User talk:Dhartung/Archive 8

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

As I stated, there is likely some information (as you pointed out). Unless there is a large amount, it would be better suited to the list, which is in desperate need of information. If possible, can you please change your vote to merge, unless enough information is provided or something like that? TTN (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, and this is definitely worth considering, but I see no reason to change my vote. Tanner is a main character in the series (arguably the main character). I believe the article is potentially viable, and cleanup is a valid destination for an AFD. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, with all due respect, you really shot your own argument in the foot about my actions "being rash", to quote your comment on my talk page:

• I don't think there was any risk that the article would be deleted

and now to quote from WP:SNOW:

• If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process.

As you have so well pointed out, the articles had a snowballs'c chance in hell of being deleted, so the process did not need to be run, the fact that the nominator started another process, instead of reopening the original AfD, is neither my, nor your problem. This has been an application of the Snowball test and I have been vilified by at least two ([1] [2]) other editors that felt the same way. As said above, this is said with respect, my actions were not rash, but were rather well within my rights, as the nominator was well within their rights to reopen the AfD after I closed it. We even reached an agreement regarding the original closure. Fosnez (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed a bit abrupt, It was not my intention to become aggressive, it's just that SNOW was created for this exact purpose, and a lot of people abuse it, but when I use it I usually try to do it to AfDs that I know won't succeed - considering the nomination of the one that started this whole thing (lack of source / notability) was easily resolvable, I snowed it then went on to fix the article. Anyway, happy editing. Fosnez (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page. — Chesnok (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your work on Noël Martin - I hope the article makes it through WP:AfD. Poeloq (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent AfD on This Is Fake DIY was recently closed as "No consensus", and a new one has been re-opened at WP:Articles for deletion/This Is Fake DIY (3rd nomination). As an editor that participated in the closed AfD, you may wish to repeat your comments at the current one. Tevildo (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your help in improving Hindu-Muslim marriages will be greatly appreciated. Thanks you.--Vikramsingh (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that User:Perspicacite, who uses "Jose João" as an alias in his sig, has made edits in other articles with a blatant POV regarding corruption in Angola. He seems to be on a bit of a mission. (Reply on my page, please.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

could you point me to wiki topics on the philosophical use of the term spiritualism.

I cant find any and the article I am defining is the only one that comes up in the search.

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruce_McMahan Basically, if Linda confirms the incest/marriage on a video, would that stop the dicussion about whether this is true or not? "So, let's say if there would be a video of Linda McMahan on which she details the whole incest-cum-marriage episode, would that be then reason to NOT doubt the veracity of the incest? If the video would be in a, let's say grand-jury setting, on which she would explicitly state that she had sex with her father and married him? In other words, what would it take? The word of the NYT/L.A times? Or the words of Linda herself? Just curious here."--TheSteelGeneral (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything by you on that Talk page. In any case, the issue seems to be whether or not there is additional reporting in-depth, not primary sources. Other editors would obviously be more comfortable if the information about the scandal came from stronger sources that were not just reporting that the New Times had an article. Keep in mind that "truth is a defense" does not apply on Wikipedia if the claim is not notable, so yes, "the word of the NYT" or another major publication would demonstrate continued notability of the scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dhartung, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, you can be trusted to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A very good fellow has just done what I recommended would happen if we kept Donk, and added sources all over the place. I would ask that you change your vote before it gets deleted by error. Cheers.JJJ999 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciated your point-by-point analysis on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School and I have been reviewing many of the WP policies and guidelines over the last few days. I have also been revising the article with the help of other editors and have completed the following,

• New reference added, although written by the current head of school, it is a doctoral dissertation and probably falls under WP:V "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued" and WP:RS Scholarship.

• Two additional references from independent educational associations, Tomorrow's Child published by The Montessori Foundation and Montessori Life published by The American Montessori Society are periodicals and could not be considered extremist or self-published by WMS; therefore, they also could fall under WP:V and WP:RS

• Two additional references regarding national grants - the first by the US Environmental Protection Agency; and, the second by Toyota and the National Science Teacher's Association.

With the additional recent work toward establishing notability and the additional comments by other experienced editors, I would appreciate if you could review Wilmington Montessori School, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School again and provide your opinion.

Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Aoife Hoey (formerly Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh)). I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, quick question. I saw your comment to that effect at this Afd. That's what I always thought as well, but there are cases, here's one for example, where the closing admin closed the AfD as delete and transwiki and then prodded it. As a result, someone kept it and merged. Seemed to defeat the purpose of the AfD. I did ask the admin, but it still confused me. Can you clarify at all? I read the link you sent which makes it clear, but I'm still muddled. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the specific case of schizodactyly, the end result was the right one, and that's what we should care about. Redirects are cheap and having one replace an AFD "delete" result is acceptable in almost all cases saving obvious spam. It's perfectly legitimate to come back after an AFD and recreate a term as a redirect; I've done it a few times, where I thought it was useful to preserve the search term. This sort of falls under ignore all rules in the interest of a better encyclopedia.

The point of a PROD is to have a process for uncontroversial deletions. Something argued at AFD is more likely to have been contested to some extent, so PROD is an inappropriate process, that's all. Hope this helps. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

it does help, thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. I know it's frustrating when AFD participants seemingly know nothing about Wikipedia. Don't let it get to you, and keep up the good work. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree, but what did you think was out of line? Please be specific. The user was making an extraordinary claim of malicious intent, and I asked for evidence. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't anything big: I don't mean to accuse you of anything major. I feel like, in that situation, your reaction was appropriate but perhaps a bit strong. From my perspective, the user you were responding to was doing his best to be apologetic and explain his position (even though, of course, he appears to be a SPA). I think you could have rephrased the below to be a bit less emotional and a bit more dispassionate. But again, this is just my perspective. I figured I would let you know what I saw so you know.

Comment Then I hope you will understand OUR frustration in handling articles that do not have appropriate references. We don't care about whether there are other articles of dubious sourcing or how many downloads; we care whether we have sources that verify the notability of the program according to our pre-existing standards. We don't really check the rest of the category to see if we're being fair. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Keep in mind I'm probably overreacting :-). -FrankTobia (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Were you aware that someone has changed your vote from "Delete or Merge" to "Delete"? Mstuczynski (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not. Thanks for the heads up! He's already been blocked, though, I see. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I hit the jackpot concerning a somewhat more reliable source for the page. Apparently it was on Google Books this whole time. Look on the top of page 191 and tell me what you think of the argument. Although it really does not help that the reference for the investigation is not available online. You indicated that you doubted the validity of te reference. If you do have access to the book, could you pass it along because of what I said about it not being present on the internet? Kevin Rutherford 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=Tqu7764c2cQC&pg=PA450&vq=otis&dq=Otis+AFB+UFO&source=gbs_search_s&cad=4&sig=lY1ydowaK8hox_kbOrGve7EcFqg#PPA191,M1

Hello, Dhartung. You have new messages at ArcAngel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Great work there. I thought this one could be saved, but, much as I tried, I couldn't accomplish it to my satisfaction. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dhartung, I read your pro deletion post against the Mark Bellinghaus page and would like to share some of the info I have learned in this matter. I would appreciate if you could go back and read the attacks, personal attacks, even threats that include AIDS infected blood, after Mr. Bellinghaus had succeeded to stop a fake exhibition from touring the world for a dozen years. I edited some important links because I admire investigative reporting and I am very happy that some people go out of their own comfortable ways in order to warn the public about frauds. Please reconsider your decision and please read into this matter. I have personally been the victim of fraud on eBay and I do appreciate any warnings about these frauds. Thank you. Weareallone (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that one try to delete the Mark Bellinghaus page came from a person who was exposed by Mr. Bellinghaus. Who was caught in supporting Jayne Mansfield frauds. Hillary Jayne Mansfield, who was supporting for years the claims of her partner in these eBay crimes and frauds. He attacked Mr. Bellinghaus and called him names on the Internet which I possibly can and will not repeat. If you count this persons nomination for deletion, I really don't believe in fairness here on Wikipedia. Please look up the methods of how people defraud and harm others. Hillary Jayne Mansfield is one of them. I am personally thankful to have learned about this individual who tried to silent Mr. Bellinghaus and thank goodness did not succeed. Here is a very interesting blog post by Mr. Bellinghaus which can open the eyes to any believer in those eBay items that seem so impossible: http://markbellinghaus.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/hillary-jayne-mansfield-36-the-supporter-of-ebay-fraud/

   * Nominations for deletions on this article appear to be vandals as indicated by this talk page below. Deletion nominations for this article have been flagged by editors, such as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hilljayne Mark Bellinghaus Weareallone (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be headed for a consensus to merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoopanese. Therefore, I am taking Dhartung's idea and making a separate Da Yoopers discography page, which will use the {{tracklist}} templates to save space. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should the discography page include infoboxes for each album -- albeit reduced infoboxes with only the cover and release date? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on the Todd Palin AfD page. You are probably correct in asumption that not many people would want to navigate throught the pages of Alaska's First Spouses. For example, the link to Palin's predecessor as First Spouse, Nancy Murkowski redirects to her husband's article. --TommyBoy (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I did wonder how many would have articles in the first place, but even with that I wasn't interested enough to check! --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tanita-mother-records.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While I cannot comment on sources added by other editors which may not have treated the serious phenomenon of intereffectuality with as much respect as it deserved, I am flabbergasted that the article would be removed from this encyclopedia without a modicum of process or debate. I have heard the concept discussed by a bevy of notable scholars, particularly continental scholars who might escapes GASP the robotic motions of your cold dead database and google method of research. Rather than condemning ideas that will long outlast this collection of ephemera and trivialities, perhaps you should focus on adding some beauty to the cold and empty canvas lest others read it and think that a deadened world is in fact.--Chakira (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice poetry. You got any reliable sources? "I heard some continental scholars talking about it" kinda fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you left a comment "Don't do this again, OK" on the AfD page. I don't appreciate the tone, but I can see why you might, at first, get frustrated at what appears to be not-a-well-thought-out AfD nomination, just for the sake of it. It's not. On the Stellent talk page, you can see the discussion we had and that while initially I supported a Merge/Redirect, after further investigation I am of the opinion that Stellent fails notability, and that the article fails to provide references or verifiable links as to it's notability. For that reason, I've no problems with the merge, but I don't believe it merits a redirect because of the aforementioned issue with notability. Bardcom (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You gave it so much thought, but never searched Google News Archive? --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't even know it existed! Nice. And yeah, looks to have enough notability. I'll withdraw the AfD. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you closed the discussion because I appeared to be withdrawing the nomination. I don't consider myself the nominator; I deprodded the article because I felt the issue was not clear cut and needed a consensus rather than unilateral action. I listed it on AfD to give that a chance to happen. I didn't mean to kill the discussion before it could even get started when I weighed in for keeping it, I just wanted to add my one voice and let others weigh in as well, not to withdraw the nomination. The real nominator is the one that put up the prod to begin with; s/he thought it should be deleted and I think that should be discussed. Would it be possible to re-open this discussion? Despite my keep opinion, I see this as marginal and I don't want to be unilaterally responsible for either it's salvation or deletion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

uNdErStOoD. (nO, i'M nOt TaKiNg ThIs SeRiOuSYl, I cOuLd Be A wEe BiT tIpSy. XCharltonTilliDieX^Talk/_Contribs 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dhartung, I've made a large revision to the Sexuality and Space article. It's very much not the article it was when it hit AfD and I'd like you to take a look at it and see if you feel differently about it now.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just used to seeing the template that only displays coordinates at the top of the screen. Not sure I see the point in having them in the "External links" section as well, but not to worry. PC78 (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to get to one film article and expect the other when browsing. They are completely unrelated. Why do we need to add hatnotes if the person looking for either film won't ever wind up at the wrong article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When two articles share the same title, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of navigational purposes, I'm not certain why this is necessary at all. If a reader goes on Wikipedia, they are not going to type "Public Enemies (2009 film)" or "Public Enemies (1996 film)" explicitly. (If for some reason they do, they find their preferred article pronto.) However, they would normally type "public enemies" and be led to the disambiguation page that shows the two film titles. If they were not explicitly looking for it, whatever piped link they click for either film should lead them to the right one. Are you really sure "unambiguated" does not mean lacking the extension of (2009 film)? If it was Public Enemies for the 2009 film, I would understand a hatnote to the 1996 film. However, both of them are links found through disambiguation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're making dubious assumptions about how accurate searching is. (Very few people use the on-Wikipedia search engine, partly because it's so rudimentary, but it's also in the invisiable area for most surfers.) At the moment, the first page of Google results for "public enemies" shows public enemy and The Public Enemy. The point, though, is that regardless of how they got to a page, they have an on-wiki route to finding the page they want. If they are at the wrong page, we, the encyclopedia, HELP them. I don't see why this is objectionable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the on-Wikipedia search engine really that underused? If a person that wants to find an article specifically on Wikipedia, they would go to the website, then utilize its search engine. In addition, if either the 2009 film or the 1996 film surfaces on the Google results, it seems already clear to the user that the advertised film about Johnny Depp isn't going to be one that was 12 years ago. Maybe I'm overestimating the capability of a typical visitor, but it seemed that the redirects and the disambiguation pages were pretty sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my view is to help the reader wherever they land, but if you think it's that unnecessary go ahead and get rid of it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let the hatnotes stand, though I probably would not oppose their removal by another editor. I apologize if I came on a little strongly about this; I do understand that you mean well. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. Please do take another look at this article which has been almost totally rewritten Mark Hasker (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to rethink your Low C and Deep C AFD opinions after what I just wrote.Nrswanson (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have apparently contradicted most, if not all of your statement at this deletion process. Would you please reconsider your vote. thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn something new every day. Grsz 11 07:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You know, I saw that, and intended to check it out as it could have indeed meant judicial court. It probably actually was both supreme court and legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your thought on redirecting it to James Avery (colonist). "Captain" seems so ambiguous to me. Grsz 11 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good choice, especially considering we have James Avery (sailor), who could be considered a potential captain at first glance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of afraid to do it, because of a recent dispute, but I was bold and went ahead and moved it. Grsz 11 07:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the AfD tag back onto the article, and removed the oldafd tag from the talk page. I noticed you didn't make a decision or argument to delete the article. Any reason you are going against my close other than the one stated? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to voice an opinion on the article one way or the other. I simply felt that the close was more "improper" than the nom itself, if you want access to my decision process. If you have a better idea for HSR, please feel free to voice it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have, citing policy for lack of reason. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gayelle (lesbian), I have added many new RS to the article and therefore I would like you to reconsider your vote that was based on a previous version that did not take your WP:NEO or WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V concerns into account.NewAtThis (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I found some additional references for Geosign. --Eastmain (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please review this sandbox article and let me know your thoughts on notability at this time ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waterwindsail/Sandbox thank you --Waterwindsail (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing except an ordinary, accomplished psychologist with a dissertation that attracted some notice. This isn't sufficient for notability, sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we allow anyone who may just merit an article section or at most, an article stub, as a SONGWRITER (in accordance to WP:MUSIC) to post links to his web sites as a producer and mastering engineer, which he doesn't qualify as per WP:Bio? Also, the subject just showed up to defend his article page at its talk page [3], a clear telltale sign that he violated WP:MUSIC (See: WP:MUSIC#cite_note-selfpromo-0.

.If you agree that something is wrong in here, please vote to delete and /or to take away all external links that promote him as an engineer and to reduce the article to a songwriter's stub.Jrod2 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhartung, thanks for your comments. If that's your position as you said ("I don't think that extending INHERENT notability on the basis of a chart position is the way to go..") then Holger according to you doesn't meet the requirement. However, he does have 2 credits as a songwriter and co-author of charting songs. He didn't sing on them, or was a band member. Those 2 credits meet the requirements only under WP:MUSIC not WP:BIO. My argument and problem with him is that he created the article page himself and therefore, violated WP guidelines (See:WP:MUSIC#cite_note-selfpromo-0). I also wouldn't have had no problem with the entry discussing his engineering and producing credits. But, the fact that wrote the article himself and posted the links to his websites, are sufficient enough to eliminate him altogether. Will you vote to delete? Thanks for your participation one way or the other. Jrod2 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm waiting for somebody else to weigh in before deciding which way to !vote. I believe that you are misinterpreting WP:MUSIC#cite_note-selfpromo-0. The note is saying that use of self-published sources (personal website or myspace, promotional material provided to concert venues, and even interviews) are not themselves sufficient to meet sourcing requirements. It is NOT saying that writing his own article is self-promotion, which is covered by WP:COI in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm Dhartung, you are right. I thought that guideline covered COI , but you are right, it is referring to others publishing stuff about the subject independently. Anyway, I have now inserted WP:COI on my argument against Holger. BTW, User:Dissolve mentioned my concerns as well. He did say: "but I agree that the article does have verifiability issues, possible conflict of interest issues, and external link issues.... However, he didn't look into who created the page and how all of a sudden, Holger showed up at his article talk page ([4]) pretending to be unaware of the discussion. That was a bad move on his part, if you asked me, and confirms that he is involved in the creation of the article just like I said. Jrod2 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I and most editors who regularly participate on AFD do not regard COI as a reason by itself to delete an article. It's pretty obvious he's involved in editing it, but only if notability were very marginal would I let COI tip the balance. COI is more of an indicator or co-symptom of other problems. --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, That's fine. Let's analyze this: One) As a songwriter and co-author of 2 charting songs, he meets WP:MUSIC requirement. However, two) all of his claims as engineer and producer are not applicable to WP:MUSIC and do not satisfy the criteria for WP:BIO. Three) there is a WP:COI problem and Four) there several citations missing. You see Dhartung I would like all of us to raise the bar for qualifications and to make it really hard for anybody to do what Holger did. What is you conclusion? Jrod2 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Dhartung, here is how I have presented the argument:

• Delete A) The article lacks citations from verifiable sources. B) This subject as an engineer is NOT notable enough to justify an article page. C) Barely meets WP:MUSIC as a co-author of 2 charting songs. D) He does not meet WP:BIO. E) Obvious WP:COI problem (created article under User:Sensimilla with IP address 62.107.210.179). F) Blatant promotion of the subject's websites (external links for "www.Popmusic.de, www.onlinemastering.de"). Wikipedia is not a place to promote web sites. Jrod2 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what you mean about startups. I'm working on three, and taking occasional breaks for Wikipedia. In this case, I made the mistake, while tired and thinking more about startup financials, of putting out a draft too early.

It's ironically amusing that what started with an accidental move that still had copyrighted text, moved to POV warring by some of the people hotly involved in Iran-Iraq, and now that someone copied it to the Russia area, I'm now dealing with angry Russians. I have said to several of the loudest complainers that I made a mistake in putting up a draft early, and I'll try to fix it as quickly as the real world allows. Unfortunately, that isn't acceptable to some.

Thanks again for inserting some sanity. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see we are at odds with the current voters on the article's candidatur for deletion/mergeance here. If you could read my argument in the discussion of this prod (whatever that is) and tell me your thoughts on my slant I would appreciate it. Maybe even add your own thoughts. Hopefully in support of my stance.

I put some considerable thought and effort into the Rwandan Genocide article and it would be a blow to me (and you I gather from you Wiki philosophy with which I am in full agreement) to find this sub-sectional main article lost from it.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens. I put work into saving articles all the time and it ... mostly ... works, but not always. Ultimately it may just be that as is this is too insubstantial. You can have the information userfied or you can merge it some place else. Try to put your energy where it will do the most good. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dhartung. Though I don't agree with your close of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Systems Biology Research Groups I'm not planning to contest it at this time. I still believe you should nominate the redirect from main space to WP space for deletion, for example, with {{db-g6}}. I don't think that {{db-author}} would be correct, and an RfD debate would simply extend the AfD into yet another venue, one that IMHO is less appropriate. Otherwise the move leaves a cross-namespace redirect in place that some people will object to. A discussion of what to do with the contents of this article is continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of Systems Biology Research Groups. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the close was improper -- there was no longer an article to discuss deleting. And anyone can place a speedy tag; I just did that. AFD closes are not authoritative, after all. I was just performing the "janitorial" chore of ending a discussion that had nothing to discuss. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the only other thing that could have been done was for someone to file a DRV contesting User:Mdd's move. I found this so confusing that it wasn't obvious how to resolve it. Your getting rid of the redirect does tidy things up. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this at the project level and derive a consensus there. If people don't want it, go to WP:MFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the Galt article because I recently added the much needed articles, keynotes, interviews and dates for the article to reach notability. Thank you. Artsojourner (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Naveed Fiaz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note that you placed on this users' talk page. Very helpful. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one the most bare-arsedly shameless puns I've seen in a long time. Congrats! Xymmax (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on the deletion argument and, to be honest, I found them to be a little insulting. Cheers, CP 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "My comments were not aimed at any editor in particular. They were not accusations, but spoke to general tendencies on Wikipedia." You obviously thought the comments were relevant to the deletion discussion at hand, otherwise you wouldn't have brought them up. Since I'm the only one arguing to delete, they must be relevant in the context of my personal argument. You obviously figured that recentism must factor into a desire to delete this and similar articles. Since I'm the only one arguing for deletion, you must figure that recentism factors into my desire to delete this article. Unless you go around randomly to AfDs spreading awareness of recentism, your comment was directed to me specifically. So I note again that I performed a good-faith search of non-online sources before nominating this for deletion. Cheers, CP 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally. I often invoke WP:RECENTISM under similar conditions. I do not impugn your good faith, only the completeness of any of the archives you searched. I'm glad you did search before nominating, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd invite you to revisit this AfD, as I've found evidence that Gallaher has been a finalist in several other awards including the Walt Whitman Award. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comments here, I had a similar idea and I have been trying to ask people if they agreed: take the information and make two pages, one on Harding's trial for treason and the other for Motte vs Faulkner. Then there can be a "list" of Swift's editions during his life and his printers, or some of the information can removed completely. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked where do you stop in the lines of succession. The answer is "wherever the interested Wikipedia editors decide as a group to stop" and that will vary from crown to crown.

I would expect for England the consensus number will probably be descendants of the queen, her dad, or grandfather. For royal families with large families in each generation, it may only be the top 10 or 20 people in line. For less-well-known families the list will be shorter than for more-well-known families. Furthermore, every Wikipedia editor will have his own idea of how long is appropriate for a given family and how much higher or lower he is willing to live with before he rises up in protest and attempts to block consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, put me on record as favoring more objective criteria, such as those I have outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Eléonore of Belgium. Inherent notability should not be an expansive criterion. Many royal descendants who would fall off the small list of inherently notable royals would still have sufficient public stature, particularly as adults, to meet WP:BIO on more general terms of coverage by reliable sources. I don't see the point to an article about someone who is merely descended from someone notable unless they meet either standard. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Being a descendant of Edward II doesn't mean anything in the Line of succession to the British throne. You have to be descended from Sophia of Hanover. Sorry. You could try usurping the throne :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a genealogical quip. But see Royal Descents of Famous People by Mark Humphrys, who also wrote about the Hanoverian takeover in this context. Humphrys believes that "royal descent" is so common as to be universal. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I am the author of the original paged titled "Audubon Movement". I have added additional resources under "references"... but am wondering if I still need more, or what exactly you were looking for that prompted you to put the tag at the top of the page requesting more citations... Is there a wiki protocal that I have failed to meet or need to change on the page... any help is much appreciated. Zephyur (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What the article needs is writing by citation. Go look at how some featured or good articles are written:

On topic X, source Y says Z.^[1]

Surely both the individual organizations and the movement generally have been written about, but those points of view (hopefully with some differences) need to be brought into the article and attributed. The article began with cut-and-paste of some mission statements, which is the organizations' point of view about themselves, but we might as well be a directory of non-profits. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste? I hope that isn't WP:COPYVIO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was of sufficient length to cause concern (and I've rewritten the sections I just referred to), but it was essentially self-promotional language. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 weblinks if you can't find them.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NubsyT4YA-0 http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/comment/story/0,,2188795,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.60.209 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw the one in the article, and YouTube is not usable as a source -- all that does is verify the existence of the video. Cheers. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if you saw my comment - the chimpunks may sound normal now, but Dave now sounds like Richard Sterban (giddyup, ba oom papa oom papa mow mow) on Quaaludes... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a google news search and I found an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly mentions Johnny Turbo here: [5]

"Sardius.fefea.org/reviews/jturbo

Back in the 16-bit days, a series of comic-book-style ads for the TurboDuo system starring pudgy superhero Johnny Turbo scarred us for life. Now you too can be scarred for the first time."

- It appears to be a "must see websites" thing, but I know some reliable sources have mentioned Turbo. I'll just see what else I can find. If you still believe that this should be deleted, I would take the AFD route. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• EDIT: I found more stuff - I'll keep adding more citations as I research it further. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you have commented in the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I left you a message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Moon, I'd appreciate if you'd consider the subject (since "Merge" votes are typically treated as "Delete"), since apart from Johnnie Cochran you won't find many media articles about the lawyers, but about their cases and their statements on the cases. See Category:Ontario lawyers for an example (in Moon's own province), 250 Ontario lawyers merit an article even though none of them are as well referenced, NPOV and notable as Moon. I'm just hoping you could either help "convince" me of the wisdom of deleting the article, or else give the matter some extra thought yourself.

Cheers,

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

here, what can I blame for the brain loss? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bourbon, obviously .... ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I've enjoyed your input in the recent AfD discussions. I don't know if you saw this AfD debate, but it is one of the few that is genuinely amusing: [6]. Be well and keep up the good work! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I think we hit a slight edit conflict there, but your version was better so I moved my ref to your section. :) I'll let it sit now, anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts happen. I didn't see it, by the way! --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names... the "Don" has to be there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...and if you're thinking of moving the page name... please bear in mind that Bobby Jindal,Woody Jenkins and about 10,000 other pages I can name use this convention... if you still want to remove the "usually known as Don Cazayoux" then go ahead.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the title was enough, obviously the MOS differs. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Halp? You spend more time at AfD and maybe you can figure out if this is ok...but someone added Ronald Kim and Ognian Gueorguiev they are both "famous" cyber athletes...they play professional video games! It seems odd that they are here, but I can't figure out if they should go to AfD or CSD or what...any ideas? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The team championships make them notable IMO. Tagged for more sources. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolies...I work in the video game industry and, frankly, we only talk about these things as a joke...didn't know if they'd fit in here :) Thanks!! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd found nothing in a bunch of searches, so I was seriously considering that it didn't exist. Good work! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It's all in the wrist search terms! Cheers. --Dhartung | Talk 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Demetria_Clark. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, Mr. Man! Welcome to Wikipedia! It is so great that you've decided to join our close knit community. We really appreciate all new people here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you are trying to be in charge of what is and what is not nonsense and, quite frankly, that's a BIG problem. So please knock it off! Anyway, thanks for all of your great work here at Wikipedia and I hope that you decide to continue editing with care! Thanks! Cynthia18 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to explain what this (apparently boilerplate) message is about, as I haven't the faintest idea. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your comments regarding deleting the original page and therefore have added a lot of information regarding the Foundation as well as 7 secondary sources. I hope you will decide this article is now acceptable. --Chaffchaff (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you took my suggestion. I think it's on the road to being a viable article, so I changed my vote. Please try to rewrite according to the manual of style and neutral point of view; it still comes across as a promotional brochure rather than an encyclopedic article. For ideas I suggest you examine some good articles to see both formatting and editorial voice. (Also, for future reference, the term "deletion review" refers to a formal process, not "come back and take a look".) --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best. I have asked a veteran editor to help me with this. Thank you for your help.--Chaffchaff (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See my revised comments. The patent appears to be his. I remain neutral regarding deletion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I want to thank you for your intervention to try to calm things down in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy by leaving a peace-making message at User_talk:Sur_de_Filadelfia. Unfortunately, as all the rest of us are working to calm things down, this editor has widened his field of battle, nominating Betsy Devine for AfD and accusing Wikipedians of copyvio because there is material in common between the two articles epicaricacy and schadenfreude. Several editors tried to explain Wikipedia practice, but he has now blanked the latter and filed a different copyvio claim, asserting that its one paragraph description of material from [a much longer NYT article is a copyvio. I'm not really sure where to go with this problem, but while I am trying to figure it out, I thought I would start by asking you for help or advice. If you're too busy, that's ok, and many thanks for what you already did. betsythedevine (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dhartung, I didn't mean to cause you undue stress. Hope we can be Wiki buddies. Sgt. bender (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that you contribute to the project and do so in a civil manner. If that is the case, I have no quarrel with you. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Sgt. bender (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming the Dickens' Women article I created. I was waiting for permission to do that as I am a new user. Also thanks for adding the extra information. C.harrison1988 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! See WP:GNOME .... --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your indefatigable contributions to the AfD process and for your insightful additions to the WP articles. Job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I'm very flattered. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising WP:PROF to better reflect the arguments that are actually used in practice in academic-related AfDs. I've put a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) with a somewhat more detailed explanation. There is also a link there to a possible draft of a revised version of WP:PROF, which is located in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Since you have regularly participated in academic-related AfDs in the past, I'd like to hear your input about this idea, both in general and in terms of specifics. If you have some comments, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). You are also welcome to edit User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 in the meantime. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, James A. Stroud, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Stroud (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have cleaned up this page and, in the AfD, identified many other sources and additional content. I wonder if you would reconsider your delete !vote please (I will do the necessary expansion as and when there is a reasonable expectation of it being kept)? TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[7]

I have no idea how that happened in the first place...Restepc (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've messed up the syntax on those myself. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by the references cited as being trivial? None of the references are event listings? Carole Higgins (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying. Several more references have been added to the entry, including one that cites more of Carousel Theatre's history and contributions to theatre. Carole Higgins (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dhartung. I don't know whether you watchlist AfDs that you've commented in, so I'll just point out that further information has come to light in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwlwighati. You may want to revisit it. Deor (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed now that Rob Miller has been deleted. No problem. Obviously, his position of Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Party of Utah has been considered too unimportant. I have noticed though that there are other State Party Vice Chaiman well alive and kicking in Wikipedia. For example Jane Abraham. Is Wikipedia looking for consistency? Please let me know. Adrian Comollo (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia right now that should be deleted, with more being created every second. That's the nature of Wikipedia. As for Abraham, as she has had a national profile for over a decade as head of a national 527, she could very well survive an AFD on that basis, so I don't consider her a candidate for proposed deletion. The article comes across as a CV though and was probably created by a staff person. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have closed an AFD on HMS Ontario (1780), or at least you summarized its result, to "speedy redirect". Of course "HMS Ontario" and "HMS Ontario (1780)" needed to be merged. But the discussion leaned to redirecting from the 1780 article to the other one, while what happened was the other one was redirected to 1780.

So the stated result of the AFD seems not to have been implemented.

Could you please fix this by moving (over redirect) the article from "HMS Ontario (1780)" to "HMS Ontario". Or, reopen the discussion at Talk:HMS Ontario (1780), please. doncram (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget it (and I think I speak for Doncram as well). I think that the discussion can be re-closed now. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. The point was that there was now one article and its name was under discussion which was no longer an AFD issue. --Dhartung | Talk 15:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this article started:

This user helped promote Jesse Jackson, Jr. to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks well on its way to featured! My, what's been done with the place. Congratulations to everyone who participated. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that when I read: "Strike with lightning and banish to the nether regions." at this article's AfD entry I laughed till it hurt. :D --Faradayplank (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to keep that as a dab. Why dab if there's not enough info on the fictional player? I've been proposing to move the real player to Minnesota Fats but everyone thinks I'm crazy. What's up with that? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Dab pages exist for terms even if there isn't a specific article for that term, e.g. "for foo, see bar, a type of widget, or baz, a type of gadget." There's certainly ambiguity between whether one is referring to the fictional character or the real person. I actually considered mentioning in my !vote that this would have actually resolved a schoolyard argument I had when I was about 10 (probably soon after the movie was shown on TV for the first time) over whether he was real or not. And since the character appears in more than one fictional instance, a hatnote wouldn't work as well. I just think in terms of the person who may not actually know whether they're looking for someone real or not, and I think we have a duty to explain the situation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF and have posted further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#WP:PROF revision draft - revisited. Please take another look there and see if you have further comments. Of course, you are welcome to edit the draft itself too:User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dhartung, please drop by this discussion and leave your comments. Thanks, Waldir ^talk 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... "used to" live two blocks away? "just a fire, happens all the time"? a building that is "not notable"? Hmmmmm. Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Salt (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Goochelaar (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could userfy the article for me. There were sufficient contemporary reviews of the band but almost all the online material is behind paywalls. (Eventually I hope to do some Nexis research at a library and get this restored.) Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Posted complete deleted text from article as per your request at User:Dhartung/salt_band. Have fun. -- Alexf⁴² 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've rewritten Pinoy and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I relisted the afd since there's not really a consensus yet. Think I should just merge it to the 1997 Green Bay Packers article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you revisit this discussion for a moment? After reviewing the contributions for 64.65.94.202 (talk · contribs), I became concerned with the accuracy and neutrality of the current article. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dhartung.

You've linked to WP:RESUME in an AFD. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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