User talk:Jasondcrane

Welcome!

Hello, Jasondcrane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Andrecanniere.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Andrecanniere.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Action-Refraction cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Action-Refraction cover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for pointing this out. I uploaded the file incorrectly. I took down the first image and uploaded it again using the "fair use" designation.

Possibly unfree files

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 23#OTRS pending since October. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree files

Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26#OTRS pending since November. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Red Circle (Simon Purcell album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Red Circle (Simon Purcell album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ruby Murray 15:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red circle - album articles

You asked "I'm trying to add individual album pages for everything British jazz label Whirlwind Recordings has released. Is that not allowed?" Probably not: Wikipedia is not a "list of everything", but is actually quite selective about article subjects. The main inclusion criterion is WP:Notability, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? For albums, see also WP:NALBUMS.

That article was tagged under speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A9. The artist has no article, and there was nothing in what you wrote to make this different from a million other albums. Moreover, it has not even been released yet - see the "unreleased material" section of WP:NALBUMS. One reason for that is that Wikipedia is extremely resistant to being used for any kind of promotion; another is that until the album has been released and gathered critical comment, there are unlikely to be the independent sources necessary for an article.

An album article is much more likely to be accepted if the performer has an article. So you would be well advised to start by making an article for the artist, assuming that he meets the notability standard for musical performers, which is at WP:MUSICBIO.

You will probably tell me that you have seen other album articles which consist only of a track listing. The answer to that is at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: out of 4,400,000 articles, a regrettable number are substandard, but that is not a reason for allowing more.

A useful way to avoid premature deletion of an article is to click on Help:Userspace draft and fill in the title. That will make a draft page in your user space where you can work on an article, and ensure that it is complete and adequately referenced before moving it to the main encyclopedia.

The links in the Welcome message at the top of this page will tell you more about Wikipedia. WP:Your first article has good general advice, and you may find help and advice from other interested users at WP:WikiProject Albums. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--

Thanks, John. That all makes sense. I appreciate the thorough feedback.

Jasondcrane (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you respond this way to folks in the future, you might consider removing "You will probably tell me..." That turns a friendly, informative response into something that sounds a bit condescending. Just my $.02. Jasondcrane (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. How would you phrase it? Perhaps "You may well have seen other album articles... "?

Two tips - it's usual on talk pages to indent successive comments by adding colon : characters, as I have done here; and you don't need to reply both here and on my talk page. When someone has replied on your talk page, it will generally be on their WP:Watchlist so that, for a couple of days at least, they will know if you have replied there. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your new phrasing is great. And thanks for the tips, John.

Jasondcrane (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD - are you aware that Jasondcrane is being paid to write these articles on behalf of Whirlwind Records? "Want one for YOUR business? Contact me RT @WhirlwindRecord: Thanks to @JasonDCrane for the lovely new WWR Wiki page! " [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.32.23 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous: Paid editing does not contravene current Wikipedia regulations. If the proposed rule about disclosure passes, then of course I'll follow whatever new rules are in place. Thanks! Jasondcrane (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user came to my attention when she/he began editing the Whirlwind Recordings page I created. More information about this person's concerns are on the Whirlwind talk page. According to this person's IP address, this critic is based in London. It could just be a coincidence that the anonymous person complaining about the Whirlwind page is based in the same city as the record label and follows one or both of us on Twitter, but that seems unlikely. Is it possible to know the identity of this user so we can know whether her/his criticisms are based on dispassionate concern for Wikipedia or on a personal issue with the label in question? Wikipedia's own Conflict Of Interest policy contains this line: "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline."

This person's edits have led to a conflict of interest discussion about my paid editing. It's worth pointing out some additional facts about the genesis of this conversation. JohnCD began to investigate my contributions after this anonymous user quoted tweets on my personal talk page from my account and the WWR account. The only other updates from this IP address are on the entry for "nut" in 2007. This makes this look even more like harassment rather than concern for the integrity of Wikipedia. Integrity that is not in any way being degraded by my contributions. Jasondcrane (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

As you are doing it so openly, I am willing to believe that you did not understand how this would be regarded, but undisclosed paid editing of Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged, and may actually be illegal as "covert advertising" under US and European law - see WP:COVERT.

The largest firm in the paid-editing business has been issued with a cease-and-desist order by lawyers for the Wikimedia Foundation, and an amendment to the Terms of Use is planned to make this even clearer.

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and make no more paid-for entries for your clients that do not comply with the terms of WP:PSCOI: full advance disclosure, and suggestions for others to review, rather than direct edits.

I shall make an entry at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, John. I'm perfectly happy to disclose my status as a paid editor. I read the suggested documents you linked to, and other than not disclosing being paid, I'm careful to adhere to all the rules about sourcing, promotional language, etc. So much show that I've strenuously argued with clients about language they wished to have included. Not to mention these are worthwhile members of the jazz community who deserve to be on Wikipedia and are making art worthy of inclusion. They don't have the skills or time to do what I'm doing, and it feels completely fine to me to be improving Wikipedia this way. Jasondcrane (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI: If either of the following applies to you: 1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes)... then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral.

WP:PSCOI: The COI guideline advises: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." There is significant skepticism about the ability of paid contractors to work in alignment with Wikipedia's goals, and this kind of engagement often results in community and media backlash... If you have an ethical or professional responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client's or employer's interests, then you stand in a conflict of interest and should not edit affected articles directly, with or without disclosure.

I have asked for more eyes at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jasondcrane. JohnCD (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jasondcrane) I've spent the past 20 years as an advocate for, and participant in, the jazz world. For the past seven years I've hosted The Jazz Session, a free podcast with more than 400 episodes and 2.5 million downloads. You can learn more about the show and my history here.

Yes, I've taken money to create these entries, but I also have an expert-level knowledge of this subject and a deep understanding of which labels and which artists are notable in the jazz world. The people commenting on these entries may also have that level of knowledge, and I'd very much like to know that. But this is such a niche music that the average Wikipedia editor can't be expected to bring an extensive knowledge of jazz to the table. That's not a criticism, just a reality.

I'm completely willing to disclose the paid nature of my contributions. I'm making Wikipedia a better place, and writing dispassionately and with extensive sourcing about music most people don't know much about. I think people like me, who have these skills, should be able to use them. And if someone who doesn't have the time or skills wants to hire me to do that, I think that's completely fine. If anything I've written is deemed questionable, then I'll happily hear the criticism, accept it where merited, and defend my writing when appropriate.

Thanks for the chance to discuss this. I care deeply about this music and its inclusion in the world's best information source.Jasondcrane (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of First Meeting: Live in London, Volume 1 (Lee Konitz album)

The article First Meeting: Live in London, Volume 1 (Lee Konitz album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreleased album, no independent coverage to show notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Konitz is one of the most celebrated saxophonists of the 20th and now 21st centuries. If the album's future release date is a dealbreaker, then fine, but there is absolutely no question (even on Wikipedia itself) of Konitz's notability. Jasondcrane (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits

Please do not continue to remove a COI template that has relevance, nor add inappropriate text to an article, as you did here [2]. Thank you, JNW (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JNW. This seems to be a no-win situation. How can anyone meet Wiki's disclosure rules if they're not allowed to disclose? Jasondcrane (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jasondcrane, for discussions we use article and user talk pages, not articles themselves. This challenge at a user's talk page was also not cricket [3]; they were correct to revert your edit to the article. JNW (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, talk pages aren't used to resolve issues or have honest discussions, they're used to profess an ideology about Wikipedia. I've been extensively using the talk page to discuss this article and can get no straight answers at all about the content of the page. The only actual objection anyone seems to have is that I was paid to make it. The people objecting think this should be disclosed. So I disclosed it. And now you say that's not OK either. Wikipedia's rules are: (1) No paid editing without disclosure. (2) No disclosure. Therefore there appears to be no way to have the COI notice removed and no way to meet Wiki's non-content-based standards.

Also, there is an anonymous editor based in the same place as the label making edits and attacking me. I'm using my name to refute these attacks. But it's my behavior that's criticized, and not one person has looked into the credibility of this editor.

I want to get this issue resolved. Absolutely no one has actually dealt with the content or with my explanation of my contribution. Is there some way to finally, once and for all, have people read the actual article (preferably someone with knowledge of the music), read the talk page, and actually give answers? This is exasperating and makes Wikipedia look more like a closed priesthood than an open information source. Thanks for any help you can provide. Jasondcrane (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of a no-win situation increases when an editor accepts payment to write about subjects on Wikipedia. That is, it's exceedingly difficult to maintain WP:NPOV when adding content on behalf of a subject, who in essence is apt to try to maintain editorial oversight of their article, through the paid writer. And we writers do like to get paid for our efforts. Your disclosure was important; however, with or without it, the edits will be observed for neutrality and intent. That doesn't suggest a closed priesthood so much as the desire to remove content that appears promotional. And I think the concerns have been well fleshed out at the article talk page [4], as well as at the COI noticeboard. JNW (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your fast and forthright answer. I think you're 100% right about the need to maintain neutrality. And I think I've done that. And what I can't seem to do is get anyone to address the content of the article. How does the COI disclosure ever get removed if nobody talks about the content? Moreover, how can someone talk about the content if they don't know about the music? And how can anyone ever know whether an editor knows about the music if they don't provide credentials? These are the issues that are making me so frustrated. Thanks! Jasondcrane (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: if several experienced editors discern COI issues, they're probably valid. There's no way that In its brief existence, WWR has already been heralded "the label of the moment"[2] by BBC Radio 3 as well as "the most exciting new jazz label based in the UK"[3] by the Financial Times passes as neutral, nor are long and inadequately sourced lists of non notable artists and recordings acceptable--these raise red flags. Sometimes revisions are made quickly, but it can take time to unravel the content and remove the templates. Knowledge of the subject is helpful, but not required. I have entered into COI territory on many occasions, but my edits don't stick unless they're adequately sourced and are neutral in tone (I've also never accepted compensation for writing here, and never polished or fluffed something up at a friend's request, only sought better sources to support content). I suspect that your frustration is compounded by the implications of COI and compensation, which is natural. But even if that's not the basis for your displeasure, it's necessary to stay cool and not chase after the IPs just because they tick you off; doing such things will shorten your stay here. I'm going to the trouble here because you know your subject well, and can make real contributions. But those contributions must keep in mind the encyclopedia's larger framework, rather than the desires of those for whom you freelance. JNW (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so refreshing to be having a rational discussion with someone who's reading what I'm writing. I already feel better.

I understand about the text you quoted and I agree, now that I see it through someone else's eyes. To my mind, as a longtime journalist, those things weren't promotion because they came from third-party sources. But I do see the difference between that and neutrality.

Regarding the IPs, it seems like Wikipedia is easy for anonymous people to abuse with no penalty and no real system for tracking down such abuse. But there again, I could lack sufficient knowledge to understand the systems that are in place. It's clear that bringing up the abuse isn't the method, because no one seems to take notice of that. So I need to do more research there.

Finally, the article now complies with everyone's wishes. How does the COI notice get removed?

Thanks again. Jasondcrane (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the names of artists whose notability hasn't yet been established per WP:NOTABILITY, and remove the COI template. I imagine several editors are watching the article now. As for IPs, they generally display the same positive and negative characteristics as registered editors; I used IPs for a time out of concern for protecting my anonymity. The disruptive ones are indeed subject to sanctions, and long-term abusive IPs, especially those working from schools, are sometimes blocked for years. In short, be more concerned with your own contributions than the backgrounds of other users. JNW (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My very sincere thanks for your help. You did in several minutes what no one else did in several days.

Two more questions:

(1) Re: "be more concerned with your own contributions than the backgrounds of other users" -- that's nice in principal, but it was the initial comment of an anonymous user, with whom I have no way to interact, and whom no one else ever addressed, that started this entire process.

(2) I still believe that it's not a conflict to write here for money, and I intend to keep doing it and disclosing my identity and my paid status. Wikipedia is better for the content I've created and I think it's 100% fair to be paid for that. (I do free editing, too, of course.) Given that I can't use disclosure statements, what's the best way to proceed? Jasondcrane (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI has plenty of detail on how to proceed. If you only want to follow WP:COI loosely, then learn quickly and well the policies highlighted in WP:COI: WP:NPOV and WP:NOT; and be prepared to discuss your edits at length on article talk pages.

It's a great deal easier to just follow WP:COI strictly while you learn the policies. --Ronz (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make the disclosure on applicable article talk pages. I haven't gone back through your other articles, but if similar COI issues are evident in those, then this would indicate a broader area of concern. Writing articles for pay here nearly always engenders a conflict of interest--it takes very nimble footing and clear intent. Probably you've already been directed to this policy, which elaborates on the issue [5]. If you disagree with the guidelines, then its discussion page is the proper venue, rather than using various articles to make an alternative case. JNW (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. You've been extremely helpful. Jasondcrane (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capri Records (Jazz record label), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek feedback on new articles before pushing them out.

Hi Jasondcrane, I appreciate your honesty about your COI! I wanted to stop by though and ask that until you learn what is acceptable on WP that you please seek out help from other editors before creating new articles. You can write them up in your sandbox and request comments on WP:REWARD or WP:ASSIST. Currently the articles you have recently created contain many links to commercial online stores and long lists of non-notable items. This creates significant work for editors to clean up. Please note: I am no admin, and this is just a suggestion. But you have created several controversial new articles recently, and would suggest you ask for help before creating another. Thank you. Beakermeep^(talk) 18:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whirlwindrecordingslogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whirlwindrecordingslogo.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Redcirclepurcellcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Redcirclepurcellcover.jpg. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whirlwindrecordingsnewlogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whirlwindrecordingsnewlogo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Greasefactorcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Greasefactorcover.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]