User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hummus a là sockpuppet

Am I imagining it or is the chickpea paste becoming distinctly sockpuppet flavoured? I'm never very clear about how to proceed with this sort of issue. But [1] does strike me as rather similar to [2]. And if you look at my post ~~[3]~~[4] after the earlier of these ids turned up, I was already suspicious of it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've always tasted a bit of sockpuppetry dribbled over Hummus. Meanwhile, non-native English speaking editors who spin highly nationalistic PoVs (of whatever stripe, both exclusionary PoVs are utterly hateful and straightforwardly clueless) can often sound somewhat alike because of their limited English vocabulary, syntax and endless use of the same boring and heedless rhetoric. When they pop up on the talk page I tend to ignore them and I haven't seen enough disruption of the article to worry about it, much. If they are the same user and keep on editing, we'll know sooner rather than later and blocks will swiftly follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just noticed I provided the wrong link to my contribution to FayssalF's talk page which I've corrected above. The person whose contributions I list is certainly not here to help write an encyclopedia. Of course, instead of it being a sockpuppet, it could be a mirror image to the JIDF at work seeking to distort mterial their way.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with the fixed link I clearly see what you're getting at. Yes, it's overwhelmingly likely User:Avayaricoh is someone's sock and yes, I've indeed seen socks used in heated disputes as "false wiki flags" to make the "other side" look wholly bad faith and disruptive. This is another reason why I tend to ignore them altogether, as I've mostly ignored User:Avayaricoh, who hasn't edited in a few days. I didn't know Avayaricoh had been plopping tags onto so many articles, if he starts up again I'll put a stop to it. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought they were false flag puppets (though the possibility is intriguing) but that what the Zionist fanatics can do, the anti-Zionist ones can do too. That particular userid may not have edited for a couple of days because the puppeteer may be using another one, or two, or three... Which returns to my suspicion of the new poster to the talk page today. Anyway thanks for noting this and also for following up my recent AN posting re Malcolm S.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, true and both sides do :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi Having seen old discussion in Talk:Falafel I'm advancing things:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Possible socks on either side of the Israel/Palestine debate. I was slapped down on my first sockpuppet accusation, so I'm doing things step by step.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can only help. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPP

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kishorepatnaik

Hi Gwen,

You have deleted my page ancientindia and I have written a long mail to you. Even that does not appear here.

Kishore patnaik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishorepatnaik (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GGcsd Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwen,

Yes I have read it and after that, I have given a long mail to you. But somehow, that was not saved. Did you see why we have started this page 'ancientindia" in the first place?

I think your main apprehension is we might be using it for the propagation of the group, which is not correct. In fact, we do not encourage non professionals to join the group.

If we were looking for propagation, we would have titled with a more search friendly title (say Ancient India, with a space in between) and not Ancientindia (without space, which is not usually searched for), which exactly is the title of our group. In fact, Ancientindia will not result in any search that asks for ancient[space]india.

A place in wikipedia will give us a place of pride but we want to earn that.

In any case, I hope you would reinstate the article and decide to continue or delete only after some discussions. I am keeping this page on my watch list so that I can immediately reply you.

Also, you can get in touch with me : [snip email addy]

regards,

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web), also WP:COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly suggest the changes or alternatively, restore the article and suggest the changes.

--kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you have not read the links I gave you, leading to project pages which tell everything you need to know about why your article was deleted and will not be restored at this time. There is nothing further to suggest to you, because it is so unlikely sources can be found to show meaningul independent coverage. Moreover, you shouldn't be writing an article about a website in which you are involved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, we have very much seen the contents of the two web pages - one is about notability and the other is about non encyclopaedia pages. If you restore the article, we can represent it according to these guidelines. Then you can have a discussion if it still is required and then decide what to do about it. Obviously, the group is not SO famous that somebody else would think of putting up a page about it. Who has put it up is unimportant so long as it what is presented is the truth and involves public interest and is encyclopaedia information.

hope you will do the needful,

regards, --kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to eavesdrop, but I thought I might be able to help... Gwen, if you would like, I could restore these to as userspace subpages, per WP:SUBPAGE, giving him the chance to work on the article in draft form and bring it up to standard BEFORE they "go live" in the mainspace. This is pretty standard practice, and I don't see any reason NOT to give him a chance to work on the article in his userspace at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he's unwilling to read the policy and guideline links I gave him, I don't see how userfying the content could ever lead to a helpful article. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kishorepatnaik, I gave you at least 4 links, not two and it is clear you haven't read any of them. Moreover, with your self-described conflict of interest, you shouldn't be writing an article about this topic anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I thank you for your patience. You deserve another barn star but I did see the conflict of interest also but I did not apply it to this case. If you restore the article or send me the original article, we will find out if someone else, unconnected, is genuinely interested in presenting about the group.

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , Jayron. I think the idea is fair. Gwen is grouch, thinking I did not follow her instructions.

Kishore patnaik

Please take this to WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but are we not making it more complicated? You restore the article as suggested by Jeyron, which is in accordance with the practices, you help us to represent the article in accordance with the rules - meanwhile, we will also read the policies in full - and then alone, we can take the appeal , if we still do not agree with each other. I hope you are reasonable.

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "rules" are those? (and the name is Jayron, by the way) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that my offer of help was purely technical in nature; I was willing to perform the technical act of userfying the page in question. Gwen, who is the admin who deleted it, at this point has the ultimate say as to whether or not it should be restored. Since she has responded in the negative, this should be taken to WP:DRV for further discussion. I will be posting this there to see what other people think. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Gwen, the rules of wikipedia. Well, I think I am facing a very bitter experience here, which I have not expected. Gwen is very unhelpful, nreasonable, very unfortunately, quite egoistic, to say the least in spite of feasible alternatives suggested by a fellow administrator.

If Wikipeida has a great name, it is because people like Gwen are less in number. I am sorry to say all this but I guess I have to, in the most possible polite and modest terms.

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell me what "rules" you mean because you haven't bothered to read the links I gave you. Rather, you have tried to badger and argue your way to getting the content restored and when that didn't happen, you put me down. This is all aside from your conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, please don;t act with your nose up in the air. This is really getting on me. You seem to be peeved not because we have not read the links but because we have not read the linke GIVEN BY YOU. You are acting in a very egoistic way, I am sorry about that. Please self introspect yourself. " you can';t tell me..." intones that you want to hint that you are the boss here. One more insight into your personality. If you were reasonable, you would taken the advise of Jayron. ( A mere typo made you so upset, I have typed his name earlier correctly)

Last and final, it is very, very unfortunate that you feel presseured under polite requests. That is because perhaps, you have one point agenda - I am the girl who run the shots and this guy, KP, should act as per that. Agreed you are admin here but then, you have also some responsibility, to act in good faith and not like a small kid throwing tantrums.

I am not angered by your deletion of the article, though it is done in a hurry, but by your refusal to hear to reasonableness to resolve the issue, when the advise has come from your own colleague. I am sorry to give you an earful. If it makes you a better person, I will be very happy about it, article or no article.

My two pence.

best regards,

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mistook what Jayron was trying to do. If you are unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy there is nothing I can do to help you. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to all invovled, I have posted a new discussion at Deletion Review. This isn't exactly a fruitful debate anymore, so bringing in a wider audience of other editors seems a wise move. Please make any further comments there. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that I can say you are talking nonsense, showing motives and exhibiting high level of official arrogance, unwilling to resolve issues in an easier way than warranted. you have failed in your job. If I were the President of Wikipedia, I would have fired you. You lost in the good faith.

kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kishorepatnaik, you don't seem to have much understanding of Wikipedia or its policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, Administration involves two parts - one is to impose the rules and see that the system runs, the second is to resolve the issues (I am an administrator for the last 20 years). I will ask myself every time, can i do this easier, simpler and in a better manner which causes less inconvenience and more acceptance to every one concerned? In other words, it is not just imposing rules and give a bunch of rules book any one and every one you come across and crib that they are not listening to you (cribbing or arrogance should be the last words in an administrator's dictionary). YOu have certainly tipped in this issue and fell flat on your nose. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we needed help and guidance and you have not appreciated that fact at all.My requests for such help and guidance were taken as 'badgering' and arguments. It only means you are too much wrapped in your self.

I have two instances here on Wikipedia where people showed exceptionally good administrative abilities - one of my article on Hindu dictionaries was tagged for Weasel words. When the person understood that I do not know what are Weasel words (now I know), she cleaned up the article herself since she knew the value of the article. In another instance, a western administrator removed another article of mine on minor Vedic Gods. He did not see any importance. While I agreed that it did not have much importance since hardly anyone would come searching for it, it does not mean that it should not deserve a place in Encyclopaedia. The article was immediately restored and I was asked to improve upon it. I hope we all learn from such incidents. kishore patnaik (hyderabad) (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read this. You'll first need to say you're sorry for all the personal attacks and then show me some hint you've read WP:WEB and WP:COI. You have my best wishes either way, though, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Gwen, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Perumbadavam Sreedharan

Hello Gwen, I have noticed that you have deleted the article on Malayalam novelist Perumbadavam Sreedharan. I am confident that I can establish the notability of this person. What should I do now? Is it now possible to take the article to AFD? Please let me know. Thanks.Salih (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've put the deleted text at User:Salih/sandbox. Please try to find independent sources beyond hindu.com and see what you can do about strengthening the assertions of significance in the article. When this has been done, feel free to either recreate the article or ask me or another experienced editor to have a look. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will try to add more independent sources.Salih (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwen, I was contacted off wiki (not by the above editor) and asked to look into this. I think the award probably establishes notability, and hindu.com is "Online edition of India's National Newspaper" so I'm not sure what the sourcing issues are. There may be something I'm missing here -- I've not been around much lately due to work. Can you fill me in? Thanks! TravellingCari 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told the editor the article can be freely recreated after more than one independent source has been cited. If the topic is notable (and can bear a meaningful assertion of significance which will skirt more CSD A7s), this should be a snap. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, guess I caught you online :) I think the two cited awards provide notability and avoid a CSD A7, but we may disagree. I don't read Malayam or other Indian languages, but hopefully someone who does will be able to source it to everyone's satusfaction. Thanks for the quick answer! TravellingCari 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know the awards themselves have any meaning? With one or two more independent sources, it is highly unlikely anyone will tag the article CSD A7 again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be, but we've been through this before. A7 says and always has, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. But like I said, we disagree. Winning an award passes A7, AfD should decide whether the award is notable enough. The article definitely indicates why the person might be notable. I have no intention of overturning your deletion, even though I don't think it was a good call. I'm on limited wiki time and to be honest, I'd never have noticed this article's existence or deletion if I hadn't been e-mailed. That said, when and if it's re-created and I think the editor by whom I was contacted has an intention of doing so, I suggest AfD if you really think it should be deleted. I'd contest a second speedy because it doesn't meet A7. Have a good day! TravellingCari 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and FYI, there's more than enough English sourcing available. I suggest restoring the article, please? Yes, I got more involved than I intended, but I don't think that was an A7. You can list at AfD if you really disagree but I think what I found provides suitable notability. Thoughts? Thanks! TravellingCari 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said twice now (and from the outset) that the article can be freely recreated after more indepedendent sources have been added. The asserted awards do not amount to a meaningful assertion of importance on en.Wikipedia. The article is an A7 as written, was tagged as such by an editor and deleted by me. It's at User:Salih/sandbox. Please feel free to add one or two more independent sources other than hindu.com and recreate the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're doing the save, thanks so much, Travellingcari! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to preserve GFDL and am working on it now. The article isn't and wasn't an A7, but we'll agree to disagree there? Have a good day. BTW, not watching, was just refreshing so ping me if you leave a note more than ~ half hour from now please? Thanks TravellingCari 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least we agree on the outcome, the text is no longer an A7 and is highly unlikely to be tagged as such again ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I feel A7 could have been avoided.Salih (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, had the text been written with some heed to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent for clarity) Agreed, Gwen. I think everyone's goal is a better article, as it should be. I've asked a librarian I know to see what he can add about library holdings which should also bolster notability. On that note, I'm headed out. Have a good afternoon or evening -- I forget what time zone you're in. TravellingCari 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Doh! [ roux ] [x] 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously gwen...

I was only quoting you when I used the word gripe... (and you were quoting Mangojuice, I know). But for real, the discussion was going south, and there's no impending benefit to Wikipedia to sit around and complain about how this admin or that admin didn't do exactly what we wanted them to do. The discussion had descended into a complaint session, and all that keeping it open longer would have served to do was to hurt people's feelings... And after all, isn't that what #en-admins is for?!? Just kidding there, and I meant no offense by my closing comments, but the discussion thread had to be closed before people's feelings really got hurt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, only because you've brought it up, I didn't think the conversation was going south and I don't think the thread was hurting editors' feelings. Rather, I think the project is harmed when an editor who, with unsourced and non-notable content, stirs up 72 AfDs within a few days and then snipes at an editor who doesn't want to copy-paste a dozen of the deleted, unsourced articles into user space. I think you made a mistake in closing the thread, along with the mistakes of calling good-faith posts and thoughts a "bitch session" and "griping." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we have a total misunderstanding here. I saw the entire thing as an attack against Mangojuice, and I didn't want to see an otherwise good admin dragged through the mud for no good reason. It wasn't YOU I was accusing of either griping or bitching, for the record I think you had some very good things to say... If you want to unclose the thread so more people can pile on a volunteer adminsitrator, simply because he didn't want to restore a slew of articles that had no chance of ever making the mainspace, be my guest. Mangojuice acted appropriately, and the rest of the thread smearing him had little purpose... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering,

How did you tie User:Yurte to FClass?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, which edits stood out in particular. Since I haven't really been involved with FClass as of late, I can't seem to recall his pattern.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS (not you, him). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Castro

Do you really think that there was no claim of notability in this article? TigerShark (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that. The text was tagged as a CSD A7 (bio) and deleted as such by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was tagged as that, but do you think there is a claim of notability? TigerShark (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. If you have a worry about the deletion take it to DRV or start posting with your thoughts laid out straightforwardly and politely, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Tony Bignell. TigerShark (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a non-speaking, walk-on part, the text did not carry a meaningful assertion of significance or importance, was tagged as a CSD A7 (bio) and deleted as such by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a non-speaking part, but it is an indication of why they might be notable, which is all that is needed to satisfy A7. It is quite feasible that this person is notable for a TV role. TigerShark (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text contains no indication of why they might be important or significant. Lots of unknown actors show up on the BBC. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that they have a role in that show provides an indication of why they *might* be notable, but perhaps doesn't sufficiently demonstrate it enough to satisfy WP:N. However, in that case, it should not be speedied. The same with the rest of the actors, models and the author has the book and the fact that she is a professor. TigerShark (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Hannah Job, Paul Vandervort and Sharokh Barocha. TigerShark (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a question? See WP:CIVIL, then please take any further comments to WP:DRV, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I am asking the same question of those articles? Why is that uncivil? Do you really want me to take these to DRV without discussing them with you? TigerShark (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're being uncivil. Stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I do not see how. Anyway, back to the articles, I do not feel that they met the A7 criteria, and would like to restore them. Do you object? TigerShark (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to hear more from you first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have responded above. TigerShark (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. For example, BBC3's Coming of Age looks like a failed sitcom pilot. As for professors with self-published books, not all professors are notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am, the sitcom seems to have had six episodes broadcast, and although not all professors are notable, and this one may not be, it is a reasonable indication of potential notability, which therefore needs to be discussed. Same with the model and the other actor. TigerShark (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flopped and cancelled, it seems. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree. You're reading stuff into the text, in your good faith take on CSD, whilst I'm taking the text as it is, in my own good faith take on CSD. It doesn't matter if these articles could or couldn't get through an AfD once they've been given meaningful assertions of significance or importance (along with some reliable hints of independent coverage), although I wouldn't knowingly speedy a topic I thought was truly notable. A7 text is straightforwardly lacking in the needed assertions. Keep in mind, all these articles were tagged by someone else, so we have two editors asserting A7s. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all five of these, wondering if there was some pattern of abuse that drew me into mistakenly deleting them. However, as it happens, the five articles were tagged CSD by four different editors:

Hannah Job was tagged by User:Largoplazo
Tony Bignell was tagged by User:Largoplazo (both Job and Bignell were in Coming of Age)
Paul Vandervort was tagged by User:Backslash Forwardslash (now restored by mistake, see below, but I don't think anyone wants to start going back and forth on this). Now tagged CSD A7 again by User:Alan Liefting. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sharokh Barocha was tagged by User:Dr. Blofeld
Joy Castro was tagged by User:Daven200520

So here we have ~~five~~ six editors with a take on CSD which seems to be different from yours. I'm open to talking about this more, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that simply because they have been tagged and deleted provides any proof of whether they do or do not meet the criteria. Neither does my raising of this issue. I think that the A7 definition is fairly clear that a reasonable claim of a reason why they might be notable suffices, everything else is for discussion at AFD. The whole point is that if there is not a stated reason why an individual might be notable, there is nothing to discuss. In this case there is, "was the book self published?", "where the roles sufficient?" etc are all questions that can be discussed at AFD. The default position should be to err on the side of caution and give the community a chance to discuss anything where there is doubt, which I have. TigerShark (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never brought up any question of "proof" and neither does the CSD project page. This has only to do with the text of an article, as found, most often written by a single editor on an open wiki. Going by WP:CSD, in each of these five articles, the text does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A professor, a model, a child actor, or an actor showing up on BBC, is not alone an indication of importance or significance. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you raised them then. Anyway, the relevant part of the A7 criteria is, I think:

"This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable."

All of the reasons I have given provide an indication of why it might be notable, if there is such an indication they should be discussed. TigerShark (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reasonable indication in the texts of any of these articles as to why the topics might be notable. Indeed, most actors, models, professors and writers of books are not at all notable, so in truth these assertions alone hint rather more at likelihoods of non-notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry but appearing on TV show gives a much greater indication of possible notability than the average person. To say that most actors who have appeared on TV and films are not notable, even if that is true, is a flawed argument because they still have a claim that can be discussed, compared to the average person in the street, exactly the same with professors. I think that you are applying far too high a test, a test more akin to WP:N, than a simply test of whether a reason has been given to indicate why they might possibly be notable. If there is a doubt, and I think there clearly is, then a deletion discussion is appropriate. TigerShark (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "most actors who have appeared on TV and films are not notable." Please reread my comment and rethink your post if needed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about actors that have appeared on TV and film, I have said that give an indication of notability and you have said that being an actor doesn't give an indication. So were you talking about actors in general or actors that have appeared in TV or film? If not the latter, why? TigerShark (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most actors are not notable. Moreover, most non-notable actors have had many fleeting and sundry appearances on TV or in films and commercials (with photo resumés and "reels" to show for it). Hence, to say someone is an actor who has appeared on TV is not a meaningful assertion of importance or significance. Since we've narrowed in for now on the two actors who appeared on BBC3, if either article had asserted a "starring" or "leading role" in Coming of Age I would have declined the speedies straight off and with nary a second thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said that having an appearance on TV actually makes them less likely to be notable. Compared to who? TigerShark (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "having an appearance on TV actually makes them less likely to be notable" so there is no way I can answer your question. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said about being an actor:

"in truth these assertions alone hint rather more at likelihoods of non-notability."

Again, were you talking about being an actor in general, or about being an actor who has appeared on TV or film? (which all of the actors involved have). TigerShark (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the post said, I was talking about "most actors, models, professors and writers of books." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well we are not talking about most actors, we are talking about actors that have appeared on TV or in films. TigerShark (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. As I already said above, "most non-notable actors have had many fleeting and sundry appearances on TV or in films and commercials (with photo resumés and "reels" to show for it). Hence, to say someone is an actor who has appeared on TV is not a meaningful assertion of importance or significance." Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not correct to say that most non-notable actors have appeared on TV because many never make it that far, but even if it is, a decent proportion of actors who have appeared on TV are notable, so appearing on TV gives a reasonable chance of notability, so they should be discussed. TigerShark (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV is not a notable event, so there's not much to "making it that far" when most of the roles (numerically) are bit parts, walk ons and extras. Thousands of non-notable actors appear on TV every year. Meanwhile, in the states alone, in 2006, there were about 70,000 people who had employment as actors. The overwhelming majority, tens of thousands, are not notable and never will be. An assertion that one is an actor is not an assertion of importance. Rather, in itself it is more likely an assertion of non-notability. Since most actors do now and then get small roles, walk ons and extra work on TV, films and in commercials, the added, bare assertion that an actor has been on TV is also more than likely an assertion of non-notability. There has to be some other assertion to lead one into thinking there even might be notability.

Hence, the two articles about actors who'd appeared on the BBC didn't carry meaningful assertions of importance and were A7s. The articles could have been written with stronger assertions. Had they been, I would have declined the speedies. However, as written, they were tagged and deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is an assertion of non-notability, I don't see how it can be. It may be that an actor is less likely than not to be non-notable, even if they have been on TV, which I think is what you are saying - but that doesn't mean that appearing on TV is an assertion of non-notability, I think there is a logical fallacy there. I understand that they were tagged and deleted, but I think incorrectly so, because there was an assertion of why they *might* be notable, which is all that is needed. In other words there is something that notability *could* be derived from, so that needs discussing before a deletion. The A7 test is not very tough to pass, and rightly so, because we should discuss if there is any doubt. I understand that you don't see it this way, but that is the way that I interpret A7. I am not sure if there is anything else that I can say, without repeating myself, because you do not seem to agree with the basic premise that the test is to only give a reason that they might be notable, not a compelling reason. If there isn't a specific way to move this discussion forward (let me know if there is), I would like to undelete these, and I guess they would have to go to AFD. Are you going to stand in my way? TigerShark (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're all A7s as written, as I've thoroughly explained. Moreover, having looked into them further, so far I don't think they meet WP:BIO, so I can't in good faith waive the CSD deletions. If you still disagree, please take them to DRV, as I suggested at the outset of this thread. Please don't restore them, thanks. I should say, I don't think it's at all fair to ask, "Are you going to stand in my way?" It would be like me asking you, "Are you going to wheel war?" Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have explained, but I think your interpretation is wrong. Do you think that it is worth while wasting time at DRV? Wouldn't it be better to spend the time at AFD and give more people a chance to comment? DRV is better suited to AFDs that have been closed, rather than just going through it for the sake of it. What is gained by going to DRV rather than AFD? TigerShark (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think time would be wasted at DRV and there is nothing at DRV that I've ever seen which says it's more fit for AfDs than CSDs. I would also say, you haven't told me you believe you can show notability with reliable sources and will build each of them into encyclopedic articles yourself. Had you done, I'd be happy to at least put them in your userspace and you could freely recreate them once they were no longer A7s. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have time to work on them, and just because I don't feel they meet the A7 criteria and want these to go to AFD doesn't mean I have to commit the time to work on them. We shouldn't have such an imbalance between what it takes to delete an article and what it takes to take it to AFD. I would still like to know what benefit there is to taken them to DRV rather than AFD, to make sure we aren't just doing it for the sake of it. TigerShark (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me (and has more or less since this thread began) you don't care about the articles, but are trying to sway a take on wider policy, here on my talk page. If you did want to edit the articles yourself, at the very least I'd userfy them. Moreover, now and then I do restore an A7 to the article space if someone says they can find sources showing notability and are willing to cite strengthened assertions of importance/significance. Lacking your willingness (or for now, anyone else's) to edit the articles, I can't see any pith to userfying, restoring or sending them to DRV. You're the one who brought up DRV to begin with, almost straight off. Since I never read a hint that you wanted to edit these articles yourself, or that you believed in each of them as articles which could in truth be encyclopedic, I couldn't and can't in good faith restore or userfy, since they could likely be swiftly retagged as A7s, or stay that way in the article space. Hence, DRV would be a way for you to get input from others on this. I think it's wholly up to you as to whether you might find DRV helpful, or only for the "sake of it." On the bright side, all of this has spun off some thoughts I'll likely add here (which is linked in the banner at the top of this page). All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean regarding whether I care about the articles, or about taking a swipe at policy. I believe the deletions were incorrect and I feel that they should be reverted. I do think they could be encyclopedic, but I do not commit myself to making them so. Challenging a decision should not be made onerous on the person making the challenge, because that would have a chilling effect on good faith questioning of actions. The way to get input on whether the articles should be kept is AFD, DRV is to get input on whether policy was correctly applied. The latter might be of interest to you, but my concern is making sure these articles are dealt with properly. I think are avoiding the question here. What is to be gained by going to DRV rather than AFD? Can you please answer this, rather than just repeating that it should go to DRV. Also, if you look back I believe you will find that you brought up DRV first. I had expected a focused discussion and then hopefully for you to allow me to restore them, so that we could err on the side of caution when I have raised good faith concerns. Instead we have gone several times around the houses and I just can't get you to explain why we should go to DRV rather than AFD. Let's please make sure that we don't waste more time without good reason. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "Can you please answer this, rather than just repeating that it should go to DRV," yet I had written, "I can't see any pith to userfying, restoring or sending them to DRV," along with "I think it's wholly up to you as to whether you might find DRV helpful..." Moreover, I never said anything about "taking a swipe at policy." Many times in this thread you've shown that you have either not understood what I have written, have not carefully read what I wrote, or are not willing to acknowledge what I have written. As for "a chilling effect on good faith questioning of actions," I hardly think my having lengthily shared my thoughts with you here (along with my acknowledgement of your good faith) can be called "a chilling effect." Truth be told, I found the way you started this thread to be rather chilling (never mind from an admin), but stuck with you. Lastly, you keep saying/hinting that "we" are wasting time. As the deleting admin I take my responsibility to discuss my actions quite seriously. If I didn't have the time to talk about them, I wouldn't take those actions and I don't see talking about them as a waste of time. However, I'm now worried that you think this is a waste of time. Hence, I'm not too stirred up to talk about this anymore.

You've asked if you could restore the articles (not, I should say, if I might restore them) and as the deleting admin, I decline, based on my reading of Wikipedia policy as it relates to your comments here, taken altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vandervort has been restored inadvertantly by me; the creator had first made a lowercase version, which I moved to the proper title. However, I must vocalize concerns here; while I agree with the A7 tags on all of the other articles brought up by TigerShark above, I feel that Vandervort easily exceeds the standards for WP:BIO through his modeling connections and appearances on a notable TV show; the ample sources provided also demonstrate this. So, I'd ask you not to re-delete this one. Thanks. GlassCobra 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandervort may or may not exceed the standards for WP:BIO (the article cites no sources at all and has gobs of external links to mostly user-editable or promotional websites). I don't agree that the text I deleted makes a meaningful assertion of significance. Meanwhile, the COI SPA editor has succeeded in getting the article onto Wikipedia by repeatedly recreating it, seeming to have made a typo in the title (a very common tactic), which was then moved over a deleted page, which I had salted against recreation, by an admin who didn't check it first (I know you're thinking in very good faith, that's not at all my worry! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are noted. If you like, take the article to AfD; however, I still do not think CSD is the proper method. GlassCobra 14:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if an AfD is called for someone will likely send it there and if the article doesn't meet BIO it'll be deleted. My only worry is that a CSD'd article was restored by mistake, but it's not a big worry at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GlassCobra. Why do you think that the other articles do not give a reasonable indication of why they might be notable (not why they are, but why they might be)? TigerShark (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vandervort tagged again

Paul Vandervort has been tagged CSD A7 yet again. This is what wontedly happens when A7 text is restored to the article space. Created by a COI, SPA account, deleted, recreated, deleted and salted, then restored by mistake after it had been recreated a third time with the family name beginning in lower case, with no meaningful assertion of significance or importance, no cites showing independent coverage of the topic, a chatty, blurby text and external links to mostly user-editable or promotional websites, I'm not startled. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic Chicken

You deleted Picnic Chicken Jr. Why did you do it? Picnic Chicken Jr. never did anything to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.187.150 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was vandalism and I blocked your account, which is likely why you're asking through an IP. If you keep asking and make me go back and look, I'm likely to find there was something so unhelpful about it that I'll block this IP too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:Wiiman452. I didn't block, likely cuz it looked like a tasteless but creative one-off user test kind of thing to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Allen (musician)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Harry Allen (musician), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think he's notable enough to stay, and certainly notable enough that AfD is the minimum required to delete. Thanks MadScot (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a speedy deletion tag on the article but thought it might be borderline, so I put up the prod tag. Anyone can rm a prod tag and now we know at least one editor watches the article and thinks the topic is notable enough to stay. Thanks for telling me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Raymond Grissom

You recently deleted Raymond Grissom from WIkipedia. I am new to WIkipedia and didn't realise that I should have put under construction at the top of the page. It has more stuff now but is still under construction. He is a normal kid, who had some high school-post high school success. But he's been reported by various news,media networks including CNN on live news. He isn't just some smart kid but a source of inspiration for young black males who want to get ahead. He's very important for the movement of African-AMerican males away from crime and stereotypical problems. Please un-delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcheck20 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article was but a collection of links with zero text and was deleted as such. Please do read this page first for some handy tips, then go ahead and try again! I've put the links on your talk page (everything that was in the article). All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

helping end all the pointless

bullshit over at This Article, because its really not leading anywhere. user:Tocino, Marek(forgot full user) and User: Avala are the main problems. Marek edit wars with tocino and avala and alot of talk page fighting, while avala pushs some pov but also forces his stuff and tocino just plain pushs his Serbian, and might I add, racist POV into the article and abuses the fact no adminsitrator is willing to do a damned thing about him breaking rules.--Jakezing (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits in the article by those two for many days. Racist PoV? Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premio Roma

This article has been speedily deleted on the grounds of "blatant advertising". The Premio Roma is a major horse race in Italy – it has equivalent articles on both the French and Japanese Wikipedias. This is clearly a mistake, so please restore the article if you can. Thank you. -- Zafonic (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX. An article about a horse race that's been running for 19 years at a redlinked racetrack, which is but a list of winners, carries hardly a shred of text, nothing about its significance, context or meaning in the sport, or its history (yes, I did see it has a flashy name). I've rs'd it but please see what you can do about putting some text into the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified account

Hi,my username on Hindi wikipedia is Debashish and at English one is Debashishc. I wanted to go for the unified login. Can my username at English Wikipedia be changed to "Debashish" (I see that this username has already been taken, but this answer seems to imply I can still change that)? Could you please help or please point me to appropriate Admin? Thanks. --Debashishc (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you already found the answer to your question. --Amalthea^Talk 08:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you.--Debashishc (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]