User talk:Adam9007

SkeletonKampf's Article.

I fixed my article. There is no copyrighted material and full citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Morning_of_the_Streltsy_Execution

Maverick Squad article correction

Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_Squad

AfDs/speedy

I have just listed a number of the speedy deletion requests you have declined in the last two days at AFD. As its simpler than notifying you individually on all of them, you'll find them on today's aFD list at about this time of day. For some, I agree it didn't fit speedy; for others, I disagree. Personally, when I decline a speedy on an article because it doesn't fir the criteria, I usually try consider whether it might be suitable for PROD or AFD, rather than leave it for someone else to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC) usually

@DGG: If there's nothing obviously wrong with the article I tend to leave well alone. More often than not it turns out I'm mistaken.

Going through my tag removal reasoning:

• Charles L. Deibert - He won several notable awards, including the second highest.

you're right , tho it will not pass afd. I was admittedly influenced by outrageous tone of article

• Unication Co., Ltd. - Having partnerships with multiple notable companies is a clear claim of significance.

disagree. It amounts only to a company saying that notable firms use their products. It's not signif. unless something more impt is asserted.

• Satellite.io - It wasn't obviously web content when I removed the tag. Only after looking at the .io is it made clear. I didn't see the bit about video games until afterwards.

it's the sort of thing I miss often myself.

• Frog Fractions 2 - Not a browser game. It says it's in development for PC, Mac, and Linux.

you're right--it's one of the gaps in the CSD rules

• Gotham Girls Junior Derby - Again, affiliated with a notable company.

again disagree in general, but you may be right for this one is more specific, the junior branch of the main organization.

• Philip J. Miller - Specialises in a particular field. Also cites sources (Though I haven't had a good look through them yet). Might be a grey area as I normally go by WP:A7M, which lists a similar claim, but for academics.

you seem to be saying all medical specialists pass speedy. They don't unless there's some reason to think they are an important specialist in some way. There's nothing here.

• Wallace Chang - Held a high position in a seemingly notable medical centre.

possibly, but I would be inclined more to notice the claim for writing a book by a major publisher-- it happens to be a completely false claim--he wrote only one chapter.

Have I missed any? Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please realize that I was not saying that removing most of these speedies was wrong, just that when one sends an de-speedied article to afd i think it polite to notify the person who removed the speedy. In any case, an error rate of 5% is about the best that can be reached,, and I consider 10% acceptable, but of course it depends on the type of error. I'm still unhappy of not marking them for further attention. Too many things get missed that way. One easy technique is changing a speedy into a prod -- just replace the "db-reason" in the wikitext with "subst:prod|" DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: All too often editors throw wobblers over my CSD tag removals. I'm keen not to "invite" anyone to do so, especially as some editors have me marked down as "abusive" when removing CSD tags. That will only lead to rows that will more than likely result in me being dragged to ANI by the ear and blocked, if not for being uncivil (which I'm never) then for disruptive editing. I get worried that will happen every time that happens. I've been accused of all sorts of things, including being WP:INCOMPETENT, going against consensus (which I don't; I try my best to follow it), and being bureaucratic. As for article problems, if I see any, I either tag them or fix them myself if I can. If I see grounds for deletion, I will nominate it.

Regarding CCS, most of those claims pass point #6 at WP:CCS. Partnerships is surely more than just using each other's products? A lot of people seem to think significance is notability, that is, such a claim would establish notability, not merely could. And there's the spirit of A7. I notice a lot of people go only for the letter in tagging articles, which, I admit, I used to do with removing them. As I understand it, A7 is meant for subjects that obviously have no chance of being notable. If there's any reliable secondary coverage, there's a chance of notability and therefore not an A7 (this seems to be the case with Philip J. Miller). A lot of people also think WP:NOTINHERITED applies to A7 and CCS. It doesn't. I've had that shoved down my throat several times after an A7 tag removal on the grounds of a notable creator or founder and things like that, and it's extremely irritating. Fortunately, there's recently been an RfC, where a consensus was established that significance can be "inherited" from notable subjects (provided the association is strong enough), effectively exonerating me. As you can see, I'm keen to avoid another such argument, so I tread very carefully around notifying people and whatnot, thus I'm usually content to explain my actions in the edit summary. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

More exactly, the close was "here's consensus that a strong association with something notable constitutes a credible claim of significance. To use an example from the discussion, an awardee of the Purple Heart wouldn't have a credible claim of significance on that alone. The creator of the Purple Heart would, however, as might the first awardee. In other words, significance can be inherited, but use common sense." Your A7 removals are in my opinion many of them in the category of weak associations. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Which ones are weak associations? You're also forgetting the second part; "significance can be inherited, but use common sense". I wouldn't have removed the A7 tags if my common sense didn't tell me there's at least some chance of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

that's the perennial problem with relying on common sense, of course. I didn't write that close & I try to avoid using the phrase in an argument. But I'm replying to your assertion to be that not inherited doesn't apply. The close, which I think a reasonable close, was that it sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't. The practical rule of thumb I use is that if what is said in the article is such that no person who understand the nature of WP could have seriously thought this sufficiently important for an encyclopedia, it's valid A7. I continue to think that in all fairness to others, when you make a close a7 call you should take it to speedy or afd. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: "sufficiently important for an encyclopedia" i.e., notable? A7 is not about notability; it's about whether or not it may be important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. And the close said, "significance can be inherited", that is, can be; it does not say that it is always so, or even often. And if it doesn't, that doesn't mean WP:NOTINHERITED applies to A7, because it doesn't. That essay (not a policy or guideline, which is another common behaviour I've encountered) is about notability (not significance) and deletion discussions (not speedy deletion). If you read the RfC carefully, they're saying (or at least that's what a couple of people, including myself, said) that significance isn't really "inherited", but that a strong association with something notable is a CCS in itself (inherited can imply automatic; of course nothing is automatically significant just because it is). On the other hand, inherited could also mean acquired from, so significance is in a sense inherited depending on how you look at it. It beats me how anyone can think WP:NOTINHERITED ever applies to A7. One of my favourite essays is WP:A7M, and frequently remove A7 tags from articles that make any of the claims listed there (which I happen to agree with), only for people to shove WP:NOTINHERITED down my throat. So, I asked User:SoWhy about his views on WP:NOTINHERITED and A7, and he agrees with me; it does not apply to A7 at all (mainly because that essay is about notability, not significance). In fact, I'm thinking of writing my own essay describing the problems and misconceptions about A7 I've encountered (many of which are absent form SoWhy's essay) in order to avoid having to keep repeating the same stuff over and over and over again to the next person who throws a wobbly, or otherwise challenges my tag removal. As for PROD or AfD, I simply don't have the time to check whether each and every article I remove an A7 tag from is PROD or AfD worthy. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is between plausibly in good faith important enough for an encyclopedia like WP as viewed by someone from outside who doesn't know the details of our guidelines , and being actually important enough to be notable by our own peculiar rules. As some frequent examples, no rational person could realistically think that being an attorney is by itself enough for an entry in an encyclopedia, but they could rationally think that being involved in some major cases might be enough. No one could rationally think a high school teacher with no awards suitable for an article; they might a college professor, even if the person turned out not to meet the technicalities of WP:PROF. Nobody could think running for the country sewer commission to justify coverage; but they might rationally think being a unelected major party candidate for the national house of representatives is. In those cases where notability depends upon complicated and contestable interpretations of our guidelines, it must go to AfD. In those cases where what is said might be considered notable , but there are insufficient sources to show it, the article must go to Prod or AfD so people have a chance to look for sources. If no conceivable sources would do it, then it's time to think about CSD. I see our guidelines as instrumental, designed to give the right result in the great majority of cases, and interpret them in that fashion; they are not a body of laws.

There's no point in discussing this much further between the two of us. I shall continue to list every one of you declined speedys which I think implausible for speedy or prod; I have so far not usually emphasized the that I think it should have been a speedy, but in those cases where I think it is really clear I shall start saying so and link to you in the discussion so you will see and can comment. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: "If no conceivable sources would do it, then it's time to think about CSD". Wait, I'm confused. I thought A7 had nothing to do with lack of sources? Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

CareOnGo

Just out of curiosity: what credible assertion of significance? --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few references that cover the subject. Arguably satisfies not just WP:CCS, but WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CareOnGo DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates to templates

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Thanks for the message on my talk page, it was definitely constructive and useful. But, as is obligated intergalactic wiki-practice, here's a customary trout for templating the regulars -NottNott|talk 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@NottNott: And don't cite essays as if they were policy :). Adam9007 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. Cheers! Y -NottNott|talk 08:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Hello, you are kindly advised to stop reinstalling the PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia article, since the page is a obvious fake and there is no eligible source provided by the creator, about the existence and foundation of such club. Thank you. --BG_best (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And you can prove that? Also, it doesn't give you the right to replace the page with invalid CSD tags. Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"The prove" is the lack of sources, it's not my job to prove why something is fake, it's the other contributer job to prove something is real. Find me a rightful source for a club named PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia founded on 2 June 2016 and it all ends here. BG_best (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of sources does not equal lack of existence. Just because the article doesn't cite sources doesn't mean they don't exist. After a quick Google search, I have been able to ascertain that it does indeed exist. Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@BG best: And as for sources, such sources are already cited, and here's another one. Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bare in mind, that the only eligible sources for professional football clubs are the UEFA, FIFA and the local football union websites (not some suspicious noone-ever-heard-of sites) ;) No such club there, sorry, only PFC CSKA Sofia. This however leads to another prove why the page is fake - both PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia articles are listed with same * Website, Fans portal and UEFA Profile. So, tell me again, why we need two different articles, about the same thing? BG_best (talk) 0:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@BG best: How about this one? could this be the "Restructured company PFC CSKA Sofia"? Adam9007 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the official website of the local football union, but another "yellow" one... And still don't get why the administrative changes of a club should be portrayed in a brand new article, and not added into the already existing one? Can we have deal here to finish this nonsense once and for all and to avoid further confusion - I will transfer the text from this article into PFC CSKA Sofia history section, and you will delete the PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia one. In the very moment, when a club named 'PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia founded on 2 June 2016', appears on the UEFA website, you can gladly restore it back. Deal? BG_best (talk) 0:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable secondary source, and I'm not sure what you mean by "yellow" source? I'm not an admin, therefore I cannot delete pages. Besides, it's fully protected, so neither of us can even edit it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it, you're just a admin-wanna-be. Anyway, doubt you will succeed reaching that goal with such irrational contributions and unexplainable stubbornness. Take care ;) p.s. Yellow means made-up or false ;) BG_best (talk) 1:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So anything that isn't from FIFA or UEFA is fake? Nonsense. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Adam9007, please stop lying people, I am from Bulgaria and there is only one team PFC CSKA SOFIA, the team is established in 1948 now it changes its ownership and the structure of the club. Please remove this Wikipedia page because it is fake. There is no such team made in 2016. On behalf of the million fans of CSKA SOFIA remove it. This is just a childish joke from our biggest rivals the Levski Sofia fans. They are part of the gypsies community in our country and this is the type of jokes which they like to do. So please remove this fake page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.226.7 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me whether or not the page stays up; that's for the community to decide. Feel free to share your thoughts at the deletion discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ridge Racer Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridge Racer Revolution

The article Ridge Racer Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ridge Racer Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Yatton RFC for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yatton RFC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yatton RFC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Avidan

The article itself may show potential promise. However, its "parent" article, Ninja Sex Party, provides more than enough information about the subject, deeming this article obsolete. I suggest that the article remains up for speedy deletion. Anthonymous 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article contains assertions of significance. Whether or not he actually is notable enough for his own article is for the community to decide, surely? Adam9007 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: According to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and standards, no. It's up to the the quality of the information provided, as well as the amount of sources and their reliability. Anthonymous 20:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Dan Avidan, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. I try not to template the regulars but the article does qualify for CSD, if you disagree take it to the talk page. Policy says you shouldn't remove the tag. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I am allowed to remove CSD tags you know. I'm not the creator. Adam9007 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Still take t to the talk page, nothing in the article asserts the Notability of the subject. See WP:GNG. Also there are no WP:RS for the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Which goes to show that you don't understand A7. Its standard is much lower than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A7 requires something to assert the notability of the person nothing in the article does that. I'd be happy to remove the CSD and just place it as XFD if you'd prefer. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598:"A7 requires something to assert the notability". No it doesn't, A7 only requires a credible claim of significance. And yes, I think it should go to AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Article has been sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: And what an AfD it's turning out to be! Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cameron11598: Please note that speedy deletion is used only for articles that are uncontroversially subject to deletion, according to very narrow criteria. Uncontroversial means it is so obvious that no-one disagrees. If someone removes a speedy tag - in good faith and not the author of the article - then that means it is not uncontroversial. "Take it to the talk page" is nonsense, because the article's talk page could be deleted at any time. The speedy tag should not be restored, and the person who removed it should not be scolded (much less templated with the wrong template). If a speedy tag is removed, the remaining options are PROD and AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood @MelanieN:--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cmhhmfo

Indeed he should, I've done it. Thanks. Hut 8.5 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I have started an AfD on an article that you contested the speedy deletion of, on incorrect grounds IMO, you can find it here Mo ainm~Talk 08:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my grounds were correct as NOTINHERITED doesn't apply to A7. Adam9007 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't meet GNG or NCORP either. Mo ainm~Talk 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Still not A7. Should have been a PROD or AfD in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

On what grounds does it not meet A7? Where is the indication of importance made in the article for this company? Mo ainm~Talk 12:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mo ainm, an article can fail our notability guidelines and still survive A7. In this case, being founded by a notable pianist with a Wikipedia article and having another artist with a Wikipedia article signed to the label is a credible claim of significance. Additionally, just minutes after it was tagged, the author (who has a COI, but that's unrelated to determining notability) posted on the talk page showing with a WP:RS that an artist on this label hit #2 on a Billboard genre chart ([1]), which is without a doubt a credible claim of significane. and renders the A7 non-applicable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Coby Browser

I was wondering why you removed the CSD tag from this article. I understand the opinion that it's not irreparably promotional as per your edit summary, however I did not believe that this was part of the A7 scope. Please let me know if I'm missing something at WP:A7, but from what I understand (and I've been gone for awhile, so things may have changed in my absence), A7 is a credible claim of significance, which this article doesn't have. I see you sent it to WP:PROD, but curious what the rationale of not getting rid of it per A7 was. PGWG (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@PGWG: A7 does not cover software. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I'll grind the rust off these gears. PGWG (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Conte

Please point out the valid source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Objecting: "To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the prod blp/dated until the biography has at least one such source." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: The website in the infobox. BLPPROD requires no sources in order to be placed. Therefore, your placement was not valid. Adam9007 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So your contention is that anyone with a personal website cannot be BLPPRODded? Shall we bring this to the community? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: It's not my contention. BLPPROD states "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)". Take it to the community? You mean AfD? I think user:Appable is planning to do that anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources usually mean reliable sources. I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people to see if editors really want articles solely sourced to Facebook, blogs, Linkedin, etc. to hang around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'll keep an eye on the discussion. But as it stands, it does say no sources in any form, not no reliable sources. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed by you

• Hello Adam9007, you removed CSD tag here and gave reason "Article asserts enough significance to survive A7". What significance was asserted and how was it verified? Two weeks after the article creation, the only source it has is also a Wikipedia mirror site. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• talk page stalker Hi, the article asserts significance by saying that it broke many records and a single was published on a notable record company, meeting the requirements of a credible claim of significance. A7 does not require a sourced claim. Appable (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Appable: I don't think I saw the second one, but other than that, you took the words right out of my mouth! :). I think the international music tour might also be a claim of significance, but I'm not sure exactly what it means here. Maybe it's time I started writing that essay I was telling User:DGG about? Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bakrie Autoparts

The article just mentions what they produce and which group they are a part of. For my education, could you perhaps indicate what makes you think that the "Article asserts enough significance to survive A7"? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It says Bakrie & Brothers is a parent company. It also cites sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bakrie & Brothers is a redirect. Even if it weren't, why is that an assertion of importance? The sources are 2 links to the company website, one piece that reads like a press release, and one paragraph of unclear significance. In any case, where does it say that an article needs to be unsourced for A7? --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The website is for Bakrie & Brothers. Is it the same thing? Either way, it's probably a strong enough association for significance. Inclusion of sources can also indicate significance. Adam9007 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

REALLY ADAM?

SHOW ME AN ATTACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I quote directly - "you f---ing tyrannical editors". Adam9007 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a description, not an attack. It's 100% accurate to describe WP editors in this fashion. You're always fighting me despite my constant improvement to the content on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not what you say; it's how you say it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So you are easily offended. Yep, no backbone. I don't care how things are said, I care about the accuracy of what's being said. Clearly that's the difference between us.