User talk:Alexf/Archive 36

MAN THE MIGHTY WIKICRAPIA PAGE

YOU DELETED THE MAN THE MIGHTY PAGE AND WE WANT IT BACK, NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxInfoGuy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize but you see, it did not meet the notability requirements under WP:BAND. But then you already know that because you were duly informed by the tagging editor, yet you did not do anything to fix the issue. Instead of shouting here, not adding a redlink as requested at the top of the page, not being polite in your communication, not following procedure in explaining why the article should have stayed, and not signing your posts, you are not able to ask for help, so it is then hard to be nice and give advice, any more than the links already provided. Have a nice day. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Roksanna

This User said that talking about armenian genocide is only playing high the destiny of armenians. She said that always in the german wikipedia.--95.114.14.204 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever she said in the German Wikipedia, why not complain there? We do not have any control over other Wikipedia versions, and there's nothing we can do. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock 4.53.128.213 and reinstate Arista Networks page

Arista_Networks

Inadvertent spam.
AlexF nuked Arista.
Sorry! We will fix!

Hi Alex,

we recently tried to add a WikiPedia page for Arista Networks, and inadvertently broke a ton of rules, which resulted in the page being deleted, our IP address being blocked, and the username that we used to edit the page being blocked.

We're sorry, and we'd like to fix our mistake, but in order to do that, we would like to request unblocking our IP address (4.53.128.213), and an un-deletion/reinstatement of our page, so we can edit it to fix all the faux-pas.

We used the username "Aristanet" to signal full disclosure that the first draft of the page was written by us -- we didn't realize that this is a huge 'no-no', because it is construed as advertising/spam.

Regarding the tone of the article, I agree that the first draft was far from neutral/factual -- I would be grateful for an opportunity to fix it.

Regarding notability, there have been reports about Arista in several mainstream publications over the years. Some examples:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/technology/start-ups/23switch.html
• http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_42/b4151056067904.htm
• http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/102308-ullal-arista-networks-qna.html
• http://blogs.forbes.com/quentinhardy/2011/05/02/names-you-need-to-know-arista-networks/
• http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/03/05/force10-ipo-sails-into-the-wind/

Please excuse the mediocre haiku -- we're techie nerds. :)

Thanks! 4.53.128.211 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your IP address was never blocked, so your request to unblock it does not apply. I did not delete Arista Networks. Somebody else did after it was tagged for speedy deletion. The account for User talk:Aristanet was blocked under the username spam rules. If the company is notable, and it may well be as you show some links, somebody will write about it, but you shouldn't as you have a serious conflict of interest. The reinstatement of the account should be requested in the account's Talk page as explained (with instructions) in the blocking message. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Shary Boyle

Hi Alexf. FYI, I've restored this article that you tagged for an A7 speedy. I don't think it met criteria for a speedy deletion. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Brothers of Brazil

I would like to request the undeletion of Brothers of Brazil. This is a band that has been in existance for several years and is noteworthy, having recently been signed in the US to SideOneDummy Records, [1], [2].

Buck09 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If they meet the requirements under WP:BAND write an article. What it had before was an unsourced one sentence with references to their own social network pages, certainly not worthy of inclusion. Adding links here won't help you as we do not click on strange links on talk pages on the open internet. This is not the place for you to assert notability. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Kajabe_Kan_Kan

My haiku to you, it's true: Why did you delete it? Kajabe Kan Kan is real. Please help bring it back.

108.0.0.201 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Marcus Kaminski (Christian who loves fun games)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The article was deleted way back in July 2009 for total lack of notability and sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Claude Le Péron

Why have you deleted this article so quickly? I was in the process of editing the article and had clearly indicated why the subject was notable. Daskill (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Article restored to give you more time. The article has (at this time) no sources or references. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Many thanks. Daskill (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_Brothers Feel free to delete, at the time I added the page there was no official page for it so i created it. Since its creation, someone else created a page for the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystere485 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

AIV Info

Cheers, shall remember that for when I inevitably have to do so again... Nikthestoned 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Thank you very much, Alexf, for your deletion help to move PC Quest to pc Quest and PC Quest (album) to pc Quest (album)! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• PS. ...and Double-dog ditto for your help to move nrc.next to nrc•next!>) 12:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

HELP!

Please sort out User:Mjtruth2005, they are causing hassle by vandalism on page Thomas Meseraeau. Please block them, past level 4 warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticalmaster (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report but asking individual admins is not the proper way. AIV is. You had already reported at AIV. No more is needed. I also noticed you have been reverting. Watch out for 3RR. You do not want to be blocked for it yourself. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Linzie Janis

Did you google her before deciding to delete the page? She's already mentioned on Bloomberg's Wikipedia page but without a page. She's one of Bloomberg's most recognized anchors after Betty Liu (who has a wikipedia page btw).

Please reinstate and let the community build up this page. She's getting thousands of hits on Google every month. Check google keyword finder if you don't believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njonow (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the instructions and rules? If you had you would have seen you need to post a redlink (you didn't), sign your posts, and most importantly post sources for BLP. Instead all you posted said: "Linzie Janis is a news anchor for Bloomberg Television, a subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P. This article is under development". Hardly a referenced article (and more of a promotion for her employer so far). The onus is on you to post some references and citations to assert notability, not on me to check every article on Google. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Olympia Media Group Page needs to be recreated

18:21, 3 June 2011 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Olympia Media Group" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I don't entirely understand why the article was deleted, so if I could have a few guidelines on whether it was citation or what was wrong. Not familiar with Wikipedia and would just love some help with setting up this page for our company which has been running since the Fall of 2009! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian France (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "needs to be recreated"? Unless the subject is notable, it does not belong in the encyclopedia. It was originally deleted on June 2, 2011 for lack of assertion of notability. The page was created by a now blocked user (blocked for username rules violation). You immediately recreated the article (are you the same user as User talk:Olmg?) and you were then immediately notified the article was tagged for speedy deletion for advertising or promotion. You proceeded to delete the speedy tag several times and are running the risk of being indefinitely blocked from writing articles in Wikipedia for vandalism (see warnings in your talk page). Now you are admitting to a blatant conflict of interest and requesting a promotional page be restored. Sorry but we can't do that because Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. As you asked for guidelines, please read all the linked pages in this message and in your talk page. Also reading the Business FAQ may be of help. Do not remove any more tags in violation of the rules or you will be blocked. We welcome productive contributors, but we all have to live by the site's policies. If I can be of help I'll gladly answer your questions, just read the rules first. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Gadget_RPG This was a page that followed the same format as a lot of other pages I have seen, it had references such as the actual books that were released (and copywrited). I'm trying to figure out why you felt you needed to delete it. It is about a new RPG system my friend created that was invited to different gaming conventions such as "Ancon" an "Con-on-th-Cob". D&D has its own entry, as do a bunch of musicians. The page I wrote met every requirement even a link to the homepage of Gadget RPG. You had no right to delete it.

-Zillaxwafer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillaxwafer (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It had no independent sources whatsoever. Only had one "reference" to the same website of the company. Hardly objective and independent. Following format has nothing to do with it. That's just following the Manual of Style. The issue here was asserting notability. You say you can't figure out why it was deleted ("feeling" has nothing to do with the decision; following the rules does). I fail to see how you don't understand why, when it was duly explained to you by the tagging editor, and in your own talk page. You have to understand we have to follow rules. Maybe you should read the basic tenets of Wikipedia, and what is required to have an encyclopedic article here. Being a "new system your friend created" has a lot to do with it. Is it already established? Is it notable? Can you cite reliable sources? If it is not yet notable, it may become so in the future. If and when it becomes notable someone else not connected to it may come in and write about it, but not until it warrants inclusion. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IP block

Hello, thanks for blocking 90.200.85.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is it usual to block for a short time when they are already on a longer block on another IP address? I realise IPs generally get shorter blocks but 90.200.85.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had 6 blocks for the smae disruptive behaviour and is now blocked for 3 months. --BelovedFreak 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the same person. One IP has a longer history and edits are not to same articles. Newer IP even has some recent ok edits. If they vandalize again they'll get a longer block anyway. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks. --BelovedFreak 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Go (game)

Hi Alexf, just dropping a note here to let you know I did a little research and started a discussion about external links, with reference to your comments about WP:ELNO for this page. Here's the link Talk:Go_(game)#External_Links - happy to discuss with you. P.S. If I'm misusing your talk page, please feel free to delete, I'm still learning the ropes on WP. Tudotou (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. This is exactly what Talk Pages are for. I see you started a discussion in the Go talk page. That's very good. That is the place to discuss it openly and get input. We all have to abide by the rules (in this case WP:ELNO. You mentioned "Senseis" is missing. It is there though it may be borderline on the rules. The one I finally removed was a private site. Wikipedia is not a place to put a collection of links just because. All links have to have a purpose and that should not be to direct traffic to those sites. Let's see the discussion in the article's talk page. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I now see how to link to the talk page too. I'll wait and see what others have to say. --Tudotou (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kiwa (band)

Hi Alex, could you please restore the Kiwa (band) page. On the notability reuirements Kiwa classifies for at least 1, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Could you please clarify why it was deleted in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziontrain (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you refer specifically to WP:BAND, not the article you linked to. It would also be helpful if you had added a redlink as requested above. I had to search for it and it was over 1,400 deletions and two months ago. No wonder I did not remember it. The references are marginal, with half of the four provided, from the band itself, hardly independent, and the other two links to generic landing pages, not to anything directly related to the band. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and restore it. No guarantees that another editor will not tag it for deletion for the same reasons. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 14:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Could you please tell me why the Kiwa page is giving warning about notability and citations, where as for example this one Shiwa_2000 is not? Ziontrain (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Because nobody has tagged them before. They have been tagged now. You can do it too if articles need it. The point is to improve the encyclopedia. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but the page is still giving the same warnings. Any ideas why this might be happening? Ziontrain (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I put them there. Click on the "History" tab on any page to see changes to the page. Those tags are there to indicate a problem with the article and should only be removed when the issue is fixed. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of a useful link added to Whole_Earth_Review

I protest your deletion of the link I added a few days ago to the Whole Earth Review page. The link was to my essay, "Whole Earth Culture" at http://www.volny.cz/rhorvitz/whole-earth.html. I was Whole Earth's art editor for 10 years. That fact can be checked by looking at the masthead in any issue of CoEvolution Quarterly or the Whole Earth Review published between 1977 and 1987. My essay also appears on Whole Earth's own website as an "official history" - see http://www.wholeearth.com/history-whole-earth-culture.php. (The link identified under NOTES on the Wikipedia page as being the "History of Whole Earth from official site" is NOT that - it is an explanation of a name change made to the magazine just before it ceased publication. My link was to the actual History page - though not to the version on wholeearth.com, because their layout and coloring make it much harder to read than the original version of the same document, which is on my website. So I linked to the latter, apparently violating a Wikipedia rule against self-promotion.)

I understand why Wikipedia is wary of self-promotional links. But in this case, if authors cannot link to their own work, on their own website, when they are a uniquely qualified "inside" source, then you should figure out a way to avoid denying your readers access to the best information. Rhorvitz (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. It is a tough call. I went ahead and AGF and restored it. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hi, Alexf! I have recently nominated a new article to FAC: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlike others I nominated before, this one is very short. This, I don't believe it will be a tiresome read. Anyway, I'd very glad if you could take some time to read it and share your thoughts about it. In case you're willing, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll take a look. I see you have sent these "requests" to several people. Be aware not to run afoul of the rules on canvassing. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't sent the requests randomly. I only sent to reliable editors who reviewed articles which I nominated in the past. In your case, specifically, was because you reviewed Pedro Álvares Cabral. Now I realize that you probably has forgot having done that. I would be really glad if you take some spare time to review Afonso's article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Regret

I regret the mistake committed in Kamma (caste) template.Kumarrao (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Valid citations were given by User:Chutney 10 but the template was reverted by User:Foodie 377. Suitable action is sought.Kumarrao (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss or inform of this. Please use the article's Talk Page or one of the administrative boards (such as ANEW, DRN, ANI, or AIV, whichever is more appropriate to the issue at hand). -- Alexf^(talk) 17:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudolph Grohmann

Rec'd your tag that you are blocking Rudolph Grohmann page. Can you tell us how to improve the page so that it is left on wikipedia? He was a great man and pioneer in the knife making industry and should have his due, also many knife collectors look for information about him to improve their collection information. Surely if you allow having a hockey player etc to have a wiki page that an artist and world-wide notable collectible knife maker can have a page. What can we do to make the page better for you? Thank you for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.116.47 (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You must be confused. I did not block such page. What I did is I blocked an account: User:GrohmannKnives, for violations to the username policy. I searched (you should have provided a redlink as requested), and found that an editor nominated a page for Rudolph Grohmann for speedy deletion on grounds that it was a copyright violation and another admin agreed and deleted the page. Copyrights are taken very seriously in Wikipedia. We respect copyrights and any such transgressions are promptly removed. You do not want us to get in legal trouble, do you? As per your question, that gentleman can have a page as long as he is notable and proper reliable sources are added to assert this. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Douglas DC-7B N836D

Hello! Your submission of Douglas DC-7B N836D at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DellSupportServices

Just a quick note - I was contacted by this user, whom you (quite correctly) blocked for their username. They seem quite well intentioned, so I went ahead and verified they are editing on behalf of Dell (which they are). I've asked them to refrain from making any edits to articles, and to only suggest changes on article talk pages. They were quite willing to do that, and so I've unblocked . I'm partial to letting them keep the current username so it is clear we know who they are, rather than having to remember User:JSmith is editing for a company. I don't expect any problems from them, but I thought I'd leave a message. Cheers, Prodego ^talk 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I'm sure someone else wil block them down the road. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, please, delete this discussion page. I wrote it by mistake. Thank you in advance. --Nodar Kherkheulidze ^Talk 11:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please place a {{db-u1|rationale=why delete}} tag on the pages. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did it so. --Nodar Kherkheulidze ^Talk 11:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia contribution tagged for autodeletion

Hi, I contributed an article that was automatically tagged for autodelete (this was my first article). It was tagged for autodelete: 2011-07-08T11:52:09 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Nutricosmeceutical" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). Here is the original link to the page: Nutricosmeceutical

I rewrote the entire article several times to comply with copyright policy, and have referenced the article with journal peer reviewed references, and am requesting its reinstatement. Thank youInsert non-formatted text here. --Paul Rohricht 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulrohricht (talk • contribs)

Correction: it was not "tagged for autodelete". There is not such thing. A bot detected a copyright infringement on your part and tagged the article for Speedy Deletion. You proceeded to remove the tag and the bot reinstated it. If you don't agree with a Speedy Deletion tag, do not remove it. Read it instead and follow the detailed instructions on what to do. As for the article,. it was a clear copyright violation (the website clearly says:: "(c) 2008-2011 All Rights Reserved. Nerac Headquarters"). Beyond that it was clear advertisement which is also not allowed. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thor Technologies

Thor Technologies is notable for the following reasons:

• they were, prior to being acquired by Oracle, one of the major companies in the Identity Management/provisioning space
• they were notable enough to be acquired by Oracle, and their main product is now a core component of Oracle's Identity Management suite (Oracle Identity Manager)
• they are also notable as a company which survived 9/11 attack

Woohoo332 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was missing enough sourcing. Let's see:

• they were, prior to being acquired by Oracle, one of the major companies in the Identity Management/provisioning space. Sources?
• they were notable enough to be acquired by Oracle, and their main product is now a core component of Oracle's Identity Management suite (Oracle Identity Manager). Your opinion, unless you back it up with reliable sources. Oracle acquired them because they were interested in the product or business I suppose. Not because they were notable. Being acquired might make you notable. Sources are needed.
• they are also notable as a company which survived 9/11 attack. Surviving a terrorist attack in itself, does not make one notable.

I am not saying they are not notable, just that the article did not show it at the time. If you want to continue improving it, I'm willing to userfy it. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Douglas DC-7B N836D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas DC-7B N836D 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/Douglas DC-7B N836D 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Savannah Jayde

Hi -

You recentl deleted Savannah's wiki page. It has been deleted 3 times. She is a recognized teen actress and is a current character on the Nickelodeon show Big Time Rush. She is linked in several other shows and films. Why does her page keep getting deleted. How can we keep this from happening? Her management has also attempted to correct this on several occasions. All of her other castmates have their pages without difficulty.

Thanks,

SRG 99.69.130.150 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"How can we keep this from happening"? (who's "we"?). Basically by reading the rules, amply quoted in all the deletion notices. The article was removed because as a BLP , it has a stringent requirement for verifiable, independent, reliable sources. What did it have? None. Zero. Nada. Other castmates or "her management" as you put it are immaterial. Each article has to live by the rules. Please read the rules for notability, then by all means, go ahead and write a properly sourced article. As per the rules, when an article gets nominated for speedy deletion (as this was), you can press the button in the deletion notice and immediately proceed to the article's Talk Page where you can expand your defense by explaining how deletion should not apply because. Just provide the valid reasons, within policy and the article will probably remain. Hope this explains. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Isilda Pelicano - Fashion Designer - Wikipedia Page

Hi,

I represent a portuguese media agency: SMU - Sponsorship Management Unit. (www.smu.com.pt)

We track the work and achievments of important figures and companys of the Portuguese society and connect each other in a effort to build a close link between them and the international comunity.

Isilda Pelicano has grown in popularity due to important achievments in the fashion business in the last years, recently awarded with a Career Prize and as a result, we thought that was important to update her profile in the wikipedia, among other things. We asked Isilda Pelicano permission and support to add information in her behalf.

Our intention was not to create a autobiography, personal web space (she has one: www.isildapelicano.com), social networking site or even a promocional page.

The reason why we updated her profile is related to the increasing demand of new information by international media. Wikipedia seemed to us a good common place where that information could grow, being shared and updated by everyone interested in her work.

The comments that may seem auto-promocional, are in fact supported by the citations we placed in the wiki page in footnotes, reason why we ask you to keep it if you agree.

We tryed to follow the same structure of the wiki pages of another important individuals in fashion like Tom Ford or Stella McCartney to mantain the standard in wikipedia.

I hope we can find a common ground that could allow to mantain Isilda Pelicano's Wikipedia Page as a meeting point of relevant information about her to all the interested individuals.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isildapelicano (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your comments and although well intentioned the run against Wikipedia's policies. The comments that were removed are indeed promotional, peacock terms and violate the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote (or as you put it to meet the "increasing demand of new information by international media". You are also admitting to a conflict of interest and to a violation of the username policy by impersonation, using her name when it is not the subject herself. This will probably lead to a blocking of the account. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We understand your comments and we will observe the rules of wikipedia. The account isildapelicano will be delivered to Isilda Pelicano herself and as a solution, if you agree, we will open a new account in the name of our company smu to properly edit the content of the wikipage of Isilda Pelicano meeting all the policies of Wikipedia.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isildapelicano (talk • contribs) 08:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• If I may add, this is not about your job as the PR consultant/company for your client/subject, this is about Wikipedia and our longstanding policies on acceptable editing policy. Further, you are now at risk of being blocked permanently due to your relations to you client/subject which has become a conflict of interest issue. Please read on the notes I have left on your talk and to be clear, we are not discouraging you to edit but to inform you to contribute and edit responsibly as a private individual. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle by PR firms for any promotional purposes, to that end, all promotional materials no matter how informative are generally deleted/removed on sight. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again thank you for the clarification regardind this issue. We shall do not contribute as a company. All the future contributions will only be made as individuals. Since all the rectifications are made can you agree that this dispute is over and kindly remove the "dispute" and "neutrality" banners.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isildapelicano (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "dispute", just a stating of the rules and policies. I removed the POV tag from the article as it is now more neutral. As for the COI issue, as long as you edit that article, it still exists. Note that doing promotional work will get you blocked, regardless of the account being used by individuals. Those are the rules. Encyclopedic work is what we are looking for, not marketing. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Block of Yeaplc98

Do you really think that editor was a vandalism-only account? Sure s/he was disruptive but vandalism implies intent to disrupt. It appears more like the editor didn't understand time zone differences and thought everything happened in his/her timezone. Toddst1 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor had been warned more than once for the same exact transgression. Furthermore, editors had left non-templated messages, in two separate occasions telling him "enough already". He proceeded to again enter wrong information. I for one, among many others I'm sure, are actually using those times to calculate when to be home to watch the games. Enough was enough in my view. I also checked and every edit they made, since they started, has been reverted. Not one constructive edit survived scrutiny by other editors. All of that said, if you think you want to give them another chance, please be my guest, unblock and re-warn. I won't object. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying the guy wasn't disruptive or didn't deserve a block, but you probably should change your block message to "disruptive editing" or something along those lines. While clearly misinformed or misguided, the editor doesn't fit WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adnetik re-approval

Hi Alexf. I was reading over your reasons as to why you deleted my page and I completely understand why. For that reason, I took off the information that I thought was promoting the company "Adnetik" and I re-worded parts where I thought might be copyright and I put it in my own words. Almost in all the paragraphs I altered the wording just to be very sure about the declared information. For part of services, I took out the whole part that said how the company's platform functioned and i instead focused on the basic information rather the details to prevent from advertising the company. I simplified it as most as I could to see if I could it approved. I hope the editing of the article was enough to get it approved. I appreciate your comments and advise. Please let me know if I should make any more changes or if I am still violating Wikipedia since I am really trying to get the approval :) Cbonnin12 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbonnin12 (talk • contribs)

And the link is? Have you read the important note (bullet #1) in the edit page top message? If you request assistance, the least you could do is follow the instructions. I process and sometimes delete hundreds of pages a week. You can't expect me to remember them all and do the search for you. Thank you. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

red link, Adnetik. Here is the red link. Sorry abou that; I got caught up for forgot to put it. Cbonnin12 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Cbonnin12

No wonder I didn't remember. The page was deleted by me on 12 May (that was over a thousand edits ago), and the deleted again (twice) on 19 May by another admin. The speedy deletions were for the same reason: G11 (advertising). It read like a press release, not an objective encyclopedic article. The last deletion also included reason A7 (notability). I re-read it and see that it had no verifiable, reliable sources, independent of the subject itself. If you feel the company is notable then read the linked pages here, and understand how Wikipedia works. This way your first article might have a better chance, and you will be better prepared to defend it quoting policy in case it is tagged for deletion again. Good luckl. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. I will make those changes. Cbonnin12 19:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Cbonnin12

Extra note: I just noticed that another admin had blocked the article name for being repeatedly re-created and deleted. This means for you another hurdle as you will have to convince admins, that what you are writing in this article is viable and permissible under the rules so they unblock the article name from being created. This is needed before you can move the article you are working on in your userspace, to mainspace. As an involved party I have to recuse myself from opinion on this. Other uninvolved admins will have to make a determination based on rules and policies. This is just a heads up. It will not be easy as you will have to show no conflicts of interest and frankly I'm not sure about that myself, so I'll abstain. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thank you for the heads up advice. I know that you said that i would have to get the approval of other admins and I was wondering in what sector of wikipedia should I post my discussion. Im referring to sectors such as "speedy deletion", move page request etc? I want to make sure I dont post it in the wrong section. Thank you! Cbonnin12 15:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC) cbonnin12

I re-checked and found that the admin that last deleted the article (correctly and within policy I must add) has retired, therefore is not available to be contacted. The next avenue would be for you to either open a case in the Administrators Noticeboard or request someone else to create the page for you at the Articles for Creation page. I must warn you again that it will be an uphill battle as the case stands. Nonetheless you can try in one of these places and see what they say. As mentioned above I will recuse myself from this case. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason for speedy deletion of "C-Edge" article.

Hi Alex, The aforesaid was deleted without being given time to anybody to perceive the article and wikify it in the future. Although I added details regarding what that was ("An IT organization") and how it formed ("a joint venture") also , the references given were not copyrighted, I think the reviewers/administrators should give more time before taking quick action.Will wait for your reply .. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravpruthi (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link so I can look at? Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 10:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Reworded. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Salt War (1540) noteFoodinitaly (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ciao Alex. Thanks for the editing of the Salt War (1540) entry. You had sent me a message about external links, as I put a reference (not an external link) in that entry (which I created) to a blog I share with a colleague, www.foodinitaly.org. It is indeed a website that I am affiliated with, though it is not for profit and I think the reference was merited. There is very little (read: none) research on the supposed culinary impact of the Salt War in Perugia, so my link, I feel, is a useful one. If you disagree, feel free to delete it in yoru capacity as an editor.

Thanks much, Zach Nowak

Self-published sources (such as blogs) are not acceptable references. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, you might like to comment on this related thread. (Quite possibly you may feel that I have adopted too harsh, or too light-hearted a tone.) Ian Spackman (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It sums it up well. Even though we may like the blogger's knowledge or opinion, outside of Wikipedia, we are still governed by WP:EL in Wikipedia. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I’m aware of WP:BITE, of course, but in the case of new editors who seem mostly to be promoting their own employers and/or pet projects, and who brandish their claimed expertise, I tend to think that a degree of frankness is usually warranted. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore this page

Hi,

This page has been deleted: GTA_Air — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.97.246 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to do better than that. The page was speedy deleted under reason A7 no indication of notability. It was two short sentences devoid of any references. Why should it be restored? You'd have to make a more reasoned request to be considered. Please remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). -- Alexf^(talk) 10:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

You have deleted my Page. How can i create the that Page i.e Vasai Cable Pvt. Ltd. again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6020city (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Providing a redlink as requested at the top of this edit page would be nice. In any case, I searched for you and saw the page was deleted several times (I was not the last deleter BTW). You keep re-creating a page in violation of the rules and policies. Articles have to be notable and not promotional. The article you wrote violated both rules, every time. You kept re-creating it, completely ignoring the warnings and explanations in your talk page. You should start by reading the notices provided to you and responding in your Talk page, or contacting the editor that left you the notice in the first place. I also see you have uploaded a bunch of unlicensed images and have been repeatedly warned about it. You have to start by reading Wikipedia's policies if you want to be a good contributor to this encyclopedia. A good start would be reading The Five Pillars . -- Alexf^(talk) 13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation

Hello Alexf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: This kind of corporation is similar (for example) to County Borough of Croydon which was 'the Croydon Corporation' (i.e. local Government). As such, this is significant enough to not be speedily deleted. Please either propose for deletion or take to Articles for deletion if you feel that it should be deleted. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Ip address editor

Here is a barnstar for your help on stopping the Angry editor at Ip address 72.187.99.240‎

Also if you find a specific barnstar for this purpose please use it. P.s don't forget to add the message to it.

		The Special Barnstar
		user:Alexf is here by awarded this barnstar for swiftly putting a temporary block on a non-registered editors IP Address Iamiyouareyou (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! but not really needed. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for doing so. I tried reasoning with him/her myself, but to no avail. As you are the admin that applied the block, let me bring to your attention the IP's legal threat in this edit summary where he once again removed the Template ISP: [3] "fux juz no ip notice or I sue got it". How are legal threats from IP editors handled?
Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had seen it. Nothing to it. He doesn't have an account. The IP cannot be blocked for this because we do not know if it is the same user. Should this escalate, a case could be discussed at ANI but I wouldn't worry. Just keep an eye for this guy. If he returns to bad behavior, blocks will become longer. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

re Hawaiian Pizza vandalism

Dear Alexf, It can't be me because I have never been to the page! 23 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.206.123 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. If you noticed it is a warning from 2008! IPs rotate. Often times when you log in your ISP issues a different IP for you. If you want to avoid these kinds of IP messages for something you are not responsible for, consider creating an account. Cheers! -- Alexf^(talk) 11:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Emil Inc.

I would like to request the restoration of the above referenced article. I was in the process of declining the A7 when you deleted the article. The article does not meet the criteria for A7 due to the credible claim of importance/significance of writing 200 songs. In my opinion, the deletion of the article was a bit premature. Any thoughts? Thanks, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Re-read it in more detail. Maybe you are right. Restored. Let's see where it goes. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll clean it up and try to find more references. I just came upon it during NPP. I'll also keep an eye on it. If I'm not able to establish notability, I'll PROD it and send it to AfD, if needed. Thanks again, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just did some cleanup (badly needed it). Not sure about the amazon link. Looks like spam to me. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I've gone through the article and searched for references using as many combinations of names that I could think of. After all of that, I think the Amazon link is sadly, the best reference to be found. The sources that I could find, were a combination of unreliable and self-published ones. Junk. Most barely mention the subject. All the 200 songs that he wrote were apparently for his own albums. All his albums were self-published by his own label. In my opinion, I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I agree that it's simply spam. I'm gonna go ahead and PROD it. I tried, but unfortunately, it was for naught. I appreciate the teamwork with this article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Emil Inc. is marked for deletion. There is enough references that indicates all the proof and accuracy about this recording artist. I would appreciate it if you guys would review it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.13.69 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alnwick

I disagree that the visitnothumberland website is spam, and have reverted your edit. The link has been in the article for a long time; the site provides a reasonable amount of information on the subject matter of the article, and from my reading of WP:EL is a reasonable enough target for the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritic article deletions

I requested the following page moves, but now it seems that both the target and destination were deleted:

• Trần Hanh → Tran Hanh
• Vũ Minh Hiếu → Vu Minh Hieu
• Trần Chí Công → Tran Chi Cong
• Trần Đức Cường → Tran Duc Cuong
• Trần Minh Quang → Tran Minh Quang Kauffner (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh? I see there was a simultaneous deletion (one minute apart) by two admins. Sorry about that. Do you want me to restore the non-diacritical ones on this list? -- Alexf^(talk) 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Just did. Sorry about the misunderstanding. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt response. Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg

Greetings. You seem to have closed this discussion and deleted this photo after only 2 days. Why? The FFD page states "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised." Perhaps this photo would have been closed and deleted after 7 days, but didn't you delete this photo out of process? (I did not take part in the discussion.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It was speedied as the file is in Commons. It is linked to the article's page: Anders Behring Breivik so I don't see a problem. If you think it needs to be restored, I can do that (or you can if you feel like it), but I don't see the point of having a duplicate file. Let me know. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I had misunderstood. Well, if it is deleted on Commons for being non-free, it is possible that it could be used on en.wiki under our NFCC. (I'm sure there would be debate about that.) But I guess it's best to wait and see what happens to the Commons version first. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. Turns out you did not misunderstand. I did not know there was a FFD until now. The image came up as F8 CSD candidate at the CSD page. I checked on Commons and indeed there was a duplicate, so I speedied it. At the time I did not know there was this FFD as I had not read the article or looked in detail. I see now that a Bot added my name and closed it when I deleted the image. I did not close the FFD as I had no idea it existed. Interesting situation. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll keep an eye on it. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

" Disingenuous"

Deletion of A5 is a completely inappropriate application of A5. A5 means for example a Wiki article which just duplicates the dictionary definition found in Wictionary but this just simply provides a link to Wictionary. That is the whole point of {{wi}}. See bickering where the A5 was rejected. --Penbat (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Restored. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have modified Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to make it clearer. I think it may be worthwhile scanning through all previous A5 deletions as i suspect there have been many wrong deletions in the past where {{wi}} was used. As i am not an admin i cant do this.--Penbat (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have put a message up here. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Widespread_misuse_of_Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.23A5 --Penbat (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Brodie Van Wagenen

We feel this page should not have been deleted. The reason given is "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): person)"

Mr. Van Wagenen is a well-known person in the baseball industry who, as an agent, represents a number of prominent professional athletes. And we suspect that a rival agent may have requested the deletion.

Edmprice (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A link as requested in the top of the edit page would have been nice. As it is, I searched and found it way back in May (that's a few thousand deletions ago). The article was deleted for being an unsourced BLP. The sources provided are for somebody else. I've no idea who is the nominator or what his motives are but they are immaterial if it is done within policy. Being a "well-known person in the baseball industry" is not a good argument to bring to a deletion discussion. The subject has to meet the requirements in: Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you can show verifiable reliable sources to meet these requirements then you have something. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the lack of link. I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia and will work on collecting the proper sources and then figuring out the next step. Edmprice (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmprice (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How do I recover the deleted content so I can rewrite the entry up to standards? Edmprice (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I userfied it to User:Edmprice/Brodie Van Wagenen for you to work on. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you see what I have done? Am I on the right track? Edmprice (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy of File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg

Hi Alexf,

I notice you've speedied File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg with reference to CSD F8. A speedy is inappropriate in the middle of a full deletion discussion (a mere 8 hours after the discussion was opened), and as well because the existence of a deletion discussion on Commons makes it fail the “image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons” prerequisite. Your speedy is also being adduced as evidence in the deletion discussion at Commons. Please undelete and revert, and allow the deletion discussion to run its course. Thank you. --Xover (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File restored per your request. Notice I explained this a couple of sections back up in this page. I copy the explanation here again: At the time of the speedy I did not know there was a deletion discussion. The image came up as F8 CSD candidate at the CSD page as a duplicate in Commons. I checked on Commons and indeed there was a duplicate, so I speedied it. I had not read the article or looked in detail so I did not know of the deletion discussion at all. I see now that a Bot added my name and closed it when I deleted the image. I did not close the FFD as I had no idea it existed. Interesting situation. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, that's a rather nasty gotcha. I suppose the only way to discover it is if the image itself is properly tagged with a link to the ongoing deletion discussion and have the relevant admin do yet further checks for each CSD-tagged file. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the speedy workflow to be able to suggest any additional safeguards (yet more manual checks for admins is… suboptimal), but it's probably a good idea to look into it: this sort of thing is almost designed to create drama and in an area that's rife with misunderstanding and bruised egos to begin with. Anyways, thanks for clearing this up. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think there was also an associated talk page with some relevant history. If you could restore that too that would be helpful. TIA. --Xover (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Thanks for the heads. up. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've posted at the main WP:Files for deletion talk page to try to sort out the dangling ffd tags on the image and AnomieBOT's early close of the deletion discussion. While the speedy was inappropriate under F8, the community probably should be allowed to reach a consensus on whether to keep the image; but I am uncertain as to the appropriate way to go about that. I considered removing the old tags on the image and then doing a procedural re-nom to reopen the discussion, but I realised I'm not sufficiently familiar with the process here to want to wade into that. Anyways, mainly just letting you know since you were involved and I mentioned your name in the message. --Xover (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing with boring admin duties, and being kind and communicative to questions and requests about the same, I grant you this moppy star. (Or is it a starry mop?) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Alexf^(talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OI!

Why did you delete the Monster High page? Lots of people use that page and you've just gone and deleted it for no particular reason and I want to know why!

Nocturnally Jinxed ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.76.196 (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you supply a link as requested at the top of the edit page I'll take a look and try to answer your question. In the meantime, if it was speedy deleted it most probably has a summary and the nominator left a speedy deletion tag in your talk page, else read this page which will give you some idea of the process and why. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Alex, I see that you recently deleted Penrith National Park, an article that is currently at AfD, per G8. Looking at the AfD, I'm unsure how G8 would have been applicable. G3 I might understand as apparently it was a blatant hoax, but I don't get the G8. Could you please clear this up for me? Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. Wrong reason. Didn't see that. Restored. Thanks for the heads up. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Perhaps you should re-delete it per G7, as it was the article creator who blanked the article and then placed the (incorrect) speedy tag on it, surely a sign that he wants the article deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, got deleted by someone else. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Camp Sankaty Head wikipedia Page

Good afternoon Alex,

I am writing to you in regards to the wikipedia article on Camp Sankaty Head which you deleted back in June 2010. As a former employee of the camp, I think it deserves to have a wiki page, and thus I wish to create and write. Since I have never authored a wiki page before, I both want to check the wiki FAQ's on authoring and consult with you on why it was deleted.

Any help is much appreciated and I thank you for your time.

-NAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelAHuntington (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion under reason A7, as notability was not asserted. I took a look and it is a fairly long article but had no sources whatsoever. If you want to take on the work I could userfy it for you so you can work on it in a sandbox. Just make sure you read the basic rules about notability and sourcing. Reading the Five Pillars of Wikipedia will probably tell you most of what you need to know. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply, I would love to give it a shot, I have a few sources (NY Times, Sports Illustrated) that should be sufficient for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Thanks again, NigelAHuntington (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfied at: User:NigelAHuntington/Camp Sankaty Head. Good luck. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)