User talk:Shimeru/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Fresh Concepts

Deletion review for Fresh Concepts

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fresh Concepts. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oxenbrigg (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst Schools

Why have you deleted this page? Can this page be restored? It is not in any sort of violation of copyright. I hope I am able to fix what you perceive as infringement upon a copyright. Please contact me a.s.a.p.

Poccuo (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shimeru

As i have received authentic references from the government organizations for Haselfre Solutions, can I recreate the page. Advise pl. Thanks. Melquirrajan (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.6.47 (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Marriott

I think this should have been relisted for further input rather than closed. It should be noted that while some people commented, only one actual official 'keep' was registered, I'd like to think a firmer consensus was required in this new era of BLP vigilance. Please reconsider. MickMacNee (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Burns (actor) was re-listed about 20 minutes before you closed it as a re-direct. Do you also think its possible to allow this discussion to run its course since it was re-listed? (I dont think the outcome will change much, but its always nice to have a firm consensus. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. One of the downfalls of tabbed browsing -- but I should've known to check first. Shimeru (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanksOttawa4ever (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GiftWorks

Hello, I had created a page for my company, GiftWorks Software. Everything on the page was strictly factual and informative (non-advertising), yet you chose to delete it. Is there a way to get this back?

Thank you

Re: The Catalyst Schools

Thank you for clarification and please understand that I am trying to learn the best way to communicate with you on this. Forgive me if there are any errant comments on your Talk page or otherwise.

The Catalyst Schools are our client. They have employed us to build a website for them, generate copy for that website, and subsequently generate a Wikipedia article entry for them. How can we best prove to you that we not only generated this content, but are acting as representative of TCS in generating this page?

Terri Summers

So does this mean that I can't have the article userfied like I requested during the AFD? Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Userfied to User:Dismas/Terri Summers, along with its talk page. Shimeru (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tim Marriott

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tim Marriott. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyontyli Goffney (2nd nomination)

There was never any counterargument made in the discussion about whether he met #3 of WP:PORNBIO. Do you have a reason for why you closed the discussion with Delete instead of No Consensus, and also an argument of why he doesn't meet #3? Silverseren^C 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The same reason, in fact -- I don't believe that the sources provided show that he has begun any trends or starred in any groundbreaking, blockbuster, or iconic features. "A pretty big deal" isn't indicative of that sort of transformational performance, and I saw nothing else to indicate any kind of lasting impact. Shimeru (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that more of you putting your personal opinion over the discussion made? Silverseren^C 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Otherwise I'd lose my "power-mad rogue admin" credentials. Shimeru (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then...I guess you won't mind if I take it to WP:DRV? Silverseren^C 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, if you think it's best. Shimeru (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please move the article on Keyontyli Goffney to my user space? I would like to keep updating it as new information becomes available. Thanks! GBataille (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's now at User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. Shimeru (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nathaniel Adam Briggs

It doesn't seem right at all that there was a 3-2 in favor of keeping, then with 1 vote over, you delete the article without due process. The KEEPs outnumbered the DELETES for a period of time, then poof one added DELETE vote kills the article. Seems incredibly bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignerHuman (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Shimeru (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cumberland Police Department (Maryland)‎

Thanks, good call. Rklawton (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilderness Air

Your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilderness Air of deletion, where numbers were 3 in favour of keeping the article and 3 in favour of deletion aside from the nom. At WP:DRV, it said that first I should go to you the closing admin, and try to get some answers about this strange decision that really should have resulted in no consensus. I personally, while having no stake in the article myself, found this decision bizarre, to say the least. Please reply to me on my talk page. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD Cumberland PD

Hello! I was just wondering about the closure of this AfD. You said that the consensus leaned toward merge, but the !votes were: 6 keep, 5 delete, 3 merge...does't it default to keep ( WP:DPR)?--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were counting votes, yes. After looking over the sources, though, I didn't see any broader-scale sources about the police department itself. For instance, the Baltimore article would definitely be one, but it's not about the Cumberland PD, it's about the crime. The officer down page is about an individual officer, not about the department. The only sources about the department are very local in nature, and arguably not secondary. (The Cumberland web site, referencing a governmental organization run by Cumberland? I'm not sure we can really consider that independent.) That being the case, I'd normally be inclined toward delete, but with so many favoring keeping the material in some form, a merge to the Cumberland article seemed more appropriate. Shimeru (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

why

Hey shimeru, I've written a short article about the number 46175.

"Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject."

I disagree. This number has nothing directly to do with a person, with a group of people, with a band, with a club or a company. It's just a short description, cause I've read a lot of questions about this and since I know it I wanted to put that in here.

The only thing that missed, were the reference links, but as you maybe know on 4chan there is nothing saved so.. Also it maked no sense to have any contents on that, cause it's pretty short.

would appreciate if you bring it back somehow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metactyl (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

meta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metactyl (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite

With cogent rationales for deletion from six established editors (including the nominator), there was a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite. Of the three who supported retention, only one was an established editor, with the other two being an IP and a new user. Would you undo your relisting and close the debate? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV for Keyontyli Goffney

I have started a DRV for this subject article. Since you are the closing admin, I am informing you so that you can be involved in the process. Silverseren^C 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion FiveBooks

Hi there I saw when I came back to this discussion that FiveBooks was already deleted, but one of the criticisms was that although there was a reference in a national magazine to FiveBooks, that they weren't really interested in the interviewer, just in the interviewee, so that didn't make FiveBooks notable. I think it's a pretty unfair criticism of a media type operation, as I said before you could say no one is interested in the New York Times, only its stories, but just to address that criticism, here is another reference that I could just have easily have mentioned: http://press.princeton.edu/blog/2010/03/09/five-books/

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstephmay (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Lester

I respectfully ask did you actually review the page before you deleted it on the vote? The deleters no doubt have been around for a long time but the do not seem to have taken the time to look into the entry itself and just taking a follow the leader atitude i.e. "as per nom" etc. I had put in new links that showed the status of Denise Lester as a renowed professonal, who though UK based is called by both uk & US tv Networks and other media to answer questions on British law and how it affects other countries etc she is acting in a profession capacity which is held up before the Law Society for conduct etc, we were also in the process of locating government documents that she has worked on that pass into LAW passed by the British Parliament. As a secondary note I do not know who actually put the page up but were impressed with the general accuracy and only having to make some minor edits and additions. So in my opinion the deletion was to quick and unnecssary, is it possible to reinstate the page/disscusion so a more thoughtful disscussion could take place . Regards a disappointed new user who is trying to make a difference. Lvadmaker (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Shimeru I left a message on my talk page, asking for you to reistate the denise lester page to my space, not sure if you have seen it yet? Lvadmaker (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review Alex Hilton

Strangely for a deletion review, I'm not particularly bothered about the deletion, though I think I have achieved more than an unsuccessful boxer with a criminal history of violence. "Not notable" is a harsh way of putting it but I'm pretty thick skinned and can cope. To be fair there was a lot of nonsense on there from time to time, including information about me being married when I was not and about me being Paris Hilton's cousin, which is ridiculous.

However, the deletion came to my attention because voters in Chelsea & Fulham have started getting in touch with me with varying degrees of confusion over whether I am a criminal ex-boxer from Canada. This really is an unnecessary distraction and if you would like to undelete me temporarily until May 7th, that might save me some complicated correspondence.

Anyway, up to you. Feel free to email or phone me if you want to discuss it further

Alex Hilton, alexhilton@gmail.com, 07794 771 113 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhilton2010 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst Schools

Can you please send me the text that you deleted so that I may rebuild the page according to the wikipedia guidelines? I simply spent hours on this and in seconds you deleted the entry. If you could please help me out by sending me the text, or restoring the page that would be great.

I would appreciate any sort of response as you have stopped responding on my talk page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poccuo (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

errm

thanks, but you still did not answer on what I wrote:

" I've written a short article about the number 46175.

"Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject."

I disagree. This number has nothing directly to do with a person, with a group of people, with a band, with a club or a company. It's just a short description, cause I've read a lot of questions about this and since I know it I wanted to put that in here.

The only thing that missed, were the reference links, but as you maybe know on 4chan there is nothing saved so.. Also it maked no sense to have any contents on that, cause it's pretty short.

would appreciate if you bring it back somehow, cause the reason is really bad. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metactyl (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. It is, however, web content. There was no assertion of its importance, and there are, as you say, no references. It is, basically, something somebody made up one day. Current policy is to exclude such material.

You might try Urban Dictionary instead. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your significant contribution to the progress of the London Victory Parade of 1946. I have been hoping to get more, at least medium-term, input there from an objective veteran editor such as yourself. Particularly over the last 6 weeks. Any chance you could spare some time ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite again

Did you miss my comment at User talk:Shimeru#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite? The debate has been relisted again despite the clear consensus to delete. Would you close this AfD? Cunard (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's already been closed as a deletion. Shimeru (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We Are The In Crowd- please review deletion

Hello,

I'd like to request the page for We Are The In Crowd to be reviewed and restored. They were deleted for not being a notable band. However, they are signed to a reputable label, tour nationally on large tours, have releases on Amazon and iTunes, and are covered regularly in national print and online press. They are also endorsed by major companies like Fender and Ernie Ball. Below are a few of the links covering the band.

Hopeless Records
Absolute Punk (all posts tagged with "We Are The In Crowd"
Punknews.org
AntiMusic
Fender
Fearless Radio
iDobi Radio interview
AltSounds
Vans Blog
Puregrainaudio

There is a lot more coverage, but hopefully the above will help you reconsider.

Thank you!

Jafee1977 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras

Thank you so much for your decision to allow my article to be kept. It has been such a valuable tool for the establishment of my career to date, and has led to a interviews, and other opportunities, that I previously did not have access. Just wanted to express my personal thanks for your decision, and I thank you so much for your support. Adam kontras (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the sort of statement that inspires confidence regarding your motives. Anyway, a 'no consensus' is a little different from a consensus to keep. Both keep the article on the site, but the former is a weaker case than the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if the article were reconsidered later, unless some more solid sources can be found. Shimeru (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Appologies, was just excited that I survived. Maybe the noteability issue will not be such an issue next time around if I can get enough publicity out of this, I know it has worked so far, that is all I was saying. Adam Kontras 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)

Could you possibly relist my page for further discussion, I would love to not go through the last week again, in fear of losing it. Thanks Adam Kontras 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)

Since you requested it, done. I hope that this discussion will prove a little less... unusual than the previous one. Shimeru (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is actually going to wind up being even more "unusual", as I am inclined to believe that User:Adam kontras is actually a sockpuppet operated by Charles Groves, the person who caused all the vandalism and distractions in the last AfD nomination. Comparing the tone and language of this user's edits to those made by the many other accounts known to be operated by Charles Groves would make this rather clear. Keep in mind that the only account known to actually be operated by Adam Kontras was User:Adam4tvs, and that that account was banned for supposedly having a self-promotional name (a notion which I disputed on the talk page of the user who did the drive-by ban). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is possible. So far, though, it hasn't affected the discussion. If you feel you have solid evidence, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is an option. Shimeru (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru, I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case with Charles Groves. He is the one who contacted you, not me. I'm more than exhausted however that no one here takes even a moment to do a tiny bit of research on the matter. You can see from the previous deletion that "Adam4tvs" was blocked and I was given a new username: Adam Kontras. Charles took the name Adam kontras, with a lowercase "k" to impersonate me and continue to harass me. Please close this and let it come up on it's own merits. If there was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus this week. More time has to pass.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also - just check the ip address of the lowercase "kontras". It's not coming from California where I live, it's coming from Virginia, where the stalker, Charles Groves lives. If you can't do this, I guess I can force the lawyers at wikipedia to subpoena his IP address. As he is crossing state lines to impersonate me, this is a federal issue. Again, please take down the deletion and allow it to rise and fall on its own merits. Nothing has changed to warrant a 3rd nomination.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia editors do some research before assuming that the subject of a Wikipedia page has nominated it for deletion? You're opening the door to all kinds of abuse on the site if you establish this sort of precedent.--Bradcwriter (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Denise lester page

Shimeru could you please copy the deleted article to a subpage of my user page, so I could continue working on the article to prepare it for relisting in the future. Regards Lvadmaker (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shimeru (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne

I notice this closure appears to ignore multiple opinions. You appear to have substituted your judgement for that of the individuals evaluating. Can you convince me you did not do so? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Can you tell me more precisely what you think I'm ignoring? Shimeru (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You stated "On the strength of the improvements so far; objections appear to have been addressed." Could you show me where that statement was made on the AFD page, or was that your judgement of the "improvements" to the vandispamcruftment? Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that was my judgement, yes. If objections are founded on WP:CORP, and reliable sources that meet WP:CORP are found, then it seems to me that those objections no longer apply, no? Now, some of the sources might be questionable, but I think the Grand Rapids Press, the Muskegon Chronicle, the New York Times, the court documents, the South Africa Daily Sun, and Claudia Gross's book are probably independent reliable sources for our purposes. Do you disagree? Shimeru (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

Don't know if I'm doing this right (rubbish with computers)... I see you've deleted the page about me (James Bibby) - any reason why?

Jim (email jimbibby@btinternet.com)

According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bibby. The primary factor was the absence of independent reliable sources to support an article. Also see WP:BLP. Shimeru (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia–Mongolia relations

As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination), I wonder if you'd be willing to comment on this. If I'm out of line in removing the box discussed in that thread, please let me know. Conversely, if you think the use of the box was improper, then I'd appreciate you letting the editor who used it know. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd say 'improper'... it's a bit odd, and not particularly helpful, but there's no policy against it that I'm aware of. I can say that I don't assign any more credence to it than I would a regular text comment -- in fact, it risks the opposite. I will note that it's not an established individual template, but rather the general-purpose Template:Ambox, so TfD isn't exactly an option. It is rather close to the template deleted at TfD in 2009, though.

Even so, editing someone else's comments in an AfD discussion is probably not a good idea.

I see you've approached the editor in question about it and been brushed off. If it's a serious concern for you, then WP:RFC/U might be an option. However, I might suggest first broaching the issue at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, to see what the general feeling about the issue is. Shimeru (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion seems like a good a venue to take this up at. I may just do that. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please reopen the Croatia–Mongolia relations AfD. None of the Keep voters could point to any sources, and AfD is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are sources in the article itself. They seem to be both independent and, at least in some cases, reliable. Can you explain in more detail why you feel this is not the case?

Also, as you're probably aware, 'no consensus' -- though it defaults to keep -- is not the same as 'keep.' An actual keep closure represents a consensus to keep the article. I saw no such consensus -- but also no consensus to delete the article at this time. I suspect it may well end up at AfD again in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One has to understand that the topic of the article is what needs sources. Compare, for example, Nigeria/France relations. Entire books have been written on the topic. You have mistaken primary sources for secondary sources. The definition of secondary source is that the source analyzes the topic. Per WP:PSTS, a lack of analysis by secondary sources means that the topic fails WP:N and therefore must be deleted. Any other outcome is vote counting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with that view, actually. (I wish we were more rigorous about sources, but that doesn't seem to be consensus.) I would need more time to go through the sources in depth and make that determination; I may not have time to do so for a couple of days. But even then, I'd feel compelled to list it again, rather than re-opening the now-closed AfD. With a no-consensus, there's nothing preventing rapid reconsideration of the article. In the meantime, I suppose the supporters will have their opportunity to strengthen the article further. If nothing significant happens, that might be telling in itself. Shimeru (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see from your vote in the above discussion that you see my point. "All high schools are notable" -- regardless of quantity or quality of sources. Just so, there are those who say all bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable. On what grounds do we deny that, if quantity and quality of sources are irrelevant? Once we've discarded sourcing, there is only consensus, and if consensus is to keep despite sourcing issues... well. You know. Shimeru (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)