User talk:SummerPhD/Archive6

IMDb

If you'd like to try getting articles that are referenced only to IMDb entirely deleted, I'd most likely support that, but we can't say that IMDb is valid as a source for the person's basic notability as an actor, and then reject it as an unreliable source for absolutely everything it actually says about the actor. Breaking the category diffusion rule just because the IMDb page isn't supplemented by additional references isn't the appropriate approach — for a significant number of the actors in question, the IMDb page is the only source that will ever be available to indicate what country they were ever actually born in, because many actors never become famous enough to get in-depth profiles in newspapers and magazines.

So if it's not a valid source, then articles that have no other references can certainly be deleted outright — but given that in many cases it's the only source that even exists, we can't pick and choose and say it's valid for some things and not for others. If IMDb isn't a good enough source for categorizing someone as Canadian, then it isn't a good enough source for categorizing them as an actor, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists. Some of that other stuff should be deleted. Back to the issue at hand.

Wikipedia should not have articles for which no independent reliable sources exist. Period. There is currently a discussion underway considering the eventual mass deletion of 'all unsourced BLP articles. IMDb is not a reliable source. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk)

But, we're not talking about other stuff. We're talking about you selective removing certain facts, while keeping all the rest, in the *same* article, which are no more or less "contentious". As said, if you want to delete an article, then AFD it, or seek changes in policy to delete them (which I might support). But, you can't do an end run around a failure in deletion, by remove facts in no particular order. What was so special about the Canadian status? Also, by taking these people out of these categories, these articles are much less likely to be seen by somebody familiar with them. I supported a new speedy criteria against BLPs made without any source. It was resoundingly defeated. We can't each decide to implement our own personal preferred policies. Can you please explain/justify how you select certain specific facts to remove. What's so good about the facts your keeping? I'm just trying to understand your criteria. --Rob (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I added this discussion to WP:BLPN. --Rob (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that IMDB is a reliable source for some things. Some parts of IMDB are created by a verified editing process. This includes movies etc. that an actor has worked on, and the parts they played. Those parts of IMDB are reliable sources. Other parts are not check. This includes trivia, bios and quotes. Those parts are not reliable. So you can use IMDB as a reference for what works an actor appeared in; also for what production company pr9duced a film and similar matters. You can't use it as a reference for what an actor's favourite colour is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful...

when making your deletions of material, so that others don't need to clean up after your edits. LadyofShalott 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

TuxGuitar deletion

Hi, I got a message telling me about the inminent deletion of the TuxGuitar entry, and when I checked it, it was already deleted. I don't know where to comment on it now, so I'll let you know here: I think the reasons for the deletion of the old article were not valid (I'll elaborate). I didn't know about the old article when I wrote it, and after your comment, I read thru the reasons of the old deletion, which seem to be basically "not notable". I disagree, because it is a quite complete program that is for instance "important enough" for the standard Debian distribution to have several packages related to it. I actually wrote the article after looking in wikipedia for the program (it was referenced from GNU_LilyPond) and seeing that it was not there yet, and then checking the web page of the program to get the basic ideas about it that I wanted to know, which is what I feel most people would want to find.

I agree that "it was already deleted" is a valid criteria, but I do strongly disagree that the "not notable" original criteria was correct.

Please let me know if this is not the appropiate place to comment, where it is. --jbc (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion focused on notability. You state the product is "important enough" to have several packages related to it. Basically, the notability problems hinge on the criteria for web-related content. In short, notability is best established through substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For such programs, this would usually mean reviews of the program in reliable sources that are independent of the product. Editors commenting on the original discussion found none.

If you believe TuxGuitar is notable, please take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If an admin is reasonably convinced that you have a case, ze may restore the article, reopen the deletion discussion or restore the article to a user sub-page for improvement before reposting. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Zach Benjamin, Now listen

You keep on deleting my references because "imdb is not a reliable source". On Jason Earles, when there was a feud about his birth date. An article in birthday's said he had his birthday and he was 32 as of April 26 and it turned out imdb was right because they said he was born in 1977. And as for Drew Roy you keep taking away his birthdate because you can't rely on imdb. Well he was born in Clanton, Alabama! Even his roy myspace says that!!! If you want to take away when people were born because it doesn't have a source well fine!! Then here. Look at Damon Wayans Jr.. It says he was born in 1982 but THAT isn't referenced. And in external links for Damon Wayans Jr. it says "Damon Wayans Jr. at the Internet Movie Database". If you click on it his birthdate is 1982 but we can't use it because it's not a reliable source as you say. So take 1982 away from Damon Wayans Jr. And as for Stephen Dunham it says he was born in 1964 but that's not referenced either so why don't you just take that away too. You know what I'll team up with you. If anyone has a birthdate and it isn't sourced we take it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Benjamin (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most information in IMDb is not reliable because it is user generated content. The only exception I am currently aware of is some writing credits. As a result, any information on Wikipedia that cites IMDb is, essentially, unsourced. Generally, I will remove such information in a biography of a living person. This is also true for information in such articles that does not cite a source at all. If you have a reliable source for any of the information I have removed, be sure to cite it when you restore the info or I will remove it again. As you seem to have ignored my prior messages, you are getting close to being blocked for this. You may wish to review the links I have included here before you edit any more. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I'm quite familiar with how to add a citation to an article. Repeating it in the edit summary wasn't meant as my citation; it was meant as a personal "a legitimate source was present in the article already" message to you, given the fact that you're skirting the edge of editstalking. And by the way, it isn't necessary to repeat a source as both an inline citation and an external link, either; one or the other is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I removed the content, challenging its veracity. You restored it. The burden is on you to provide an in-line cite: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Yes, there was an external link for the hockeyDB. It was an external link, though, not a reference: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not 'external links"'". (Wikipedia:El#References_and_citation) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's every bit as much onus on you to check the external link to see if it supports the data in the article before deciding that certain statements in the article can simply be removed as "unsourced". Yes, inline referencing is preferred — but while an external link that supports the data in question is an outdated form of referencing, that doesn't make it okay to remove statements that are fully supported by the link just because the article creator didn't manually footnote each and every sentence in the article. At one time, listing one's references as external links was actually the standard practice on here, before it became technically possible to footnote — so the correct procedure in a case like that is to add {{Citations missing}}, so that the links can be reformatted to current referencing standards. But if the external link supports the statement, then the statement simply isn't removable from the article whether it's been individually footnoted or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sites that have been used as sources...are not 'external links'."; "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed...using an inline citation." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that does not make it acceptable to remove material that was sourced in that way before that became the standard. There was once, like it or not, a time when "list your sources as external links" was the standard on here. The standard has since evolved, but not all articles have caught up with that yet — and thus, when you encounter an article that is still written in the old style, it's every bit as much your responsibility to convert the referencing to the current standard as it is mine. It does not mean that the material is removable just because somebody else hasn't already upgraded the references to proper footnotes — if you can't be bothered to actually make the switchover yourself, then slap a {{cn}} after the statement you're questioning if necessary, but it doesn't make the statement automatically removable, and it doesn't make it my responsibility to do the reformatting you can't be bothered to do either. Material has to actually be controversial to be removed just because it doesn't have a footnote on it already. You can convert the link into a proper footnote just as easily as anybody else can — and if you don't actually possess concrete evidence that the material is actually wrong or in dispute somehow, then the {{cn}} tag is available for that purpose. But it's not appropriate to remove a statement that is supported by the external link just because somebody else hasn't already converted the link into a proper footnote, when you can just as easily convert the link into a footnote yourself. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:REF — specifically, the part which states that If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. The policy specifically states that to actually remove an unfootnoted statement from an article immediately, it needs to be either in actual dispute, or actively harmful to the subject. If neither of those circumstances apply, the policy explicitly obliges us to tag the statement, and then give it a reasonable amount of time for the citation improvement to happen, before the statement can be removed. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That "policy" that specifically "obliges" us to follow a course of action is actually a "style guideline" that asks us to "consider" doing that. I did consider doing that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Susan Tolsky

Hi. I'm just wondering what information in the Susan Tolsky article that you think requires sources. Is it her filmography? ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article has no sources whatsoever. There is an effort underway to potentially delete all biographies of living persons that are unsourced. Susan Tolsky is one of those articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. The only "biography" in the article is her roles in television series and movies. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources in the article. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If you don't wish to remedy that, the article will likely be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source to the article. Lack of sources is still an issue, so I'm tagging it as such. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Now I've added some sources to the article. - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any "lack of sources" now? - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's better than none, but it's still just AMG (lots of sites are "powered by" AMG, meaning they merely mirror AMG's content). I've removed the unreliable IMDb and the AMG mirror, Fandango. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But now when there are sources, can the templates be removed? - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one source. I have changed the BLPunsourced tag to BLPrefimprove as a result. I have left the notability tag intact because we still do not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But there are sources for every information in the article. So nothing is unsourced. And I'm afraid better sources than AMG don't exist. ραncακemisτακe (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. There is very little information in the article. A name, a birthdate and a credits list is not a biography. That may very well doom the article. If there isn't significant coverage in independent reliable sources, we shouldn't have an article on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Next-Genn-Gamer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--(NGG) 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for welcomming me, but I'm not new on Wikipedia, so no need to welcome me.... Sitethief (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs can remove warnings

BTW, I saw this revert/edit, and wanted to point you at this: Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. It's actually okay for an IP to remove warnings from their page. For one, it is an implication they've "responded" or at least read the warnings.

It's probably not a big deal- I tend to dislike when IPs do that- but it is allowed.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya Boy

Hello, SummerPhD. You have new messages at Talk:Ya Boy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image removal?

Any particular reason you removed the photo of Anna Maria Perez de Taglé? --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I reverted a whole pile of unsourced additions and failed to restore the image. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Filmreference

Filmreference.com is a reliable source. It is not user generated, and Tim Russ uses it as a reference. Also, it is called filmreference.com, don't you think that means something. It means that the information can't be edited by anybody and can be used as a reference. PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A source that is user generated is not reliable. However, because a source is not user generated does not mean it is reliable. That another article uses it does not make it reliable, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The name of the website is something it's creators chose. They might name it: TheWordOfGod.com and fill it with their opinions of what the best potato chips are. What is a reliable source? Please read WP:RS. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sea Beast

I have removed the AfD tag from this article because the process appeared to be incomplete; you tagged the article, but there was no corresponding deletion discussion. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, please renominate the article. Regards. PC78 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Separate song articles

I note that you are sometimes interested in songs, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different version of the same song. Please make known your feelings on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Jarron Vosburg

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jarron Vosburg has been removed. It was removed by GreenBayPackersfan09 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GreenBayPackersfan09 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Wotcha

Noticed this on the Animals in the Womb Afd "(Is it just me, or NickelodeonFan = SpongeBobFan = GreenBayPackersfan09 = Zach Benjamin = all the rest?)" and I'm thinking maybe but add them if you like to this SPI case and see what comes of it as there is a CU request attached. treelo _radda 15:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at things, I think I'm tying more and more threads together but it seems you have some I don't so I'm really going to push you to add your suspect accounts to the SPI case so something can be done. treelo _radda 15:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Umkay, so not one of the users listed at the SPI were linked though all are idiots of some form. Anyway, NickelodeonFan is once again on a tireless search to fill Wikipedia with mindless tween junk and not the stuff which is actually worth something and I think that whilst their penchant for the fictional is getting to a point where it's not the done thing to maintain a fictional band and their discography in userspace, they do some decent edits inbetween which is why I think shoving this over to ANI might be a good idea, we can either get some kind of block which I don't think would be best as that'd instantly lead to socking or get them a mentor. Given their lack of response to everything I don't know how receptive they'd be to mentorship but it's worth a shot anyway. treelo _radda 10:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know you're handling NF too but you're not talking to me here, what's wrong? treelo _radda 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'd been gone for a bit and wanted to get back up to speed on hir editing. I don't know what NF's deal is: maybe a Mouseketeer style editor who just wants to add what they want to add with no concern for policies and such, maybe someone who just doesn't "get it". I don't know. In any case, I've been trying to squash the worst offenses, notify the user and hope that ze will either start to catch on or simply go away. In limited cases, ze seems to be catching on: no longer re-adding categories that I remove from user pages. Creating lots of articles for non-notables is an annoyance that I feel the whole project needs to address. There was a proposal a while ago to start deleting unreferenced BLPs. I think this will eventually come to pass (and I think it should). This will "resolve" the issue en masse. No sources = no article. I'm open to your suggestions: yes, we could push to have hir blocked or suggest mentoring. If you are up for the mentoring yourself, by all means: help yourself. Personally, I think I've been too much on hir case to make an acceptance of mentoring from me likely. Any thoughts on how we might strongly encourage the user accept mentoring?

I know the type of editor this is, edits in flurries of edits, some constructive whilst the bulk are bad, probable mental issue or simply some kid who thinks it works like Facebook. They work on their own terms and usually if they're ignorant of the rules, be it willingly or through incapacity, they usually get blocked. I can't think of a means by which to advise them to accept mentoring given how unresponsive they are to issues, even a blanking each time a warning comes along is at least some acknowledgement of the issues for better or worse. I suggested mentoring on the basis that some of their edits do seem helpful, getting a mentor though is highly unlikely to occur and would prefer they stick around under some watchful eyes than get blocked and come back under another guise and start over. Given no amount of warnings (even the two final warnings I gave) has stopped them, admin intervention I feel is required at this point as I'm not seeing that this user is competent enough to edit. Either of us need to make a post at WP:ANI as no admin would give a block via WP:AIV and their non-communication doesn't make it easy to handle the issue ourselves. treelo _radda 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you unprotect articles?

On the article Michelle Thomas there is a debate whether she died at 29 or 30; with independent reliable sources stating both. And because of this, we can't list her birth as September 23, 1968 because of the controversy. But, I have found a reliable source which states she was born September 23, 1968. Here's the link: http://www.kellie-williams.com/michellethomas.htm#Family%20Matters I want to unprotect the article so I can add this and provide the source. How do I do that. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Before unprotecting an article to make such a change, you'll need a reliable source. The lack of a birthdate in the article is due to the lack of a relaible source for same. The two ages are given because there are numerous reliable sources for each. There is nothing to indicate that the website you are linking to is a reliable source, nor is its claim that it is reporting "from AP wired [sic] reports" credible. Under your various names, you have made it clear that you do not understand what constitutes a reliable source. If you haven't been blocked again by the time you read this, expect to be soon. I promise to do a better job having any new name you create blocked as soon as possible from here on out. Bye! - SummerPhD (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Peter Stone

I removed the notability tag from Peter Stone (Degrassi), because I have added some references. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Another editor re-added the notability tag as fictional characters are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The character is in the show, so references to the show are not independent of the the character.

Incidentally, thank you for FINALLY starting to use the talk pages. Ignoring the numerous warnings on your talk pages has gotten you very close to being blocked from editing... - 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth on Cody Linley

It seems as if you have a history of removing dates of birth that are unsourced, so I won't bother you with the old "why did you do this omg?!" shtick. Rather, I'd like to know what you would consider a decent source for something like a birth date. I mean, I wasn't aware that something like that needed to be sourced. I could find a plethora of otherwise well-sourced articles that don't bother sourcing the birth date. It's kind of annoying there isn't a standard, actually. (If there is, my bad. I've been out of touch for a while.)

I brought this same subject up on the talk page, but I wasn't sure if you'd check it, so I brought it up here, as well. I suppose you can discuss it wherever you see fit. --clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankie Jonas

Please stop putting Franklin Nathaniel Jonas on his birth name. Because that's not his real name. You can put Franklin Nathaniel Jonas by using the sandbox Ricky3374 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009

Actually, until we have a reliable source for it, the article won't show anything (especially given the heated back-and-forth that's been going on. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A question...

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (2nd nomination): The title has been moved to It's Complicated (film) and the article has now been expanded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF, as filming had commenced, completed, and the film has a slated release date. Any thoughts on modifying your delete opinion to a keep? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Typewriter Tape

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Typewriter Tape has been removed. It was removed by Lifebaka with the following edit summary '(rm PROD; previously PRODed)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Lifebaka before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Frankie Jonas

Please tell me why did you removed Frankie Jonas birth date. Ricky3374 (talk)

As explained in my edit summary, the article's talk page and my warning to you, there is no reliable source provided for the birth date. Please address any concerns regarding this on the article's talk page. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Moore

I submitted the term "Italian ice" to the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in September of 2007- It was accepeted on November 8, 2007. I did this because the term "italian Ice" was not being recognized in contracts (national and state) as an actual product for sale in their government concession stands and national parks. The only other term there was prior to my suggestion was ice cream and sherbet which was ambiguous since both of these items contain dairy and were not water based. You can call me with any further questions regarding this at 908 352 0666. Thanks- [[[Special:Contributions/69.125.36.243|69.125.36.243]] (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)]

Notability is a core principle of Wikipedia. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be clogged with articles about random gym teachers. Who submitted the term is meaningless unless and until it is discussed in independent reliable sources. You or your business publishing the information (here or anywhere else) is not an independent source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Your repeated addition of this miscellaneous fact in two separate articles -- with several editors repeatedly telling that it does not belong there -- indicates that your interest is not helping build an encyclopedia, but an attempt to promote your business. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Poppy Dada

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Poppy Dada has been removed. It was removed by FayneMarvinDrewGruen123 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with FayneMarvinDrewGruen123 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Jack Blessing

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jack Blessing has been removed. It was removed by GreenBayPackersfan09 with the following edit summary '(His filmography makes him notable.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with GreenBayPackersfan09 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AfD nomination of List of unusual personal names

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of unusual personal names. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This horrible article needs to die. I will be adding my !vote to that effect. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Return of the Dozen Vol. 1

Speedy was declined on it, but I nominated it again as a G4 because it is a revival of an article already deleted via AfD. Also, your AfD nomination is messed up. Since there was a previous AfD, you need to use the other template. Currently everything is directing to the previous AfD discussion. Maybe you want to hold off on the AfD to see if the speedy G4 gets accepted? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I took the AfD off when I saw it had gone through before and put on the dp-repost. Anyway, thanks. Yes, let's wait for it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• It was speedy deleted. As it turns out, it was deleted via prod once, then by AfD, now speedy. BTW, you prodded Forrest Fyres. I looked at the artist responsible for it and put his article up for AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovechild (Irish Band)

Hi, can you help me understand what the problem is with this article? Perhaps not every statement is cited with a source at the moment but I would've thought a "citation needed" would suffice for the moment? The criteria by which I'm trying to include the band include 3rd party, published sources.
1) the use of the bands song in a famous ad campaign by the British government, and the supporting album released by EMI are cited by source, (VisitBritain.ca).
2)The inclusion in various BBC documentaries are cited on the production companies website and independent retail sites for the DVD release.
3) One of the bands appearances on a national chat show is proven by a photo on Wikipedia Commons, in the main article.

I appreciate you have much more experience with Wikipedia than I, but I suggest this band's notability is substantial, and anything in the article can be proven by a credible 3rd part. Can you help me understand specifically which aspect of the article needs to be improved?

I've taken my lead for this article from another Irish band, who are similarly notable, and whose article has remained intact, despite less citation. I'm wondering the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay*ola_(band)

Thanks much.

Answer please

Hello. You have reverted my edit on the page for Drake Bell and called it vandalism. What the hell did I do wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.177.182 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. I was correcting part of this edit and mistook edits by you for the vandalism by another unregistered editor. Sorry about that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

The next time you do your job, please do so without being so patronizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are having a problem with. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi SummerPhD. In the Szekely article, I have added back a variation of a definitive sentence attributing a list of translations to Purcell Weaver. I checked your amendment to this, and note (a) the insertion of a citation, but (b) the removal of the definitive sentence giving the citation, and the listing context. In re-adding the definitive sentence, I of course left the inline citation, which makes sense.

I saw also your link to WP:NOT. I wasn't too sure to what you were referring, unless it was a concern of some sort of soapbox advertising.

Rest assured, the information placed there by me is intended soley to inform. I have long been aware of some controversy pertaining to later directions of Szekely's ideas, pertaining to both the latter part of his own life, and promotional exercises of his followers. Indeed I have a letter in my possession from someone (now deceased), who studied in depth Szekely's earlier works (1936, 1937, 1951 and that era), and who expressed dismay at the later directions of Szekely and his followers. I have no opinion on them, and have no wish to defend or attack them in any way. I have therefore deliberately steered clear of anything at all related to the more controversial aspects of Szekely's life and works, as I have no desire to be drawn into these areas.

My own contribution has, as best I could, been limited entirely to providing information for readers which can be verified (the books may be rare, but can still be located, as I did), but which they may not otherwise be aware of. In particular, the comments pertaining Szekely's earlier works, and subsequent use of the 1936 title Cosmos Man and Society for an unrelated 1973 work which actually contains chapters from the 1938/1951 book Medicine Tomorrow. This too was brought to my attention in the above-mentioned letter, and of course I have since verified this for myself from the books in my possession, hence the mention of relevant chapters in the annotated bibliography. As I understand it, Szekely was alive and in possession of his faculties at time of re-publication of his earlier works under different titles, so it would have been done with his consent.

Nevertheless, later researchers could easily be confused unless informed, which was the point of this fellow's letter to me, and the point of my own contribution. As a researcher, I care only that I can find the information I seek, and not follow too many false trails along the way. To be consistent, I do my best to allow others the same ability, should they wish to do so. I have scanned the title pages of both the 1936 Cosmos Man and Society, and the 1951 Medicine Tomorrow, with both scans showing the lists of other publications in English and other languages. My thought here is that it may be helpful to insert thumbnails of these into the relevant section.

The upshot is that there is no need for either you, or anyone reading this, to be concerned regarding any agenda on my part, and I would much prefer not to be inadvertently drawn into the vortex of those dynamics. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I Am Carlos

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is I Am Carlos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Carlos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010

AfD nomination of Savannah Outen

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Savannah Outen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Outen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Young Artist Award

Would you care to help me sort through these news hits? There seems to be all sorts of "young artist awards" around the world that are not connected to this article. Or what might you think about an article on the Hollywood Young Artists Foundation that the YAA article might be merged to? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a good bit of searching before nominating the article and found nothing. Not "almost nothing". Nothing. If you think you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of this apparently non-notable award, I stand ready to be impressed. As for merging it into a proposed Young Artists Foundation article, I really can't see what would be merged, as none of it is independently sourced, making all of it trivia, in my mind. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... as even the various RS I have found only mention the receiving of something called a "young artist award" and then go on to deal with the various recipients and not the background or history of any of the particular young artist awards. How about an article with the same name but a different foucus? There are various "young artists awards" all over the world, recognizing young artists in all different genre... music, stage, writing, or acting... created by different groups for different reasons in different US cities and in other countries. Or would a definition of what comprises a "young artists award" be better in wiktionary? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For an article on Young artist awards, you'll need reliable sources discussing the concept of young artist awards, showing that the idea of young artist awards is notable. For example, we might propose an article called Red foods. We certainly have reliable sources discussing tomatoes, cherries, red licorice, raw beef, etc. But we do not have an article Red foods because, presumably, we don't have significant coverage about the idea "red foods" to merit an article. I'm not an expert on Wikitionary, but I would assume you would need sources defining what "young artist awards" are, rather than articles mentioning various awards for artists who are young. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes... and avoiding any OR in the bargain. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Victor Lindlahr

Hello SummerPhD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Victor Lindlahr has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest deletion - contrary to the rationale given, hundreds of reliable sources are found by basic searches)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Gackt Singles

Next time you decide to go on a deletion rampage, make sure what you're deleting is really not notable. In regards to the many singles by Gackt that you redirected to the albums they're in, this can be done with a very simple and quick search. For future reference, here is Gackt's discography on Oricon, Japan's national music chart, with charting information for every single. Sorafune +1 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)