User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Saturday 22nd of December 2012 02:36:45 PM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding my "The Young Brothers" article.

Respectfully, Sue,

I must "CONTEST" the nominated deletion of my The Young Brothers article, based on the fact that my The Young Brothers article does unquestionably meet Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements, following criteria for both A. "musicians & ensembles", as well as B."composers and lyricists". (1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.[1]

A. Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

(2) "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013.

B. Criteria for composers and lyricists:

(1) "By having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) [[1]]) by their "CLEAR MENTION "AS A BAND", & CREDIT" for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco." [[2]] As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.

This composition, is clearly, extraordinarily "NOTABLE", (of which I have already provided & referrenced the truthful fact) that it has had a Norwegian Cruise Lines, Bahama Island destination & resort, named after it. <- "THIS" I must insist, is an extraordinary achievement of "NOTABILITY", that is NOT "inherrited" as you say, but rather, a "DIRECT" achievement of "NOTABILITY" achieved by The Young Brothers, & deems my The Young Brothers article, worthy of being approved, based on wikipedia's own requirements!! The Young Brothers were mentioned, & creditted for the composition, as a band, in Billboard Magazine, under Track 6 "Redneck Paradise" [[3]]

Thank you kindly, for your consideration.

Tybllc (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments on the AfD discussion page, thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC

A subject for you

It may not be your particular corner of the field, but you might be interested in writing about a sociology topic. The article was renamed by a new pages patroller from Empirical Study of Literature. Tötösy de Zepetnek's article in the other encyclopaedia is the Empirical Science of Literature. Two of the sources cited here were actually talking about empirical literature (Andringa 1997, pp. 443–446 and van Gorp et al. 1991, pp. 116–117), which the German Wikipedia has (Empirische Literaturwissenschaft). Just to make things fun for you, Schmidt, mentioned in the German Wikipedia, himself stated (Schmidt 2000, p. 325) in English almost a decade later that it is nowadays called the empirical study of literature. I'm sure that you can sort out the right title, though. ☺

  • Andringa, Els (1997). "Empirische Literaturwissenschaft". In Fricke, Harald; Frubmüller, Klaus; Müller, Jan-Dirk; Weimar, Klaus (eds.). Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft: Neubearbeitung des Reallexikons der deutschen Literaturgeschichte (in German). Vol. 1 (3rd ed.). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110108965. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • van Gorp, Hendrik; Ghesquiere, Rita; Delabastita, Dirk, eds. (1991). "Empirische literatuurwetenschap". Lexicon van literaire termen: stromingen en genres, theoretische begrippen, retorische procédés en stiljfiguren (in Dutch). Wolters-Noordhoff. ISBN 9789001341589. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor4-first= missing |editor4-last= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing pipe in: |editor3= (help); More than one of |editor3= and |editor3-last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |locatino= ignored (help)
  • Schmidt, Siegfried J. (2000). "The Empirical Study of Literature". In van Gorp, Hendrik; de Geest, Dirk (eds.). Under Construction: Links for the Site of Literary Theory Essays in Honor of Hendrik Van Gorp. Varia Letteren. Leuven University Press. pp. 325–350. ISBN 9789058670281. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Sociology is sociology, regardless of whether we are discussing the problems of the homeless, or the Nash equilibrium. I have had an opportunity to teach (and learn) it all. Thank you for this, I really appreciate it! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that i've studied this, I don't see any reason that these shouldn't be included in the further reading section, would you like me to add them?--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I was already going to do that, smarty. :) hehehe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Genrikh Graftio

I suggest that you remove now the speedy deletion tag yourself. Actually, before putting the tag, you should have checked that the notability can not be demonstrated. If you did, you would easily find that the person has a long article in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. You could also wait for couple of hours, when I am back from the class. You could have also check my contributions and/or the talk page ans see that I never created a single article which would produce any notability doubts. You failed to do all of these. Fine, I added some info to the article which makes the person automatically notable (as an elected Academy member), but I am not really motivated to work further as soon as the article has the speedy tag. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for improving the article. It no longer qualifies for speedy deletion in my opinion, and I have removed the tag. However, I am still not convinced that the article has a place in Wikipedia, and I have placed the article up for discussion at AfD. I am only human and am often wrong about many things. In this way our fellow editors can come to a consensus about the article. Be Well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have seen, thanks. For me, this is a speedykeep case.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The version you sent to AfD already mentioned that he was elected an Academy member, which is WP:ACADEMIC #3 notability. But I am comfortable with AfD, it is unlikely that a clearly notable article gets deleted (in contrast to speedy deletion nomination, when the chances are pretty high).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Settlement AfDs

Just so you know, there is a long-standing precedent at AfD that verified settlements are notable, especially unincorporated communities in the US; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapfinger, Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview, Harford County, Maryland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deford, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orestimba, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame, Indiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taberg, New York, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumford, Texas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridge, Robertson County, Texas. All of those were closed as keep, and the most recent ones were snow keeps. Besides, there are on the order of 50K articles about unincorporated communities in the US; I've created a few thousand on my own. There's been a consensus for a while that these are valid articles, even if the communities are tiny, don't have a post office, are ghost towns, etc. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks, I appreciate the heads-up. I guess if I want to fluff up my page creation count, that's one way I could do it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of reason for the precedent here. First of all, per the Five pillars, Wikipedia is in part a gazetteer, and therefore should include geographic features such as settlements. Second of all, every single time one of these settlements got brought to AfD back in the early days, it would eventually turn out to have significant coverage somewhere. The coverage is not always online or easily accessible, as is often the case with rural settlements and local history, but it's generally there, and dragging specific articles off to AfD and insisting that editors immediately find more sources is irritating when there are so many of these communities. In addition, whether or not you agree with the precedent, it effectively means that nominations like this will probably end in a snow keep and be a waste of everyone's time.
And can we keep this discussion civil here? Saying that editors only create missing articles to fluff up their page count is a good way to irritate long-term contributors. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As some proof of the above, I just found two more sources for Sherwood with a quick book search, and "A Bibliography of Tennessee History" (which isn't available online) seems to mention more sources from the snippets of it I can see. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if you took my comment as anything uncivil. It was intended as humor. My Apologies on that. Sometimes the written word doesn't translate well. If this is like the acceptence of secondary schools, where sourcing for these things is generally found, I will agree with you. But I don't remember this happening with unincorporated areas. Perhaps I missed those AfD discussions, or perhaps they simply didn't impress on my like the school discussions did, I don't know. But I need to see that this happens, if I am to support it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Surp Agop Hospital

Founded as a Turkish Armenian institution this is a private hospital in Istanbul, Turkey giving services to all the public under the Social Security System. (100% of the Turkish population has public health insurance). All the best and merry Christmas. --E4024 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexei Veselkin

Hello, Sue.

I could write the reasons of significance on the page which was in your link but page which I created was deleted. Why I think that Veselkin can be in English Wikipedia?

  1. He worked on television for 30 years
  2. He has the rank of Honoured Artist of RF since 1996
  3. He hosted the Russian version of American gameshow Deal or no Deal, there is even an article Sdelka.
  4. Veselkin was the anchorman of the one of the first TV-shops in Russia.

In what reasons I still need to prove the significance? There are many articles about Russian TV personalities in the English Wikipedia. Tol-dmitriy (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sue, I noticed this on your talk page but cannot see the deletion discussion so of course I have no idea what the original article article looked like. The ru.wp article clearly shows notability so I have "recreated" the English at Alexei Veselkin. If the same concerns are still present you may AfD it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note on closing AfDs

Hi. When you close an AfD for an article that is being kept, please copy the "Old AfD" template from the edit-view version of the AfD notice onto the article's talk page. (For example, the templated in the AfD notice for Sherwood, Tennessee, looked like this: {{Old AfD multi|page=Sherwood, Tennessee|date=19 December 2012|result='''keep'''}}.) This makes the article history information available for future reference. (One of the many bits of esoterica that are so abundant at Wikipedia!) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering about that...I have even asked people to double check my closures. I also looked through all of the stuff I could find Such as this about closing articles before I ever closed my first AfD, and never saw anything about it...and of all the AfD's I have closed, you are the first person to tell me, so I really appreciate it. I am genuinely greatful. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
the way to do this best is to use a script. The one I use, and that I think most of us use, is Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, which you add to your Custom JavaScript subpage, as a single line, as described at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, It does everything. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Another GEM. Thank you DGG! I really appreciate it. This gets rid of a lot of headaches! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy A9 (Music)

The criterion is" An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true). It can be used for albums and songs, but if the artist or any of the artists have an article, it must go by prod or AfD, which is what you will need to do with God Bless Jug and Sonny. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see it's not my day...you are correct of course. I totally spaced that those two articles were out there. This is what i get for denying myself life-sustaining coffee. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas


Mike (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas Sue! Mike (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)



Nouniquenames is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Back atcha!


Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TBrandley is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hohoho!!!

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble)

Notability relates to sources that exist, whether or not they are in the article

Re this closure, you stated in your nomination that the subject failed WP:N, implying that you had searched for sources and been unable to find any. Please note that the quality of the references in the article at the time of your nomination is not relevant; WP:GNG relates to whether a subject is sourceable, not whether the article is currently well sourced. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think thats splitting hairs a bit? I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that if the sources were there, the author and subsequent editors should have added a few of them to the article. If they had done that, it would not have gone to AfD. I do search for sources, of course...just as I did in this case...but I am never going to search for sources as well as someone who is into, and really enjoys, the subject matter. I am happy that the AfD was able to motivate the editors involved to add better sources and thus improve Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It is an important distinction; with the exception of BLP's unreferenced articles about notable subjects should be tagged, not AfD'd. I knew nothing about the topic either, but was able to verify that it was notable, using English-language sources, in less than 5 minutes. No one will ever achieve 100% accuracy at assessing notability which is why we have AfD, but your closing comments did not make it clear that you understood the irrelevance of when the sources were added to the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD concerns

Hey, Sue! So, I recently ran into you on the Black Action Movement page. I noticed that you commented with the closing rationale, "...Another article saved by the AfD process." I was wondering why you said that, as it almost makes it seem like you are viewing AFD as a way to force editors to improve their articles. I quickly browsed over other AFDs that you had nominated, and many were speedily kept by you with the same rationale (others were speedily kept by other editors, but they didn't write that). Furthermore, other editors have addressed concern with your nominations above this message, and I just wanted to drop a friendly note, as it is a tad bit disruptive to do this and send us scrambling to improve an article immediately, especially when it could be improved down the line (i.e., all of the unreferenced articles that will probably be cited a decade from now). Other than that, keep up the good work, and I hope to run into you in the future! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the rationale that you provided for this article above on your talk page only confirms what I am trying to say. You don't need to go around slaying articles in the hopes that it will spur others to resurrect them, as it can easily backfire and alienate people to your cause. Instead, go ahead and help improve the article and invite the other editors to do the same. Heck, I would even be willing to edit the article to improve it with you, as I hate to see things deleted. Please don't tag things for deletion for the sake of panicking editors to improve them, as there is the chance that you could easily create a situation where a new user is turned off by the tag and quits outright because they are not as gung-ho as us established Wikipedians (and yes, these users exist, as I have run into them in real life in more ways than one). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sue - I think Kevin makes some pretty good points. To my way of thinking, the AfD process is where you go when you've tried to find sources and have failed, or conclude that the sources that you managed to find aren't really sufficient to support an article. Personally if I nominate something at AfD and another editor finds unequivocally good sourcing, I regard it as a failure on my part - if they could do it how come I didn't? Once in a while the subject is obscure, or its importance not so obvious to someone outside the field, and the AfD process is good at teasing that out. But really it should be a last step, not a first one. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you gentlemen and I understand your concerns. No I do not think that the purpose of an AfD is to save articles. I wish there was a way to show how many articles that I consider for AfD, and then end up not doing it because I find sourcing. But the simple fact is that sometimes AfD does serve the function of improving an article, and when that happens I like to point it out because people get stuck in the paradigm that AfD only serves one purpose, and it is some sort of battle between inclusionists and deletionists. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. I never consider it a failure when the AfD process saves or improves an article. It is a good thing for Wikipedia when that happens, and that is how we should look at the process. If it is good for Wikipedia then I am 110% in favor of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course we each find our own uses for Wikipedia's tools and procedures. If you think the AfD process is better for smoking out sources than various intermediate measures (e.g., templates, Talk page discussions) then I expect you'll continue to use it. But if so you probably should be ready to be bitten again from time to time, (as here or here), particularly when the nomination quickly results in a series of 'keep' or 'speedy keep' responses. JohnInDC (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyone biting is misunderstanding (completely) my intentions. As I just said above, that is *NOT* the purpose of AfD in my opinion, and I want to make it clear that it shouldn't be used in that way. In fact the motivations that you have just attributed to me are the exact OPPOSITE of my actual motivations, so I want to be very clear and make sure that you (and other confused people) understand what I said just above... I do not use, and have never used, AfD for that purpose. I have merely said that regardless of intent, improvement of an article, rather than it's deletion, is sometimes the result of an AfD nomination, and anything that improves Wikipedia is a good thing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point, and I completely understand where you are coming from. The issue I had was over the rationale that you had for the article of mine that you nominated for deletion and how you closed it (I guess I misread your candidness), but we all have our own definition of notability and style, so I'll give you credit where credit is due. Regardless, you are trying, and I respect you for that, and I am more than willing to help you. I also think some others are being a bit unfair towards you, but that is another story for another day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Moravia High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moravia High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moravia High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Moulton-Udell High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moulton-Udell High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulton-Udell High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Just saw a missing references tag on your page and added it accordingly. By the way, you really have a nice signature. DiptanshuTalk 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much, I really appreciate it! I will move it to the comment. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the note Sue, and here's wishing you too all the very best. BTW: Just pointing out where short school stubs can lead to  ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Kudpung, I truly hope that you have a warm holiday. Looks like a couple of speedy snow keeps. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Back Atcha

Saw one of these from you on the Talk page of one of my friends, so here one "back at ya!" :)   SteveT (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

SteveT (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

OH thank you!! I will be making a special display of all these on my user page sometime around the new year. Be well! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas!!

Thank you. I hope you enjoy the holidays too. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too!


The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also, thanks for the message on my talk page! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) [Merry Christmas!] 06:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Another greetings for you!


Mediran (t • c) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Rangell/Archives/Saturday_22nd_of_December_2012_02:36:45_PM&oldid=1081111157"