This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peridon. 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.
Hello. You recently deleted a page I created for a well-known public figure in the area named Jennifer Donnelly. The page was named "Jennifer Donnelly Matchmaker." I'm ok that you deleted it, but now when people search "jennifer donnelly matchmaker," the deleted wikipedia page comes up saying the page has been deleted, which looks horrible. She has clients that are very high-profile and we can't have this. Is there a way for you to delete the page completely as if nothing was every created? We don't want people thinking there was untrue or personally contested content on the page. Delete ASAP. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleysteinmannAshleysteinmann (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Ashley (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As Melanie says, we can't control Google. You can contact Google to get the item removed from their search, I think. I can't tell you how to go about it, though, as I've never done it. I have found that pages usually go off Google in a couple of days. Peridon (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyhow, a search for "Jennifer Donnelly" finds the author with the same name, rather than this subject. The only way to find this deleted article is to search specifically for "Jennifer Donnelly Matchmaker" which seems like an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
There is another lady of the same name who has an article here and comes top of the search for "Jennifer Donnelly". I would think "Jennifer Donnelly dating" would be a more likely search for the one in question here - but unfortunately, that also returns the deleted page link for now. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I deleted the article at Mudgal Fort as a copyright violation, and recreated the title as a redirect to Mudgal. It wasn't a really necessary redir, from the look of it, but I probably had something in mind. Why Nvvchar blanked it, I don't know. If he didn't like it, it should have gone to RfD (where I wouldn't have objected to a deletion). Adam9007 has asked him but not got an answer yet. (Adam reverted both you and Nvvchar back to my redir.) Peridon (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
PS If you looked in the history, you wouldn't have seen the bit about me deleting the copyvio article, but the rest would be there. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
According to ticket#2015081710015017 and admin Kirby Schroeder which answered the ticket once, this article was to be accepted when the copyright restrictions was lifted. I've had the concerned duplicate web page text at http://www.ltu.se/staff/e/erwe-1.10119?l=en modified so it ends with "This text is licensed under CC0" as asked, so there should be no formal problems about it's usage now. I hope the page can be created now. Astrakanen (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't find 'Kirby Schroeder' as an editor here, let alone an admin. It could be his real name not his username, though. Could you please give me his username? I can't see tickets as I don't work with them. I can't stop you re-creating the article, but do be aware that WP:BIO will still apply as it does to all biographies, and also WP:RS (reliable independent sources to prove the notability). The ltu staff page itself can't be used as a reference to support notability as it is not independent. Please also understand that the imported text may be edited by anyone here to update it or to add other (referenced) information some of which may not be to the taste of the subject. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast answer. Kirby Schroeder was the one answering the ticket at permissions-en@wikimedia.org, I don't have any info about his username. I think the subject, as a professor in conducting with over a dozen relesed cd's, fulfils WP:BIO. I'll of course try to back WP:RS up with sources without using the ltu page, even though I think a university has at least a certain degree of reliability behind it's statements. Also, I'm aware of that the text potentially will be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles. Astrakanen (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK - he must be a Wikimedia person not a Wikipedia one. I'd advise setting up at User:Astrakanen/DRAFT to get the referencing in before launching into article space. I'd put a note on the talk page about the ticket as well. Then, when you think it's ready, let me know and I'll ask a colleague to have a look. She's very good on the creation side of things. Peridon (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Errr - did I? No, that was Si Trew. I just deleted it regardless... (It should be 'brekekekex koax koax' anyway.) There's an ANI about him at the moment, but I think (hope...) we've calmed things down. Probably not to the instigator's satisfaction, though. Peridon (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, you marked my page (I think) for deletion. I am attemptingto create an information page about a company in Palm Beach Gardens, much the same way that HubSpot utilizes Wikipedia. I've never created a wiki page before. There are so many pages to visit with different policies and such. I am not trying to do advertising or promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecogreenicole (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
No, actually, I deleted it. First thing - please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig and the timestamp on. Makes life a lot easier. Now then. Companies aren't supposed to 'utilise' Wikipedia. We get rather annoyed when they try. Wikipedia is a place where articles are written ABOUT subjects, not BY them. I advise you to read WP:CORP about notability for companies, as notability is the key to getting an article. Then read WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. This isn't a place like Facebook or LinkedIn, where anyone and everyone (and their gerbil) can have a page for free. OK, the pages are free, but only with notability being shown and properly referenced. We don't allow advertising or promotion WP:SPAM. And that includes things that look like it too. Use of 'we', 'you', 'excellent', 'solutions', 'leverage' (unless referring to a real iron bar type lever), and 'passionate' (and the rest of the PR jargon) are killers. Things in article space (that means without a thing like User: or Wikipedia: in front of the title) must be neutral in tone, written in the third person, and not the slightest bit enthusiastic. These policies I've linked are essential reading for you. Looking at random articles (there's a link to random articles somewhere near top left) should give you an idea. The longer the article has been around, the better (click on the 'history' button to find out). When you've done the reading and thought about things, do some Googling (and/or Binging or whatever) and see what you can find as sources. Try a draft at User:Ecogreenicole/DRAFT (click and save that link), and let me know. If I think it's showing promise, I'll get a colleague who does rescue work to discuss it with you. Do remember that if you work for the company you must declare it. We had a load of trouble a bit back with paid editors (and a lot got blocked or banned). Some editors don't like any COI editing - see WP:COI - but I'm not that worried so long as the result is good (by our standards). When you are writing here, imagine you are preparing a report for a judge in a court. He (or she) will want unbiassed factual reporting of both good and bad points. (Do be aware that anyone can add the bad points so long as they reference them properly. I remember someone getting a vanity article posted which later ended up containing details of various court cases he'd been involved with. Not a happy little bunny...) OK. Over to you. Read, think, search, and draft if you think there's a chance. In your user space, it can only be tagged for hoax, attack, copyright violation, or spam. But, eventually, it has to either move to article space or be deleted as a stale draft. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully contest the speedy deletion of this first article without AfD or PROD discussion or consensus. The article was not eligible for speedy deletion. The article additions were new. The article was being updated with credible reliable coverage of biography sources for its improvement PROD was declined on December 11 2011. The background sources are reliable, notable and factual to the provenance and importance of the article its biography and related articles as accepted guidelines notable to its biography and therefore we respectfully request its undeletion by you (individual administrators may act on requests to restore deleted articles), before requesting a deletion review with the deletion administrator and you to show a solution was attempted with you first or in addition, before making an undeletion request with the deletion administrator and you for the article
to be userfied or emailed to us for its improvement and return to the article space. Thank you for your earliest assistance and reply. — AlphaProxy (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I will willingly userfy the article to you (I don't userfy without request any more as when I did, people seemed not to do anything with the things). So far as two admins were concerned, the article did fail A7, and with respect to AfD, I feel the referencing would fail too. The references that were not about members of the family did not seem to mention the subject. (One link appeared to be dead.) Notability only comes by inheritance in the upper echelons of royalty, and even there the subjects are usually to be found in widespread coverage. At speedy deletion, admins are not required to attempt to do any search or repair. Before userfying, I would enquire of you who 'we' ("we respectfully request") are. This is not an attempt at outing (WP:OUTING), but merely to establish how many users use the 'AlphaProxy' account, and whether they are editing in the course of paid employment. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only, and any paid editing must be declared under WP:TOU. Peridon (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see the criterion for A7 speedy deletion, which states that there has to be an indication of importance asserted. The content about the subject included material about his schooling and career, none of which are unusual or significant enough to pass the requirement of "credible claim of significance or importance". In addition, the subject fails our notability guidelines, which state that the subject must have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, so the article would be highly unlikely to survive a deletion discussion at articles for deletion. If you wish to pursue this matter further, your next stop should be deletion review. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies and your offer to userfy the article to me upon request. I am the individual unpaid 'AlphaProxy' account holder. I have read the A7 criteria. My objection is of course the speedy deletion of the article by you shortly after the article was updated and improved by me with new content and references which in my opinion reflect the importance and significance of the subject in accordance with the criteria and was therefore, unfairly deleted by you without proper AfD notice, PROD discussion or consensus with me. To help improve the subject of this discussion and to improve my understanding of the eligibility importance and significance of the subject (although I agree with you the subject is not notably Royal) I have enclosed the contents of the article below with my markups in capitals so that we may arrive at some form of agreement to merit its undeletion, as follows;
1. A GENERAL REFERENCED STATEMENT IS NORMAL, COMMON AND ACCEPTABLE
James Grant Hay (born 10 December 1969) is an Australian television advertising entrepreneur, writer[1] and film producer.[2]
2. BACKGROUND SCHOOLING CAREER, EDUCATION AND BY BIRTH IS NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE ALBEIT NOT OF IMPORTANCE OR SIGNIFICANCE, THE REFERENCED SUBJECTS BY BIRTH HOWEVER TO THE SUBJECT ARE SIGNIFICANT AND THEREFORE IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT
3. A CLAIM BY THE SUBJECT TO HAVE CONSIDERABLE LEGAL EXPERIENCE IN AREAS OF AUSTRALIAN LAW INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW UNDER CLIENT INSTRUCTION WITH SIGNIFICANT AUSTRALIAN LEGAL PRACTITIONERS REFERENCED IN WIKIPEDIA (IS VERY IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT TO THE SUBJECT AND CAN BE REFERENCED AND
EXPANDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKI'S GUIDELINES).
4. BACKGROUND BY BIRTH TO A SIGNIFICANT AUSTRALIAN POLTICAL FIGURE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGAL TOPIC AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBJECT'S CURRENT POLITICAL IDEAOLOGY AND ACTING POLITICAL ROLE AND CUSTODIAN RESPONSIBILITY TO A PUBLIC DOCUMENT IN A NEW POLITICAL ENTITY DRAFTED BY A VERY SIGNIFICANT FORMER AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL FIGURE (IS VERY IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT TO THE SUBJECT AND CAN BE FURTHER REFERENCED AND EXPANDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKIS' GUIDELINES).
Grant Hay is the great-grandson of the former late Australian Federation politician and Munro Government Cabinet Minister, Francis Stuart MLA, MLC. He is a political supporter of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), acting Chair of The New Republicans and 'Renew Australia' Charter[8] for a third major political party in Australia, drafted by the former late Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm FraserAC, CH, GCL.
5. BACKGROUND EDUCATION IS IMPORTANT TO THE CURRENT TITLE AND OFFICE HOLDER OF THE SUBJECT WHO IS A LIVING FOUNDER OF AN INNOVATIVE NON-FOR-PROFIT GLOBAL DIGITAL TV ORGANISATION (IS SIGNIFICANT AND CAN BE FURTHER REFERENCED AND EXPANDED TO WIKI'S GUIDELINES. (IE. SUBJECT'S COMPANY WAS THE FIRST TO SYNCHRONISE SKYPE SOFTWARE INTO LIVE AUSTRALIAN TV BROADCAST SIGNAL).
6.SUBJECT HAS PUBLICLY SUPPORTED SCREEN DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY FOR WOMEN IN PUBLIC FILM FORUMS AND IS A PARTNER IN A SENSITIVE COMMERCIAL FILM AGREEMENT IS IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC RECORD ON THE SUBJECT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Broadcasting, Media & Production
Grant Hay studied broadcast spectrum management at Swinburne University of Technology and majored in internet protocol television and cables. He began his early career in cinema advertising and later product placement in film, commercialising the use of advertising in television programs and mobile applications. He is the founder and President of the Connected TV Marketing Association,[9] a global non-for-profit membership organisation in Australia.
Grant Hay owns the rights to a number of original works through his Melbourne production company. He is an advocate of Australian screen diversity and equality for women in film and is the founding board member of Studio Australia, a public-private partnership venture in Ballina, New South Wales.
> The above mentioned facts of the subject are accurate, truthful and can be substantiated here further and therefore are important in my opinion to merit its improvement with you in accordance with your guideliness for its return to the article space by you before requesting either a deletion review or undeltion request with the deletion administrator and you or userfly request to you from me. Thank you both once again for your earliest assistance and reply. — AlphaProxy (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
{{Persondata
| NAME = Grant Hay, James
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION = Australian entrepreneur
| DATE OF BIRTH = 10 December 1969
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Melbourne]], Australia
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
What brought me to the article was not the recent edits and additions, but the fact that the user's recent additions to Frank Stuart were copyright violations. I checked for copyright violations the user's other articles, which include Peter Grant Hay and James Grant Hay, and noticed that James Grant Hay does not appear to be notable for a Wikipedia article at this time.
Consensus is not required for speedy deletion.
Discussion is not a prerequisite for speedy deletion.
Accuracy and truthfulness of the article do not make the subject notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
Notability is not inherited from clients or family members.
Thank you for your reply. My concerns here are as follows:
Your position appears to overlook the significance of new content added to the importance of the subject distinguishable in business, law and politics above and instead, focuses on the background of the subject and your objections to it because of its notability inherited by birth to Peter Grant Hay from Frank Stuart;
Articles for eligibility need to be considered as a whole. Comments on a subject should remain unbias and on a without prejudice basis;
The article was abruptly deleted without contest of a speedy deletion following additions of a sensitive legal nature were published on the subject at law and notable deceased political figures related to and associated with the importance of the subject in confidence;
The subject is also a trustee of a foundation;
The deletion of the article four years after it was published, may be harmful to the subject who is living, as it may cause an earlier reader of the article to publicly question the personal and commercial integrity, accuracy and importance of the subject altogether;
Based on your talk, I am satisfied that you were both uncertain in your decision making of the rules of speedy deletion, and ignored the article PROD decline four years earlier raised by Peridon with you, and should have AfD the article to me for discussion.
In my opinion, the article does credibly indicate how and why the subject is important and significant enough to be considered notable in the public interest, and should therefore be undeleted by you and included as an article on Wikipedia. I will await any final comments from you before requesting either a deletion review or undeltion request with the deletion administrator(s) and you or userfly request to you from me. Thank you for your consideration once again. — AlphaProxy (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Peridon. I have reviewed the deleted article and the proposed new sources. Here's my conclusion: The article does not demonstrate notability for this person and does not belong at Wikipedia. I don't see anything in the recently deleted article, or in the proposed additional sources suggested here, that makes me think it stands a chance of surviving as a Wikipedia article. The name-dropping about his ancestors and the people he has supposedly advised do not make him notable, per WP:INHERIT. The claim that he is a legal expert is not supported by any sources or by any mention of a legal education. The proposed new references do not qualify as WP:Reliable or WP:Independent. For example, paravignon appears to be some kind of blog, and in any case a link to his own writing does not make him a notable writer. The Pixel8 link says he created a web TV series, but the series doesn't seem to have been notable. The link to CTVMA does not mention him. The sources that mention his ancestors do nothing for him. But about the speedy deletion, AlphaProxy has a point. I personally would not have speedy-deleted it, both because it seems to make some credible claims of significance (that's a narrow reading of A7, but I do read it narrowly), and because it has been here for so many years (not a criterion at all, I know). Those are matters of individual admin opinion and practice; many, perhaps most, admins would have accepted this for A7 deletion. On the other hand, the earlier declined PROD (easy to miss in the long history) should have disallowed speedy deletion. If AlphaProxy really wants to give the article another chance, I would say restore the article so that AlphaProxy can add the new sources, AfD it, and let the community decide. I am pretty sure the result will be the same (delete, or possibly redirect to his grandfather Peter Grant Hay), but sometimes WP:Process is important. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(Back on wiki temporarily - unexpected busyness IRL...) OK. I wasn't sure about the prod matter, but Diannaa reckoned it was OK. Anyway, I'm not around much (if at all) till next week, so I'll restore it for it to be worked on. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably nominate it for AfD - unless someone beats me to it; I intend to wait a day or two so AlphaProxy can add references. I suppose it seems like a waste of time, to probably end up with the same result, but at least the result will be definitive. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you MelanieN and Peridon, I have found news coverage supporting the subject's career in television, advertising and production below. I have to attend a wedding in New Zealand this weekend and will need more time next week to seek approval of the public documentation I am permitted to release to Wikipedia with the subject's law firm, barristers and court of jurisdiction at law. Please let me know which of these articles best reference the subject and I will add them for you. Thank you AlphaProxy (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Peridon, Diannaa, and MelanieN: I am back from New Zealand and have added your recommended Reliable
Sources to the article. I am also investigating the unsourced legal claim to improve the article. AlphaProxy (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
