User talk:Samuell1616/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Proposed Deletion of Alhassan Andani

Hello Samuell1616, I see that you work actively in BLP and I appreciate your efforts in trying to rid WP of articles that violate BLP policies. I believe you mistakenly tagged Alhassan Andani for deletion and stated that it shouldn't be a featured article even though it was never. I would entreat you to conduct Google search to be certain of the notability of an individual before applying such tags. However you are free to maintain still that the tag is appropriate, in that case we would require the opinion of the community. Best Regards.—Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Vivek Bhaskaran

Hello Samuell1616 The edits done to this article at 13:58, 6 January 2015‎ are stripping off an important part of facts for which the subject in known in the niche of market research software. The facts presented are directly pasted as they have been presented in a known media site Seattle Times. I do not think it violates any of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing. Although further information to add a bigger perspective about the subject are welcome. Can this change be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedopinions (talk • contribs)

@Unitedopinions: Hi , Can you please clarify the content ? what I removed was promotional pitch talking about the ranking and big order details of one of the company associated with the subject. As the article is about the Individual we should provide more relevant information about the subject and its accomplishments. Also there are no reliable source citation in the article about the subject hence tagged the notability concern. One life to live (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Chamu Krishna Shastry

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thanks for the note, The article is now turned up into a advertisement, copied and indirectly promoting about subject's Sanskrit courses, style etc, tagging G11.One life to live (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 08:54:59, 9 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Csma03


I am the author of Draft:CITIC Telecom CPC. I have already rewritten this page many times with reliable sources, I really don't know why it is still be treated as advertisement. I just briefly introduce the company with some background info. I would like to know which part(s) contain problem so that I can focus to revise that part(s), many thanks.


Csma03 (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Csma03: The draft have issue directly with reference to Notability, Lacks reliable reference sources and have promotional content. Currently it just an advertisement talking about the ISO certifications and the offered product / services promoting the company. The references used are annual reports, company registration details etc . First of all establish connect about the notability -why the organisation should be a part of wiki ? and then re-write maintaining Neutral point of view, supported by reliable independent reference sources. Let me know once your done will review it again.One life to live (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samuell1616: I have edited the page, many thanks.

Request on 09:57:47, 13 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Artisan301


Hey, firstly, thanks for reviewing the article and for editing the article. Is it fit for a resubmitting now? If not, could i get your assistance on edititing it till it is passable?

Thanks

Artisan301 (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Artisan301: Plz share the article link.One life to live (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lapalux

Hi, I saw your declining the submission of Draft:Lapalux, which I think the subject meets WP:BAND criteria #1. You said: "Improve the article , remove the promotional references, non reliable music reviews etc and add independent references about the subject including the newly launched album."[1] Well, I do not think the references are promotional. Additionally, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, websites such as Beats per Minute, Drowned in Sound, The Fader, and Pitchfork Media can be used as reliable sources. Which ones do you think are "the promotional references" and "non reliable music reviews"? 122.26.219.149 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer lies in your question itself just refer back to WP:BAND and cross check the fourteen references used currently in the article - interview, blog , xlr8r.com note pitching 2014 album launch information, RA news giving details about the US and canada tour date-sheet, fader - interview & tour dates, RA news announcing the new album (promotion). My views remain the same for the current version and leave it for another reviewer take a fresh decision.One life to live (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

19:06:21, 13 February 2015 review of submission by MetaGrrrl


Hi! I've added a clearer statement of notability at the beginning of the article—"Google Reader Founder" in Forbes Magazine's words—and an additional citation (Wired) in which he's being consulted by a major publication as an important "ex-Googler". Also added ABC News coverage of Wetherell's app Avocado. As before, the reason for this article is because Wetherell was already mentioned in half a dozen Wikipedia articles but there was no way to tell that the software developer and the musician were actually the same guy. Thanks! MetaGrrrl (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

MetaGrrrl Please share link of some of the referred articles, let me have a look if something is missed out. One life to live (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
All are in the Draft article now. Specifically added http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkantrowitz/2013/07/01/google-reader-founder-i-never-would-have-founded-reader-inside-todays-google/ and http://www.wired.com/2013/08/20-percent-time-will-never-die/ (see under "What 20 percent time is not" sub-heading) and http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/apps-couples-hug-kiss-tabs-boo/story?id=20794618 MetaGrrrl (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah! Whoops. Just realized you were referring to the Wikipedia articles. One moment. ... MetaGrrrl (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are those https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Reader and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealership_(band) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Here_and_Abroad are main ones. He is also mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Highway_to_the_Stars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Harpold and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_American_Livingroom MetaGrrrl (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

09:09:18, 16 February 2015 review of submission by Remsington


Hey there,

The article I've written has been rejected because the references don't accurately prove the subject's notability. Would you be able to provide me an example? I'm writing this submission for quite a prominent Australian magician, but he's an older gentleman and many of his sources aren't online. I thought I'd given enough to prove his notability, but I'm a novice with Wikipedia, so any help you can give me would be fantastic.

Cheers.

Jeremy


Remsington (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Remsington: Sure , I advise you to read Notability , WP:RS , NPOV , Biographies of living persons guidelines to start up. Currently the structure needs improvement and self published references like subjects website , youtube references etc should be removed. Please improve it and I will be happy to help anytime. Cheers !!! One life to live (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:02:05, 16 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LailaArcher


Can you please tell me which of the links I have provided do not meet your criteria so I can remove them and have them replaced?

Thank you so much,

Laila (LailaArcher (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC))


LailaArcher (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@LailaArcher: Please share the article link.One life to live (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Rockman Industries

(Anilmehta9 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Please see my article Rockman Industries - As suggested by you I have edited the content (removed the promotional content and removed the repetitive references.)

@Anilmehta9: Work a little more to establish clear notability and better it further .One life to live (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samuell1616: Please help me to improve the article. I have tried to improve the article (removed the operations section) and also removed the name of Managing Director and Executive Director, which was looked like promotional content as I think. Also, I have edited the old content and added new lines. Anilmehta9 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anilmehta9: Ok , try to resolve the main issues - "Notability" if you think it meet the guidelines; establish connect why the company should be part of wiki and provide information maintaining "Neutral point of view". let me know once your done will discuss further . One life to live (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samuell1616:Hi Samuell, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability in details. Hope below evidences may helpful. If you search 'rockman industrues' in 'Google News' and 'Google Books' then you can found many evidences. Please see Google Books - https://www.google.com/search?q=rockman+industries&num=100&es_sm=93&biw=1366&bih=593&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=vV_cVMSsIuXGygOp44HoCA&ved=0CA0Q_AUoAA&dpr=1 and Google News - https://www.google.com/search?q=rockman+industries&num=100&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=NGLcVOHUFteQuAST1oDADg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=593 - Yesterday, I have tried to update the article. Please see once & suggest. Thank You! Anilmehta9 (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anilmehta9: Looks like you are in a rush, the draft still have issues and personally don’t find it ready for an independent article when there's already a redirect present for the subject linking to the Herogroup. As you have already re-submitted it, ‘ll leave this for another reviewer to decide .One life to live (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samuell1616: Sorry for that I think I need to save the page first. Anilmehta9 (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

14:20:35, 17 February 2015 review of submission by Arjanvangeel


Hi there, thank your for reviewing my Wikipedia article about F.O.D. (band).

Since the last review, I've improved upon the article by adding many more (10+) new, objective references from various sources, all discussing and mentioning F.O.D.

I also had a talk with the last reviewer, who stated that it's difficult for an underground punk rock band (like F.O.D.) to comply to the 'notability' guideline, but that my article was 'almost there' in getting published.

The band I'm writing about is currently one of the biggest, most prominent Belgian punk rock bands. They are playing huge festivals like the 25.000 people fesetival called Groezrock (I've added references for that), they being discussed in interviews and video interviews (I've added links too), and touring Europe (added links for that as well).

Can you -please- eleborate on WHAT I have to do to make this article official. I've been working on this for half a year now, and it getting declined all the time is getting frustrating. Especially when there's no comments from the reviewer.

I know that these reviews are there to prevent bogus information to be on Wikipedia, but I've been very serious about this article, and putting a lot of effort in it. And this has been the 4th decline in 6+ months. It's disheartening.

Thanks for your reply. Arjan van Geel (the Netherlands).

Arjanvangeel (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Arjanvangeel: Hi, don’t get disappointed. I know it feel a bit frustrating but as you correctly said its to ensure the forum credentials too which is an encyclopaedia. What is missing currently is sufficient independent sources establishing notability of the subject . Self published and less reliable references can be referred only once notability is established. I have not disputed the work of the band at the same time we need reliable independent sources which talks about the band and can be verified. Do revisit the Notability and WP:MUSIC guidelines. I am happy to help if you feel stuck. Let me know once you improve the article will discuss further. Cheers !!!One life to live (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Arjanvangeel: Wait , I just checked in last few minutes you reverted the better referencing version and also resubmitted the article again. Resubmitting the article without improvement makes no sense. Why ask for inputs when you don’t value them ?One life to live (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


16:22:35, 17 February 2015 review of submission by Arjanvangeel


@Samuell1616: Hi, I do appreciate your input! Based on your input of notability, I added another independent source, a Belgian newspaper called Gazet van Antwerpen which talks about F.O.D. Also, I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I didn't understand why all the references were edited by you? My versions were in plain language (describing the link, even stating which language it was in), yours is an automated edit which shows page titles (?) and is a bit incomprehensible to me? Hence the revert. I appreciate your time and feedback. What I still don't understand is why my article is not notable, even though I've mentioned 10+ different independent sources, in various languages? Arjanvangeel (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


@Samuell1616: Hi again, I'm beginning to understand the formatting of your EDIT. I used the [...] and yours is using more exact markup, like: { { cite web | url = ....... Again, I'm fairly new to this, so the interface is confusing (even finding out how to talk to you was hard | I hope I'm doing it right, if not let me know!). I won't revert the References, but might clean up some of the titles, if that's okay with you? And state which language the reference is in? Anyways, on the notability ... what I've done so far is: [*] mention various independent reviews; [*] mention sources which reference the band playing various official festivals and shows; [*] mention newspaper entry talking about the new album; [*] mention video interview with the band from a large media company called Large Pop Merchandising. I thought this would be enought to make it notable? Any extra help would be appreciated!! Arjanvangeel (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

08:46:45, 16 February 2015 review of submission by Divyaallen


I have made a few edits to the page - Mistral Solutions. Two links which sounded promotional have been removed (Mistral employee authored article and a Press Release). I have also added a few references in the Partners section for companies like Freescale, Altera, ARM, Esterel etc. Let me know if this reads better now.

Divyaallen (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Divyaallen: Not really , Can you explain why this article is notable enough to be a part of Wiki ? Secondly regarding the Nasscom award I can’t find the details on the cited reference. The very first reference is a self published source i.e company website, another reference from www.Altera.com which is a partner profile and also a Youtube reference which again is a company youtube channel. Happy to help once you correct all these issues. One life to live (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Samuell1616:Hi, Thank you for your help. I have corrected the Nasscom award related links (redirected to the actual Nasscom website). I have also removed the company website link and the Altera.com partner profile reference. The Youtube reference you mentioned is from the company's youtube channel, but I think it is still relevant as the video is an excerpt of the FedEX business award program recording that was aired on a reputed Indian news channel (ET Now) and is not a direct property of the company. Is it still a problem? Do let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyaallen (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Divyaallen: Remove the community arm and business wire reference one is a partner profile and other is a press release. recheck the entire article and ensure the structure maintains Neutral point of view. One life to live (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... it is the main disambiguation of the term New Economy movement. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Sally Falkow

Samuell1616 I have torn out all of the promotional "resume" type stuff and made it bare bone. I aspire to build it up slowly, carefully, and fully inline with the expectations of Wikipedia Chrisabraham (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Samuell1616 this page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is not meant to be. This is the first draft and I had thought I would have a little more time than immediately to kind of work it through. I thought I would have the help and the assistance of the community as opposed to just having delete. I will try to crop down a bunch of stuff in order to make it more compliant. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Premier Boxing Champions

Hello,

I have made edits to Premier Boxing Champions wikipedia page to make it less promotional and more encyclopedic. I've added more reference material and cited more sources.

Can you advise if I have done this correctly?

Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenadkarni (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Kalika Yap Speed deletion

While Mrs. Yap exceeds the guidelines for notability, upon further critical analysis, I am going to revise the entry to meet the guidelines of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsens (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I edited the article. You were right, it needed revisions. LMK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamsens (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jakarta Love Story

Hello Samuell1616. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jakarta Love Story, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Thanks .. Cheers !!!One life to live (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

18:24:00, 19 February 2015 review of submission by Ben.zitney


Hi Samuell1616, I was wondering if you could point out any specific areas that need reliable sources? My sources included NYTimes.com, PropertyCasualty360.com, and ibamag.com, which are all significant, reliable publications in my opinion. Am I mistaken here?

Any specific advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks so much!

Ben.zitney (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dregs of wine

I am refusing this speedy deletion because neither of the criteria you specified fits. G5 only applies if someone creates an article if there is a ban saying they can't, or if they use a sock puppet account to create it while their real account is blocked. It does not apply if someone creates an article and later gets blocked for something unrelated, which is exactly what's happened here. If I were to get blocked today for, say, extreme personal attacks, you could not go around to speedy delete articles I created back in 2007. That would be ridiculous. I declined A7 because a colour is not "real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event", which I think is pretty self explanatory. Reyk YO! 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Reyk: Thanks ... Cheers !!!One life to live (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

18:59:19, 19 February 2015 review of submission by Erikauthor23


Erikauthor23 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Samuell1616

My Name is Erik Shein i spent almost 6 months putting that article together before i submitted for my publisher and studio for the wikipedia, audience and you are telling me i am not notable and my references are not correct that article is about me and i have been a children's book writer for 30 years and make my living and support my family with it so how notable is that? i would like your help with my article because we feel the children's books we write and have published are important for the wikipedia audience to learn about

thanks Erik Shein Arkwatch

Deletion of Driver Support

I am a little new to the wiki space. I was trying to be intentional in creating the business entry and following other large companies like Dell for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell

I just did an edits trying to take out anything that is not just pure factual information. I was hoping to start with a base like this and then grow it over time with facts about the company again similar to dell and other companies. If I am to go about this another way please let me know I would appreciate the guidance and help in making this done the right way. Boothrich (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Boothrich (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothrich (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Lorex Technology Inc.

Hello,

With regards to your proposed deletion of Lorex Technology Inc., I am unclear on the criteria used to establish encyclopaedic value, and further how the content could have been considered to be in violation of the following:

(A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))

Many Wikipedia pages that provide the history of an organization do not demonstrate any more credible indication of the company's importance or the significance of its leadership figures. I can point to other Wikis from related companies that publish facts of far lesser significance to the nature of the company being discussed let alone any kind of innate importance in general. I invite you to examine the links below and provide any excerpt that would nominate these Wikis as being somehow more important or less promotional:

I direct your attention specifically to the GoPro Wiki, which has been marked for its semblance to an advertisement but has not been deleted. I am curious why there is a division in the treatment of content when nothing on the Lorex Technology Inc. page discussed the quality or usefulness of products the company sells. Any objective history of any organization evidenced by official sources such as public press releases and financial assessments and not by promotional content or marketing-driven assessments of the product should qualify as having encyclopaedic value.

Since I've finished writing this response, someone has deleted the page. Please advise how I can proceed in getting the Lorex Technology Inc. page back online.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex2230 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuell1616/Archive_7&oldid=1069601131"