Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Dear Basalick, you recently deleted the Survivors of Symphysiotomy page. Your reason is as follows an "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" The page, which was in the process of being created was tied to the page on symphysiotomy, which is a significant issue in Ireland and has been the subject of hundreds of newspaper articles. The page clearly set out that SoS is membership and has inextricably tied to a justice campaign over the past 10 years. The practise of symphysiotomy in Ireland is the greatest health scandal in western Europe. For some people, that's important. I had provided a lengthy submission, which I doubt you took the time to read. What is the point in providing a space to contest decision if submissions are not considered and pages are deleted willy-nilly?

Hi there. I'm not passing any judgement on the group's cause, motives or objectives. I deleted the page because it did not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability and qualified for a criterion for speedy deletion. A group does not automatically gain notability simply because it is interested in a "significant issue". You have just assumed that I did not read any of your statement, but if you make submissions like that then you have to entertain the possibility that people will read it and not agree. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of QMobile. 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. UBStalk 21:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the Deutschman Design wiki page and you deleted it because of copyright issues. As a newbie, I wasn't sure how to get all the references in correctly. Would you be able to give me back my original article so that I can continue working on it? I'd hate to have to start over again. Also, do I have to cite the website each time I am referring to it or does once suffice? Thank you. Ina 14:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inahillebrand (talk • contribs)

I have restored the page minus the copyright violations. You need to read WP:COPYVIO before doing any more work on it. As for the referencing - you don't cite the website when you're "referring to it" - you cite the claims you make in the article. See WP:V. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just searched for this and found you'd deleted it. I know online movies are a fairly new phenomenon and only 20,000 views on You Tube seems trivial but many of my friends love this film and have late night group sessions watching it. Is it simply appealing to a too young audience for wikipedia? Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.30.194 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. Whether or not subjects warrant having an article on Wikipedia is governed by our rules on notability. Unfortunately the number of fans or demographics thereof have little impact on this. Me Me Me does not seem to satisfy those requirements, so it was deleted. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elahrairah. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sensitive subject. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]