldn't have time to improve the restored article within a few days, we'll take your advice and start from scratch.--Lessormore (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

incorrect Idris Al-Obeidi deletion

Maybe you didn't know, but News websites are content that is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, so there can be no copyright infringement if you can undelete the page Idris Al-Obeidi, do so, or at least apologise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12 Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  • That is completely incorrect. In fact, your source had a clear copyright statement at the bottom ("© Copyright 2012-2016, ↑ Libya Herald"). The deletion as copyvio was absolutely necessary and justified. --Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

rather than screaming 'completely incorrect' at me. you might like to read their own copyright statement https://www.libyaherald.com/copyright-intellectual-property-rights which says:We recognise that users of the Internet want to share information with others. We therefore permit limited republishing and redistribution of Libya Herald now you can read it in full, and see how you interpret it my judgement is that its fine

you know, it is very discouraging for new editors when instead of actually trying to help the page, people like you just jump and delete everything straight away — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm very sorry, but we have to take copyright issues very seriously. I have read the statement and, unfortunately, it is not enough. They seem to want to have it both ways, allow third parties to use some of their content, but without clearly defining what is allowable and what is not, and still putting a copyright notice on every one of their pages. I'm sorry you feel discouraged. New article creation is one of the most difficult things to do on WP. I have placed a "welcome template" on your talk page, which has a number of links to important guidelines and policies that may help you in your efforts here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

that was a very nice reply :), i think the nicest i have ever seen on wikipedia i guess you are right on the copyright for that site. i will wait to see if i can find some other sources then try making the page again thanks for friendly reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please Remove the Article Mohan Rathore

Please Remove protection from mohan rathore, he is a celebrity of bhojpuri film industry, and I want to create a article about him. He is giving permission for edit his change. Please Remove the protection or edit his page. Digitalbhojpuri (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • That's very generous of Mohan Rathore, to give his permission. However, there has been a community decision (here) to delete this biography and redirect it to India's Raw Star. If you feel that new material has come up that wasn't considered in the discussion which might justify restoring the article, then please take it to WP:DRV. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable academic?

What's your take on Janusz Kozinski? He has a Google Scholar profile, is somewhat cited, but the works are multi-authored ([4]). Other then that looks like a vanity bio failning WP:PROF, unless I am missing something? AfD, prod, or leave alone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • His citation record is not extraordinary, but well within the range that we usually keep at AfD (even taking into account that GS usually produces an overestimate), with an h of 30 and over 3000 citations. On the 10 highest-cited articles, he's last author on 8 and first on 1, so despite these being multi-authored, he seems to have been a major contributor to them. Being founding dean of a new school is rather impressive, too (albeit not enough to meet PROF). The article is indeed a puff piece and needs cleanup (and the photo looks like it was taken from some website and is a probable copyvio), but all in all I think he meets our inclusion criteria. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SouthRevcover2013.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SouthRevcover2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Gunn

Hi. For some reason I wasn't notified of this AfD, although I was the article creator. If I'd have known about it, I would have !voted for it to become a redirect. This chap is just sub notable for more than one reason: his football and his family ties, with two notable parents. The former may eventually sprout into full fledged notability or may not, so no article per CRYSTAL, but he gets enough coverage that a redirect would be a useful thing for our readers. I originally created it as a redirect, with rationale, see [5]. A DRV seems silly and over the top, but I'd like to recreate the redirect. Asking you as the closing admin, for your blessing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Two things: 1 this is a better link and 2 I can see why I wasn't notified - my original redirect was G5d to make way for the move of a more substantial article that had been written on a page with unnecessary disambiguation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't see any problem with the redirect, which wasn't the subject of the AfD decision. I have restored it while I checked it. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Smashing, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion of Vikas Gupta (producer)

Hi I want to undelete the page Vikas Gupta (producer), Can you help me regarding the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murz97 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Kanwal Ameen

Ha! I was about to self-revert but you beat me to it. I was proof-reading and realized the Fulbright info had already been mentioned. Thx. Atsme📞📧 08:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine

I understand your intents behind removal of the listing of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine from List of open access journals but I would request you to define 'what' would make it notable. Besides, the list is not about Notable open access journals and therefore does not entitle you to delete the listing without a discussion. In case you feel it justified to delete the entry from the listing, please start a discussion, get a consensus and then you are free to delete it. As of now, I am reverting your revert. (No intention of starting an edit-war and hope you would not seek the same.) -DiptanshuTalk 19:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Actually, the list article starts with saying "The list contains notable journals which have a policy of full open access." If you want to change the defintion of the list, then I think it is you who needs to start a discussion. Far as I can see, the Wikiversity journal does not meet any of the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. So until the inclusion criteria of this list are reversed, please self-revert. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. But I was already in the process of discussing it externally with certain other Editors about how to improve the notability of the journal and what are the things to be done about the listing. DiptanshuTalk 05:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

PAs and Disruptive editing

Randykitty, I will neither be drawn into an edit war with you over the proper use of a CV in a BLP, nor will I engage you by responding to your PAs against me at the Kanwal Ameen AfD; however, I am here to formally advise you to please stop your disruptive behavior as it is clearly out of line. Emotional responses never fair well under any circumstances. Consider this a polite notice in hopes that you will at least try to reel it in. Atsme📞📧 15:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you were personally attacked. I think you got the response to be expected after you remarked that the delete !votes seemed to represent gender bias. If you'd like to make remarks like that, you should expect people will object in similarly sharp terms. Msnicki (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to Msnicki's response, which is spot on. Thanks Msnicki! --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree because it isn't spot on. You can both gang-up on me if you like ;,(, but what Randykitty did was cast aspersions against me and took what I said out of context. Here is the diff [6] which confirms exactly what I said, and I'll quote, The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias and the serious issues WP faces, especially in determining notability of scholars such as Ameen in countries where women are oppressed and highly discriminated against. That is a long way from being what you alleged. You have both taken it out of context. What I said is that the WAY Ameen is being JUDGED - specifically judged for notability - there is an issue with regards to certain considerations when determining notability for women, especially in countries known for misogyny and oppression - thus the rest of my statement...ongoing issue CONCERNING gender bias. How in the hell you equated that into me saying "deletionist !votes seemed to represent gender bias", I will never know because it doesn't even come close to what I said. And blowing up at the AfD for whatever reason doesn't help anything, especially when the reason for it is so far out in left field, it doesn't even make sense. Please, can we AGF and all agree to not perpetuate further dissention by making PAs based on a fallacious premise derived from taking comments out of context? Atsme📞📧 22:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you have no idea what you are saying. I'm not going to argue with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Please do not post on my talk page again. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Randy, you have to agree that there has been an abundance of emotional personal attacks on people such as Atsme and myself at AfD, and it is not because we are "wrong," but because we are challenging "consensus" (i.e. mob rule) — we legitimately are pointing out some significant flaws in the walled garden and echo chamber that that area has become. There IS systemic bias and a double standard at AfD, and even Cracked is starting to notice that wikipedia has a major problem with bias. Frankly, you are considered something of a leader over there, and you are an admin. It would be wise for you to step up and encourage better behavior from everyone on these pages. I'm sickened by the personal attacks I've seen directed at me and at others. Montanabw(talk) 02:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between agreeing there's bias and agreeing this AfD is an example of it. Msnicki (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough debate statement, but did you see this? [7] (Yes, it's India, not Pakistan, but the issues are similar). Montanabw(talk) 05:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny there's systematic bias at WP, because that's quite evident. One symptom of this bias (and in my eyes one of the more reprehensible ones) is the paternalistic attitude that we should lower standards for certain people because of their race, nationality, or gender, as if those people otherwise are not able to meet our inclusion criteria. Applying our criteria equally to all persons, regardless of race, creed, or gender is not systemic bias. And the bias is not caused, for example, because we do not accept sources that are not in English: sources in any language are acceptable (and Google Translate is by now usually good enough to make those sources understandable). No, the systemic bias is not caused by the equal application of our inclusion criteria. Instead it is the result of the fact that our editors are predominantly young white males from Europe and North America who edit subjects that they are interested in, meaning that they are more likely to create an article on their professor than on a professor from Africa, even if that person also meets GNG/PROF/ANYBIO/whatever. That is the systemic bias, that people of certain nationalities, especially women, are less likely to have an article created than an equally notable European or American woman. And, face it, these young white male editors are also vastly more likely to create an article on an obscure video game, some mediocre porn actors, marginal sportspeople (especially male ones), and so on, than on a very notable professor. So a football player who made a few short appearances in a major league and then disappeared, is highly likely to have an article here, but I think that the vast majority of notable academics actually don't have an article.

In short, I think the systemic bias that we have is a by-product of the demographic of the majority of our editors, nothing more insidious than that. We have to try to correct this, for the sake of the quality of the encyclopedia, but looking down upon people, arguing that we should go "soft" on them because they are a woman or whatever and otherwise wouldn't be able to make it, now that I think is a biased attitude...

Finally, I don't think that there have been much (if any) personal attacks during this AfD. The discussion got heated and expressions like "you clearly have no clue" or "you don't understand" and such were used probably too frequently, but there have not been personal attacks (such as "you're an idiot"). Unless I missed something in that by now rather incredible wall of text. I could even accept that Atsme didn't intend to accuse any debate participants of having a systemic bias, but that is how their words were interpreted and they should recognize that.

As for Ameen, if I were her, I would find it really offensive that people basically are arguing that if she were an American man, she wouldn't meet our inclusion criteria, but, hey, it's a Pakistani woman so we should lower the bar otherwise she won't be able to make it... I am sure that there are lots of Indian and Pakistani women who meet our inclusion criteria. Fighting systemic bias is to create articles on those people, not lowering the bar for those that actually are not notable.

Let me give you an example of something that happened to myself. It wasn't systemic bias, but has some comparable aspects. At one point in my career, I got a promotion because I was willing to relocate to another location. I greatly resented that: I want to be promoted because I do my job well and deserve that promotion, not for some trivial other reason that has nothing to do with my job performance. Similarly, I don't think we are doing women or minorities a favor if we start to assume that they cannot meet our criteria anyway, so we need to hold them to a lower standard.

This has become a bit rambling. Perhaps some day I'll try to write this up in a more coherent way, but I hope that what I intended to say has come through. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • An interesting read, Randykitty, and it made me reflect on being part of the majority demographic on Wikipedia (not for the first time, but it is always good to return to these issues). In response to reading your comment, I started Fiona Macpherson. It's a very small contribution to addressing our systemic bias, but a contribution nonetheless, I hope. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good for you! I just checked my own contributions, and see that I have created 8 bios for men and 4 for women. Not altogether bad, but I can improve that, too. I'll see if I find time in the next few days to follow your good example :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did the same and realised that while the first two articles I ever created were biographies of women, things had gotten decidely male after that. In future, I might try to impose a rule on myself whereby for every biography of a man I create, I create two of women. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's definitely a good idea and the right spirit. Where I am frustrated with the whole AfD and Notability question is that my own position is not and has never been to "lower" or "relax" the standards. My position is that there is a need to:
  • a) Avoid a double standard (Um, I won't name several wikipedia editors who are also college professors and have their own articles here — and at least two of them could be argued not to meet GNG by the standards applied at the Ameen article...), especially one that dismisses all appropriate comparisons that raise the question with "OTHERSTUFF" arguments.
  • b) When arguments are made to "policy," be specific that it IS "policy" and clarify if it is a guideline or even a consensus statement, and cite not just the ABCDEFG, but pinpoint the cite, ideally with a quote. (i.e. "WP:ABCDEFG#FOO states "this is the exact language" In law we talk about weight of evidence and admissibility. A guideline might be admissible but will carry less weight than a policy...but is not invalid...
  • c) Be aware of criteria that look neutral on their face but are not. I'm sure we've all seen that cartoon of a monkey, elephant, bird, snake, and a fish all lined up in front of a teacher's desk and the teacher states, "to pass today's test, all you have to do is climb the tree and pick the apple." Clearly, only one animal can pass the test, even though it is, in theory, neutral. Similarly, I've known enough people trying to battle for tenure or to be promoted from assistant professor to full professor that express frustration at the politics of academe. Remember about that Swiss patent office clerk who was repeatedly passed over for promotion because they didn't think he had mastered the technology.
  • d) Consider the Notability criteria in light of what is actually stated in policy and if it fits. For example, if a guideline or policy states "national significance," then the standard is that of the nation in question -- it might take a lot more to be of national significance in the USA than in, say, Iceland. But, if the guideline says "national," then "national" it is until the guideline or policy is changed to say "as big of a deal as it would take to be nationally significant in the USA." Maybe if the standard is, for example, "a national #1 best-selling novel" -- well, maybe that is concern if someone is trying to promote the #1 national best-selling novel in Lichtenstein. Or maybe not... but it is important to determine when the problem is the actual rule, guideline, policy or whatever consensus and when the problem is an individual article.
  • So, onward through the fog. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • In the case of academics, the guideline does not mention "national significance", though, Montanabw. I'm intrigued by your comment about editors with their own articles, which do not meet the notability requirements. Can we nominate them for deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Second that. I agree with both of you that we absolutely shouldn't have a double standard. It is true that proportionally more WP editors have a bio than non-WP editors, but that is for a large part because that's where our interests lie. David Eppstein is a good example. After he had been around for a while, somebody looked into it and noticed that he met WP:PROF, so a bio was created. (That takes care of point a). I agree with the spirit of point b, but most of us are usually too busy to do this. Still, one sometimes gets a surprise when actually checking the exact wording of a guideline/essay/policy/etc, because sometimes our memory plays tricks on us... Point c I'm afraid we can't do anything about. We include what the outside world has "noted". And, yes, unfortunately, the outside world is more likely to note an obscure sportsperson than an important thought leader. That's why we have more bios of football players than philologists... It's seductive to try to use the power of WP to right those wrongs, but that's really a path we shouldn't go down... Point d is indeed unfortunate. WP is worldwide and I think the criteria should reflect that. There are many small countries in the world. Liechtenstein, for example. Just over 37,000 inhabitants (and a large proportion of those aren't even citizens), less than a small town in most other countries. They even have two universities. I'd say that any professor there can be argued to be a thought leader on a national level... Or look at sports. Basically any sportsperson there has "competed on a national level"... Fortunately, we don't have such a stipulation for PROF, as Larry says. However, there's one thing that a lot of people ignore. Any SNG that I know of stipulates that it does not overrule GNG and that an article only can be written if sufficient independent sources are available. So a subject may perhaps meet a certain SNG, but if there are no sources, then we still cannot have an article. Basically, our SNGs assume that if somebody is a member of parliament, that sources must exist somewhere and so we take the shortcut of saying that every member of any national parliament is notable. But I bet that it will be tough to find verifiable information on most MPs from, say, Nauru... Hence, "notable" (through an SNG) does not automatically imply "keep"... (This won't happen with GNG, because that guideline explicitly requires in-depth sources before an article can be created). --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem I see is that in the real AfD world, the SNGs are used to "trump" GNG, and AfD is rife with examples. Also, a lot of folks there are forgetting that SNGs can "stack" to meet GNG -- in other worlds, "multiple independent" sources could include some from PROF, some from other areas, perhaps each not quite meeting the individual SNG, but collectively all adding up to equal GNG. But another thing I have noticed is that guidelines themselves are subtly changed over time (even the phrasing of policy sections) and sometimes the "consensus" that is promoted in an area was established under a different set of circumstances that are quite distinguishable from some current situations. I haven't drilled down on this enough in the WP:N SNGs, but I've seen other guidelines (Navboxes in particular) being changed behind the scenes by a single individual who then goes around changing dozens of articles to fit the changes they made. As a result of a few rounds of that, I've become rather disillusioned about many guideline pages in general. Policy pages are a little better-watched, but even there one sees some edit-warring that the casual drive-by reader-seeking-policy misses. Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Notable" means something meets WP:N... there is no such thing as "notable through an SNG" -- or should not be. SNGs are not a determination of notability, just an assessment tool -- as is said on some SNG pages, they assist editors unfamiliar with a particular field to evaluate of what might be notable. NSPORTS has a lot of these, and one particular example is that they created a whole separate page just for figure skaters as they sorted it all out (See WP:NSKATE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability) probably due in part to the prevalence of amateur but notable performers (i.e. the Olympics) and, I suspect, also to have grounds to eliminate those who would deem a state competition winner notable -- if only we had something that comprehensive for NACADEMIC (Note: NACADEMIC does mention "national" forms of significance, to wit: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."..."president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. ".... And, in all honesty, I fail to see that Eppstein would meet WP:PROF by the standards argued at the Ameen article, but I'm also not going to AfD it, that's just mean.) Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't previously realise we had an article on David Eppstein. He holds a distinguished professorship and has what seems like a very high citation count, so I don't see how you can say he would fail the notability test in the same way that Ameen does. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Over 14 THOUSAND citations, an h-index of 59 (see here), and 29 articles with more than 100 citations each (with the top three having 1526, 817, 502 citations). Even accounting for the usual overestimation of GScholar, that's so far within what we usually count as notable that we could double our standards and he'd still be notable. Compare that with Ameen's 68 citations, a large part of which are self citations. Mentioning the two in the same sentence is quite ridiculous. Taking David Eppstein to AfD would not be mean, it would be stupid, result in a speedy keep (as has already happened twice before), and a trout for the nominator. Apart from this, I actually agree with a lot that Montanabw says, except for that stacking stuff, which is decidedly irregular. And if there are areas on WP where this has become accepted practice, they need to be made aware of the errors of their ways. More in general, I think our notability criteria are way too lax. Our problem nowadays is not article creation any more, but article maintenance. Too many articles, not enough editors... --Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

for fixing my formatting....:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Achraf Baznani

Hello, The artist is well known, please retore this page to rewrite it. Thank you [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] 41.140.156.231 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I was asked this as well. Normally, I would say "create a draft", but in this case I should like to wait for advice from checkuser Ponyo. There was extensive sockpuppetry about this subject on several Wikipedias, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Maromania/Archive, and the sockmaster User:Maromania, now User:Prismoa, has been globally locked. When closing the SPI, Ponyo salted even Draft:Achraf Baznani to prevent further disruption. I have asked Ponyo to check whether this is blocked Maromania/Prismoa back again, but she is on holiday until 26 July. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Far as I can see, I never even was involved in this article, so I would not restore it in any case without consulting the deleting admin(s) (or, more likely, direct the requester there). As this has already happened, I see no reason to undelete anything. --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

2rd out of 85

Did you mean 2nd? 3rd? 23rd? Art LaPella (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Sjeez! Very astute! Nobody saw that for over a year. It pmust have been 23rd, but in any case, the new rankings are out now, so I have updated things to the 2015 IF. Hope I got all the st, rd, nd, right this time! Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The issues have been explained multiple times, all that is left for Jktilsley to do is to read the policies and guidelines that she has been pointed to. This discussion is closed. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manhunt redaction

Hi - bit harsh - my father Vincent Tilsley wrote 5 episodes of this series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jktilsley (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Which is properly credited in the body of the article. But there were other writers, too, so adding only his name to the infobox, as if he wrote all episodes, now that I call "a bit harsh". As his daughter, you're perhaps not the best person to write about him, articles here need to be encyclopedic and neutral. In any case, you cannot copy/paste copyrighted material here, even if you are who you say you are. There are proceudres for that (see WP:OTRS), but in any case, material from the websites that you administer is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion in WP because it is unlikely to be neutral. Hope this explains things a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I may be his daughter, but I am also his literary executor and archivist. He co-devised the series and created the character 'Gratz'. If you need any verification please contact his estate via jktilsley@me.com. There is nobody more qualified to comment on this than I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jktilsley (talk • contribs)
I am sorry, but even if your identity would be verified (and you'll certainly understand that, at this point, I have no certainty about that at all), a personal communication of you is not an acceptable source. Please read WP:RS, which explains what are acceptable sources on WP. WP is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or a personal blog. Finally, you say yourself that he co-devised the series, so putting only his name in the infobox is misleading. And there were more characters than "Gratz", so who created those? I'm sorry, but I think this just shows that you are not impartial enough to edit these articles... --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Vincent Tilsley's Wiki page

I am Joanna Tilsley. I am the daughter of Vincent Tilsley. I am his literary executor, copyright holder and archivist. I manage all his online pages, including his Facebook page. The page you have earmarked for speedy deletion does not violate any copyright and I would be grateful for its immediate reinstatement. It has taken me weeks of work. Best regards - J K Tilsley (The Literary Estate of Vincent Tilsley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jktilsley (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • For the copyvio issue, see above. I don't know what user profile you are talking about, as you don't have a user page and nothing indicates that it was deleted, either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty - There is no copyright issue. I am the literary estate of Vincent Tilsley. I have no idea why the Wiki bots have decided that I should go. I cannot see what on earth I have done that is so ghastly.

16:06, 31 July 2016 Randykitty (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Jktilsley/sandbox (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

There is no longer any copyright infringement. Permissions have now been granted for all text via the Facebook page. Please reinstate my sandbox. This represents months of research. I would be grateful if you could contact me directly to discuss your concerns before any other such drastic redactions. Thank you.--Jktilsley (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • How have permissions been granted? Just because you posted here? Please understand: I could create an account named "Queen Elisabeth II", that doesn't mean that I'm her. Please read the links that I provided in my answers to you above, they are there for a reason as they explain the issues in much greater detail than I can (or want to) do here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kitty Like this of course. Do you need to see a copy of the grant of probate and my passport? Would you like to check with his agents who his literary executor is? Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jktilsley (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you feel so exasperated that you have to become sarcastic. I have already pointed you to WP:OTRS. I would think that as a literary executor and copyright holder, you'd be more appreciative of the fact that WP must take these legal issues seriously. Unfortunately, I don't think that the change you made on the Facebook page is sufficient, because there still is the notice "c Facebook 2016". But I'm not a specialist, the people over at OTRS are much more qualified for this (or else know people who are). Nevertheless, even if the copyright issue gets resolved, I repeat and stress that text taken from a site that has a clear COI combined with editing by an editor who has a COI herself (being the subject's daughter) is a recipe for problems. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not using any sarcasm. I'm trying to provide you with the required evidence, as advised. Please explain. --Jktilsley (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't see what is left to explain. There is no use in showing me your passport or anything like that, because I am not a member of the OTRS team, who are the only ones who can validate any copyright/user identity issues. Whether or not you're Tilsley's literary executor or not is absolutely irrelevant. Anybody can write this article, using available reliable sources (please read this link). As an involved person, you are probably not the best person to write Tilsley's biography (please read WP:COI). I think this closes this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There was not one unreliable source in the article. As you will see, it was thoroughly cross referenced to other Wiki pages that already named him, and hyperlinked to the appropriate external sources. I fail to see how the literary archivist of a writer not the best person to write an article on them. I fail to see your logic. My familial relationship is largely irrelevant as my father was largely a stranger to me - not that this should be in any way public, but you are making a very big assumption in thinking that I was in any way 'close' to him. I do however represent his literary works, and I am holder of the archive which I will eventually put online. I deal in facts only. If you can point out which part of the article was unreliable, I will stand corrected and edit.--Jktilsley (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The article was not deleted because of the sourcing, but because it was a copyvio. And I just had a look again and some sources don't mention him, others are blog posts, Facebook, or IMDb. And even if you were not his daughter, "representing" his works is COI enough. We now are really done here, please follow my advice or not, just as you like, but given that you apparently don't want to hear what I am saying, I won't respond to further messages from you. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I believe that the copyright 'violation' has been resolved as per Wikipedia's guidelines by adding "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License" to Vincent Tilsley's biography on Facebook (which I wrote after extensivly researching his papers), which was the cause of the deletion. As to sources, there were no links within the body of the article to blogs, IMDb (apart from the reference to Rex Firkin - because the Wiki page on him was no longer available - but why IMDb is not regarded as a reliable link I'm really not sure) or to Facebook. These links were all listed under External Links. All the links within the article were reliable links either to other Wikipedia pages which already named him as a writer, or to the Wikipedia pages for institutions or places (e.g. The BBC, Dulwich College, Levenshulme), or to external websites such as The Writer's Guild. He was a significant figure in the early days of WGGB, and there are a number of positive references to him in the official history of the union - all this I have yet to add to the page as it is still being verified with the WGGB archivist. He also stood for election for the Green Party - again, all this information is readily available on Wikipedia, but I've yet to add it in. You're right that I'm very frustrated - I feel as if I am going around in a maze here. I have all his papers, all his correspondence, all his press cuttings - information that is not online and is not available to anyone else. It *will* be online when I get it scanned and creat the website. But this takes time, and I also have many other commitments. Researching his papers have given me huge insight into my father's works. But I do not write as a daughter - I write as an archivist. I would never be sarcastic (I agree it is the lowest form of wit) and am puzzled why you thought I would be. I would be very, very, very grateful for some constructive help to get Vincent Tilsley's wiki page reinstated. There is nobody else in the world apart from myself who has all the relevant data in order to be able to pen this article. I'm even more frustrated that you don't want to help me and I so wish you would. Please help. I'm about to do the same for Frank Tilsley - his father. Again, he lived in the pre-digital age, and my article is again written following intense interrogation of both his and other online archives. Their work needs to be online as a research resource - Frank's even more so as he such an important figure - and my job as archivist is to make sure it is so.--Jktilsley (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I have explained all these issues multiple times to you. If you don't read WP:RS, you won't understand why IMDb and Facebook are not reliable sources. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the instructions there regarding the copyright issue. Information that is not published is not admissible, please read WP:OR. You consistently fail to even try to understand what the issues here are and for the last time I tell you now: this discussion is closed. Any further posts by you will be deleted unread. --Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biomedical Research & Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Thanks for editing above journals. We need not mention 'which is included in Jeffrey Beall's list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers' at journal pages as it will be redirected to respective publisher page.

Please refer : Frontiers in Psychology was published by Frontiers Media 'publisher is in Jeffrey Beall's list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers'. its my opinion. Jessie1979 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • No, this is important information. It is missing in the Frontiers in Psychology article, I'll add it there. I'm baffled that the Indian society left Medknow to go with OMICS, why on Earth would a respectable society do that? --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern

Hello Randykitty, Thank you for your concern towards 247 Africa Magazine. The article will be improve before the date given thanks.--Jamzy4 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion on the Article "Union Medical Healthcare Limited"

This is the url for my site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Medical_Healthcare_Limited May I know why it was deemed promotional and therefore, deleted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JELLYFISH2108 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • 1/ This is not "your site"... WP is not Facebook or something like that. 2/ The article was deleted twice by two different admins who both jusged it promotional. 3/ Just one example: "Owing to the company’s rich experience and exceptional performance", sound rather promotional to me... --Randykitty (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

AnupamKaler

Hello, This user page is of a wikipedia contributor who believes to share his knowledge by contributing on wikipedia, mostly about cricket and few others sports as well as Engineering contents and places of India. Please restore this page. User link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anupamkaler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamkaler (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much mate. I Will share more info about indian places so visitors have better choices. Anupamkaler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion on the Article "Pulmonary Circulation (journal)"

Hello, you deleted this because it contains copyrighted information, but it does not. I am editorial associate for the journal and I'm trying to create a wikipedia page for it. As noted before, the journal is indexed on JSTOR. Please let me know how to re-instate the article, or let me know what specific part of the page you believe is copyrighted. Thank you. [User: MarycycleUA] MarycycleUA (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, Copyright is a serious matter. I hope you'll understand that we cannot accept the claim from an anonymous editor that they own the copyright for something. We have special procedures for this (see WP:OTRS). However, even if the material was not copyrighted, it would not be admissible, because it is way too promotional. There's a difference between a journal's homepage (where using promotional language is accepted and even expected - up to a point) and a neutral encyclopedia. As editorial associate of this journal, please also read our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: The JSTOR link is in the infobox and when I tried it, it worked. As far as I can see, the article now contains all info that is available. The journal claims on its website that it is indexed by the Index Copernicus. That's not really something to be proud of... --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Recreated

This article; which you previously deleted has been recreated. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Allied Academies sources

I hope following news sources are acceptable to remove notability tags at Allied Academies [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. Please let me know Jessie1979 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The first, second, and third references are press releases, the fourth one is a search result. The fifth one is a directory listing. None of this establishes notability. What you need are independent reliable sources discussing the subject (i.e., Allied Academies) in depth. For the moment, all we have is the reference to Jeffrey Beall's article about how crappy this organization is... Frankly, everything I have seen so far reinforces what Beall wrote, the proud announcements of some apparently rather gullible researchers notwithstanding. It looks like it is a family undertaking (with every important position being taken up by a Carland family member). Their address for FedEx is a residential address. In addition, they publish a huge amount of new journals (some with weird titles like Journal of Forensic Genetics and Medicine) that don't even have an editorial board or published any article yet. SCImago indicates that their business journals, which inexplicably are included in Scopus, receive ridiculously low numbers of citations. I actually think it is unlikely that there will be good sources about what clearly is a bottom-feeding publisher. I did a Google search myself and nothing substantial came up (except for Beall, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification and extensive explanation. Jessie1979 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Blatant hoax or not?

I'm just curious. Is this article Mey Chan (permalink) a blatant hoax (as in the CSD criterion)? I see that the content has been lifted from id:Mey Chan, and id:Mulan Jameela and some from I don't know where. Just asking your opinion to find out if I have been too trigger happy in nominating this for deletion. The article creator btw has been blocked for socking just recently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Tax Analysts

Hi - you deleted Tax Analysts back in September 2014 (it was tagged as G11) but a look at the page indicates that the article was not unambiguous advertising or promotion. (The article, which was created in 2007, did needs some cleanup, but was not an advert). Will you restore the page? (As an admin, I could do so myself but I wanted to get your take as the deleting admin first).

Best regards, --Neutralitytalk 20:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_17&oldid=1140283151"