User talk:Nishkid64
Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #150 |
Question about CSD for WP:BK
Hi ... I have a question about one of the warning protocols I'm trying to create ... there is no specific {{db-book}}
template, although there is a WP:Notability (books), and I don't think that WP:CSD#A7 applies to books ... what should I do when I find something like Soft City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that lacks any WP:A? I have been working on this article and several others (see User_talk:68.239.79.82#Watchlists) and want to crate a Warn-book like the Warn-band and Warn-web protocols I have created, but I really don't have a specific WP:CSD reason that I can use.
Any suggestions? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would advise against the creation of a {{db-book}} template because the best approach in these situations is to go to AfD and seek community consensus about the book's notability. It's hard for an individual user or administrator to make an evaluation of a book, and going for community consensus seems like the best way to handle these type of situations. As for {{db-band}} and such, well it's much easier to evaluate notability in those cases, since many of the band articles that are speedied nowadays can just be researched on Google to determine whether or not there is any assertion of notability. I don't think we can do the same with books, since there are usually quite a bit of reviews, criticisms, and analysis that is written on paper, and not posted online. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points taken, but my concern is for cases where there is absolutely no attempt at providing WP:A for even paper reviews, because none exist (the short definition of non-notable) ... please take a look at Warn-book where I suggest using
{{db-reason}}
with the failure of WP:V as the reason. —68.239.79.82 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points taken, but my concern is for cases where there is absolutely no attempt at providing WP:A for even paper reviews, because none exist (the short definition of non-notable) ... please take a look at Warn-book where I suggest using
I'll take a look at it. After skimming it it looks good, if I find any problems I'll post them on his talk page. I saw a redlink somewhere in there, if the guy doesn't have an article it might be better to remove it (or create an article on him).--Wizardman 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Your note on the creator's talk page said: "I have deleted the article. It does not meet WP:WEB notability policy, which is why the article has been deleted under speedy deletion policy" While i don't disagree with this deletion of the article as it stood, I do disagree with that statement. If there is a claim of significance or importance, even one which might well not satidfy WP:WEB (or WP:BIO for an article about a person, or WP:MUSIC for one about a band) then a speedy for WP:CSD#A7 should not be done. See for example WT:CSD#Suspend A7 until the issues at WP:N are settled. where this point was recently discussed.
I myself didn't delete the article because IMO it would have been a very borderline A7, and a little re-writing might well have made it clearly not an A7, although whether it would have survived an AfD is quite another question. DES (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have rephrased that statement. I meant to say that there was no assertion of notability by the subject, and that it did not meet WP:WEB, so the article would not be kept on Wikipedia by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I have seen others using almost exactly the same wording to imply that a failure to source claims of significance, or a failure to, in their opnion, fully meet WP:WEB, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC was alone grounds for a speedy. i think that that is a mistake, which is why I commented as i did. DES (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You deleted this article, giving as your reasons CSD A7 (no claim of notability) and G11 (Blatent advertising). I think that the page in fact included claims to notability. The menion of the help line, said to be "Available Australia-wide, ..." alone is probably a reasoanble claim , as is "((Miss Australia)) Quest/Awards was ran by The Spastic Centres of Australia for 45 years" and "entrants, their families, committees, sponsors and the general public of Australia raised in excess of $87 million". While the toine is a bit promotional, i don't think this is blatent advertising (particualrly since it is for a non-profit) and a minor re-write for NPOV tone would have done the job. Please consider undeelting this article. DES (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- As for the The Spastic Centre, I see a possible borderline CSD A7 only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register [1](NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Wikipedia. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I admit this is soemwhat borderline, and it would surely need at least a bit of a reweite to remove the promotional tone. I am inclined to be a bit mroe tolerant of promotion from a non-profit than from your ordiary firm, and i suspect that with a small amout of work a valid NPOV article could result here. Please do undelete, and either list on AfD yourself (If you wish your reasons to be featured in the nominator's position) or ask me to do so, and I will. Thanks. DES (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets WP:CORP because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See [1]. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is a plasure working with you. I do feel that the flood of spam leads too many of us to be too quick with the delete button -- there is so much junk pouring in, thant valid stuff does get lost. DES (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, I have decided not to send this article to AfD. After doing some research, it seems this organization meets WP:CORP because it is the subject of multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. See [1]. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I admit this is soemwhat borderline, and it would surely need at least a bit of a reweite to remove the promotional tone. I am inclined to be a bit mroe tolerant of promotion from a non-profit than from your ordiary firm, and i suspect that with a small amout of work a valid NPOV article could result here. Please do undelete, and either list on AfD yourself (If you wish your reasons to be featured in the nominator's position) or ask me to do so, and I will. Thanks. DES (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- As for the The Spastic Centre, I see a possible borderline CSD A7 only because the centre runs the Miss Australia competition. I do think this falls under G11, though. Some sentences like "A confidential telephone service is available (Australia only) to anyone with questions or concerns about cerebral palsy. Available Australia-wide, the service is staffed by caring professionals who understand the needs of people with cerebral palsy and their families." and "Ongoing research is vital for the prevention and management of cerebral palsy. A CP Register [1](NSW only) has been established which will guide future research in prevention, intervention and service provision." seem to be promoting the article's subject. Also, as the tag in the article indicates, there appears to be a conflict of interest here, since the article's creator appears to have the single purpose of promoting the Spastic Centre here on Wikipedia. Also, the article complies with G11 since it "would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article". Those are my thoughts on the article. If you wish to bring this to AfD, I'll surely undelete the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You deleted Mr. Geyer as an A7. i think that "Edward Geyer is the first scientist to create a rock in a labratory-like setting." is a clear claim of significance and importance. The stub needed sourcing, expansion, and cleanup of course, but IMO it should not have been deleted, certianly not speedy delted. Please consider restoring it. DES (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I inteptpret A7 as meaning that if there is a somewhat plausible claim that, if found to be true and supported by a reliable source, would causae at least some reasonable editors to say "keep" in an AfD, then A7 should not be used. "Hoax" is generally not a good reason for speedy deletes, because too many times something dismissed as a hoax has proved to be a real but obscure or mis-reported fact, so more eyes are IMO a good idea. I will research this a bit further, but I think prod or Afd might have been a better idea. If I fiond anything at all, would you rather I came back to you, or took it to Deletion reveiw. I came to you first as a courtesy. DES (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to have been correct on this. No readily availble internet mention of anything similar, and [2] shows that artifical lapis lazuli had been created before 1843, and so would hardly be news in 2007. While a probable hoax may not be grounds for speedy deletion, obviousl ther is no reason to undelete a conformed hoax. Thanks again. DES (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- From the way the article was titled and the userpage bio of the creator, I have a strong hunch that Mr. Geyer is the article creator's middle-school science teacher. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You appear to have been correct on this. No readily availble internet mention of anything similar, and [2] shows that artifical lapis lazuli had been created before 1843, and so would hardly be news in 2007. While a probable hoax may not be grounds for speedy deletion, obviousl ther is no reason to undelete a conformed hoax. Thanks again. DES (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I inteptpret A7 as meaning that if there is a somewhat plausible claim that, if found to be true and supported by a reliable source, would causae at least some reasonable editors to say "keep" in an AfD, then A7 should not be used. "Hoax" is generally not a good reason for speedy deletes, because too many times something dismissed as a hoax has proved to be a real but obscure or mis-reported fact, so more eyes are IMO a good idea. I will research this a bit further, but I think prod or Afd might have been a better idea. If I fiond anything at all, would you rather I came back to you, or took it to Deletion reveiw. I came to you first as a courtesy. DES (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
Hey Nish, I have a question. is there any time limit for speedy deletion. For example, if an article is on wikipedia for 2 years, will an admin speedy delete it or send it to Afd. Just wanted to know, since there is no info on WP:SPEEDY page. Thanks--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no limit, but the article must still meet speedy deletion policy just like in normal conditions. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, but say if I put this article [3] for SD, would you delete it --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most definitely not. I saw Buddhipriya (talk · contribs) tagged it for CSD G11, but that does not apply for this article. The article is written in a NPOV form, in my opinion, and G11 doesn't make sense. I think CSD A7 does not apply here because an assertion of notability (whether or not it complies with WP:BIO is another story) has been made in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, but say if I put this article [3] for SD, would you delete it --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Formatting
In this edit, I think you meant to use [[]] instead of {{}}. You'd be surprised at how spectacularly Mediawiki acts when those are transposed. It's fixed now, just a heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I know, I fixed it :P. I meant to do place a "|" between user and Buddhipriya, but I accidentally used a colon, and it ended up transcluding his whole userpage, when I meant to just have a link to his user, user talk and contributions page. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
CMoreschi
Might be interested in the discussion on my talk page ;) Apparently there was some discussion on IRC about it. – Riana ⁂ 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. One of the few occasions I've actually missed out by not being on IRC :p – Riana ⁂ 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi
hi nishkid. British Tycoonist 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)