User talk:Randykitty/Archive 16

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article you deleted, Asad akbar, has been recreated. Please delete it and I also think you should creation protect it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Done and editor indeffed (NOTHERE). --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I ended up blocking Pmay1, who created an article you'd commented on previously, Carmel Borg, as well as all of the various articles on his journal. It looks like he'd tried to evade detection by posting the article content at Talk:Postcolonial Directions in Education, which shows some fairly bad faith on his part. I've blocked him for spam and offhand I don't see where he's likely to get unblocked or at least remain unblocked, given the tone of his edits.

I've edited his article for tone, but I need some help whittling down the publications lists since I don't think we need every recent paper he's written in a list. Also, I'm slightly concerned about notability. I think that he's probably notable enough but given the amount of puffery I'd really like to make sure. I'm going to post at the education WP for help on this as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good call, that is indeed a problematical editor. In general, I don't care too much about people editing with a COI, if they manage to do that in a neutral way. Pmay1 obviously fails in that and the biographies they created are basically short CVs with complete publication lists and all. Strange that an educator doesn't have a better idea of what an encyclopedia is for... The journal is, at this point, not notable at all (no independent sources, no indexing anywhere). Peter Mayo likely is notable, if the citations in GScholar are correct. Borg is indeed less certain, the GS hits are borderline, but I didn't have time to look whether he meets any other criteria of WP:PROF. I'm kind of busy in RL myself at the moment (and in the 4th day of a bad migraine...), so I cannot be of much assistance here, but hopefully somebody at the education project can help (and DGG has already taken a first stab at Peter Mayo and may be able to assist with the Borg article, too). --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up Borg. Very uncertain about notability: his only 2 independent books are in Maltese, and wouldn't be expected to be widely held or reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, At the Dubrovnik Annals-article, I saw you removed some indexing services for being ‘trivial.’ All right. If you don’t mind, could you do a similar move at the Hebraic Political Studies-article? In an attempt to improve the notability of that journal, I inserted the indexing services in which it was covered. However, since you are more an expert in the field than that I am, could you please have a look at those services? By the way, there is no article covering the Social Services Abstracts-indexing service, yet several articles have a link to it. Do you have an idea what to do with that? All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you are doing great, i will like to recreate a page you previously deleted chimsnero goldsmith is the name of the page. how can i do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• That article was deleted after a deletion discussion. Unless you can show (at WP:DRV) that consensus was inadequately evaluated in that discussion or that new sources have become available since that discussion was closed, you cannot re-create the article. Continued efforts to do so will only lead to you getting blocked for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I just created Behavioral Sciences & the Law, and I was hoping you could look at it, esp. as regards what categories it should be in. Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good, I've added it to the "applied psychology journals" cat, too. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty

Please pardon if I miss any conventions regarding how this talk page works. I have done a limited amount of editing on Wikipedia but I am novice for sure.

I am checking with you about the deletion of a page I have spent the most time on - a relatively obscure martial art known as pencak silat Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa. Obscure insofar as it has few adherents outside of Indonesia (most being around a village known as Garut) - I am one of only a few certified non-Indonesian instructors.

I had troubles with the email address listed on my Wikipedia account and had not updated it until now - so I missed any notices that I might have otherwise received prior to the deletion.

I have reviewed the WP:REFUND page - it says start with you.

I have reviewed the history of the page - I note the brief discussion regarding the style being deemed "non-notable". I have reviewed the WP:MANOTE and WP:N notability pages. I cannot seem to reach any version of that page, even in my sandbox.

For a start, I take exception to the definition of notability for martial arts being applied as a basis for deletion. It essentially says that Wikipedia only contains information on large, well established, well marketed cultural practices that have sufficient media exposure. Many such arts are maintained in relative obscurity, as oral and practiced tradition, and rarely documented - and frankly are on the edge of extinction.

I established that page thinking that it was way to preserve some very rare and obscure information on a very credible living cultural artifact. This criteria suggests to me Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of preserving rare knowledge, at least. It can act only as a secondary reference. In that case, how does this kind of knowledge become part of the corpus? Is there no means of acting as a primary reference?

I also note that the preamble to the WP:MANOTE page suggests that it is not strictly criteria for deletion. Not sure if I interpret that correctly.

Whatever the reasoning behind the "notability" definition for martial arts, it appears to have the consequence of eliminating relevant and valuable knowledge on rare cultural arts. Any art with no or few living teachers and/or no popularity would have no place in Wikipedia. As a person involved in promoting SE Asia cultural arts - many of which are poorly documented - I am dismayed, saddened. And confused.

Perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps there is some other objective served in deleting pages like this one. I am hoping that you can help me understand and possibly I can identify the means to reversing this decision.

If verification is the key, I would be happy to put you in contact with leading members of the system in Indonesia. If verification is limited solely to what can be found on the Internet, then it would seem likely to fail. Some other means should be acceptable to ensure that unique information is preserved. I would be happy to pursue.

NOTE: I would at least like to recover the contents of that page - I am afraid some irreplaceable information has been otherwise lost.

Yours in good consideration

Fenrismaelstrom (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have reyread the AfD and their is consensus that there are no adequate sources. WP can only report what is stated in independent reliable sources, if they don't exist, we have a problem with notability and verifiability. Apparently, you don't have any additional sources either. Therefore I don't see any possibility of restoring this article. If you still disagree with the deletion decision, you can, of course, go to deletion review, but in the absence of any new evidence, I doubt that would be successful. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Randykitty. I now better appreciate what everyone is trying to achieve after further review. Still disappointed and feel it is a loss. Like there should be a category of "unverified research material" or similar. Meanwhile, I am currently checking for other verification references for new evidence. I will get back to you within a month either way.

Two questions:

• • Any way to get the article "unpublished" and put back in my sandbox so that I can pull the contents out?
  • Mdtemp who originally tagged it suggested during the review that some portion of it could be integrated into another page - is there a procedure or policy to consider?

Fenrismaelstrom (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty - I have been researching Indonesian sources for verification references. I have two for editors to consider. Can you give me your comments first before making my case. In your opinion, are they substantial enough to satisfy notability? Do I need more?

• Indonesian martial arts magazine DUEL - June 2001 edition - page 6
  • Article on pencak silat Gadjah Putih Mega Paksi Pusaka
  • Refers to founder H. Adji Djaenudin
  • PDF of article - http://maelstromcore.com/documents/DUELarticle-Jun2001-GadjahPutih.pdf

• Indonesian martial arts serial Jejak Pendakar on TV One network
  • Episodic 30 minutes broadcast programs
  • Recent full episode on pencak silat Gadjah Putih shown Jun 2015
  • Episode available on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlU7cBlzkJM
  • YouTube abstract also refers to establishment in 1959 by founder

Yours in kind consideration

Fenrismaelstrom (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I had a look at these links. However, YouTube is not a reliable source (and often not even admissible as an "external link". The magazine thing is not even a real article and way to brief to show any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it was like a newspaper? I haven't seen a copy.Rathfelder (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I took my lead from your categorization as communist "newspaper". It's not an academic journal. Only other option is a magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ahmed Rasheed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There are now two articles "Ahmed Rasheed" articles. Further fixes needed? Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the ↑ templated message . Pete "cricket tragic" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• No apologies needed, templates make life easier and make things go faster. That "do not template the regulars" goes more for warnings and such, I feel. Thanks for the heads up. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon. Then again, with your luck, you're allergic to cats, R-Kitty.

Drmies (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks! As for the allergy, yes, I used to be allergic to cats. When I was still dating my wife, I would take antihistamines when I would stay over at her place, because she had two cats (one of the the original Randy Cat, Miranda). Fortunately, over the years the allergy disappeared (didn't even know that was possible) and we now live in the house of two cute cats who generally tolerate us because we feed them a lot and open/close doors all the time. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty-- I don't at all disagree with your move to block Travelmite. However, I'm concerned it will only enrage him and drive him to pursue his disturbing and highly suspicious vendetta against me even harder. Of course, he would hang himself by doing so, violating WP:HOUND and WP:HARASS and whatnot. But, he may actually out me in the process, regardless; he could see it as taking me down with him, so to speak. If that were to happen, it would be problematic to me off-Wiki and would be all the more disappointing because of its utter pointlessness: Travelmite will never prove I am a part of the Monarchist League of Canada because the undeniable truth is that I am not.

If he does ever reveal my real name, that would be permanently stricken from Wikipedia, would it not? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't worry. Should that happen, drop me a note and I'll revdel it immediately. You can also contact oversight and they can delete it completely, so that even admins can't see it any more. --Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware of WP:OVERSIGHT. Thanks.

But, let's hope it doesn't come to that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may Miesianiacal. Since you're not connected to MLC, there's no chance that Travelmite will out your RL identity. He'd have to know you personally, to out you. It would be the exact same for me, if somebody suspected I was a member of a Canadian republican organization. I'm not a member of any organization, so there's no way of outing me along those lines. Ya got nothing to worry about, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• That was bound to happen, wasn't it. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have presented a Statement of Intent [1], on my talk page regarding John Aimers. Based on the information presented in the complaint from User:Miesianiacal, in conjunction with dismissal of my complaint, there should be no connection. The account is not listed as a editor of that page. It's essentially using the same logic as presented above by GoodDay. If you or anyone in the above discussion can see any breach of policy, please comment on the talk page. Travelmite (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Miesianiacal has already declared that he has no connection with the Monarchist League of Canada & never had. IMHO Travelmite, if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting at your talkpage? you're walking on shaky ground & should walk away from it. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Good advice. I appreciate it and I promise to take it into consideration. Travelmite (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it's possible each one of us be able to walk away from it. I hope that's what you want to hear me say. My fingers are crossed. Travelmite (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for your additions to Strength of Materials (journal).--27century (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rollingcontributor: What's going on here. Randykitty doesn't create A7 articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hah, this would indeed be the first article created by me ever that would be deleted by CSD or AFD. I indeed don't create A7 and even less G11 articles. It's indexed in Scopus, making it a clear meet of WP:NJournals, it's an academic journal, making it ineligible for A7, and how who the editors are, what it covers, what its ISSN is, and more such neutral details that we habitually include in articles on journals are promotional is beyond me. I have contacted the deleting admin and asked him to reverse his deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, firstly, I'm bad with using the Twinkle tool. And the article that I've nominated for speedy deletion seemed to exhibit no claim of notability, which caused me to mark it as such. However, if it's a mistake from my side, I offer a sincere apology. Rollingcontributor (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I see you're rather new here and academic journals is really a rather specialized subject. Do note, however, that such journals are not among the subjects that are eligible for A7. You should review those criteria and avoid tagging subjects that are not eligible. G11 was a bit weird, I have to say, as there was not a single word in that article that was not neutral... --Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me know the policies on Wikipedia better! Rollingcontributor (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Brianna and I'm currently taking a class on using and editing Wikipedia. I'm doing a project about the WikiProject: Magazines. I was wondering what pages you suggest editing and what edits need to be made to pages in this project. I hope to hear from you soon. {{ping[Egeymi][Neptune's Trident]}}

Excuse me, I believe that the deletion of the page Dencia on February 15th was inappropriate. Advertising was not present, and the article was well sourced. Could you please explain your motives behind your actions? Plugee (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I still think this page is promotional, even though I have seen worse. Note that this has been deleted as promotional several times before. In any case, I have restored the page, including the g11 tag, so that another admin can have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Randykitty the page Dencia should be deleted and left so. She has no significant importance in Nigeria as the article States, she has NO significance in the Nigerian, USA or Cameroonian music industry. She's just another girl who bleached her skin and is not notable in anyway. Has she won awards for her music? All her interviews on online blogs are always talking of her bleached skin, but never her music. And these aren't even notable or credible mentions. Plugee should be banned from editing as this is someone close to dencia. Go to their user page, this plugee makes Disruptive edits and has contributed nothing meaningful on Wikipedia. I vote that the article Dencia should go. Its promotional and it's written by someone close to her or maybe herself disguising under a pseudonym. Please consider. Thanks. PaulAshford (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from skin bleaching what is she known for? Just a couple of mentions doesn't make someone famous. I know someone who is more famous than Dencia but still got her page deleted. Dencia has been trying hard for years now to get on Wikipedia as if you've watched her before, you'll know this is dencia (observe the language and tone) editing her own page else why fight to have it up when it's clearly promotional!? Plugee

PaulAshford (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that her entrepreneurialship and business would make her a good candidate for a wikipedia article. She is a CEO you know. Plugee (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, the issue has been resolved, that's why I removed my comments. What's the essence of keeping it up there if the case has been closed? Explain please. PaulAshford (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. iam marksteven1996. its my third try making the same article but it is always deleted. Can you help me because i really need to have a wiki page. I did'nt see anything wrong with my article. I saw many articles like this in wiki but you did'nt delete their article. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.106 (talk • contribs)

• Hi, the article is deleted because it is not encyclopedic but promotional. Exaggerated claims like "the crème de la crème" from a student body or "The thorough selection from among the best, the brightest and dynamic leaders and scholars yielded ten (10) outstanding students destined to bring to life the spirit of brotherhood and camaraderie" really do not beliong in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps there are other articles like this on WP: there are over 5 million articles here and I didn't get around yet to check all of them (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). If you continue creating the article in this promotional way, it will get "salted" and you risk getting blocked from editing... --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the BLPPROD on Bhushan patiyal; I only saw the second one (your one). I did not see the first one, which was valid. Adam9007 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• No problem and thanks for bringing the previous BLPPROD to my attention (that one had escape me). I've restored the original BLPPROD that was invalidly removed. --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! You deleted me) I will create page with information about company (like duckduckgo, qwant and similar search engines). What i need for this? I have read the rules of neutrality and REFUND, what next? Can you check the article before publication? Thank you. Vladislavkors (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• You need to be careful that the article is not promotional in tome, otherwise it'll be deleted as spam. In addition, you'll have to show that the company is notable by adding references to independent reliable sources. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vivekanand Jha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think this is promotional enough for WP:CSD#G11. After you tagged it, it was toned down, in particular the enormous paragraph listing every contributor to something he edited was removed. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I get a copy of this please. Why is stuff in my sandbox being deleted? Could you please personally answer this without referring me to a wall of text.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• WP is not a place to post your resume. So, no, I will not restore this. --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

Based on your tag my above mention article got deleted, I am new to wikipedia editing and would like to get the page resume so that i can made necessary changes on it as per policy then you can review it for justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navbindaas (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) .

• Hi, I had another look at the article. Unfortunately, it is really way too promotional, even for user space. Therefore I am not going to restore it, I think you would do better to first look at other articles on similar subjects that are acceptable and then start from scratch and model your article accordingly. At most, I can email you a copy of the article, but then you should first enable email in your preferences. --Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

Thanks for that, I have enabled email on my profile, can you send me copy of similar article so that I can take it as reference and prepare something which meet the policies. Thanks again for guiding the starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navbindaas (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Please see WP:RS, [[WP::GNG]], and Category:Jain temples and tirthas. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty,

I want to know why did you delete entry about JCommerce? There are a few polish companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Poland with wikipedia entry and there is no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizyjc (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article did not have any indication why this company should be included, i.e., why it is notable in the WP sense (see WP:GNG and WP:CORP). As for those other companies, I don't know whether those are notable or not, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty,

Thanks for reviewing my first article! I was wondering how I could improve the article regarding your tags. I looked into another similar article while I was preparing this one: List of microfluidics research groups

I'd be delighted if you could tell me if there is anything I can do. I think this list will be very useful for those who works in this field, or who wants to enter into this field. I certainly hope it will grow by others' contributions.

Thank you and best regards,

Uolgac (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, while it is often a good idea to take an existing article as an example for a new one, one has to remember that WP is an ongoing project and that such existing articles are not necessarily very good. That is the case here. I have tagged the article you mentioned for the same problems. WP is not a directory and listing labs working on a certain subject is not necessarily very useful, as such information may change regularly, is difficult if not impossible to keep current, and it is difficult to make sure that the information is complete and the list is not some eclectic selection. The flags should go, to start with and you need independent sources that discuss the subject of the list (that is, articles about biofluid mechanics research groups, not just one such a group) to show that the subject is notable. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your input! I removed the flags and we are contacting researchers in the field so that they can contribute to the article as well. Uolgac (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Is it possible to have this restored to my userspace so I can tone down any advertising. I have'nt edited it before, except remove speedy tag as they are quite well known thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done It's at User:Atlantic306/Franklins Brewing Co.. You should not put it back into main space without making it neutral and encyclopedic. First priority should be to add independent reliable sources establishing notability, otherwise you risk speedy deletion as A7, even if it is NPOV. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for RS, and make it NPOV, then if its ok I will ask you to look at it to make sure its acceptable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I would like to re-submit the Luke Gamble page that was deleted. I have the sources to back things up now. Is this ok? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Gamble (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Although this was deleted as A7, it also was a copyvio of this site. I'm sorry, but I cannot restore copyvios. --Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, i had amended the copy (after you had noticed this) to be different from that page - please can you check? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Gamble (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked the last versiojn and it contained significant amounts of text from the website that I linked to. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you didn't see the last version as this is completely different? Either way, I would very much like to create a new page please. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Gamble (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the last version before deletion. You can create a new article provided that: 1/ it is written in a neutral and encyclopedic way, 2/ is not promotional, and 3/ contains references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, 4/ show that the subject meets our inclusion criteria, and 5: in no case contains any copyright violations. As you seem to be the subject himself, please also read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO first. Writing a biographical article is very difficult, even if one has enough distance from the subject. Writing one about yourself, although not explicitly forbidden, is even more difficult and if you meet our inclusion criteria, it usually is better to wait until somebody else creates an article about you. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I will definitely do this. How can i create a new page as it is still saying it has been deleted. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Gamble (talk • contribs) 13:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the delete message, go to the edit window, edit your text, click save. That should do the trick. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I know many editors have information about themselves on their user page but User:Luke Gamble seems very promotional, more like a LinkedIn page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and I've deleted it as U5 (although G11 would certainly have been applicable, too). Luke, this is not the kind of content that is appropriate for WP. I strongly recommend that you first get the hang of editing WP by contributing to articles with which you do not have a COI, before creating new articles. As I said above, writing an acceptable autobio is very difficult without a large experience with WP and it is pretty rare that such articles survive. --Randykitty (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why have you removed the change in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarqaviPalladin (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article Karabash is a perfectly acceptable (and necessary) disambiguation page. You overwrote it with a different article and then moved it to a new name, which destroyed the original page. This is absolutely unacceptable. I restored the original situation. In addition, the article you wrote was rather incomprehensible. It wasn't clear to me whether it was about a person or a family. The sourcing was also absolutely inadequate. WP is a serious encyclopedia. Everything we write needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. I removed your changes to Karachay, because they didn't seem to be an improvement, no explanation was given, and no source was provided. Your article on The House of Duda suffers also from the above problems: it is nearly incomprehensible and badly sourced. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I expose links to the article The House of Duda. There are not many English references. In Karabash article, I am tangled up. In the English-language wiki harder to edit. :( --DarqaviPalladin (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean, but it would seem to me that you have some problems with the English language. For example, the expression "the house of" is not used very frequently in English and then only for royal houses (e.g., House of Savoy). Is that the case here? And why is the article titled as if it is about a family, but only really discusses one person, who has a different name ("Dudov"), with only a single reference (in which he has yet another name ("Dudalany"). By the way, the English of you source is also really bad and reads like an uncorrected machine translation... It would perhaps be better if you concentrated on editing wikis using languages with which you are more familiar. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, The below mentioned text (#) is exactly copied from the website www.midnapore.in for the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnapore - But there is no NOTES about the website. My humble request is to mention the website link from where the text is being copied.

(#) This area had taken a pioneering role in India's freedom struggle. A large number of freedom fighters who had bravely faced the gallows are the sons of the soil of Midnapore. To free their motherland from the yokes of bondage, they had willingly sacrificed themselves in the freedom pyre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arindambhowmik (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• If there are no reliable sources about a suject, then we cannot write about it on WP, because everything here must be verifiable. Whether a subject is worthy or not is actually irrelevant (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I’m the user who created the article Beletra Almanako, which has been deleted in a matter of just a few hours. The reason is it was considered promotion. Why is it that such an article about a well-known by Esperantists magazine (see here that Beletra Almanako is the 2nd most popular magazine) is deleted, whereas articles about the other popular magazines, like for example La Ondo de Esperanto, Monato, Kontakto, Esperanto, are allowed in the encyclopedia? Please tell me where I’m not following the logic… Best regards, Aleks Aɴᴅʀᴇ (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article was not written in a neutral way, so much so that it was judged too promotional (I proposed it, the reviewing admin deleted it, meaning that it was judged too promotional by two experienced editors). As for the other articles, there are over 5 million articles here and some of them are bound to be below our usual standards, but that is a reason to do something about those articles, not to create more like them (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I had a quick look at the articles that you mention above and those are indeed all pretty weak. Some tips on creating good articles on magazines can be found in our magazine article writing guide. Hope this explains and helps. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, could I at least have a copy of the original content saved in the Draft space? It was a translation from the Esperanto article and I obviously can’t improve it so that it requires the standards you expect if it stays deleted. Thanks in advance. — Aleks Aɴᴅʀᴇ (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is up to the deleting admin to decide on undeleting the article and move it to draft space. I see you have already contacted him. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thank your for your quick answers. Just to know: as far as I know, there is no Draft space on WP-FR, where I contribute most of the time. For this, I’m not that familiar with the concept. My question is: is it possible to create from scratch an article directly in the Draft space on WP-EN, so that it can stay there much longer? This way, it would be convenient to edit it enough before upgrading it to a normal article, wouldn’t it? — Aleks Aɴᴅʀᴇ (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the idea. Generally, articles in draft space are not speedily deleted for reasons of being too brief or lacking believable claims for notability. However, note that drafts sometime do get deleted as spam if they are judged too promotional. Stale drafts (i.e., drafts that haven't been edited for more than 6 months) also get routinely deleted, as articles are not supposed to linger there indefinitely. Draft space is intended to give an editor more time to work on an article until it is ready for main space. Articles should be moved to mainspace, by the way, not simply copied. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This hasn't been working for me lately. E.g. when I recently created European Addiction Research, I searched for the ISSN in the catalog [2] and nothing came up. Do you know why this is the case, e.g. is there something wrong with the ISSN listed for the journal on their own website, or with the catalog? Everymorning (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• The ISSN is fine, but not every journal is in the LoC (most Elsevier titles aren't, for example). This one seems to be absent, too (I've also searched on title and CODEN). --Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Maris racal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel this shows a lack of respect and interest for a wiki to be deleted so soon without any research being done first. LIJ7 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SIGNIFICANCE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And let me add WP:OWN to that. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey... please... Can you not delet my page of Veronica Vitale??? She is an Italian Singer and the information is true check out her web site www.veronica-vitale.com And search about of Veronica Vitale on google and youtube Davidborder (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have undeleted the latest version and moved it to your userspace (User:Davidborder/Veronica Vitale). You can work on it there without being interrupted. Once it is ready, let me know and I'll have a look and perhaps move it back into article space. Be sure to include references to reliable sources that show that this person is notable (in the WP sense). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to let you know about this. Best wishes, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC).

• What can we do about this? Plugee (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It made me laugh... Whether it's defamatory depends on your point of view. It is defamatory to say that Beall is Randykitty, but to think that I could be an eminent personality like "a Jeffrey Beall" is actually quite a compliment to me :-) I wouldn't worry about it. My real-life identity is known to several editors here, most of them admins and is registered with ArbCom. So personally I'm not much concerned about an anonymous blog of "a group of a group of Open Access supporters from around the world" (more likely a single person connected to OMICS). Most other posts on this blog are definitely defamatory with regards to Jeffrey Beall, but personally, I'd ignore it. Nobody who reads it will give these rants much credence. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Randykitty Don't let it worry you. That's preposterous, what that person wrote. I suspect it could be one of the people you've dealt with in the past, many people don't take things too well, especially if their articles are deleted. You're one of the finest administrators here. Keep at it and don't let anyone deter you. PaulAshford (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting Plugee I'm a tad curious as to what you mean by "what can WE do about this?" No suspicions here, just a tad curious that's all PaulAshford (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I created the page for Clay J. Cockerell a while ago and it has since been deleted. It shows that you were the person who deleted the article and would ask that you restore it. It said that the article was advertising or promotion which I disagree with but did not have a chance to state so prior to it being deleted. Thanks for your consideration. --Studenttopics (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had a second look at it and the article is clearly promotional, so I'm afraid that I cannot restore it. You can try WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made the request for undeletion at the link you provided. It says that I should notify you of such. Thanks again for your consideration. --Studenttopics (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Azimo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Theroadislong, next time better check the article history first :-) Adam9007 has already restored the redirect per the AFD. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was my pages deleted by you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthaka2014 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Insofar as I could decipher (I'm afraid the English and writing was a bit muddled), this was too promotional. WP is an encyclopedia and articles should be written in a neutral way. Starting an article with "Homage to the Blessed One, the Noble One, the Perfectly Enlightened One" is not really encyclopedic, nor is it neutral... --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the page was about a temple/ a mansion created to respect the Gautama Buddha who was a great spiritual leader lived about 2600 years ago. I believe the Wikipedia readers should be able to read and see such a wonderful creation (please see here: http://mahamevnawa.lk/siri-gauthama-sambuddha-raja-maligawa/). I was going to update this page with more details and figures later. Who knows; sometime in the future people may categorize this great creation as one of the wonders of the world, as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_the_World_(disambiguation). Please consider undeletion of this page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthaka2014 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You should have a look at other articles about similar temples, to get a feel for how such articles are written. What you wrote is simply unencyclopedic and not useful. Also, you should better not write about subjects that you feel so strongly about, because if you think this temple may become one of the wonders of the world, that would really make it difficult to write in an encyclopedic and neutral way about it. --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If that is the case, your argument should apply for the WP articles that talk about world wonders too. Would you go delete those articles too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthaka2014 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources document that something is being widely regarded as a world wonder, that is admissible. What I mean is, however, that it sounds like it will be difficult for you to write an encyclopedic and neutral article on this temple. --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that for articles such as Lists of free press magazines in english language in Florence, Italy that include some content, though very little, speedy deletion for no content is not appropriate. No content really involves just external links, no content at all, rephrasing the title, or something very obvious — even a sole infobox with some information filled out counts as content for the purpose of speedy deletion. Please don't use the no content speedy deletion tags (or any speedy deletion tags) in those cases. Anyway, just letting you know / reminding. Thanks! Appable (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The content, as far as I can see, is two external links. It's a pretty useless list and unlikely to ever grow much. I'll take it to AfD so that a bunch of editors will have to waste time on this. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that the article — Manoj Muntashir was deleted due to absence of reliable sources according to biography of living persons. But now, I have enough reliable sources to claim the article such as IMDb, Mid-Day, Bollywood Hungama, Hindustan Times and many more. Also, the person is notable enough. So, I please request you to restore the article and add a one more feather in this great repository of Knowledge, Wikipedia ! I have already requested for its restoration at WP:REFUND.❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see it already has been restored. Please note, however, that IMDb is not a reliable source usable for showing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Just showing appreciation for your hard work! PaulAshford (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Criminal Justice Abstracts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Vano 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an april fool's joke, right? RK does not create spam articles. Restore the article at once, please. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, it's a bloody redirect to EBSCO Information Services. How on Earth is this promotional? --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• RHaworth, Jimfbleak, I'm with Randykitty and Headbomb here, and have restored the (innocent) redirects. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth, Drmies, Headbomb I assumed that there were other providers of Criminal Justice Abstracts, Clinical Reference Systems, and Art Full Text and that to redirect to just one provider was spamming, so these were GF deletes and not April Fools. I am, of course, happy to accept the assurances of fellow editors that EBSCO is the sole global provider of these services, apologies for my misunderstanding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, apologies accepted. Don't fret too much about it, its a specialized field and if it had been another field, I might have been doing the deleting... You know what they say about people who never make mistakes :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here, Jimfbleak--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I need specific reason why you delete the company page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeehafez (talk • contribs)

Actually, you have gotten this explanation multiple times, most notable from DGG. Your article has been deleted multiple times under different names by multiple admins. It is time that you start reading the policies and guidelines linked in the "welcome" template at the top of your talk page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I understood that the page has been removed on the grounds of promotion and advertisement.

as i am fresh user of Wikipedia , i am not sure , how does wikipedia take a call as such , for example look at the below wiki links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box8

We have been covered in few news papers here and we have provided their references as well. So we are a startup , we cant have a place on Wikipedia. As we are someone who is strongly going to create a impact for people's health , i just want to know , what makes it valid for HealthSaathi LifeCare to be part of Wikipedia.

Sorry ,if i am not supposed to question you like this. I would appreciate your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajasekhar153 (talk • contribs)

• "We": please read WP:COI. Your article was deleted because it was promotional. As for those other articles that you refer to, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I created the Elizabeth Kronk Warner page and it was flagged for not having a reliable source, (I didn't have any sources at the time). I have updated it and added two sources, and I was wondering if they would be considered reliable?

Here they are:

https://law.ku.edu/kronk

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-advisory-committee-u-commission-civil-rights-announces-180000015.html

If neither of these are reliable enough, please let me know! If so, I tried to delete the tag but I think I messed up. Thank you so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqueku (talk • contribs)

• I see the page was deleted as a copyvio, so I guess this is moot now. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not appreciated your removal of the text you have removed about the Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics. This Journal is run pro bono. I am not paid to be Editor. Nor are any of the section editors. The copyediting is paid for by the BCS (Britiish Computer Society) as part of its charitable mission. The journal is free to publish in and free-full-text online. The goal of the journal is to publish good science (about informatics) free to publish, free to ready. (There are no adverts either!)

Frankly, your actions leave me thinking that it is not work entering information into Wikipedia. Please consider restoring the text you have removed? It meets all of the criteria set out for Wikipedia. Lusignan S (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, I won't restore the text that I removed, because it was promotional. In this sense, "promotional" does not necessarily imply any pecuniary interest. Many people come to WP to promote ideas, non-profit organizations that they feel strongly about, bands they admire, and what not. I understand that as editor-in-chief of this journal, you feel strongly about it. That makes it difficult for you to write in a neutral and encyclopedic way about it. The information in the article as it stands is neutral and verified by references to reliable sources, 2 of them independent of the journal itself. If you want to add to the article that the journal "publishes high-quality research papers", then you need a source independent from the journal that actually says this, if not, it's just promotional. For advice on how to write a neutral and informative, well-sourced article on an academic joournal, please see our journal writing guide. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you delete the page again? It seems like my RV and your delete crossed path.--Cahk (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, can you please delete this as unfortunately its too small to be notable ( only 2 full timers who are the owners), also theres a scarcity of RS. ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Jigar inamdar is very big name why u delete i dont know even u can see the image with mr narendra modi with jigar inamdar. Tmpanchal7 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article was not dleted because of a lack of notability, but because it was promotional. You are free to create a neutral, well-sourced article showing sufficient notability (the sources you gave are absolutely inadequate for that) at the correct title (i.e., not "JIGAR INAMDAR" but "Jigar Inamdar"). --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like the Exioms account (isn't that a username violation btw)? just tried to impersonate you in a comment on the deletion discussion. JamesG5 (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. One more "mistake" like that and I'll block them. --Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Just a FYI, the reason I removed that banner you added was because Terry D. Scheerer is "NOT" "NOT" "NOT" alive! Thank you for your time on this matter. Davidkmontoya (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• The policy on BLPs also applies to the recently deceased. In any case, the issue is moot as the article has been deleted as G4 and is now salted. --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 10 Men (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 10 Magazine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, Thanks for your welcome message. Did you by any chance delete the new page I had created entitled 'Federal union of states'? If so, could you please restore it? A possible reason for deletion could have been an insufficient number of verifiable third party citations confirming the existence of this political concept. Here is an additional one I would now like to add: 'It is more than a confederation of sovereign states; ... the EU should not become a federal state. ... On the other hand, (commentators) would be wrong not to understand the EU as a federal union'. Nicolaidis, Kalypso (2004) 'We, the Peoples of Europe...', in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 6, 2004, pp. 101-2. Thanks for your help on this. Federalunion (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, Just seen your redirects under the 'Watchlist' tab, indicating similar pages already in existence. I don't this is quite right (at least for the 'Federal union of states' page), as the federal state and the federal union of states are two distinct concepts and it is important that people know about and understand the difference between these two sub-forms of federalism. Just redirecting to the 'Federalism' page doesn't seem sufficient. One involves federalism (ie. shared governmental powers) based upon the foundations of a single sovereign people and state, while the other involves federalism based upon many sovereign peoples and states. Examples of the former are the US, Germany, India and Switzerland. A modern example of the latter is the EU. There is currently a page for the federal state/federation, but there isn't one for the federal union of states. Regarding the same concern with my other page, the 'Federal political system', I can appreciate that this might be felt too similar to federalism. It is a term used in political science, however, to refer specifically to political systems rather than the form of government; and again I wanted to clarify that it comprises two distinct sub-forms, but I am happy to leave this out if you want... Cheers, Federalunion (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Given your comments above, it would appear that a redirect of "Federal political system" to "Federalism" really was needed, but doesn't justify a separate subject. As for "Federal union of states", it seems to me that this would better be treated in the article "Federal state", as the subjects are closely related and treating them in the same article will make it easier to explain the difference between them than having two separate articles. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that would be a bit like treating 'women' under the heading 'men', rather than giving each a separate page, both being species of the genus 'human'. The 'federal state' and the 'federal union of states' are the two species of the genus 'federal system', and so deserve a separate page each, I think, else one would appear privileged over the other... Federalunion (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• At this point, "Federal system" redirects to "Federalism". This is not my field, but it looks like you are proposing a rather big reorganization of all this material. Creating new articles doesn't seem to be a good approach, given the large articles that already exist. I suggest that you first discuss this at the talk page of the appropriate wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics) and try to obtain consensus for such an undertaking first. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Randykitty, don't you think this is a username violation? Drmies (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think so. As far as I can see, it's not an organization. It's like somebody interested in monarchy calling themselves "Kingdom". Unless I'm missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've re-deleted and salted Mohamed Rayazan and its talkpage. Poor kid just doesn't get it. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

Not sure I'm on totally board with the deletion of Ken Boylan. Honestly, I have no idea who he is, but the stub referenced him as being the recipient of a makeup artist of the year award, which seems like enough to establish at least initial note potential. Was cleaning up a bit and tagging when you deleted. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't delete it as A7, where a (halfway) credible claim like this may be enough to prevent speedy deletion, but as G11 (promotional). I just had another look at it and still think it's just spam. As for notability, have a look at the reference for the award. They gave out over 20 awards, for categories varying from "Best Nail Salon" to "Best Irish Beauty Blogger"... If you really want to have a go at it, I suggest you look for better sources that actually discuss this person in-depth and then create a new article from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, the page Nathan Lee has been vandalized repeatedly. Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. NathanLeeFanPage (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• The vandalism was minor and seems to have calmed down, so protection is not necessary at this point. The article is badly sourced and full of claims that are not supported. In addition, you seem to have a conflict of interest. Are you perhaps also the same editor as NathanLeeMusiccFans? --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For excellent Whack-a-mole skills! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

-)) --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

They're back. It's amazing that academics do not understand COI and copyright. Creator's user name is very similar to the journal's current editor-in-chief.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Deleted, again. Ironically, if only they would follow the instructions in WP:JWG, they could create a neutral article, because the journal seems notable... For your amusement, have a look at this. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Recreated with name calling. Check the talk page. (You're a good admin, ignore the names :) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminds me of whack-a-mole... As the title is incorrect anyway (capital J), I have salted it. I have also contacted them on their talk page. Let's hope they listen. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I ws hoping you would just block them for the N*** comment. They've got COi, methinks.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been called things like that before and have a tick skin. And I just last week saw Seinfeld's episode on The Soup Nazi, so I take it that way :-) I've seen COI editors turn into useful editors before, so I won't give up on them yet. Also, I never block anybody for insulting me. If it's really bad, I take it to ANI so that somebody else can have a second look at it and do the blocking if needed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a Wikipedia version of this.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi RandyKitty! I had created a page, Sleek Kitchens which was deleted. Based on your instructions, I did modify the references to better conform to WP:CORP guidelines. I had also hoped that by ensuring all the references are to the point and arise from notable mainstream media outlets, the issue of notability would not arise. Apart from these changes, you had also specifically stated that the primary concern was not the phrasing of the content but the quality of references. Can you please point to any other details why the page was deleted? Is there any way I can restore the page? Thanks! Sportonion555 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, this was discussed (with links to the applicable policies and guidelines) in the deletion discussion for that article. You can restore the page in theory by going to deletion review, if you feel that the deletion decision did not adequately represent consensus or that some substantial sources were overlooked somehow. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Randykitty. Hoping to restore the page; have already shared my views on deletion review. Cheers! Sportonion555 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

bit late on notice but remember when you deleted the band Darke Complex? You forgot to get rid of this too. Second Skin (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can't say I remembered that one... :-) Anyway, I've now deleted the article on the EP, too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty,

I just wanted to apologize for the Edmond_de_Rothschild_Foundations & Ariane_de_Rothschild_Fellowship pages you marked for speedy deletion, as their styles were indeed not respecting the Wikipedia guidelines. As this operation was not focused on advertising, but rather on completing the Wikipedia pages on the Rothschild family, I'll submit a most appropriate version of these articles within a few weeks.

I will make all the efforts to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, and will stay available if you want to make any inquiry about the articles.

Best Regards,

Youzn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youzn (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

should that exist, in your view? Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, almost forgot about this. Not sure whether this book series is notable, but the article is rather disastrous and should certainly not exist in this firm, WP is not for posting tables of contents... I'll apply my machete and then we'll see what is left. --Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That is what I thought you would say, but i never know about these things. :) Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a serious misunderstanding here. These books contain reviews of topics of major importance for human health. The article is not just a list of contents, Each chapter entry has links to WP articles. I have been working on this for many years already and it has not been challenged before. I have reverted your edit. Please move the contents of this section of your personal talk page to Talk:Metal Ions in Life Sciences where it belongs, and continue the discussion there.Petergans (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. This is a work in progress as I have only covered the first 3 chapters. I will let you know when have finished; we can then discuss the legitimacy issue.Petergans (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• A bunch of external links to publishers' websites? That's spam in my eyes. Tagged accordingly. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

See my comments abovePetergans (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that a page you deleted was recreated, in violation of A7, A11, G11, et al. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Deleted again... --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you want me to watchlist it in case it is recreated again? Quis separabit? 16:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention the talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops too, forgot to delete the talk page. Done, thanks for letting me know! --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, I don't understand your point, a name is a name - who cares. Please do not block my username. JTCommunications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.50.186 (talk • contribs)

• Your username gives the impression that you are editing on behalf of a company (JT Communications (jtcomms.com/), which is against our username policy. You can ask for a rename or start a new account (instructions are given in the template on your talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please delete this page. We are creating a new page with citations. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanLeeFanPage (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

NathanLeeFanPage (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)NathanLeeFanPAge

• The article is at AfD (az deletion discussion) and can only be deleted, if such is the outcome of the discussion, after that debate has finished. If the outcome (as seems highly likely) is "delete", then any re-creation of the article under this or any other name will only result in a speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G4). If you have significant sources as you say above, you should participate in the AfD and present those sources there to prevent deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bit concerned that we have a bio article essentially just saying "opposition to this government law is rare if non-existent, nobody ever openly identifies themselves, but look here, a Facebook post and a YouTube comment made under somebody's real name" - this reads more like using primary sources to paint a target, than to document a notable campaigner. The sentences about vocal opposition don't seem to be supported by the sources given, though, so I've speedied the article on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Given that I already PRODded it, I won't perform the speedy deletion, even though I actually agree with it. On the other hand, a reviewing admin may find that there's a credible claim for notability (again, I don't think so, but another admin may disagree). In any case, this will never survive AfD if it comes to that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty you have nominated my page to speedy deletion. please let me no how to prevent the deletion ? How may I edit that page to prevent deletion ? — Preceding Anuja Kapur comment added by Anuja kapur001 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article as it stands is promotional and does not show how this person (you yourself?) is notable. We need independent reliable sources that discuss Kapur in depth to show notability. If you are indeed this person, please read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

please tell me how can I edit these things to prevent deletion ? it is the biography of Anuja Kapur who is the Indian Psychologist

Hi Randykitty. Could you also salt Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka? Both were created (and already speedy'd) by blocked user User:Dumindu111222. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Randykitty (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrongful deletion. Every company and brand has their own wikipedia page. How come Agro Hub is not allowed to have one? Microsoft, Apple, Fiverr, Cargurus, Carfax etc etc etc.... The tailor shop at the corner of my street has a wikipedia page with just three lines of text. How come Agro Hub is not allowed to have a wikipedia page? If there are amendments needed to be made to my page, I will be more than happy to amend the article. Please, tell me what is the difference in Agro Hub wikipedia page and let's say Cargurus wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherazkhan1988 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Your article on Agro Hub was deleted for being promotional. As for all those other pages, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not to mention a blatant Copyright violation of http://ahiwestcoast.us/about-us/ McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Miranda, I have my Wikipedia learner's hat on so appreciate your advice and time, thanks. In my sandbox (which I assume you have access to) I have deleted some of the info so that the article only gives facts. May I also mention that Wikipedia already has pages for online tutoring/education companies. In addition, Studypool's founder was, and still is, the youngest CEO to have raised over US$1 million in venture capital while in the 500 Startups Accelerator. Wikipedia is an important feature of most students' study and the Studypool page is an advice resource of benefit to students. Cheers, Sue SuzExplorer (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)SuzExplorerSuzExplorer (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I had a look at your sandbox and the article really is not acceptable as it stands there either. First of all, you should put the references there where they support a statement: "XXX is based in Mumbai<ref>first reference</ref> and the largest producer of teddy bears in India.<ref>second reference</ref>" This way, other editors can more easily verify that what you have written follows the sources. Second, and more important, the article is not written in a neutral way (for example: "As of October 2015, the company has served over 1 million students, hosts 35,000 tutors and has reach in every country in the world." sounds like it comes from a brochure on the company, rather than a neutral encyclopedic statement). Third, the article does not yet make a good case that this company is actually notable, because the sources are either not reliable or mention the company just in-passing. The only substantial coverage is the techcrunch.com source, but I am not sure that is a reliable source and we generally require in-depth coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject to establish notability. In the foregoing I have included links to the relevant policies and guidelines, please take a moment to read them. I hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

This article about the company was added as the company has received significant funding, is one of India's highly regarded start-up companies and has received the Microsoft bizspark award as well.

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/startup-space-column-starting-on-a-freshdesk-a-virtual-customer-support-software-service/article6430036.ece

could you clarify what other information you need to restore this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espritdemars (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored the page, but you'll need to put in some effort to make it an encyclopedic article and to format it accroding to our style guide. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You PROD'd Barry D. Jordan and it was quickly recreated at Barry Jordan. Do you think this is worth an AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sigh... It looks like a paid editing job, with the exaggerated sourcing. There's more than in the previously deleted version. I still don't think he'd make WP:ACADEMIC, but the media coverage might make him squeak by GNG/BIO. In any case, the article does need pruning and the references need careful checking. I'm afraid that I don't have the time for that myself right now. You could consider a posting at the COI noticeboard, as this article with its impeccable formatting was created in just a few edits by a "new" editor (and not the same one as the previous article)... --Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I added the tag - but will sit on it a bit more before deciding what to do. AS you said there is more there than before. Thanks for the response.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

RandyKitty would you please identify the user who created the first version? If it is a different user than the new one, we can probably do an SPI here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that was Drbarryjordan, who claims to be a certain Marisa who works with the good doctor. --Randykitty (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that was softblocked for a username issue so opening a new account wouldn't be socking, necessarily. So no SPI. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog's clean-up made it much more palatable. I am happy to leave it alone.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if it's OK for Wikielite360 to userfy the content that was posted at Phil America. He's new, but from what I can see he's done a pretty impressive job on fleshing out Draft:Charlie Horton (footballer), so I think that he could probably be trusted to work on a userspace copy of Phil America and then submit it for your approval to see if he'd now pass NBIO. I've pinged him here, so I figure that you two can hash things out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Umi Garrett requested. Awards are minor, does not meet Wikipedia criteria for musician notability.

DinosaurKiller (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)DinosaurKiller

(talk page stalker) The correct place to ask for an article to be deleted is at Articles for Deletion. See here for what you should do. Amccann421 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A page you deleted earlier today has been recreated. Admittedly with more content but still little if any indicatio as to notability. The editor has self nominated it for CSD by including the {{Db-bio}} tag. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)