User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Jan 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

Bombay Elektrik Projekt

5:00, 7 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Bombay elektrik projekt (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308521238588)

Could you please tell me why when there is no copyright infringement of the said group as I am the creator and owner of the group mentioned and it is part of the same company. Please restore the wiki on bombay elektrik projekt asap and provide an explanation as to why you chose to simply delete it without verifying the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeipnair (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please read this note. The facebook page does not carry a notice licensing the text under the Creative Commons (or compatible). Therefore it is a copyright violation to use it here. But the real reason I deleted was because the tone was nauseatingly spammy and you had included zero evidence of notability. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about your enterprise. If you really want to persist, raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons

Well haworth,the facebook page has had a creative commons since 2009 under Bombay Elektrik Projekt by Bombay Elektrik Projekt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at www.bombayelektrik.com.Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.facebook.com/bombayelektrik.

So I suggest you verify your facts first before you chose to put them up. Also with regard to it being nauseatingly spammy, well thats one opinion. I sugesst you have the decency to verify facts first before you chose to delete a page and yes im sure as we speak someone un biased will put something up but then again, whats to stop you from pulling that up and deleting it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeipnair (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

EGO Tea Company article

Hello, I was in the process of creating an article for Ego Tea Company, but you deleted it. Adagio Teas, a direct competitor and who also imports and distributes tea in the United States, has an article. Could you please explain the reasoning why one like Adagio is article-worthy and another, like EGO, is not. Thanks. Cheers ! — Gr8daytoday (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Why cannot people provide links if they want me to look at articles? The Adagio article does actually contain a link to a third party site. You made absolutely no attempt to provide evidence of notability. If you actually create a Wikipedia article (in special:Mypage/Ego) instead of thinking that one sentence will do, you can raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My apologies for not providing the links. Two things: 1.) Adagio Teas page links to Teamuse, which is their newsletter, so I am not sure that is a good reason for them to be deleted 2.) As for Ego Tea, I will finish up the page, sticking to the format that of Adagio Teas, since they have passed the notability test of time :) I will connect with you once that's done. Cheers! Gr8daytoday (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for pointing out that teamuse is Adagio's site - that means that the article contains zero independent references - more reason for deleting it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, does that mean that every single tea company in the list of tea companies should be deleted. If you beleive Adagio Teas is a candidate for deletion? What about Stash Tea Company, a huge tea company in the United States? I guess I have a hard time understanding your criteria for selecting what to delete and what not to delete, which makes it harder for me to revise the Ego tea article in a way that will increase its chances of not being deleted. Cheers. Gr8daytoday (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "Every single tea company in the list of tea companies should be deleted?" Don't be ridiculous. You claim that Stash Tea Company is "huge", but I do not see that claim in the article - cite market share possibly and reference it? I have gone through the UK section and I can assure you that every one there is an household name (in the UK at least) and has a decent well-referenced article. Have a look at those articles - hopefully you will see what is needed to establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that you are based in the UK and not familiar with tea companies in the United States. Adagio Teas, or Adagio.com, is among the top online sellers of tea in the United States. Do a search on Google (the United States version, and not UK) for keyword "tea". You will see that Adagio is in number one (1) slot, or 2-3 (varies from time to time). If you know how google works, that is a sign that they might be pretty popular. Stash tea, or Stash Tea Company, is on a shelf in every single supermarket in the United States, like Fred Meyer, Safeway, QFC, Target, and many more. There is no way an administrator in the UK, and probably not a big tea expert, is the right person to administer pages for tea companies on the other side of the ocean. I really don't want to offend you, but I am just dissapointed in wikipedia. I have never written anything on here and decided to add a company that is a big player in my country. All that led to is Adagio Teas and Stash Tea Company, being put up for deletion. This is not right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8daytoday (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually a foreign admin. is absolutely the right person. If the authors convince a non-American that these companies are notable, then they should be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I sure hope you mispoke: "If the authors convince a non-American that these companies are notable, then they should be deleted." Gr8daytoday (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I certainly did! Re-read as: if the authors cannot convince a non-American that these companies are notable, then they should be deleted. But instead of talking about it, may I suggest that you actually pull your finger out and start providing evidence? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another administrator agreed that Stash Tea Company is well worth being on Wikipedia. He does live in the United States, in Oregon where the company is based, so he understands the level of presence this company has in the United States. I really think that deleting articles relating to companies in the United States should not be done by someone who is overseas, like yourself, since it is natural not to know everything about a distant economy and players within it. Otherwise, you might as well start deleting Starbucks or Seattle's Best Coffee, but you've heard of them since they did open up a couple of shops on your side of the pond. However, they did start just like Stash Tea Company in the Pacific Northwest and some time ago most in England, like yourself, did not know they existed. I hope you would consider my point and help wikipedia be a better and more well-rounded resource for everyone around the world and not delete companies just because YOU do not know them. Thanks. Cheers. Gr8daytoday (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RadeonPro: Radeon Profile Tool

You deleted RadeonPro: Radeon Profile Tool as an advertising complain, but if you could take some time to read what I wrote to Andyjsmith you would see that the page looks exactly like other similar tools already on wikipedia. What's the difference between them to classify my words as advertising and the other pages not? Can I appeal or your decision is final? Mautari (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to understand what is that and will fix it if can meet your exigences. Thanks! Mautari (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please can you move the deleted article to my sandbox? Mautari (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'll try to address the items you've mentioned. Thank you!Mautari (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Geeksphone article

I just created the article on GeeksPhone and was immediately informed that it was marked for speedy deletion.

Most of its content of this page was moved from the GeeksPhone One page in an effort to separate information on the company from information on the product. (Until recently this was their only product; as they have announced two new products, more pages will follow.)

I would like to understand why the page was deleted: I am not affiliated with GeeksPhone (other than by owning one of their products) and I can assure everyone that I am not gaining anything by creating this page.

We have a category named Android devices on Wikipedia, as well as a list of such devices; the GeeksPhone One is simply one of them. There are articles on fairly much each of these devices, as well as on the companies that produce them - so I do not see why this particular company should be inappropriate for an article. Also I try to avoid bias - I am aware that company websites are to be taken with a grain of salt: While it is unlikely that much useful content for a "Controversy" section can be found on these pages, I do believe that they are among the most authoritative sources for "hard" facts - who their management is, when they were founded, their locations etc. - it is a matter of keeping a critical distance. And I do not think I was promoting the company (if you look at the "About Us" section of their company website, you'll find a lot of self-glorifying hot air that I didn't include).

While I am ready to discuss the appropriateness of the article and how it would need to be changed in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria, I cannot agree to the speed at which all of this happened. The page was marked at 20:37, almost instantly after its creation, and deleted at 20:47 - exactly 10 minutes later. I don't type that fast - in fact most of that time I spent to find out what had happened in the first place; I managed to insert a {{hang on}} and as I was just writing the comment on the talk page, the article had already been deleted.

Frankly, that feels like being executed on the spot - say, for robbery - without having even heard the full charges (who did I supposedly rob?) or being given a fair chance to defend myself. I do understand that fighting spam and advertising is important - I get annoyed by these things myself - but acting this way on someone who writes an article in good faith is going to discourage people from contributing any further. I do not believe that this is going to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- Neomilanese (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please try to be less long-winded. I am sure you could have made your points above using about a quarter of the words you did. Things you omitted which might have saved the article: a link to GeeksPhone One in the first paragraph instead of almost invisible down the bottom; a statement as an HTML comment, on the talk page and in the first edit summary that the article was derived from GeeksPhone One - such a statement is mandatory anyway for copyright purposes; links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I have restored the article to User:Neomilanese/sandbox. Address the matters above before re-publishing. If it gets deleted again, you have redress at deletion review - and let me know - I might, just for once, propose re-instate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the resurrection. I have added the link at the top, comments that the article was derived from the GeeksPhone One article (though I guess copyright will be a minor issue here since I'm the author of both), as well as some more sources. For the records - I got a new user account since I signed up for Wikimedia Commons today and will use that from now on. --Michael-stanton (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Storage Decisions and Veeam

While I appreciate your work in keeping Wikipedia tidy (one of my long-standing issues), I'd like to hang on a moment regarding these two articles at least. I created the stubs so others in the industry (enterprise storage and server virtualization, respectively) could expand them. I think you will find that both are notable: Storage Decisions is perhaps the most important enterprise storage business conference and has been the site for many corporate and product launches, and Veeam is a rather-large company with a great deal of press coverage and product adoption. As I said, I've asked folks in these industries to help expand the articles and references and think you will find them satisfactory. --SFoskett (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah productions Wikipedia page

It seems you have deleted the above? I'd like the page reinstated please, if it cant in the form it is in now, then please advise how to change it Thanks for your assistance Regards James Rotheram Managing Director Hurrah Productions — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Rotheram (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Doxim Inc.

I am here to ask about trying to create a new page off of the re-existing one that was deleted because of other reasons. This new page is similar, but not the same so I would like to be given the chance to do so. — Doctorsamchiu5 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Be specific. Give me the article title and tell me how the new version is different. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is Doxim Inc. the new version has more sources which prove the subject's notability as well as the content is different and more neutral. I have made a page on user space right now and would like to know how I can put it as a real article. — Doctorsamchiu5 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Callsign

I placed a hold on tag in the account, I was going to place more information on why this is a novel work of art, as I also supplied some novel information in the posting. I was going to work on it this afternoon to see that you had deleted my submission. Please explain why it is ambiguous and not novel? I have not seen any way to break down polymers by hydrophilicity based on a surfactant yet on Wikipedia, I do believe the public would be informed of this information as well as many major businesses around the world to help their research. Thanks Callsign (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Did you notice that your text was formatted as <pre> and was mostly lost off the right hand end of my screen? Do you expect me to guess what page you are talking about? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

— Callsign (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Did yesterday, I wrote it. It said you deleted it, THE CASE IS YET to be solved!!! I guess I will re-write..Callsign (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If you know I deleted it, then you must know the title. Try harder. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Okay68.35.115.121 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was ECO-ONE. – ukexpat (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

E-crowd

I have tagged E-crowd for AfD having PRODed it first but had the PROD tag deleted by a swarm of anonymous IP editors who are busy wiki-linking every word in the article. As a non-admin, I was unaware that it had recently been speedily deleted. I am not seeking your support (heaven forbid!) but I am sure you might be able to provide the history of past deletion for this article which is unavailable to me. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have e-mailed you a copy of the first deleted state - much the same as the first state visible to you before the kid started to go wild with the wikilinks. The other state was the same with a speedy tag. I will let him have his AfD - someone might point out that I was wrong to delete it under {{db-corp}}! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edo van der Kolk

Hi, RHaworth. Just to let you know -- Edo van der Kolk was a reverse copyvio and didn't qualify for a G12 speedy -- the facebook page states it was copied from Wikipedia. Even if it had not been copied, the text would have met "de minimis" standards for non-copyrightable -- which is why I had already turned down the G12 and was in the process of determining whether any RS sources existed for it when you deleted it. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have deleted a lot (possibly hundreds) of non-notable band articles. But even a totally nn band manages to provide links to their website and their facespace, mytube and youbook pages! When I see a musician article devoid of external links, I have no hesitation in zapping it - I should have changed the delete reason to A7. However I do note that he is a member of not one but two blue-linked bands. So I have no objection to your re-instating. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood. And no problem. At the time, I had been looking at those band pages (which also were devoid of suitable RS) and other possible sources to see if I should A7 it -- you were just faster on the trigger than me. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Planet speedy deletion

You deleted our Wikipedia entry on the 4th Jan and I would like to get the copy of the entry so we can rework it into a format which is acceptable. We had our entry deleted once before, admittedly the copy was not up to scratch, but I thought we'd done a very impartial job with the current entry, which was based on and written in a similar fashion to The Big Bus Company.

We used this as a template to ensure we profiled the company in a way that was commensurate with the way other companies of a similar nature were profiled on Wikipedia. Please advise if there were specific aspects of the entry that need to be removed or if the entire entry requires reconsideration. Many thanks. James Bonney james@voidfilm.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmesbnny (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You chose a bad "template" - I nearly slapped a prod tag on The Big Bus Company with "no evidence of notability". Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about your company. If you really want to persist, raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mogodonman

I was going to try to enter into a dialogue but reading previous replies I see you seem to take pleasure in rude and snide responses, so there seems little to be gained by that. It's a shame because Wikipedia is a great site and all most people are trying to do is battle semi-incomprehensible instructions. You might do well to bear that in mind sometimes. Thank you. Mogodonman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One match wonders

Hi there - I see on my watchlist that you deleted two of the articles I created - the article for Gerald Yorke and the article for Vincent Yorke - both of which were cricketers with a single first-class appearance which had db tags attached to them. According to WP:CRIC, and by extension WP:BIO, these cricketers, as they have first-class appearances to their credit, are notable.

I will refrain from re-creating the articles here and now, however. Hope all is well. Bobo. 13:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So are you going to undelete them? Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not. Texts e-mailed. Please try and find other evidence of notability for either one. If the articles survive more than a fortnight, let me know and I will undelete the histories. Incidentally, I seriously concerned about your user name - please change your name - or simply start a new account. I may well place a request at WP:UAA. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You are trying to live up to your "cantankerous bugger" self-defined profile, aren't you? I don't want the texts, I want the history restored, as the articles already meet the community derived standards for inclusion. You had not responded to the article originators polite and respectful request for well over a day, and I did not want it being lost off your page. I've been reported to UAA before and survived, so don't bother. Please go to WT:CRIC and give your view on the failings of WP:CRIN if you don't think one game wonders should be included. Don't worry about doing anything else I'll just get one of the other admins to immediately restore the articles, rather than wait your two weeks. Have a nice day, The-Pope (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There is strong, long-standing, and stringently reviewed consensus among the cricket expert community on Wikipedia, that these standards meet WP:ATHLETE. See WP:CRIN. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If they are re-created, I shall take no action. Bobo is an admin and can re-create them if he wishes. I e-mailed The-Pope the texts but he prefers to talk about the mnatter rather than doing it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm barely around nowadays, but thank you very much for understanding - I hope you don't feel as though I've stepped on your toes in any way. All the best. Bobo. 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No toes stepped on. I am just amazed at the fuss. All that was needed was for someone to recreate and say to me: I have recreated, if you don't like it go to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Caviar & caviar substitute brands

Hello RHaworth! I see that you had Adamas (caviar) speedy deleted. Good call. Can you check Avruga caviar and see if it is the same type of thing? I've nevver seem to convince people that it is, even though I firmly believe it is! Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Tags

Funny, first you improved the rating of my page and then you deleted it. It reminds me of the disinfection of the needle used for a lethal injection... Less funny the fact you also deleted the page in my home name-space after you suggested to temporarily old it there. I strongly assume this latter is an error due to an excess of activity and so I kindly request you to restore it. Thanks. — Fbartolom (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • What on earth did I do to improved the rating of your page? I consider your article spam. I never suggested moving it to userspace. It is still spam in userspace so deletion was no error. Note that redress is available at deletion review. I will happily e-mail you the text but read this. Incidentally, in the same vein (pun intended) as cleaning the needle, what earthly purpose was served by this edit? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You have deleted everything so I cannot prove my words, but you exactly suggested me to move my page away from the general namespace into my personal one. I understand you have your mind in many things and probably you forgot, but for me that was the single wiki submission of today and so it is more probable I remember better. Anyway, given you may send the deleted pages, it means you may also read them and check. Of course that does not change things much, but anyway I do not like too much to be taken by the nose. As I understood I will post the page again (of which of course, given my experience with wiki since its inception, I own a personal copy) when I get some reviews to dress it with. I hope at that time there won't emerge some unexpected additional pre-requisite. — Fbartolom (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please remember that you are not talking to "Wikipedia" but to individual, fiercely independent editors. The personal space suggestion suggestion was made by Zachlipton (talk · contribs). I have decided that your self-promotional piece stands no chance and would not make such a suggestion. Sending you a copy - how?? Did you actually read my message? Did you see that the words "read this" were a link? Did you follow it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you have this crisis of personality: but YOU ARE Wikipedia, flesh and blood, as long as you have the reins to choose what belongs to it and what not. In the same way as a man is master of a house if he may choose who to admit to it and who to leave out. All that said, again with no specific objective in sight, I return asking whether Wikipedia will accept my page as did with similar ones when it is complemented by references or I have some bad karma attached to it that I need to specifically overcome? Fbartolom (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Now you are simply being ridiculous. I absolutely do not have the final decision of what goes or stays here. I have already advised you of the existence of deletion review. Use it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NG DEV TEAM

I see you deleted NG DEV TEAM, may I ask how the page would be better suited for wikipedia when I eventually recreate it? I realise they didn't have noteable secondary references but other than that do you have any other advice? RedSpotGames is another page of mine scheduled for deletion, tell me how to improve that as well, it has good secondary references. Oh and please email me a copy of ngdevteam's deleted page--Cube b3 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Friars Aylesbury page proposed deletion

Concerned at possible deletion of this page where information is true. I am trying to put verifiable sources in that are not the official website. I have also amended the largest music club in Europe to amongst the largest as this may be contentious judging by one edit message I have seen. Any pointers gratefully received as it would be a shame to delete this page. Thanks — Mike Pineapplemike (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Do you seriously think that [1] is a sensible way to present an external link? Does it give any clue what it is about? But in any case I would like to see national links rather than just the local newspaper. Also I suggest cutting the article down to about a quarter of its present length and writing in encyclopedic tone. (At first glance, I thought the article was about Friars Aylesford - something very different!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia neutral pov

Can you undelete this please? Its was deleted under an invalid use of speedy deletion as speedy deletion R2 specifically excludes the Wikipedia namespace. If you wish to delete it please take it to RfD. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
this isn't really being particularly civil for a administrator... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

IVS Alumni

Please I would like you to help improve the IVS Alumni Association article and revert the deletion. And also give me reason for the deletion so I keep in mind those mistakes for any of my new articles. — Vakas Siddiqui (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If you know I deleted it, then you have seen the deletion log which gives one reason for deletion. I could also have given "no context" as a reason because you could even not manage to link to the article that tells us what your IVS is! The website is no better. I am very dubious about whether alumni associations are deemed notable. But if you can create a new draft with proper context and refs, re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-Submitted please check Vakas Siddiqui (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Pathetic. Still no link to the school article and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have added some external links, hopefully that may fulfill the requirements now Vakas Siddiqui (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I twice suggested that you should add a link to the article here about the school. Why did you not do it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, here is the link to the article about the school. Vakas Siddiqui (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • For goodness sake! I knew that already. Why did you not put that link in the article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding, now i have placed this link in the article. Vakas Siddiqui (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

silly?

Silly? What do you mean silly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polobob (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You are heading straight towards another block and the next one will be longer, probably indefinite. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarona

Why Did you delete the Sarona Reiher, it was begin fixed up, so that it would be able to stay as a wiki page???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JwowwwwwwShore (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Darrin Drader

Regarding Darrin Drader. Exactly how many book covers with distribution averaging around 50,000 does a person's name have to appear on before they are considered noteworthy for Wikipedia? Just as importantly, why is it that there are broken links to Darrin Drader all throughout Wikipedia if this person is not noteworthy? Why is it that descriptions of his work are also included all over Wikipedia when the author himself is not noteworthy?

For example:

  • List_of_Forgotten_Realms_deities
  • Kopru
  • Parrafaire

I'd keep going, but there are over 500 references!

Seriously, ridiculous! A simple Wikipedia search, or even a Google search should make it clear that this person has contributed a great deal in his field, as the article stated, and deserves to get a bio page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperfoot (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Small point first: never edit anonymously. When you re-posted the article, you did it to the talk page. You were lucky that someone saw it and moved it. I have two problems: 1) you have no edit history. Perhaps I have seen too many new editors who have a blatant or declared COI, and I assume all have. But inevitably there is a suspicion that you are Darrin Drader or his publisher - and we really do not like self-promoters. 2) I accept that Darrin is world famous - within the world of D&D fans that is. But you made no attempt to present evidence of his notability in the real world. I have restored the article to User:Whisperfoot/sandbox. Please add links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - about the person, not just about his books. Then raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey Whisperfoot, hey RHaworth. We have a good few people on Wikipedia who write on D&D. I have raised the subject here, so hopefully there will be some people willing to help out. If you're looking for help on the article, BOZ (talk · contribs) may be a good person to ask. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

10 Corso Como

I removed the prod tag you placed on 10 Corso Como as the article was at AfD in February 2009 and closed as keep. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have seen this before where a blatant COI accout turns a good article into spam. It is fine now you have reverted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ellipse Insurance

14:15, 6 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Ellipse insurance ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I've recently noticed that you have deleted my entry for Ellipse insurance because the article appears to be about an organisation or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. I'm not seeing how it’s not significant as I have given a brief insight into what ellipse contribute towards the Group risk insurance industry and also how they do their business differently! I have tried to make the article as unbiased and non-selling as possible and have created links at the bottom to direct users to the website if they would like to know more or to relevant articles explaining the innovation of the company!

Could you please advise how I can make this article more significant as I’d really appreciate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllipseUK (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Blatant, unashamed advertising. Kindly wait until someone with no COI decides the company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Defleshed

Hi, you A7'ed this article. The group meets WP:MUSIC with albums on Hammerheart Records and Regain Records ([1]) and is thus ineligible for A7; could you please restore it? Chubbles (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • So how come in three and an half years no-one has managed to add any evidence of notability? Please ask the opinion of JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) who applied the speedy tag. Tell him I have no objection to restoring. He is an admin so he can do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Quack attack?

Hey RHaworth, if you have a duck test laying around (I'm clean out), perhaps you could unleash it on Jphil125 (talk · contribs), to see if it quacks like MSCI in space (talk · contribs). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I just now realize that this was kind of a dumb remark--there was no need to jump to socking accusations. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you delete COMMStellation™ and Microsat Systems Canada Inc. (MSCI) while I was nominating them for AfD? If so, I apologize--or maybe great minds think alike, but only one of us has a most powerful button. Could you delete the remains? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I deleted COMMStellation™ but decided that if you had raised an AfD, it might as well have a discussion on a title without the silly ™. I moved the other one. I think all links now tidy. Watch out and send David R. Cooper to AfD if the prod gets removed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio Control Central Stations or RCCS

Why Did My Page Get Deleted ? (Michael Robertson (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

  • Where Is It Written That You Should Start Every Word Of A Sentence With A Capital Letter? If you know that I deleted it, then you will have seen the deletion reason: a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Absolutely no attempt made to demonstrate the notabilty of the company. Also extremely poor writing. I happen to know what a VAr is but I still thought the following sentence was total gobbledegook: "Rccs software allows the override of planned VAr so that power supply can be used avalible distribution VArs when stability requires". Being realistic, the company works in a very limited market selling a product totally incomprehensible to 99% percent of the population. Even if you were to produce a perfect article style-wise, I doubt if the company would ever be deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. (Does your father work there?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I Happen To Know The Founder Of This Bisness so I tried my best to help his company ! (Michael Robertson (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Italian cabinets

Please restore them and move them into my user space ASAP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of …

Might I inquire about this deletion? First of all, it hadn't actually been 4 days yet since creation, so C1 doesn't apply. Secondly, and more importantly, did you not actually read the hang on rationale? Someone e-mailed me regarding that page showing up on a Google search for that name. The only way to get rid of it from Google, as far as I know, is to recreate the page with the noindex template and wait for Google to re-scan it, whenever that may be. It was re-created for that sole purpose, knowing it would indeed remain empty, and re-deleted once that happened. I just checked and it still appears on the second page of search results, so the problem has not been fixed. Please restore and leave it be until Google re-scans, at which time I will be happy for its deletion pursuant to C1. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Restored but … Which page of Google's results depends on your Google settings! It is on the first page for me. Google's cached version is of a message saying the page has been deleted. If you examine the source, you will see that it does not contain <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />. This means that you will have to leave the empty category up indefinitely! If it is deleted, next time Google crawls, it will see a page without the meta name="robots" line and will revert to the present state! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we fix it so it is deleted permanently without leaving it indefinitely empty? VegaDark (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Vakas Siddiqui

Sir i see that you've proposed this article Vakas Siddiqui for deletion, would you please help on how to improve this? 175.110.97.21 (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright

But could you write above the |}, so your message will be desplayed in the box. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FCS Top 25

I see you deleted Fcs Top 25 today. I actually wasn't finished with it, but was wondering what exactly was wrong with it. Its matter of importance is that it's a college football fan poll that's had a national champion every year since 1996. I was hoping to get this page up to give some recognition to the schools that won our fan poll each year. I'm sure you deal with this stuff constantly, so thank you for your time. — TheJagtx (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Trey Jager

  • I hope you were going to add links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources because it was their absence which caused me to delete it. Also the arrogant "across the nation" - which nation for goodness sake? I am very dubious about its notability but can try re-submitting via WP:AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Great points. I should have had everything in order before submitting. You are right about which nation, duh?

— TheJagtx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Toadwater

I posted copyright materials on the article Toadwater. I am the copy right holder and I read the article about donating copy right material. The directions had me send a wavier to donate the material. I am unable to do that till this evening. The article said to write something in discussion explaining my case, which is what I tried to do. I am going to email that wavier in less then 24 hours and follow Wikipedia Standards. Will you please unlock the article "Toadwater" so I may continue to follow the directions. After I send the email this evening, the directions want me to put {{OTRS pending}} in double [curly] brackets. I can't do that if the article is locked.

Thank you for your time Travis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviswb25 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Firstly, read this. The real reason I deleted it was notability. Ignoring two silly postings, the game has been deleted twice before for lack of notability. So, forget about OTRS. Write a short article from scratch, include links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and submit the article via AfC. In the unlikely event that it is accepted at AfC, then unprotection will be non-controversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalimat group

Oops, I didn't notice that you had deleted and restored this article before I had deleted it as a copyvio of the company's brochure. I'm feeling a bit slow at interpreting the revisions tonight, so I thought I should check whether it should be restored, partially restored or left as is :-) --Kateshortforbob talk 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, well made :) --Kateshortforbob talk 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Artice is back

Hi, I think you deleted MotionX but it came back to life. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ page deletion

Why did you delete the FAQ page here Talk:Enneagram of Personality? It was created by the FAQ template.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Vindicator

  • 22:11, 12 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Vindicator (band) ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

It wasn't my intention to add the band to Wikipedia for advertising. I deleted the "bio" if that was what flagged it. I had several other band pages open as I was creating the page to make sure I was doing it in a similar fashion. Please help me construct a page for the band that is suitable. The reason I created the page is because of the following page: Diamond Plate (band) at the bottom of the page Vindicator is written with a link to a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsinkorswimx (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Why on earth should "deleting the bio" make the article more acceptable? Add links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The article was identical to all other band pages I reviewed. Most of them did not have the actual "biography" section which I felt was important, but since it was from the record label I felt that must have flagged it for "promotion". I did in fact include 4 links to independent secondary sources. All of the sources re-iterated all of the information I put into the page. Unfortunately the links must not have been reviewed by anyone. I will try re-submitting through AfC — Xsinkorswimx 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsinkorswimx (talk • contribs)

Deletion of White rabbit

Hi, RHaworth. Just to let you know -- White rabbit was a redirect copyvio and did qualify for a Db-r3 speedy deletion. Macr86 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked...

The redirect to Broker was of course absurd, but CSD R3 is for "Implausible typos", which it wasn't, nor, as you noted was it "recent" and "misnomer" is not defined at all at WP:TITLE. In short, I could see nothing that allowed it to be a speedy, save IAR. I tend to be particularly careful when I am regularly involved as an editor in the subject matter, as was the case here. It was part of a much larger clean-up that someone is sure to grumble about. Ben MacDui 08:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Two-screen solutions

Without asserting that this article was worthy of existence, I'm curious as to why it was speedied rather than cut down to a redirect to Multi-monitor. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I never thought about it. Feel free to create a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Somastate

Please restore history of page. I'm from Calgary and Somastate was one of the biggest artists in town and were involved in the music industry. If bands like The Dudes and Azeda Booth are both made available on Wikipedia, then I see no reason to why Somastate is not. All sources were clearly stated and the band is certainly noteworthy. User:darkrider11 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • At least you have now managed to find what appear to be independent references but I have no idea about their reliability. Given the clear AfD decision, I think you need to go to deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Stolen Moments

Hi, I would have requested speedy deletion for Stolen Moments (album but the criteria under {{db-r3}} says that it has to be a "recently created redirect", and this one I had been around since 2009 at least. What criteria can I use to speedy delete something that is a typo that wasn't recently created? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Safe Sync

I notice that you have recently deleted Safe Sync as advertising. In fact the article contained important but orphan information that should go into Hot shoe#Voltages. Please restore the article history in some form, I will try to do the merge. The issue itself is maybe best explained on the pages linked to from this page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – Besides, Safe Sync is not a product name, but a generic name for these adapter devises. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Not very much information - too much how-to guide and spam. I have e-mailed you the text - feel free to incorporate as you propose. I have created a redirect at safe sync. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Master Locksmiths Association

Hope I'm doing things corretly as I'm new to this. You deleted the Master Locksmiths Association as I was editing it to make the suggested alterations. Can you have a check to see whether it's now acceptable please and if so remove the "speedy deletion" tag If you have any suggestions on how to improve it then I'm all ears. Thanks for your help Larrylock1 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, if a legal Eagle has said in Committe that is probably good enough. But please fix those ugly naked URIs like I have done for the first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg

Hi RH, would you undelete this, please? We're allowed to request that local copies of Commons images be kept. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, Rehman (talk · contribs) was at fault for not orphaning the image. But why on earth could you not do this edit instead of bothering me? Why on earth do you need a local copy? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Commons is somewhat anarchic, with policies changing a lot and apparently not enough admins. Images are hosted that aren't free, and images that are free regularly disappear. For that reason, I keep local copies, as we're entitled to do. In this particular case, the image is not free in the United States, so fair use has to be claimed if it's used on WP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2011_Jan_14&oldid=1173525512"