User talk:FreeRangeFrog

Friedrich Minoux

Many thanks for your help and adding the links to the other articles. Schmausschmaus (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your knowledge and for creating something interesting that could be easily sourced and brought up to quality. I enjoyed working on that article, and getting it into DYK as well. §FreeRangeFrog 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

gdmoore20247

Hi. I respectfully disagree about the notability of ANXeBusiness Corp. They operate one of the largest trading partner extranets in the world with primary focus on the automotive industry. Automotive suppliers, large and small, use the ANX Network to connect and collaborate with the major automotive manufacturers. My first article on ANXeBusiness was too commercial. I significantly modified it. I would greatly appreciate reconsideration of ANXeBusiness Corp. on the grounds of notability. Thanks much. --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trish Thuy Trang

Hello! I have put up a reference of where I got all of her information on the pages that you marked for speedy deletion. Please have a look and let me know if it's okay now. Also, I have decided to put her list of tracks from her albums, singles, and dvds on her main page, but they are hidden. Please take a look at them and let me know if I should leave it there and have her other pages put up for speedy deletion. Thank you! (Rosalietruong (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		I wish to award you this Barnstar for your recognition at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon lark that articles CAN get better. Too often editors voice an opinion and then refuse to see anything as addressing their initial concerns. Showing that understanding, you have epitomized the Civility that all of Wiki admires. Keep up the good works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Much thanks, O Amphibious One.

I clobbered it and I may have to give the poster a timeout. He's violated 3RR at least ten times.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Contested Speedies

Hi. Objection to a speedy doesn't force an AfD (unlike PROD, which is meant to be for uncontentious deletions, so any removal for any reason means it can't be PRODded again and has to go to AfD). If the speedy tag is removed, you can just put it back; if it's the article author who removed it, give them a {{subst:uw-speedy1}} warning, or on up the warning scale if they persist; if a {{hangon}} tag is added, just leave it to the admin to decide on its merits. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I study the theory vs. the practice of these things the more confused I get :) In truth, the behavior of the creator of those pages led me to think a PROD would have been probably useless, so I decided to look for more formal consensus, with the hope that an admin would spot them and take action, which happily was the case. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Emancipating Something New

To explain my back and forth on this article... I originally seconded your prod because I also couldn't turn up any sources. However, I noticed the article was only a few minutes old when it was prodded, and I removed both my 2nd prod and your original prod, because I want to give the author time for a good faith source search. I feel that a prod is premature at this time. The author has stated that he/she will locate sources, and I think we should give them a chance. If no sources proving notability are provided after a reasonable period, I'll be more than comfortable supporting an AfD for the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the article author's talk page to see if any more work is forthcoming, or if they can at least provide some sources. I'll give it a few days, but I'm thinking this article is probably going to end up at AfD. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw the image was deleted. That's too bad. Do you know the French title? The article mentions only the name of the protagonist. With the full French title maybe I can find some sources. I left the user a comment as well. §FreeRangeFrog 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check and see if I can find a French title. BTW, I think if sources fail, this would be most appropriate for AfD, both because it may allow for experts to chime in, and also because we technically already had a prod, so another prod might be improper. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative on the translation. However, a search for the character name "Francine des Fleurs" provided no results. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I translated the title as best as I could (been 7 years since last French class), and Google turned up nothing. Absolutely nothing. I can find nothing to prove this film's existance. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the AfD discussion for the article, even though it looks like my support wasn't required. I have been busy the past few days, and haven't been on WP. It was great working with you. Happy editing! Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple articles to one AFD

No great big trick, actually. Go through the process of adding {{subst:afd1}} to all the articles in the group. Fill out the AFD page for the first article. Make all the other AFD pages redirect to the AFD for the first article. Then, edit the first AFD, and copy/paste the header gobbledygook once for each article you've nominated. You have to change the article name in the gobbledygook one to match the article being nominated, though. This diff probably explains the gobbledygook editing better than words.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

help

help please undo Santa Maria, Bulacan!!! Secaundis (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Santa_Maria,_Bulacan&action=edit&undoafter=271017084&undo=271018263 Secaundis (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to undo your own change? -yes!!!!!

THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Secaundis (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ministries

Hi, in re:nomenclature, please check this page, Category:Communications ministries, and check the rest of the categories in Category:Ministries by portfolio. I will move the Cambodian ministry page back to where it was, if that's all right with you. --Mr Accountable (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, none of those seem to support the naming convention you're using. §FreeRangeFrog 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain. --Mr Accountable (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See [1]. No commas. Seems to me that's the standard, unless there's a name collision. §FreeRangeFrog 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambodian Ministry of Planning

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

So here three important rueles:

1. CSD R3 does not apply to most redirects after page moves, especially not if they refer to a different naming convention. They are left intentionally behind by the mediawiki software.
2. CSD G7 doesn't apply to a page that you have moved. Please apply G7 tags only to pages you have created or on explicit behalf of creator.
3. The correct way to undo a move is not to restore manually the content, but to move the page back. If you cannot do that you can tag the redirect where you want to move the artcicle with {{db-move|article}}.

Hope that helps; --Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Frank Lawrenson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Frank Lawrenson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Lawrenson. Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes! :) §FreeRangeFrog 16:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Right-o, just figured you may want to share your thoughts on the article there. Cheers --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

sevana

hi,

just talking regarding deletion of the sevana page. i am contesting it because it is doing good work though small company in Finland and Russia.let me know your thoughts as I am new to this.

---

DANILOG

FRF, nice work saving the article. I am impressed. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my pleasure. It's just lucky I saw the AfD and recognized the acronym :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WWII draft

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I nominated WWII draft for speedy deletion because all the material was copied word for word from Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, and since the draft was not exclusive to the United States redirecting it to a US specific article would be not be appropriate.--kelapstick (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not a problem. Thanks for letting me know. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodugo

Sorry, I just saw that the user name was Rodugo, so I thought it was their user page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletionist

You comment, quite correctly, that every Ubuntu, KDE, whatever component has an article. But you miss the pattern wherein Miami33139 is randomly nominating all such software components for deletion. You might take a look at his edit history, which consists primarily of {prod}s or AfDs on notable (audio) software that happens to have somewhat stubby articles currently. If you happen to chime in on some of the AfDs he's put up, I'm sure your voice would be highly useful. LotLE×talk 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw a few of the media players he nominated and I agreed with some of them. I don't necessarily want to label people as deletionists or inclusionists, but rather take each AfD at face value without regards to the nom. That said, some are a bit borderline, like the list of Python software. But even then, a simple keep opinion suffices. §FreeRangeFrog 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Paint.Net is NOT open source

Hi,

I saw the undo and, on the face of it, disagree. Can you explain why you assert it is open source. I will take as adequate *any* public pointer to the source. But I'm open minded: just tell me why it's classifified as open source.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherbloodyusername (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying it's open source, it's not. What I'm saying is the fact that the program was closed happens to be mentioned in the paragraph above the one I reverted. §FreeRangeFrog 09:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah...OK. My quibble is that the paragraph above says it's only partially closed source (installer & resources), whereas in fact it's (now) completely closed.

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. You're right, it doesn't mention the actual closing of the entire code base. I'll undo that. Thanks for the heads up :) §FreeRangeFrog 09:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage....

....Gave me a giggle, lol. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Say no to frog legs :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Corfits Ulfeldt article

You scared the shit out of me. I thought it was that darn Boleyn messin' with me again. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Hope you didn't have to redo too many links. I CSD'ed (R3) the original one, since it's kind of funky :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Douglas Mombeshora

The man is a Deputy Minister and a Member of Parliament, thus clearly meeting the notability criteria for politicians. This is said clearly in the article and referenced. Babakathy (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Worf Music Awards

I removed the proposed deletion tags for the "Worf Music Awards" because I do not agree that the articles should be deleted without discussion (as is my right). The Worf Music Awards have been around since 2002, and, in my opinion, is a notable award. It is not my intent to "make everyone waste their time and energy" (as stated by "User:FreeRangeFrog"), and it is unverifiable speculation that these articles will be "deleted anyway" if they go to AfD.

• P.S.: I do not have the power to "make" anyone do anything. Whatever you decide to do will be your choice.... Esasus (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine mine mine song

I declined the db-nonsense speedy. Please be careful with that tag, since it accuses the editor of "incoherent" "gibberish", which is bitey if it's actually a good-faith effort from a new contributor. I think prod would be okay, though. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point... except that it was nonsense gibberish, and usually tagging something like that with "no context" results in a decline as well. §FreeRangeFrog 03:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I could see an 11-year-old spending 3 hours doing the research and writing up the description of that song from Pocahontas. For all we know, their father is a world-class physicist who encouraged them to add the song description to Wikipedia, thinking we might want it, and when we insult the child with "incoherent" and "gibberish", we'll lose the chance forever to get any help from the father, or the father's friends. It's not like libel, copyright violation, or true gibberish (asdlkj wekhkhwrh^&!), that would make us look bad; Wikipedia will survive the few days of prod or AfD until it's gone.

I'm also declining your A7 for Daljit Kaur, because lots of assertions of notability are made. I don't know enough about Indian actresses to know if the notability meets an AfD standard, and it could easily go to AfD, but notability is asserted in every paragraph, so it doesn't fit WP:CSD A7. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE is not a suicide pact, and I think you're taking that a bit too far considering the contents of that article. I've come across dozens of new articles which I've stubbed, categorized and otherwise "saved" by trying to figure out what the heck the person was trying to say (a village in India or some obscure Nepalese law or whatever). But OK. As to the Indian actress, two interviews on non-WP:RS websites and "indiaforums.com" are what set me off. §FreeRangeFrog 04:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Daoud

FYI - I removed your SD tag from the article. It seems the person is real and was indicated for racketeering. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Thanks for following up. If I can get my ISP to work consistently, I find some references and add them to the article. Enjoy the evening/day. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

benefit period

hi, free range frog, i'm new to editing wikipedia editing... just saw some stuff i could update easily.

fyi: UNDID revision 272888037 FreeRangeFrog edit because benefit periods can differ from benefit to benefit within the same insurance plan. My original is specific to 2009 medicare hospitalization.

i hope that is ok/correct--please let me know if that is bad form--i don't want to step on anyone's toes.

MedEagent (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)medEagent

Thanks

Thanks for correcting and mistakes my spelling on the model 64 page. Streak195 Streak195 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 1:31 Febuary 25, 2009

Speedy deletion....

I beleive this is unfair. My understanding is Wikipedia is an 'encyclopedia by the people for the people.' Clearly not the case. If one cant add an article about an interesting web site that others may find helpful and interesting what can one contribute to wikipedia?? The info oibn the article is true and accurate. Why can articles exist about sites such as ebay, youtube etc..these article merely describe the websites. An unjust deletion i feel and i contest it, the website IS popular and has regular hits of 2000+ per day and is becoming very popular all around the world. I am new to Wiki article contributing, and it is by no means as easy as the website has people beleive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiewallace (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Friedrich Minoux

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Friedrich Minoux, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ron-Robert Zieler

I have rejected the request for speedy deletion of this article as Zieler has now made his league debut for Northampton Town and therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. Hope you understand. – PeeJay 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I can't see the previous versions of an article, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of someone who can. §FreeRangeFrog 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see previous versions of the article either, but I know what the reasons for deletion were from reading the AfDs, and they no longer apply. – PeeJay 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should be kept, and my speedy tag was unnecessary. Thanks for removing it. §FreeRangeFrog 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Press (tool company) page

I was quite happy to see more info added - thanks so much! TJIC (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to find an interesting new page that can be expanded and sourced, so thank you :) §FreeRangeFrog 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Need some Frog Advice

I'm a relative newbie to wiki article writing. Another point in support of ANXeBusiness as a noteworthy entry is that it was recently awarded "Best of the Best Michigan Business" by Corp! Magazine (http://www.pr-inside.com/anxebusiness-corp-awarded-best-of-r1051969.htm). I didn't include that link in the article as i didn't want the article to appear to self-promotional. I can add this if it helps improve notability. The domestic automotive industry is heavily dependent on the main service provided by ANXeBusiness. Thanks,--Gdmoore20247 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should add it. An article about a company is invariably self-promotional, but that in and of itself is never grounds for deletion. I'm sure you can imagine that the articles for Ford Motor Company or IBM were created by employees back in the day, but that doesn't make them less notable (that would be considered WP:COI but again, that's not grounds for deletion). If you go through WP:CORP you'll see that the issue is the lack of notability for a company or organization that indicates whether or not an article meets the inclusion guidelines. So any reliable, third-party sources with information that helps establish notability of your company should absolutely be added. There is no deadline here, the AfD takes a while. If you add enough information of this kind to the article, other editors will consider that and vote to keep. You have time. §FreeRangeFrog 21:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Michel figuet

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michel figuet, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michel figuet is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michel figuet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ANXeBusiness - Does it float a lilly pad yet?

Frog, thanks for your helpful advice on citing sources for ANXeBusiness article. I added to new sources - Corp! Magazine designation of ANXeBusiness in their Best of the Best Michigan Business program and 2) US Patent 7072964 (ANXeBusiness owns and operates the ANX Network which is a patented extranet). In your opinion, is this enough or should I add more sources? Thanks for your help! --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so... the problem is that you have an award that is local in nature, given to a bunch of other companies. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. I'm trying to find some prior art for you to refer to. For example, this is a company that was actually nominated for speedy deletion, but declined because it claims notability ("early pioneer.." and so on). Another example, a company that didn't make it through AfD, the comments there might be helpful. And another. Here's one that survived, based on asserted notability. Patents are also not considered anchors for notability unless the patent itself is notable in some way (received press coverage, etc.) §FreeRangeFrog 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

FreeRangerFrog, how do i put cover pics up on my page for my books?Monbade (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Upload. However, I would recommend holding off on doing that until your articles are clear of the deletion process. If an when your articles are kept, I will assist you in uploading the images and selecting the correct licenses, if you want. But let's wait until then. An image is not going to make a difference as to whether or not your articles are deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Daoud

I am a very busy person -- I write when I have the time. Thank you. Silk Knot (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation of List of animals from "After Man: A Zoology of the Future"

This was done to make the original creator of the page to make the page After Man: A Zoology of the Future more readable. Would you be OK, if a sentence indicating this was the header or do you think it should be remerged with the original article? Naraht (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. A blurb on the summary or the talk page would have been useful. Links to the main article too! :) No problem, I'll remove the PROD. I still think it's a bit too much, but OK. §FreeRangeFrog 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not original author of the List of animals one, just someone who watches that page and went looking at why the article shrunk in size so much. I'll add a linking header and info on the talk page in the next day or so...

HELP AGAIN!!

Hey please revert again my last edit to Santa Maria, Bulacan! my browser cannot edit if its above 30kb! (operamini 4.2) please help!!! Secaundis (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done! Careful with that browser :) §FreeRangeFrog 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

HEY please revert again! everytime i edit it comes back again! Secaundis (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it must not be the correct change. Can you look at diffs? If you tell me which version you want, I'll restore that one. §FreeRangeFrog 09:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Santa_Maria,_Bulacan&action=edit&undoafter=273615157&undo=273615903 pldase please pakiayos po. Secaundis (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that better be right because I'm going to bed now. Happy editing :) §FreeRangeFrog 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot! if you have time can you edit my english in Santa Maria today section? bcoz i know my english is not good! thanks again! its only 5:40pm here. hehe. Secaundis (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic patrolling of tagged pages at New Page patrol

Hi there. There is a suggestion to get a bot to patrol any New Page that an editor has tagged for CSD, AfD, etc. As someone who patrols a lot, your opinion is particularly welcomed. --GedUK  10:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment. I would support it, but given that Twinkle pretty much takes care of it and the amount of backlog in the Mediawiki dev queue, it would probably be a while before anyone does something like that. §FreeRangeFrog 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, perhaps I didn't explain the rationale clearly. Many many editors who patrol the new pages tag things (manually) first, after which the patrolling option isn't available. Consequently, when someone else comes to patrol the page, they find that it's already been done, thus wasting a visit. The idea of the bot is for it to regularly check through articles and patrol those that have a certain tag on them, thus hopefully reducing the incidences of double patrolling. --GedUK  18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I can see a problem with that though - I create an article for my cousin's garage band that I know is not going to get past NPP, then I log out, add a bunch of tags to it, then log back in and go on my happy editing way. Too easy to game. In fact I would argue that double NPP is a Good Thing in most cases. Also, I think patrol is something that inherently needs human involvement to work correctly. Having said that, I have no problem supporting the proposal, as long as it's optional and doesn't interfere with the "usual" NPP process. §FreeRangeFrog 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point about gaming the system. Perhaps then it would be better to limit it to deletion tags, then no damage would be done to the project? And hopefully the bot won't actually remove the need for human involvement, it will only mark as patrolled those articles that have a, by your suggestion, a deletion tag of some sort, CSD, XfD or PROD. And clearly CSD requires an admin to delete, and XfDs require the community to comment. Would this conversation be better on the NPP talk page so more can see your points about tagging? --GedUK  19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it over there so everyone is involved. I just posted a comment about how this can be gamed. §FreeRangeFrog 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Hi. on a recent AfD, you wrote: "All elaborate hoaxes should be treated as vandalism and removed." Actually, WP:CSD#Non-criteria says explicitly: "Hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism." I think the reason is that some things which look very hoax-like turn out to be true (consider "American woman gives birth to live octuplets" recently!) so that G3 is only OK when it is unquestionably obvious at a glance that it is false ("David Beckham lands on moon"). If it takes any research to establish falsity, then it should be PROD or AfD to give time for investigation. Actually, I find that in moderately obvious cases (e.g. a claim to be Manchester United's top goal-scorer) one can put a link by way of proof on the talk page and then use {{db-g3}} plus {{comment|blatant misinformation - see talk}}. Sometimes, if the research is properly done and laid out in an AfD, some passing admin will see it and delete as G3, when a G3 to start with might have been declined as not obvious. Anyway, I find that hoax-hunting (and occasionally rescuing one that turns out to be genuine) is fun, as well as improving the encyclopedia. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that the CSDs were written expressly to be as narrow as possible (in fact I think it's one of Wikipedia's better designed policies) and hoaxes should definitely be included in the "should be agreed upon by consensus" category. When I do that, it's because the article is already in AfD, there's more than one set of eyeballs on top of it, there's consensus that it is indeed a hoax (which can be easily proven with, say, a Google book search or whatever), and I make sure that I tag it manually and link to the deletion discussion so that the sysop that's going to look at it can make a determination as to whether or not the AfD should run its course. So the speedy tag here is really just a sort of innovative way of using CSD to "grease" the process and stop wasting everyone's time. It's always up to the sysop or anyone else involved in the AfD to decide if there is merit to the speedy request, so in that case it's no different than using the tag during WP:NPP. I wouldn't try to speedy something in AfD when there isn't at least a modicum of consensus about it.

In most cases when the topic can be easily researched and a conclusion as to the validity of the article reached, then I think it's a no-brainer. There are other cases when that's not the case and it's important for more people to become involved. There was an AfD a few days ago about a supposed "influential" New Zealand musical duo from the 70s that ended up being a hoax, but that AfD ran the course until a few subject matter experts chimed in. That's a good example where I know the information is misleading and false, but I don't feel I'm on 100% sure footing to be bold and tag it for speedy so it can be nuked. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 18:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree. I also agree CSD is well designed, though I sometimes sigh for a speedy for non-notable books or software, and for blatantly made up one day religions and neologisms. Certainly CAT:HOAX is one of the more entertaining dungeons in the great MMPORG that is Wikipedia. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding of Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

• I contest the PROD. While I'd be inclined to agree the article has original research issue, a 4-year old article still being worked upon deserves at the very least an AfD debate.MLauba (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not going to take it to AfD just to make the point that it needs to be fixed, but if it's not me then someone else will, eventually :) I was looking for essay-like articles yesterday using Google and this was one of the ones I came across. The other few I did find I can and will fix (CompSci and history) but I'd be completely lost editing an article about games. §FreeRangeFrog 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's always value to identifying essay-like articles that are based on original research. Have you considered starting a merge discussion? This article has left me scratching my head too, and I would be curious to see what other people might have to offer in terms of reliable third-party sources -- do we have enough for an article, or merely enough for a section in part of a larger article? Randomran (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be lost as to what this could be merged to/from, we're talking a few light years beyond any area of expertise I might be so bold as to claim. But if anyone has any ideas, I'm certainly willing to help out as needed. That would of course be better than just deleting the article. §FreeRangeFrog 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Global Crossroad

Sorry about that. I should have looked at the page history to see if the speedy tag had been removed. I was working too fast and made the wrong judgment. The article is now deleted. --Richard (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) §FreeRangeFrog 19:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New page patrol

Frogger, I'm curious if a record of who marks pages patrolled is kept? This would seem to be a valuable record, but I don't think it shows up as an edit so I don't know how it's handled. Has a pattern of vandalism or spam been traced this way? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. There's a log here. It's an audit of all page patrol actions. I don't know if it's ever been used to investigate vandalism. §FreeRangeFrog 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the reply. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Youre really good in english! thanks for fixing! Secaundis (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. You're doing a good job with that article, keep it up. §FreeRangeFrog 22:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Brett Edward Stout

Hi, I've nominated Brett Edward Stout for deletion. Since you prodded it then removed your prod, I'd appreciate your input on the AfD page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. §FreeRangeFrog 22:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Worldwide

Hi,

You just deleted the FRANK. Worldwide article I created. Are you telling me that any language I write this in, you will not allow it to be posted on Wikipedia?

The user 'Stifle,' after deleting my first post, invited me to re-write it from a neutral standpoint. Now you're telling me that I can't post on them at all?

This is my first experience having difficulty with Wikipedia. As 'just' as your team is striving to make its content, I don't see it as a reliable means of accomplishing this. You have different users basing editing decisions on their own personal interpretation of the 'rules of Wikipedia.'

You consider companies 'notable' if they have substantial press coverage. So essentially, your content is driven by the PR industry. You're heavily driven by pop-culture. I say this because this is what I do - public relations.

For example, I am the Vice President of Communications at Pizza Fusion, which you do have listed on Wikipedia. Pizza Fusion is a 3-year-old organic pizza chain with 19 restaurants in 11 states. I've gotten the company an enormous amount of press coverage over the last 2 years and Wikipedia posted something on them because of this. Had I not gotten this exposure for Pizza Fusion, Wikipedia wouldn't be interested in the chain, at all. Furthermore, some of the information you have up on Pizza Fusion is incorrect. I posted a ton of correct information before, but someone, like yourself, felt otherwise.

On a side note, you can verify my employment at Pizza Fusion here - http://www.pizzafusion.com/press-room/ - see the bottom of the page

Please tell me now if I'm wasting my time (at the moment) trying to get FRANK. posted on here, because you can't find enough press coverage on them. If that's not the case, please tell me what I need to do to get this posted. Because I'm sure I'll make these edits and have to come back and answer to yet another Wikipedia editor who has another personal opinion on the content.

I'm sorry if this seems a little abrasive. I'm just very frustrated with wasting my time and the editing process of Wikipedia.

- Eric

p.s. You have many other advertising agencies on Wikipedia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Porter_%26_Bogusky
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogilvy_%26_Mather
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAXI_(advertising_agency)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_(advertising_agency)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_Strategy
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Union_Advertising_Agency_Ltd
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrawberryFrog
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarry_Integrated_Communications
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kluger_Agency
• and many more...

RedletterPR (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I didn't delete your article, that was an administrator. Irrelevant to this conversation, but I just want to make that clear. That said, you didn't read the message I left on your talk page. You need to go look at WP:CORP and then ask yourself "does my company meet those guidelines?" If the answer is no, then your article will be deleted again and again, because without existing notability that can be proven via reliable third party sources, any article about a company is just advertising, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. If the pizza company article was not deleted, then it's because it asserts some notability beyond just existing. And if it doesn't, then it will probably be noticed by someone and deleted for not meeting the guidelines. Does that make sense?

Let me give you an example. Here is an article I created. That duo dissolved in the 90s and is almost completely unknown outside Germany. Yet it's not being deleted, and never will, because the article asserts that the group is important because it produced at least one album and/or single that charted in a country somewhere. And I have the references to back that assertion up. Without those references, the article would have been speedily deleted and I would be powerless to do anything about it, because it would not meet the guidelines for musical groups and recordings. So, you need to prove that your company meets the guidelines under which it will be evaluated - again, WP:CORP. And again, if it doesn't, then it will be deleted.

The most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a place where notability is documented. It's not a vehicle for establishing it.

And another minor point. Your article looked horrible and consisted mostly of links, which is a big warning indicator for spam. If you can take the time to do all this then surely you can also take the time to look at any of the other 2 million articles on here and get an idea as to how you're supposed to format and present the content you're trying to get included. Bad formatting is not a cause for deletion (and neither is your conflict of interest), but 10 links followed by some text isn't going to endear you to people who check newly-created pages. Finally, as to your argument that there are other companies similar to yours here, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each individual article is evaluated under the guidelines for inclusion it falls under as if it were the first of its kind ever created. That other ad agencies have articles is irrelevant.

I know it seems sometimes that we are piling up on you, but try to see it from the perspective of the group of people who are trying to maintain the integrity of the website whose importance is enough for you to go to all this trouble to add content to. §FreeRangeFrog 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of control 'Notability'

Dude or dudette,

maybe you will find this feedback helpful.

Seems like you want to make Wikipedia a 'pop' rag, with articles only on the famous and popular. If a particular insect, or city or software title, isn't sufficiently popular and 'notable' seems like you want to delete it from wikipedia.

hopefully, you're really not there.

Looking at the 'speed deletion' criteria on that for some general guidance... "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." ... "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on."

so, OK, an organization that isn't important in the world is ripe for deletion.... but that doesn't apply to articles about schools, insects, or software.... no matter HOW SMALL they are!

so, hey,

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, even for to smallest ones...

ps: To be EXTRA careful in avoiding an POV issues, used the same format, the same words, the same reference structure for a small software by a BIG company (MicroSoft), to make reference article for small software. Even though was *exactly* the same as the 'BIG' software's article, you found that to be 'essentially an advertisement'.

hmmm. we've all got our hidden biases and POV....

The MS software article that was guide for my own 'magicview' article isn't spam, and neither is mine. MS article doesn't solicit anyone to buy anything, and neither does my article.

just trying to bring a tiny point of light of information to the world. Sure hope you weren't trying to snuff it out.

YSWT (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Commonweal Institute

NB also probable G4 eligibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Commonweal_Institute THF (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not when it was speedied. If it had gone through AfD and nuked, then it could be speedied under G4, but not in this case. If the PROD is contested we can just take it to AfD. I can't see any reason why this article should exist since it fails WP:ORG to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Notice

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

Patricia Volonakis Davis

Hello, Free Range Frog.

I received your message about my article on Patricia Volonakis Davis.Thank you for taking the time to write. I understand your concerns and I tried to address them. Unfortunately for me, I am not tech-savvy at all, so I cannot figure out how to add ll the things you requested - links and other credentials which I think should be added. I had someone else do it for me who was happy to, because she also thinks Ms. Davis should have a WIKI page. Unfortunately, she emphasized things like Patricia's award, which means little and is not what she is notable for, in my opinion.

Patricia is notable for her e-magazine and podcast, which is unique in that it is the only NON-PARTISAN publication on the web. Other publications, like The Huffington Post, for example, are filled with articles that have only one perspective. Ms. Davis started her e-magazine on the idea that we should all be heard, from all perspectives, as that is the only way to truly open up one's mind and begin a WORLD DIALOGUE. What is the sense of writing only for people who agree with you? The only rule for Harlots' Sauce Radio (her e-magazine) is that when you submit, you must use facts and not emotions as your basis for your article. Further, Ms. Davis will take fledging writers,poets and photographers, young people like myself, and give them a voice and a high profile platform from which to publish.

Her podcasts are unlike the usual podcasts, too. They all follow the theme of "Something Delicious Out of Limited Choices- people who had bad things handed to them and made something good form them- a woman who has a rare brain disease,and decides it is a good thing because it taught her to appreciate life, a writer who lost his wife two weeks before he was published for the first time,and kept writing in her name, identical twins who lost their father who died in jail, and made a film about him independently in which they managed to get Ed Harris to star.

Her journalistic work is the antidote to the Bush legacy of separating the United States from the world and also from itself- into two parts- liberal and right wing. Her writers are not just Americans, they hail from New Zealand, Greece, UK, Australia, and more. She works tirelessly to inspire. Her blog on VOX regularly receives hundreds of comments and although she has only written one book, even that book is a perspective on cross-culturalism, feminism and xenophobia. She wrote it so that it reads funny and light, but it is deep and intelligent. Because it wasn't the usual formulaic junk and Ms.Davis is an unknown she had difficulty obtaining a traditional publisher, and so she went with a smaller publisher who believed in the work. That book is now hot all over the internet and is now being considered for several awards. She is so busy, speaking, writing, and promoting other inspiring people and being encouraging and inspiring to others, that she has no idea we, her writers and blog fans have created this page for her. many of us think she deserves it and we wanted to present it to her as a surprise. But, if you think it should be deleted, because she is not yet famous enough, go ahead. However, you might be pleased in six months to see it back up again, put there by someone else, and by then I can assure you, you will know very well who she is. So I ask respectfully, if perhaps you might want to reconsider and have WIKi be the first to truly claim her for what she is?

If I sound like an adoring fan, well, you might be too, if you knew her work. We put this page up so that many will. Please reconsider. Check her e-mag at www.harlotssauce.com Thank you. NV —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelVoight (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Nigel. Ultimately the issue here is that Ms. Volonakis fails to meet the "rules" Wikipedia has for inclusion of biographies. I do not doubt for a second that Mrs. Volonakis is an excellent author and a good person, and that she's doing good work. But for the time being, her notability (and thus her "eligibility" if you will) is simply not sufficient to merit a biographical article on Wikipedia. It's important to remember that there is no prejudice whatsoever by anyone here for her profile to be re-created when and if it can be established via reliable, third-party sources that her notability as an author (or any other type of creative endeavor) has increased significantly, and therefore fully meets the criteria outlined in the biographical guidelines. For example, if she were to publish another well-selling book, be mentioned in major mainstream media, etc. If you wish, I can assist in transferring the article contents before their removal to a subpage under your user account so that the information is not lost and can be used as a starting point later - again, assuming that WP:BIO can be satisfied. §FreeRangeFrog 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mauro Laurenzi

Could you add some evidence as to why it is a hoax for example by proving he didn't receive the awards? It makes the deletion process a lot easier for the closing admin. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Markedonov

Would you mind telling how the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, and why the content in the article does not establish notability. Offliner (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no assertion of notability there, other than working for a redlinked organization of unknown importance and having a PhD. If you are still working on the article and adding sources and/or material, then place an {{underconstruction}} tag on there to avoid the CSD. §FreeRangeFrog 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the references given. He has published in major journals and given many interviews in the media. Please explain why that does not establish notability. Offliner (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, two links do not establish notability in any way shape or form, and they do not help you squeak through WP:BIO. Articles routinely get taken to AfD with more references than that. It's up to you to assert and establish notability, not the person tagging the article for speedy deletion. The latter is just responsible for making sure that speedy is not recommended for an article where there is an actual assertion of notability, which your article lacked (and still lacks). BTW, it's not correct for you to remove CSD tags, that's up to the sysop that will evaluate it. Your {{hangon}} tag should be more than enough to avert deletion while you find actual sources that can establish the notability of the subject and make an actual claim to it. Your article was no different than one for an unknown singer saying "plays gigs in Atlanta" and a link to a blog. §FreeRangeFrog 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the CSD tags, someone else did. So its the number of references that is the problem? I added some more. Offliner (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you had removed them, sorry. Never mind now, it's a far different article. Sorry for bothering you with this, but really, next time do place a {{underconstruction}} tag on an article you're actively writing. As someone who does WP:NPP, that tells me that the author is an established editor who knows what they're doing and would prevent my placing any sort of tag on it at all. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Autowick

--Autowick (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Can you help me understand why you think that International Children's Festival at Wolf Trap reads like an advertisement. I have read all Wikipedia articles on this and extensively read and studied entries like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Children%27s_Festival which are on similar topics and have not had any comments on advertising. My goal is to create an informative article.

The former article, posted at Interational (spelled wrong) Children's Festival at Wolf Trap was edited to add in - add references for information - add links to relevant Wikipedia articles - exclude mentions of any sponsor names - exclude the gala (no idea why that was ever needed) - remove any promotional wording ("Best festival" etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autowick (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, advertisement might be a strong word here. Your article is fine, it's just that Wikipedia generally frowns on certain things, like a section that reads "the next festival will be held at...", because the purpose of the encyclopedia is to document the subject, not advertise (there's that word again) the fact that it's being held soon on some date. First-person POV such as "we" and material that would be better on an information flyer or pamphlet are also discouraged. Nothing that a little copyediting can't fix, in any case. I recommend looking for established articles on similar subjects and following its lead. §FreeRangeFrog 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have continued to edit to look for any examples of first person and commentary. For example I changed "top national..." to the factual "national...". The funny thing is that I studied a number of other pages and the only section I copied from other live articles is the section on when and where which is the section you specifically encourage removing - "the next festival will be held at...". I only included that (literally cutting and pasting) because it was used so clearly on these other sites...

After another round (I sent it to two proofreaders for them to make more suggestions) I will remove the link on advertising. You will, of course, be free to add it back if you do not think the changes remove the "advertising tone" of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autowick (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Once you've addressed the issue with the general tone of the article, you can remove the tag yourself. §FreeRangeFrog 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The process never ceases to amaze me. Everything that has been criticized or removed exists in full at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Children%27s_Festival and several other festival sites. An existing entry existed and had existed for at least a year under a misspelled name. I fixed the typo, transferred the data, removed all traces of non-neutral data, copied formats from existing sites - and the results are obvious. The majority of the references on the web only mention the annual event with specific dates - we were trying to build a historic view for the hundreds of thousands of school kids in the Mid Atlantic who have experienced this festival. Autowick (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it can get a bit nail-biting at times. But like I said, it probably won't be deleted. I edited it a bit to bring it within the WP:MOS, feel free to add information as needed. Like I said, a logo or some images would go a long way to make it look better. §FreeRangeFrog 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

Hello! Please note that Colonel Warden and I have eliminated some of the more extraneous material and added some referenced items. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Look what you made me do, I went and reversed an AfD vote :) Excellent work. §FreeRangeFrog 04:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open-mind! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A Moments Notice

I grant you that it's a really feeble assertion of importance, but playing at Spirit West Coast, which appears to be an important event in the Christian rock music genre, is just good enough in my view. CSD A7 says that "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability", so in short, even if the article doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines (and it probably doesn't), just claiming importance is good enough to avoid an A7.

Generally, in these cases, I find that {{prod}} is a better option for dealing with articles like this which are not A7, but would almost certainly not survive AfD.

I'm happy to answer any further questions on this point that you might have. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Yup, the tricky point is that it doesn't matter if the claims are ridiculous, inadequate, or just plain bollocks - they're still good enough to get around an A7 (unless it crosses the line to the truly ridiculous and unbelievable, in which case you can usually apply G3 instead, citing a blatant hoax). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Years (Album)

Could you check this debate again, please? Your argument appears to be flawed since the line you cited applies to released albums, not planned ones and your comment doesn't address the lack of sources which makes it unverifiable (which makes any question of notability moot) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How-to articles

Hi, I started writing an how-to guide, and understand your reasons why it has been rejected. Do you know if there's a good place to put these kind of articles on the Wikipipedia, or on a side-project ?

Kind regards, Eric B. frm B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EeeBeeFrmBelgium (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in general that kind of content is frowned upon here, but you might find a suitable wiki on Wikia. On the other hand, you could always create a blog on Wordpress or Blogger.com, and write the guide there. As long as it's indexed by Google and other search engines, people should be able to find it. §FreeRangeFrog 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Cotterill, The Frogman

Yes, speedy was fine because G8 covers this sort of thing. Regards, Martin^msgj 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets fer sure :) Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD?

Hi. You seem to be experienced with the AfD process. I think this article should be nominated as failing WP:MUS: Southampton Operatic Society. There are literally thousands of such amateur musical theatre groups. If you agree, would you kindly nominate it and let me know? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get that through AfD. There's the historical value, which would be a valid argument against deletion, plus the fact that there are many references out there to the group (i.e., this). There are other news references as well, but they're behind pay walls. In fact, this would fall under WP:ORG rather than WP:MUSIC, and for this particular niche of organization, the few mentions in the press and elsewhere (and the fact that notable artists have emerged from there) would probably be enough to shoot down an AfD. You might try a PROD instead, that's very simple to do. Just add {{subst:prod|<Your reason for proposed deletion here>}} tag to the top of the article. You should also leave a note in the creator's talk page for courtesy. If no one contests it, it will be deleted after 5 days or so. That said, PROD is simpler but it's not a way to sneak a deletion, so use it only if you're really convinced that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations (not musicians). §FreeRangeFrog 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On Demand Analysis

I am failing to understand your justification for deletion. Most of the business intelligence software companies on Wiki are essentially advertisements for themselves. QlikTech is a lot more of an advertisement than ODA. True, they may have better references and outside resources, but ODA is a small company that I think is deserving to be on this list. There are outside resources from some of their partners ... would this help? While ODA size is small, its software, as I have alluded to earlier, is being used by some of the world's largest companies, including Intel, SuccessFactors, Flir, and others. If this is not notable, then I do not know what is.

I am very good friends with the boss of the company, Brad Coulon. That's how I knew about the company in the first place. My sources are quite credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agimba24 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My justification is that the subject of the article does not meet the notability guidelines, and your edits to it have not, until now, proven otherwise. The fact that other companies have articles about them is not a valid argument in these cases. Someone will eventually notice those articles as well, make a determination as to whether or not they meet the guidelines for inclusion, and recommend they be deleted if not. §FreeRangeFrog 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed PROD from Hedgewars

The article Hedgewars was marked as uremarkable and not notable. I objected and with the recomendation by decltype I have removed the tag as I feel that, though it is not the most popular, Hedgewars deserves a wiki page. The article is currently taged as in development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomonyou (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. No problem, if you addressed the issues in the PROD then you should be OK. If not, I'd recommend beefing it up, or someone will probably end up taking it to WP:AFD at some point. §FreeRangeFrog 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

StarM 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsolutelyNew Page

Hello,

Thank you for alerting me to an error in my submission for AbsolutelyNew, Inc. Could you please help me understand what needs to be edited in order for the entry to be valid?

Thanks,

Sarah