User talk:BiH/Archives/2015/June

Nomination of Ed Primeau for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ed Primeau 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/Ed Primeau 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 notice from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In this edit you introduced numerous problems including copyright violations and promotional content as you had again copied or paraphrased press releases. For example you wrote:

6,000+ customers, 1,000+ partners, 30+ patents, and more than 1,000 petabytes of storage under management

Cisco, Citrix, Dell Inc., HP, Quanta, SanDisk, Seagate, Supermicro, VMware, Western Digital, Wipro, among others.

And this press release says:

6,000+ customers, 1,000+ partners, 30+ patents, and more than 1,000 petabytes of storage under management

Cisco, Citrix, Dell, HP, Quanta, SanDisk, Seagate, Supermicro, VMware, Western Digital, Wipro, and many others.

etc.

Having explained the problems at length previously and you saying that you understood and would change, it is disappointing to see that this isn't the case. Sure you make positive contributions at NPP as well, but that doesn't mean that you earn the right to add problematic content like this. If you can't write articles without copying from press releases then you shouldn't be writing. If it continues we'll be visiting ANI. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse:: I apologize, this was my mistake. This is an old draft I've been working on for a long time and it was saved on my laptop. I recently added infobox, and posted an update without checking the contents. Although I agree with you on this, removing the infobox put a question mark above my head. Was something wrong with the infobox? --BiH (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at the infobox again but nothing in it is sourced in the current article and it's a bit pointless having an infobox for such a short article anyway. This wasn't a one off either though as this version of Morgan James Publishing suffered from the same problems. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kiwi Time cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:BiH/Workshop23 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Kiwi Time. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Panaya cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:BiH/Workshop11 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Panaya. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Veeam Software cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:BiH/Veeam a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Veeam Software. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Hicks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Hicks 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/Donald Hicks 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 notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Template NPF roster/doc listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template NPF roster/doc. Since you had some involvement with the Template NPF roster/doc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominating Lady-Comp for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady-Comp. Notifying you because you are the article's creator and sole contributor. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

BiH. I work on conflict of issues in Wikipedia. Several editors have tried to talk with you about paid editing and you are not being responsive. There is this for example, and the open thread at COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#BiH_paid_editing.3F.

Hello, BiH. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

You must begin clearly disclosing your paid editing. Please list the articles you have worked on for pay on your User page. I will be following up with you daily until you do this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Following up. Please reply. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: It is not true that I have not disclosed my COI articles, you just have to look at talk pages. However, I will make the list to make your job easier. Note that not all articles are in COI. The ones that are, I try to make as objective as possible. I am a bit disappointed by the manners of some editors, as they seem to be unable to accept that disclosed COI editing is OK with Wikipedia policies. I am considered bottom-class editor, I am being insulted, nicknamed, etc. Frankly, I sometimes have no will to communicate with such. Those users nominate every single article I created for deletion and they do not even check for notability and references (proof is that some articles are kept in the end). An interesting event happened recently - a Grammy-awarded producer article was deleted just because it was written by me. I am afraid that the community is not objective towards COI editors. I tend to give the best to the community, but I am not a native English, so sometimes I have difficulties to express myself. Thank you for the follow up. --BiH (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying! (no need to ping me - I am watching your Talk page). I know that many editors take a harsh stance toward paid editing and toward paid editors. That is part of the territory - part of Wikipedia - and if you are going to edit for pay, you are going to have to deal with it, and graciously too. You cannot take it personally, and you have to expect that your edits, and articles that you create, are going to examined very carefully. With some resentment - since the people doing that are volunteers and are doing it because they care, and you are producing article after article for pay - more and more work for them. So you need to be aware that you are exploiting the volunteer community. That is harsh, but it is simply true. I hope you can understand that.

Here are some things you can do:

Yes - please list all the articles where you have edited for pay on your User page.

Please submit all your article through AfC so that the volunteers there can do an initial quality check - please do not create articles directly. (this one is really important)

When you submit an article for pay through AfC, please already have added the {{connected contributor}} tag on the Talk page, and please tag the article itself with {{COI}}

Please consider turning down jobs that you cannot create a decent article for - please know that the WP community is going to be scrutinizing your work, and it will save us all time and hassle if articles you produce can stand up to that.

Will you please do all those things - the first three things in particular? Thank you. Happy to talk more if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not following COI to the letter, so you should not be surprised people are reacting negatively. Many editors function with COI just fine, and I assume you can too. But now because of that lack of adherence to the guideline we're left with an apparent mess that needs cleanup and you seem unwilling to help. First, I don't see a prominent disclosure anywhere. A concise list of the articles you have a conflict of interest on and why. Second, per COI you should not be creating these articles yourself, but going through AFC. That in and of itself would have saved you a lot of trouble, because Ed Primeau would have never made it out of AFC to begin with. So please get with the program or we'll start looking into other options. You can have all the conflict of interest in the world and still function effectively here, but the onus is on you to play by the rules. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeming as I am one of the editors being bad-mouthing above, I wish to clarify several points: 1. I have no problem with disclosed paid editing, but I (and the rest of the community) do have a problem with undisclosed, promotional paid editing and even more so when the content is also a copyright violation. 2. I have never sent an article to AFD because of paid editing, only when I deem subjects non-notable and I'm offended that you are accusing me of otherwise and of not following WP:BEFORE either. 3. You have repeatedly not disclosed your COI e.g. at the Sullivan articles, Tarkan Maner, Morgan James Publishing etc. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that you weren't paid to write them - I haven't come across any recent additions of yours that haven't been based on rehashes of promotional material, these included. I hope you begin to follow the advice that Jytdog has kindly given to you. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

BiH please do reply to this feedback from the community - let's work this through. I know it is hard but it is important. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I did not know I had to go to AfC due to COI, my apologies - I will make it so in the future. I will work on the list which will be presented here. However, I have little time now and I will update it over the weekends. I will not make any edits until I do so. I have no issues with following the policy. If I had, I would use sock puppet or proxy - which I obviously do not use. I really want to create good articles and to collaborate with the community, but things like this - delete vote is something that I was talking about. The user suggests that "..the obvious involvement of a paid editor should mean we nuke this..". You all said that you do not judge the article by the creator yet by its content. DGG explained why this man is notable, no matter who the creator is, and I respect him for that. In the end, I am afraid that User:Brianhe is a bit angry at me since he put a lot of effort into proving that I am a sock puppet and I am judging that by his edit comments. He somehow always comes back to me with a set of edits on my article every 2-3 days removing things that are normally present on many other articles. Simply said, many of you are not ready to accept COI editing, while I respect those who are. Not to waste your time, I will comply with the above said and I will let you know when things are sorted, as requested from me. Cheers! --BiH (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. That is pretty much what I was looking for - some additional notes:

• please do not put the list of paid articles on a subpage, but rather on your main user page. Please aim for simple transparency.
• please consider not spending any of your WP time on other things, but rather on getting the disclosure full and complete first. that would do a lot toward building good will.
• I told you above that a good chunk of the community is dead opposed to paid editing and extends that to paid editors. That includes Jimbo Wales, in case you didn't know that. Paid editors are indeed allowed to be here, but they are not really welcome. There is a difference, and the lack of welcome is a fact of life here. Complaining about it doesn't help you -- it hurts you and will reduce people's willingness to work with you, and you very much need people to work with you. Please remember that you chose to be a paid editor - you chose that - and you have to live with everything that goes with it, which includes people holding you to our highest content standards and at the same time, some people not being nice to you. You cannot count on getting any slack. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but please remember that you chose to be a paid editor in the Wikipedia that actually exists.
• the close of discussions at AfD is based on arguments concerning the article itself, not on who created it. It is best for everybody, including you, if you don't mess up the AfD by arguing back when people make comments about the contributor. All that does it make you look worse than you already do. Just let them slide.

I hope that all makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi BiH. You've been back editing, but you haven't completed the disclosure of articles you created for pay nor put it on your main userpage. Would you please complete that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: I have made the "coarse" list here based on Brianhe list. Since he put everything in his list, I will have to double check the list. But pretty much, everything is there. Now, offtopic, I would like to send you an email. Does your Wiki email work? --BiH (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. yes my wiki-email works - it is just my username at gmail.com. You should not be relying on Brianhe's list. You should know what articles you wrote for pay. Please make sure the list is complete and confirm here when it is. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Culture Amp logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Culture Amp logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pet Circle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pet Circle 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/Pet Circle 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of DGM Services for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DGM Services 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/DGM Services 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Fernox for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fernox 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/Fernox 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Planview for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Planview 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/Planview 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of BMG Labtech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BMG Labtech 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/BMG Labtech 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of CoPatient for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CoPatient 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/CoPatient 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Coresystems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coresystems 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/Coresystems 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Carol Margolis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Margolis 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/Carol Margolis 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of APT Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article APT Institute 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/APT Institute 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of POPxo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article POPxo 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/POPxo 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of PaGaLGuY for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PaGaLGuY 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/PaGaLGuY 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Telsonic Ultrasonics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Telsonic Ultrasonics 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/Telsonic Ultrasonics 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Alicia von Rittberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alicia von Rittberg 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/Alicia von Rittberg 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dalma Capital for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalma Capital 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/Dalma Capital 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of KartRocket for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KartRocket 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/KartRocket 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Salmat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salmat 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/Salmat 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ardmore Residence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ardmore Residence 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/Ardmore Residence 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frame Destination for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frame Destination 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/Frame Destination 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 notice from the top of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady-Comp logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lady-Comp logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frame Destination logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frame Destination logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)