User talk:Kjs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

I moved your msg to the bottom of my talk page and responded.--Kchase02 T 11:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your work on Seevic. I suspect it still falls under the category of things that aren't suitable for Wikipedia - in particular, see this page. The difference with "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is that that phrase has had huge amounts of coverage in national and international media - one (unverifiable) mention on Essex FM just isn't in the same league. If you can find some verifiable evidence of this being used beyond one group of friends, it'd make a difference - otherwise, I'll have to nominate it for deletion. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seevic

This article was speedy-deleted as patent nonsense and/or attack material. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Kjs. It looks like RadioKirk is currently taking a break, so might not get your message asking for the article on Seevic to be undeleted. So, let me fill you in on what can happen now.

If you still feel that you want that article to be restored, the place to go is the deletion review page. Here, you can make a case for why the article should not have been deleted. Note that if you go down this route, it's very much a question of process - you wouldn't be arguing on the merits of the article, merely on whether RadioKirk followed the correct process in deleting it. I suspect that you possibly have a case - in the state it was in, I don't think the article qualified for speedy deletion. If others agree, the article will be restored, and then listed on the articles for deletion pages, to give more time and an opportunity for more discussion.

However, I think it is almost certain that, even with your evidence of the term being used on Essex FM, the consensus will be to delete it. We've had many, many similar articles started in the past about neologisms like this, and almost all of them have eventually, through one process or another, been deleted. This is an international encyclopedia - a piece of slang used in one small part of Britain just doesn't cut it in terms of notability. Think about it these terms - would you expect to see an article about the term seevic in the Encyclopaedia Britannica? If not, then it's probably not right for Wikipedia either.

My very strong advice would be to let this matter drop. If the term is still being used (beyond your small group of friends) in six months time; if it has been verifiably used by multiple, non-trivial sources; if, in short, it has the sort of currency of a term like chav; then, it would be appropriate to revisit its inclusion. But for the moment, I think that you will be wasting your time trying to get this article included. At best, you are likely to get it back in for a few more days while it runs through the various deletion processes. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created User:Kjs/Seevic so you may work on this "article" within your own space. I can tell you, however, that a great deal of improvement will be necessary to allow this obscure "neologism" (that borders on defamation, to be frank) back into article space. Good luck. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Phelps.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Phelps.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)