User talk:Adam9007

Gameguide

Hey Adam, thanks for your gameguide tags. I'm not sure how you're coming across them, but is there anything holding you back from addressing them yourself? It's sometimes easier to delete the offending section than to tag the article. Either way, thanks for your contributions and welcome to WP:VG. czar 23:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czar:Depends on the complexity of the case. There was a simple one in Thunder Force III I removed myself, but others had larger amounts of it and I'm relatively inexperienced in making such big changes to articles. Adam9007 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, of course, but don't be afraid to be bold. And if I can be helpful, feel free to leave a ping. See you around, czar 23:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Adam, just wanted to encourage you again to be bold instead of tagging articles, especially when the changes are relatively minor. If you know enough to identify something as out of place, you know enough to see how it can be improved. Otherwise, when you tag, someone (like me) has to redo the work of figuring out what's wrong—at least for the general cleanup tags. (For instance, what's the issue at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)?) czar 21:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I tend to tread carefully unless it's blatantly obvious, especially for games I've never played. I'm also wondering how you do it so quickly! It would have taken me a lot longer to go through and correct it all, even for obvious things. As for what's wrong with that game, I'm not sure about the soundtrack and "Curiosities" (a rather odd section for an encyclopaedia) sections. Adam9007 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the curiosities section is an easy delete. (Generally, I'd either tag unsourced paragraphs with {{citation needed}} if it could be useful to have them sourced, but if there's little hope, I'd just remove it per WP:V.) WPVG consensus is to only include tracklists when the soundtrack has some notability of its own, which it somewhat does in this place, with articles about the soundtrack itself. If it might not be obvious what needs to get addressed, I'd appreciate if you would note the issue in the gameguide cleanup tag. Also, for what it's worth, cleanup tags are usually reserved for big, sweeping issues—I know you've seen the articles with all sorts of video game trivia, so tagging for a single section (easily deleted) is a bit overkill. Remember that the intent is getting the articles into a readable state, not necessarily turning them around. czar 22:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: The reason I'm afraid to be bold is because someone might decide I'm wrong and, instead of civilly discussing the issue, have a go at me and call me incompetent and threaten to report me, as has happened in the past (not with video game stuff though). As for tracklists, I know Jaguar: disagrees and has encouraged me to add album info (is that different to merely a game's tracklist? I think it is.) to Ridge Racer (video game), which I'm hoping to get to FA status (I had already got it to GA before I added the album info), so I hope I haven't introduced WP:GAMECRUFT there! Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In the end, you have to do what's comfortable. One way to handle situations like that is to be bold and don't engage if reverted—you could instead leave me (or another editor) a message asking what we think as a neutral party, so the burden isn't on you and you don't feel any obligation to follow-up on the edit. If a soundtrack isn't the subject of dedicated articles, there likely won't be a need for its own section within the article. If there is coverage of the soundtrack, it would need to be included for the GA/FA "breadth" requirement. As for Ridge Racer, I wouldn't say the tracklisting is particularly necessary (given its lack of specific coverage in the one soundtrack review), but I wouldn't care too much to fight it. czar 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Maverick Squad article correction

Hi Adam9007! I fixed the errors for the "Maverick Squad" article. Can you please check it and let me know if I missed anything? It would make my day! :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_Squad

ignore me

Accidentally undid an edit you reverted...Cursor jumped as I went to click on a link. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antiqueight: Yes, I saw it and I hit rollback AGF but you beat me to it!. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Higher.

Hi, I saw your removing {{db-a9}} from Higher. Can you explain why you think it does not meet WP:CSD#A9? 153.207.192.143 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because some of the producers had articles. A9 requires that nobody involved has an article.Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Rush Website Copyright removal

Hi Adam,

I'm the webmaster (and ICT teacher) at St.Joseph's School in Rush. Thanks for your message about copyright.

I was puzzled as to how our school web intro was copyrighted but you rightfully spotted a copyright notice at the bottom of the old school website.

This copyright text was an artefact from a website template that wasn't taken out (and probably should have been). I know the former ICT head who wrote it and they certainly didn't apply for any copyright. In any case, as the person now in charge of the school website, I'm more than happy for wikipedia to use some or all of it.

I'm having the first year students do research and find new material and sources to add to the page (which I will add if it's up to Wikipedia standards).

So would your suggestion be to paraphrase this and reference rather than block copy?

Many thanks,

Mr. D Murray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcuish (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dcuish: Another possibility is that copyright was automatically granted without anyone having to apply for one. Content on such websites is almost always copyrighted, even without a copyright notice. This means that even if there wasn't one it would still have been deleted on the assumption that it was a copyright violation. There is no indication that the text has been released under a compatible licence (see the links provided in my earlier message), so for legal reasons we must assume it has not been. If you are the copyright holder and would like to use the text here you should read WP:Donating copyrighted materials, and as you are the webmaster and a teacher and are having students find material for the page, you should also read WP:Conflict of interest. Bear in mind that there is no such thing as allowing use of the text on Wikipedia only, because content on Wikipedia is meant to be freely distributable; the text must be licensed so that anyone can use it. Or you could simply write it in original words, without using any of the text from the website. You should do that if you do not want others using and modifying the text on the website. Adam9007 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag

You are not an admin; why did you remove the speedy tag from Office warranty? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it does not come under any A7 category; a real person, organisation, individual animal, band/singer, web content, or organised event. Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Nothing in the description of that tag says you have to give a category, and this abstract notion doesn't fit into any of them. How about we restore the tag and let an admin judge this? Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it does ask you to give a category; the template asks that you use one of the specific ones. A7 only applies to articles whose subject is in one of those categories, so there's no point in restoring the tag. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, using the template without a category is just fine. it is one of three examples there. I am going to restore it. Please do not remove it. If you are correct, an admin will remove it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but using the "plain" A7 template for things outside its scope is not fine. A7 clearly does not apply. And as I am not the page's creator, I am perfectly entitled to remove speedy deletion tags. You'll just be wasting an admin's time. Adam9007 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask - how do you suggest we nuke the article? Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There are other deletion processes. Adam9007 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, tell me which one you think is most appropriate. I am asking since you have intricate knowledge of things. BIG HINT - help solve problems. Especially if you are an admin hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have suggested PROD if you think this is unsalvageable. But as we're arguing about it and others may disagree, perhaps it should be taken to AfD instead. Adam9007 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

same page, already prodded it. I will not waste the community's time with an AfD. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm having trouble finding sources. But if this was speedied, it would have been sent to DRV, where it would likely have been overturned and sent to AfD. You should have PRODded it in the first place. Adam9007 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You don't need to be an admin to decline bad speedies; merely an editor who isn't the article's creator (check the fifth paragraph of WP:CSD). For what it's worth, I contested numerous speedies (personal favourite) before getting the tools; indeed, doing that was a specific plus point to get them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And also to add: Adam9007 is quite correct that A7 applies ONLY to the categories listed at WP:A7: "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". It applies only to those named categories and specifically does NOT apply to other things such as "books, albums, software, or other creative works;" schools are also specifically excluded. I have been tripped up by this before, for example when I tried to apply A7 to a product (companies are OK, but products are not). Such articles can be prodded or AfD'ed but not speedied. I have sometimes disagreed with Adam9007 about what constitutes a "credible claim of significance" in speedy deletion, but on this point about categories he is absolutely correct. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Last time most certainly won't count as a plus if I ever have a RfA. As far as he was concerned, I was disruptive, incompetent, and deserved to be blocked!. Though if I recall correctly, MelanieN: here disagreed. @MelanieN: Another thing that irritates me is editors thinking that can squeeze/force certain things into one of the A7 categories, such as apps (i.e. computer programs) into the corporation category if it happens to be named after the company that developed it, or into web content if the article mentions it's downloadable form somewhere on the web. Adam9007 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledged at WT:SPEEDY that Adam9007 was correct about the use of A7 and that I was wrong and I also noted there, that I acted poorly in the discussion above. I'm acknowledging that here as well. That is all my bad.

This dispute led me to look at other speedy removals by Adam and I agree that Adam's judgement when it comes to "credible claim of significance" is off too often. This was discussed at WT:SPEEDY and others have urged him to recalibrate that Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The distinction among web content, software, and apps is subtle, as is the distinction between companies and products; I have more than once been tripped up in that area. As for the discussion you linked to (at which I agreed with everyone else in finding your interpretation to be incorrect), that was quite a while ago, and I think you have listened and learned since then. You do interpret the speedy criteria very literally and narrowly. But to a somewhat lesser extent, so do I (as was pointed out at my RfA). --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Maybe it's not that my interpretation too narrow, but rather others' is too wide? I'm not saying I think that is certainly the case; it's just a thought. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. If you find that you are WAY out of line with what everyone else is doing, it becomes not a matter of who is "right" but rather what the consensus interpretation is. That's not to say there can't be a range of interpretation; of course there can, and there is. But if a person is a lone outlier they may need to soften their position per consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec x a lot)The problem I have with bad speedies isn't necessarily that I think the subject is super-notable and deserves to have an article praising them to skies. Rather, it is when people discover an article has been speedied, they get the standard boilerplate to refer to WP:CSD. If they believe what is written there contradicts their experience, they will think Wikipedia admins are bullies, because Wikipedia is a public place that anyone can read and inform opinions about. (I do have emails and private messages documenting this, but nothing that can be reliably proven by Wikipedian standards, plus I don't want to "name names".) So we must make absolutely sure that speedies are watertight and can always be backed up perfectly with policy if any are challenged. For the record, I am no stranger to deleting stuff, either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My understanding is that admins are not obliged to delete anything (expect attack pages and copyvios) even if it meets the criteria. I think a lot of editors don't seem to understand that apart from G10 and G12 (and possibly G3 and G1 too, though I'm not sure about those), meeting the criteria means that it may be deleted, not must be. That might explain why some editors get shirty when I remove speedy tags if they think it should be deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You are perfectly within your rights to remove a speedy tag; just don't be surprised if the nominator promptly tags it with PROD. If you seem to have a pattern of removing speedy tags inappropriately, you will hear from the community, as you have already discovered. And of course admins are never obliged to delete anything; our responsibility is to make the final judgment call whether to delete it or not. That's why we are admins. BTW some of us (hi, Ritchie) are known for sometimes declining the deletion and instead improving the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's step back and take a look at the broader picture. As I understand it (this was before my time), "speedy deletion" was in itself kind of a controversial creation. All other deletion actions provide for some kind of community input and deliberation time. But speedy permits instant deletion, possibly within minutes, with the input only of the person who tagged it and the administrator who deleted it. So they deliberately set strict limits on what kinds of articles could be speedy deleted. In the years since it was established, there may have been a kind of informal relaxing of some of the rules, such that many people now try to use speedy deletion as a kind of catch-all for any article that obviously deserves to be deleted. Most people still strictly observe the "categories" of articles that may be speedy deleted, although as discussed here there are some gray areas. But even some of the explanations at WP:A7 now seem to allow for a "notability" test, which specifically was not a criterion for A7 at first. Although there may be an unofficial consensus to allow this, it can be argued (under a kind of "strict constructionism") that the original intent of the criteria should be observed, and thus that articles may not be A7ed for "notability" as long as they make a credible claim of significance. That's where Adam comes from, and it's a defensible position. On the other hand, "credible claim of significance" needs actual judgment applied. Vague claims like "award winning" or "first" or "fastest growing" or "prominent" - these are not enough in themselves; the award needs to be specified so we can judge if it actually amounts to anything, the "first" needs to be significant rather than trivial, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I believe it was Peridon: that said I should go for the spirit rather than the letter, and I think that "unofficial" interpretation of A7 goes against the spirit as well as the letter. If the intent changes, I think it should be implemented as a new criterion to avoid confusion, like A6 was replaced with G10. Adam9007 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My mention of spirit rather than letter came (I think) in an attempt to defuse an escalating dispute. There are cases where determining the actual letter isn't easy - is it m or n, or i or j - or even ı? Here's three possible articles with different scenarios. An article entitled 'The Church of the Golden Heart' isn't immediately obvious from the title. Are they a Church, or is it a church? (Upper and lower case used intentionally there.) If, when you read it, it's about 12 people (on a good day) meeting in someone's front room on Saturday mornings. That's almost certainly an A7. If, when you read it, it's about a brick building that was built in 1920 and has fallen down three times (without killing anyone as it was disused at the time), then it's not an A7. It's a prod and/or AfD. Now for the crunch. This time, the article talks about the Church of the Golden Heart meeting IN the church of the Golden Heart. It's 12 people again, meeting in a ratty non-notable building that has been used under several different names by other sects/cults/faiths/whatever. As neither of them has any interesting history, the article is well balanced and totally non-encyclopaedic. It's 50% an A7 case, and 50% a prod case. The letter would probably say it must be prod and delay the inevitable for possibly two weeks. The spirit (the Spirit of the Great Iar, one of the gods of encyclopaedias) says 'Heck - A7 it'. Apps are fairly certainly not A7 - unless one is lucky and the company has the same name and the article talks about both. I admit to being baffled recently by something about a Wordpress plug-in. Is that used on your machine or theirs? I played the part of the Pharisee and happily went to play somewhere else (I wasn't Sad-u-cee...). (No, I'm not apologising for that one.) Now, to someone who knows about Wordpress, that would have been obvious. Just as to me (who can't really read Bosnian), an article IN Bosnian recently was a blatant hoax. (I do know something about scientific names and wildlife and it took only two words to decide me. I did look at the Google Translation afterwards purely out of curiosity.) Discussions like this are worthwhile, and we can all learn from them. I think you're learning, and we could well see you with a mop in a few years. And by the way, The Church of the Golden Heart is fictional and not a reference to Golden Heart Ministries (who don't seem to have an article here, but came up on Google). Peridon (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: If it's 50% A7 and 50% PROD, I'll PROD it. The end result is the same and it won't harm anyone it's up for a few days. It follows both the spirit and the letter, and a chance to fix it has been given. Going back to what constitutes a credible claim of significance, there's isn't much to go by, and MrX: says I shouldn't go by what little we do have. What's the point in having those essays then? It would make life a hell of a lot easier if there was an official policy that dictates what's a credible claim of significance and what isn't. With all this talk about consensus and common practice, people seem to be forgetting that I'm not telepathic. If the community thinks something, it should be made official policy and documented in writing. Adam9007 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm encouraged by Peridon's participation in it. NPP is an area where experience and "clue" are more important than following a ruleset. When I first started reviewing new pages from new editors, I tended to tag a lot of articles for speedy deletion. Naturally, other editors and admins left corrective messages on my talk page, which helped me understand not only the importance of policy, but also the importance of using good judgement. I also started keeping a CSD log, to track and review my speedies. This feedback has helped considerably. 4500+ speedy deletions later, I still make mistakes, but I do try to learn from them. I would say that fewer than 2% of my speedy deletion nominations are declined by admins or other editors. When they are declined, and I still think an article is beyond salvation, I usually take it to AfD. I find that PROD is too easily removed, usually without explanation.- MrX 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• big picture here is that WP is awash in promotional editing - there is a firehose of crap being poured into WP (by "crap" i mean promotionally written, badly sourced or unsourced, "postings" - I won't even call them "articles" - that don't come close to providing the public with "accepted knowledge"). This is something that comes with being "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and being so important. Lots of people come here to promote themselves or to promote something; that is just human.

We all know there is an underlying tension in the WP community between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" - between those who are focused on growth and those who are focused on quality.

We just had an AfD on an article about a preacher Phil Waldrep that was recently dramatically expanded by his staff and was garbage. I gave a quick effort to fixing it - did a quick google search for sources and found nothing much so I AfDed it. An editor showed up who !voted to keep, and while the AfD was ongoing he completely re-wrote the artcile by using lexis-nexus and getting good sources with which to write good content. In response I removed my delete !vote as nominator and the AfD was closed "keep" and my withdrawal was one of the reasons cited. (the AfD is here) I respect what that editor did.

But blocking efforts to get rid of promotional garbage (WP:PROMO is policy mind you) and not fixing it, is hard for me to even understand. Please recalibrate your judgement on those speedy reversions, Adam. Please. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: They were A7 tags. If I thought they were promo I would have changed them to G11. Adam9007 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

is everything a nail to you? I am asking you to consider the problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think A7 is the only criterion I consider? Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't know what you consider. What I can see is that you removed speedy tags from four garbage articles and did nothing more to fix the problem they were trying to address. That is just unhelpful from my perspective. Please keep in mind the torrent of garbage. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that what Jytdog is saying here is 'Don't take a speedy tag off without addressing any problem that is there' - by retagging correctly, using other means, or declaring somewhere accessible why you think the article is worthy of staying as it is. Or by fixing the article, of course. My point about the 50-50 article is that was that deletion was inevitable - it wasn't an article intended to be part of an encyclopaedia. It was an attempt by one of the few members of the Church to get publicity ("those ******s at St Bogwith's have an article, why shouldn't we?"). Promo doesn't always consist of vast quantities of meaningless PR speak (I commented to one author that in all the paragraphs of his article, I could find no indication of what the hell the company actually did. I think I might have upset him. He never replied, anyway.) Artspam (article spam) is not as blatant as that. It's the stuff found in directory entries - telling the current position and products/services of a company that is not going to be shown as notable and is not shown as being significant now. There is an industry based on SEO - getting entries on Google to the top. Fairly obviously, they can't all succeed, but they don't give that impression to their prospective clients. Being on Wikipedia gives one hell of a boost to one's Google position, hence the burning desire of so many insignificant rappers (nearly finished the first mixtape, honest...), companies (founded 2015 and making loo roll for supermarkets), and student engineers (in second year at some technology college, and who were voted the 'most likely to succeed' by their class at school) to have a presence here. In with this lot are the advisers to government ministers, visiting assistant professors, and rock bands who have been big for 20 years in Twizzlewig, AZ or St Botolphs without the Valley in Devon. They aren't obvious G11 fodder. They ARE intended to promote, however, and are rarely credibly significant in any real meaning of significant. They are probably significant to their loved ones. The advisers might have a lot to answer for if anyone knew what they had advised, but usually the minister carries the can there. I didn't know all this when I started here. I learned by watching what happened, by being told off a few times, and by taking part in things like SPI and AfD. In the very early days of Wikipedia, the desire was to get articles in to make the place bigger, and thus get more visitors in. We're now trying to keep the crap out as almost everyone does come here, and we can improve the quality rather than merely going for quantity. As the quality improves, so does the status of Wikipedia, and the desire to get one's petty career, or ratty little back street furniture shop, into a better position - and they think that an article here will do it for them. They're wrong, of course. But often determined. You would think that having been deleted six times would tell someone something. No, he changes his name again and keeps on trying. (The particular one I'm thinking of now has a long SPI record, and possibly 20 protected article titles to his discredit. Seems to have stopped. I hope.)

The summary is this. It takes time to get an understanding of how things work. Any system of rules and guidelines is open to interpretations. 'Thou shalt not kill' - but what if you see someone with a sniper rifle aiming at the President? (OK, you will probably have trouble explaining why YOU had a gun there to shoot the sniper with, and why you were in the building without authorisation, and also with proving that he was pointing the rifle at the Prez.) 'Thou shalt not steal' - but is it OK to use the contents of the company first-aid box (and your time paid for by ScroogeMarley LLC) to patch up an anguished and bleeding kid who was just passing when he fell off his bike? Adam, you do tend to stick to the letter of things; as you has said, it is your nature to do this. Please try to accept that every rule is part of a whole structure. Look at the picture, not at each brush stroke. Read the book, not justeach word by itself. Wikipedia 'law' is a bit more like English law than American - there is a body of written law but also a large body of customary law and interpretation that depends on precedent. Peridon (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Can I just say, I LOVE the examples you come up with to illustrate your points (ratty little back street furniture shop indeed). Your posts here are works of art. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Isn't the letter meant to reflect the spirit? If the spirit changes without updating the letter, of course people are going to get confused. I'm not too familiar with American law and I don't know English law off by heart (despite me being English and living in England!), but is that another way of saying the spirit trumps (no, not that trump!) the letter? Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Meow ^^ Thanks for reviews my wikipedia!

Samet Chan (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to use talk page

I do not understand how to use a talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzly420 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well you posted this message? Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work with speedy deletions

Thanks so much for your work preserving the intentionally narrow scope of A7. As I've mentioned I've gotten worried about the scope of A7 and the willingness of editors to step beyond that scope. I've been working a lot in the A7 category removing tags that blatantly don't fit the criterion myself, but sometimes it seems like nobody agrees (and yet discussions about the actual criterion are always so contested). Appable (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: Thanks! Zoominfo Crawler was wrongly deleted A7 and overturned on that basis. And I see Swpb is unwilling to admit he was wrong and has PRODed NextGenSearchBotarticle saying it "Should have been speedied as a business". How anyone can say it's a business is beyond me. Even the admin who deleted Zoominfo Crawler (an almost identical article) has admitted A7 was and is wrong. I don't know if you saw it, but I recently started a discussion on the CSD talk page about editors assuming ownership after tagging for CSD (particularly A7), and I think his behaviour falls into that category. Adam9007 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are bragging that you "saved" Zoominfo Crawler, a promotional piece of shit that is very likely written by someone working on behalf of ZoomInfo, which is a company? Unbelievable. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: A7 did not apply, and it was not obviously promotional. It was (and is!) clearly still being worked on. Please do not judge an article until it is finished. And how do you know the author is a Zoominfo employee or is otherwise doing so on their behalf? Adam9007 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually was the other way - it was created by someone who has an ax to grind against Zoominfo, who didn't know what they were doing. It is so easy to tell when there is advocacy at play. So easy, I was too quick to judge which type it was when I wrote above (I was angry and reached a conclusion of what the problem was too quickly in what i wrote there) but the fact that the "article" was garbage and going no where was blatant. I still cannot see how you can be proud to be only an obstacle and not a corrective, helping force. You know a lot, and I wish you put it to use to move things forward instead of just parrrying. I have asked for your advice below. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud...

What if A7 had a term in it stating something to the effect of "If an uninvolved editor removes a speedy deletion tag under this criterion in good faith, do not restore the tag."? I don't think A7, as it's used now, actually meets the first criterion for new criteria — objectiveness — but that might help a bit by preventing warring over speedy deletions and encouraging controversial speedy deletions to go to PROD or AfD. Appable (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: I think the essay Wikipedia:Why_I_Hate_Speedy_Deleters says just that, although it's talking about admins. I also think it explains the rest of the problems we're having with CSD very well; that nominators are not using caution, and that they're not aware (or simply don't care) that meeting the criteria means it may be deleted, not must. Adam9007 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, that's one of my favorite essays (along with WP:A7M). Agreed that speedy deletions absolutely should be uncontroversial, as soon as they're controversial speedy is obviously not the right process. Appable (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: And to think someone said on the big discussion that we shouldn't go by such essays as it violates WP:CIRCULAR! What the heck? Without those essays, there's nothing to go by! Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

advice

what is the correct speedy category for this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It's been improved since you posted this, but I don't think it meets any speedy criteria. It would have been BLPPROD eligible (assuming it was in the article space), but a source has since been added. Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

what would have been the right speedy delete tag, for an unsourced autobiography for a newbie created as the category, Biography? Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Simply being unsourced is not a criterion for speedy deletion. What do you mean by category? Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes i know that. I am sorry i asked. The link I pointed you to was an autobiography posted at Category:Biography - look at the URL. Forget it though, really. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:In the future the best idea is to move it to article space or draft space and tag the category as uncontroversial maintenance. Appable (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Re I think there is a claim of significance; performing alongside notable people. A notability issue that you may not be aware of is that notability is not inherited. See WP:ITSA. Hope this helps.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Claim of significance isn't notability though. While notability is not inherited, performing alongside notable people in many cases is a claim of significance (particularly if they are notable on a global scale). Remember, claim of significance was deliberately worded to be much lower than notability, and merely offering a claim that, say, an actor played a role in a notable film (not an extra but an actual actor) with no source probably is a decent claim of significance — if there's enough coverage that the film is notable, it's plausible that there's significant coverage of the actors within the film. Appable (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: You know what, I think a change in terminology is in order, if not a whole rephrasing. The words significance and importance obviously aren't doing the job they're supposed to, because they're too often confused with notability. This is one issue I raised last time, a few months ago. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Hi, Adam9007. Thanks for your edit to Vicky A Clark. I didn't realize that such little time had passed since the article's creation, and I appreciate you for keeping an eye out and allowing for new users to have adequate time to construct the new article. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Your edit summary in removing this CSD seems to imply WP:INHERIT. I'll take it to AfD for discussion. Regards, Bazj (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: According to WP:A7M, that is a credible claim of significance, which is not the same thing as notability. Adam9007 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay reflecting one editor's view point, not policy. Let me highlight the one part of the CSD's definition that he doesn't highlight... "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" which fits this example like a glove. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: So you think I should just pretend that it doesn't exist? I agree that being signed to such a label is an assertion of importance. Importance/significance is not the same thing as notability; it is a lower standard. Official policy states that. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooo... Notability is NOT inherited but Importance and Significance are? I see. I don't agree, but I see. Bazj (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability is NOT inherited but importance and significance are? Yes, exactly correct. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: No, I'm saying that is in itself significant. I did not say anything was inherited. Again, significance is not notability. Being signed to a significant label might not be significant, but being signed to a notable one almost certainly is. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INHERIT is an essay, too, BTW Bazj... one that doesn't apply to speedy. You should also read WP:CCS, which is an essay but linked from the CSD policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr Thanks for the link to WP:CCS. It's probably the best attempt at explaining the difference between notability & significance I've seen yet. Using the a/b tests it outlines, this case passes a but fails b because the best claim of notability the article makes is inherited from its record label, which isn't notability at all. Bazj (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)