⁂ Main Talk - Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ⁂ |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Inre your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (2nd nomination): The title has been moved to It's Complicated (film) and the article has now been expanded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF, as filming had commenced, completed, and the film has a slated release date. Any thoughts on modifying your delete opinion? MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this via AFD just yesterday and now someone just put it back up.-- Sandor Clegane ( talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I started a new article hoping to rectify the main concern with the original article which was that it was autobiographical because the subject had originally started the page. The consensus on the talk/delete page for the original article was that notability was established through credible references that met Wikipedia guidelines. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than they share some of the same references. I was also in the process of editing my article when it was deleted. Could you please un-delete this page or move it to the sandbox? Thank you
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
I am surprised to see that you have concluded the consensus of the discussion for deletion of ‘Lin Chen’ is to merger ‘Lin Chen’ to ‘Chen Model’. To my understanding the discussion has not reached a consensus. Given the indecisive result, the best solution is ‘status quota’, to leave the article ‘Lin chen’ alone.
Here is the result of the votes in the discussion: 3 keeps: 1 delete: 2 mergers ( Lin Chen to Chen model) 1 merge (Chen model to Lin Chen) In particular, DGG, a senior editor of Wikipedia, best interprets the Wikipedia criterion and suggests to keep the article. If merger, DGG added, Chen model should merger to Lin Chen, not the other way around.
As you did not participate in the discussion I am not sure if you have full knowledge of the discussion, but I hope you could take the majority’s opinion seriously. At least you should take DGG’s opinion seriously. Thank you.
Bankert ( talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Please note the followings: 1) Lin Chen has notability beyond his model. He was at least twice made a national headline in his home country, China. One is several years ago when he became the highest paid college president in China’s history; the other, when he was a college sophomore he taught himself physics for three months and successfully passed the entrance exam for the graduate studies. 2) DGG made a great point that Lin Chen’s case is similar to athletes’ case; once an athlete makes a record he/she becomes notable. In Chen’s case, if Chen model is considered notable then the author of the mode is automatically notable. 3) If you guys still insist merger, I think you should follow DGG ‘s suggestion that ‘Chen model’ merger to ‘Lin Chen’ not the other way around. Bankert ( talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Still funny? Ironholds ( talk) 13:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The West Wing presidential election, 2006 . 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. Ribbet32 ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
i understand the fact that you are thinking about my privacy and are thankful but please can i have my page back Leanne Gallagher ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for your fair judgement in administering the AfD. Keep up the good work. Lattefever ( talk) 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
I feel like I am bouncing around between conflicting guidelines here. I am attempting to create an informational entry about a quantitative financial risk model. I responded to a request to add internal links, but you say I have too many links. I am in the process of removing language I thought could be construed as promotional and replacing it with methodology, but received your order to stop writing. Can you help me find the acceptable course for posting this information? Thanks, userpe Userpe ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "The keeps failed to explain why this user is notable". Do you mean that the sources listed didn't meet WP:N or that he's not notable in a more basic sense that he hasn't done anything "worthy of note" even if sources have covered him? Hobit ( talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
response to the decision by \Backslash Forwardslash/ - I just want to go on record as saying I think the second deletion of the article I created for Book Author Alan Roger Currie is totally subjective, unwarranted and even the target of a "personal vendetta" by the editor Theserialcomma. Theserialcomma was the #1 editor who encouraged me to write a new, edited version of Mr. Currie's page after the original one was deleted, and then he/she turns around and pushes for a speedy delete of the second, more improved article. In the meantime, you have an article for a book author such as Ross Jeffries maintained, and anyone who knows about dating and relationships knows that Jeffries is not even in the same league as Alan Roger Currie. Even worse, you have an article maintained for a so-called seduction guru named JDOG. The presence of these latter two articles, among many more, makes the decision to remove Mr. Currie's page appear very excessive, not to mention borderline laughable. My $0.02 Chicago Smooth ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isola (fictional island). 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. Axem Titanium ( talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Backslash Forwardslash I wrote a direct email to you and did not receive a response, so I'm going to try posting to your page. It was suggested by User talk:Accounting4Taste that I first contact you. I was hoping we could discuss an article that was deleted recently that I contributed to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston. I realize I may not be as up on Wikipedia guidelines as some of the admins or more experienced users but when I follow the argument Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston, it doesn't seem like deletion was necessary. I apologize in advance if I seem ignorant to the protocol of Wikipedia but please allow me to explain.
Many contributors, (one in particular who is a major contributor to Wikipedia music articles User:Dissolve) advised to keep, Another User:Abc518 advised to Merge and cited at least some notability. He then went on to say, "There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added... I don't think this page should be deleted all together." The discussion then continued where Editing User:Mperiera explained in detail source credibility for the article's references. The credibility of those references was then re-affirmed by User:Dissolve an experienced veteran Wikipedia music article contributor, when he said, "Keep Subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources (SF Weekly[23], Allmusic[24], East Bay Express[25], Keyboard Magazine[26]), so meets WP:N." I understand that this is not a majority vote but there was a majority of contributors to this talk that cited arguments that seemed to speak to the subjects notability and that the references meet the guidelines to establish WP:Notability.
The consensus of the group discussion from what I read seemed to establish with valid arguments that Mikael Johnston has notability in his field electronic dance music, that his article should not be deleted, however, there was a concern that the page was autobiographical because the subject had started the article himself.
I understand the concern about the original article possibly being autobiographical, and this is the reason I was compelled to start a new article hoping to write something the was not connected with the subject - unbiased, well referenced and fact based. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than using some of the same reference material (as well as some new ones). Please allow me to finish and post the new article I started on Mikael Johnston. I welcome any help or suggestions to help ensure my article meets Wikipedia guidelines. My article is newly started and more of a stub than an article so far. I may ask for help from some more experienced users like User:Dissolve, in finishing this article. You can see what I've written in so far at User:Lishlet/Sandbox.
Thank you again for your time. Please let me know your thoughts.
Did you actually read my original letter or the entire afd carefully? (see above). First of all ABC's argument isn't relevant because if you had of followed the links he discussed you would have found out the same thing I did which was that his assessment of them was largely incorrect. His claim that some of the links didn't even work wasn't true and his claim that many didn't meet WP:Notability was dispelled by Dissolve, who is more or less an expert on Wikipedia in the subject of music. He has over 13000 edits for articles related to music. He voted to keep btw... Lastly there was a direct response by Mpereira that explained every linked reference on the page that was far from being a fan letter. I'm very disappointed in your seemingly one sided assessment of this situation. You didn't bother to even consider any of the legitimate testimony in favor of the article. In fact during the afd discussion the only responses by administrators were concerning the less credible arguments as you pointed out and seemed to be at times even personally motivated. That aside nobody responded with even so much as a comment to Dissolve? Why is that? I also asked for your help on a rewrite of the article that I started as a stub, which I pointed you to at my sandbox, you never even mentioned it in your response to me. I am not feeling a lot of love at the moment... Is deletion review really my only option here, or can we talk about the possibility of a rewrite on this article, which is really what I'm trying to get at here. Thanks again for your time.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
By the way, since you cited ABC as your primary source of argument against keeping the page in question I'd also like to point out that ABC even after his review of the references didn't vote to delete. In fact he stated that the articled definitely shouldn't be deleted altogether and said that at most a merge was appropriate, that is far from a delete vote and should have probably been discussed further before deletion archiving of the afd page.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
i also just tried to create an atrticle, "Hassan Zirak" which was removed by yourself which was an exact copy of this article, "Hesen Zirek", whilst the second article is still on wikipedia after 5 years just due to the fact that the author has used an incorrect spelling of the name. could someone please sort this out as it is just boiling my blood.
many thanks. ( Snndj98765 ( talk) 04:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
As been deleted twice by speedy deletion and you shouldn't have removed the tag. I'm putting it back since I nominated before for speedy and it was deleted with no problem.-- Fire 55 ( talk) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Did it just got speedy deleted again by an admin. LOL-- Fire 55 ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be more careful when speedy deleting images. You deleted File:26648897-798b0ffd3a55d7485ae722cdfbe90b71.4a9b3c05-scaled.jpg, which was tagged as "copied from http://www.nasa.gov/, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia". The nasa.gov site is home to numerous public domain images, including that one, which was tagged as public domain. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have two favors to ask.
1: Copy your archive
Do you mind if I use your archive list thingy? I like it, and I'm guessing I might need an archive box.
2: Editing
Do you know what type of article I should create? I've searched up everything I know and it is on wikipedia. Please give me a tip or so soon.
Please either answer on my page or notify me to look here. Thanks! S H 6 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! S H 6 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you accepted that im allowed to use the archive thing, i put your name on the bottom of my userpage in 'Credits' If you want to see, go head there =). S H 6 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow closing this as no-consensus. The keep side were exclusively arguing again a renomination despite the 8 months since the last substantive AFD and the delete side put forward solid policy based arguments based on poor sourcing. Since we close with arguments rather then headcount and the delete arguments were based on policy I'm not able to follow why you stated in the close that there wasn't a good enough discussion to justify deletion. Surely, If good policy based reasons are put forward against poor keep arguments that did not address the central core of the delete arguments, then shouldn't the deletion arguments prevail? Spartaz Humbug! 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm strongly tempted to take this to Deletion Review at this point. I pointed out the basic verifiability and notability problems here, that the same three editors, in AFD discussion after AFD discussion, keep successfully out-voting by dint of simple unsupported assertion, back in May 2007, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination). I reiterated it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination). It was reiterated for me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination). These basic sourcing problems, for an article that both the subject wanted deleted and that is one of Jimbo Wales' few AFD nominations, and that is of course a biography of a living person, have existed for too long, and it is time that closing administrators took a firmer stand on this. Policies and guidelines have been out-voted for too long. Uncle G ( talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Deletion Review (and the reason that I came to your talk page in the first place): I draw your attention to events at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30#Melissa Palmer, M.D.. Diffs demonstrating the identity of Efactor1975 and Voros1975 are not hard to find from the contributions histories, note. Uncle G ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you recently closed this AfD as delete. However, you only deleted the main article, there were two other articles bundled together with this AfD that should also have been deleted: Para Todas las Putas Celosas and The Fake Sound of Progress (EP). Could you take care of them too please? Cheers. Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ashida Kim. 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. *** Crotalus *** 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Good day,
I am contacting you specifically because I have no idea which admin is responsible for what on Wikipedia, and you were the closing admin on the Jackson Davis AfD.
Only a few hours after you closed that discussion,
Otterathome went after yet another page related to the franchise, this time, it was
Mesh Flinders, one of the original writers. (
AfD here)
Question: What exactly can we do to deal with this user? After half a dozen nominations of pages only related to this franchise, and his overzealous attempts to kill the The Last and Jackson Davis articles despite clear decisions by Wikipedia's admins and community, it is rather obvious his point of view is not neutral, and he has a personal interest in removing the LG15 franchise in particular from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear designated area to raise concerns like this. :(
I submitted a Wikiquette alert about him a while ago, but unfortunately got little response.
Can you give us any pointers how to deal with this situation? A person to contact, a page to post on? The way this has been going on for over a month now, I have no doubt he is not going to stop until all those pages are gone, probably tying up all interested editors in several more months of AfDs, DRVs, etc. that could be spent improving those pages instead :/
I am aware that it is desirable that non-notable pages are removed, and I am not questioning his right to nominate individual pages for deletion. I just think that there's a vast difference between nominating one or two pages over notability concerns, and starting a crusade to rid Wikipedia of an entire franchise...
I would be very happy if you could tell us how to proceed...Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are sort of a jungle in that regard :S
Thank you for your time
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk
04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
G'day,
My name is Robert Turnbull, I created the page 'The Backyard Bard'. I was told that it was listed for possible deletion so a couple days ago I went through and added the references as per the request and I put a note in the 'Article for deletion' page. Nonetheless, the page was still deleted and nobody responded about my note or my changes. Is there was something else that needed to be done, can you please tell me? What would need to happen to get the page reinstated?
I'm sorry about the hassle.
Thanks, Rob RobertTurnbull ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertTurnbull ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Will do! Thanks, RobertTurnbull ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's quite a bit of info, but that is pretty much the maximum extent I would give anyone. 3L1J4H ( talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We are very sad to know that you have the page on Jose Fadul deleted. We are starting to think that A bunch of crazy deleteonists have began lording it over Wikipedia. 119.111.86.72 ( talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you delete the page "Simpsons Stick Ems". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanc1982 ( talk • contribs)
On the template thing that has the season eight episode list, there is a typo on the red link. There's an extra " Family Goy Abce2| Talk Sign 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. Regards, Javért | Talk 05:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a histmerge request for Mida over at WT:VG by User:New Age Retro Hippie, who developed the article pretty significantly on his userspace. Was going to slap a histmerge tag on it but since it's a userspace thing combined with a redirect figured it'd be better to direct you to the discussion since you did the one on Toad (Mario) recently. Discussion link.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Saebjon. It's wonderful to have enthusiasm, but can I suggest that you only welcome users who have made a constructive edit. That way you avoid welcoming vandals and clogging up the New Pages log. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are discussions here and here which you may be interested in. pablo hablo. 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
When you closed the AfD on this article, you didn't delete the actual article, which its author had moved to Pittsboro, Indiana Businesses and Buildings. You just deleted the redirect he left behind. Deor ( talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for approaching A Nobody directly and your comments at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Do you think that the discussion has reached a consensus, or would it benefit from RfC/CENT? If you feel that you cannot make a fair determination, would you recommend another admin to consult? Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm giving cookies for the people who resolved the dispte at the Philippnes quickly. Thanks!-- 23prootie ( talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
23prootie has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
I think the article can be safely unprotected at this point. The main warmonger, Boxedor ( talk · contribs · logs), is now indefed as a sock of a known Philippine-related article warrior. I think there's some cleanup that needs to be done now that he's been knocked down again. Thanks, The V-Man ( Said · Done) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello \ /, you closed the AfD, but the notice on the article is still there. Shouldn't it be removed or am I missing something? Thanks. -- Mokhov ( talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
⁂ Main Talk - Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ⁂ |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Inre your nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (2nd nomination): The title has been moved to It's Complicated (film) and the article has now been expanded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF, as filming had commenced, completed, and the film has a slated release date. Any thoughts on modifying your delete opinion? MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this via AFD just yesterday and now someone just put it back up.-- Sandor Clegane ( talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I started a new article hoping to rectify the main concern with the original article which was that it was autobiographical because the subject had originally started the page. The consensus on the talk/delete page for the original article was that notability was established through credible references that met Wikipedia guidelines. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than they share some of the same references. I was also in the process of editing my article when it was deleted. Could you please un-delete this page or move it to the sandbox? Thank you
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC).
I am surprised to see that you have concluded the consensus of the discussion for deletion of ‘Lin Chen’ is to merger ‘Lin Chen’ to ‘Chen Model’. To my understanding the discussion has not reached a consensus. Given the indecisive result, the best solution is ‘status quota’, to leave the article ‘Lin chen’ alone.
Here is the result of the votes in the discussion: 3 keeps: 1 delete: 2 mergers ( Lin Chen to Chen model) 1 merge (Chen model to Lin Chen) In particular, DGG, a senior editor of Wikipedia, best interprets the Wikipedia criterion and suggests to keep the article. If merger, DGG added, Chen model should merger to Lin Chen, not the other way around.
As you did not participate in the discussion I am not sure if you have full knowledge of the discussion, but I hope you could take the majority’s opinion seriously. At least you should take DGG’s opinion seriously. Thank you.
Bankert ( talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Please note the followings: 1) Lin Chen has notability beyond his model. He was at least twice made a national headline in his home country, China. One is several years ago when he became the highest paid college president in China’s history; the other, when he was a college sophomore he taught himself physics for three months and successfully passed the entrance exam for the graduate studies. 2) DGG made a great point that Lin Chen’s case is similar to athletes’ case; once an athlete makes a record he/she becomes notable. In Chen’s case, if Chen model is considered notable then the author of the mode is automatically notable. 3) If you guys still insist merger, I think you should follow DGG ‘s suggestion that ‘Chen model’ merger to ‘Lin Chen’ not the other way around. Bankert ( talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Still funny? Ironholds ( talk) 13:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The West Wing presidential election, 2006 . 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. Ribbet32 ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
i understand the fact that you are thinking about my privacy and are thankful but please can i have my page back Leanne Gallagher ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for your fair judgement in administering the AfD. Keep up the good work. Lattefever ( talk) 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
I feel like I am bouncing around between conflicting guidelines here. I am attempting to create an informational entry about a quantitative financial risk model. I responded to a request to add internal links, but you say I have too many links. I am in the process of removing language I thought could be construed as promotional and replacing it with methodology, but received your order to stop writing. Can you help me find the acceptable course for posting this information? Thanks, userpe Userpe ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "The keeps failed to explain why this user is notable". Do you mean that the sources listed didn't meet WP:N or that he's not notable in a more basic sense that he hasn't done anything "worthy of note" even if sources have covered him? Hobit ( talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
response to the decision by \Backslash Forwardslash/ - I just want to go on record as saying I think the second deletion of the article I created for Book Author Alan Roger Currie is totally subjective, unwarranted and even the target of a "personal vendetta" by the editor Theserialcomma. Theserialcomma was the #1 editor who encouraged me to write a new, edited version of Mr. Currie's page after the original one was deleted, and then he/she turns around and pushes for a speedy delete of the second, more improved article. In the meantime, you have an article for a book author such as Ross Jeffries maintained, and anyone who knows about dating and relationships knows that Jeffries is not even in the same league as Alan Roger Currie. Even worse, you have an article maintained for a so-called seduction guru named JDOG. The presence of these latter two articles, among many more, makes the decision to remove Mr. Currie's page appear very excessive, not to mention borderline laughable. My $0.02 Chicago Smooth ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isola (fictional island). 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. Axem Titanium ( talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Backslash Forwardslash I wrote a direct email to you and did not receive a response, so I'm going to try posting to your page. It was suggested by User talk:Accounting4Taste that I first contact you. I was hoping we could discuss an article that was deleted recently that I contributed to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston. I realize I may not be as up on Wikipedia guidelines as some of the admins or more experienced users but when I follow the argument Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston, it doesn't seem like deletion was necessary. I apologize in advance if I seem ignorant to the protocol of Wikipedia but please allow me to explain.
Many contributors, (one in particular who is a major contributor to Wikipedia music articles User:Dissolve) advised to keep, Another User:Abc518 advised to Merge and cited at least some notability. He then went on to say, "There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added... I don't think this page should be deleted all together." The discussion then continued where Editing User:Mperiera explained in detail source credibility for the article's references. The credibility of those references was then re-affirmed by User:Dissolve an experienced veteran Wikipedia music article contributor, when he said, "Keep Subject has coverage in multiple reliable sources (SF Weekly[23], Allmusic[24], East Bay Express[25], Keyboard Magazine[26]), so meets WP:N." I understand that this is not a majority vote but there was a majority of contributors to this talk that cited arguments that seemed to speak to the subjects notability and that the references meet the guidelines to establish WP:Notability.
The consensus of the group discussion from what I read seemed to establish with valid arguments that Mikael Johnston has notability in his field electronic dance music, that his article should not be deleted, however, there was a concern that the page was autobiographical because the subject had started the article himself.
I understand the concern about the original article possibly being autobiographical, and this is the reason I was compelled to start a new article hoping to write something the was not connected with the subject - unbiased, well referenced and fact based. The new article I started bears no resemblance to the original article other than using some of the same reference material (as well as some new ones). Please allow me to finish and post the new article I started on Mikael Johnston. I welcome any help or suggestions to help ensure my article meets Wikipedia guidelines. My article is newly started and more of a stub than an article so far. I may ask for help from some more experienced users like User:Dissolve, in finishing this article. You can see what I've written in so far at User:Lishlet/Sandbox.
Thank you again for your time. Please let me know your thoughts.
Did you actually read my original letter or the entire afd carefully? (see above). First of all ABC's argument isn't relevant because if you had of followed the links he discussed you would have found out the same thing I did which was that his assessment of them was largely incorrect. His claim that some of the links didn't even work wasn't true and his claim that many didn't meet WP:Notability was dispelled by Dissolve, who is more or less an expert on Wikipedia in the subject of music. He has over 13000 edits for articles related to music. He voted to keep btw... Lastly there was a direct response by Mpereira that explained every linked reference on the page that was far from being a fan letter. I'm very disappointed in your seemingly one sided assessment of this situation. You didn't bother to even consider any of the legitimate testimony in favor of the article. In fact during the afd discussion the only responses by administrators were concerning the less credible arguments as you pointed out and seemed to be at times even personally motivated. That aside nobody responded with even so much as a comment to Dissolve? Why is that? I also asked for your help on a rewrite of the article that I started as a stub, which I pointed you to at my sandbox, you never even mentioned it in your response to me. I am not feeling a lot of love at the moment... Is deletion review really my only option here, or can we talk about the possibility of a rewrite on this article, which is really what I'm trying to get at here. Thanks again for your time.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
By the way, since you cited ABC as your primary source of argument against keeping the page in question I'd also like to point out that ABC even after his review of the references didn't vote to delete. In fact he stated that the articled definitely shouldn't be deleted altogether and said that at most a merge was appropriate, that is far from a delete vote and should have probably been discussed further before deletion archiving of the afd page.
Lishlet ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
i also just tried to create an atrticle, "Hassan Zirak" which was removed by yourself which was an exact copy of this article, "Hesen Zirek", whilst the second article is still on wikipedia after 5 years just due to the fact that the author has used an incorrect spelling of the name. could someone please sort this out as it is just boiling my blood.
many thanks. ( Snndj98765 ( talk) 04:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
As been deleted twice by speedy deletion and you shouldn't have removed the tag. I'm putting it back since I nominated before for speedy and it was deleted with no problem.-- Fire 55 ( talk) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Did it just got speedy deleted again by an admin. LOL-- Fire 55 ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please be more careful when speedy deleting images. You deleted File:26648897-798b0ffd3a55d7485ae722cdfbe90b71.4a9b3c05-scaled.jpg, which was tagged as "copied from http://www.nasa.gov/, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia". The nasa.gov site is home to numerous public domain images, including that one, which was tagged as public domain. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have two favors to ask.
1: Copy your archive
Do you mind if I use your archive list thingy? I like it, and I'm guessing I might need an archive box.
2: Editing
Do you know what type of article I should create? I've searched up everything I know and it is on wikipedia. Please give me a tip or so soon.
Please either answer on my page or notify me to look here. Thanks! S H 6 06:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! S H 6 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you accepted that im allowed to use the archive thing, i put your name on the bottom of my userpage in 'Credits' If you want to see, go head there =). S H 6 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow closing this as no-consensus. The keep side were exclusively arguing again a renomination despite the 8 months since the last substantive AFD and the delete side put forward solid policy based arguments based on poor sourcing. Since we close with arguments rather then headcount and the delete arguments were based on policy I'm not able to follow why you stated in the close that there wasn't a good enough discussion to justify deletion. Surely, If good policy based reasons are put forward against poor keep arguments that did not address the central core of the delete arguments, then shouldn't the deletion arguments prevail? Spartaz Humbug! 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm strongly tempted to take this to Deletion Review at this point. I pointed out the basic verifiability and notability problems here, that the same three editors, in AFD discussion after AFD discussion, keep successfully out-voting by dint of simple unsupported assertion, back in May 2007, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination). I reiterated it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination). It was reiterated for me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (5th nomination). These basic sourcing problems, for an article that both the subject wanted deleted and that is one of Jimbo Wales' few AFD nominations, and that is of course a biography of a living person, have existed for too long, and it is time that closing administrators took a firmer stand on this. Policies and guidelines have been out-voted for too long. Uncle G ( talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Deletion Review (and the reason that I came to your talk page in the first place): I draw your attention to events at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 30#Melissa Palmer, M.D.. Diffs demonstrating the identity of Efactor1975 and Voros1975 are not hard to find from the contributions histories, note. Uncle G ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you recently closed this AfD as delete. However, you only deleted the main article, there were two other articles bundled together with this AfD that should also have been deleted: Para Todas las Putas Celosas and The Fake Sound of Progress (EP). Could you take care of them too please? Cheers. Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ashida Kim. 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. *** Crotalus *** 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Good day,
I am contacting you specifically because I have no idea which admin is responsible for what on Wikipedia, and you were the closing admin on the Jackson Davis AfD.
Only a few hours after you closed that discussion,
Otterathome went after yet another page related to the franchise, this time, it was
Mesh Flinders, one of the original writers. (
AfD here)
Question: What exactly can we do to deal with this user? After half a dozen nominations of pages only related to this franchise, and his overzealous attempts to kill the The Last and Jackson Davis articles despite clear decisions by Wikipedia's admins and community, it is rather obvious his point of view is not neutral, and he has a personal interest in removing the LG15 franchise in particular from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear designated area to raise concerns like this. :(
I submitted a Wikiquette alert about him a while ago, but unfortunately got little response.
Can you give us any pointers how to deal with this situation? A person to contact, a page to post on? The way this has been going on for over a month now, I have no doubt he is not going to stop until all those pages are gone, probably tying up all interested editors in several more months of AfDs, DRVs, etc. that could be spent improving those pages instead :/
I am aware that it is desirable that non-notable pages are removed, and I am not questioning his right to nominate individual pages for deletion. I just think that there's a vast difference between nominating one or two pages over notability concerns, and starting a crusade to rid Wikipedia of an entire franchise...
I would be very happy if you could tell us how to proceed...Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are sort of a jungle in that regard :S
Thank you for your time
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk
04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
G'day,
My name is Robert Turnbull, I created the page 'The Backyard Bard'. I was told that it was listed for possible deletion so a couple days ago I went through and added the references as per the request and I put a note in the 'Article for deletion' page. Nonetheless, the page was still deleted and nobody responded about my note or my changes. Is there was something else that needed to be done, can you please tell me? What would need to happen to get the page reinstated?
I'm sorry about the hassle.
Thanks, Rob RobertTurnbull ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertTurnbull ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Will do! Thanks, RobertTurnbull ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I know it's quite a bit of info, but that is pretty much the maximum extent I would give anyone. 3L1J4H ( talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We are very sad to know that you have the page on Jose Fadul deleted. We are starting to think that A bunch of crazy deleteonists have began lording it over Wikipedia. 119.111.86.72 ( talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, why did you delete the page "Simpsons Stick Ems". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanc1982 ( talk • contribs)
On the template thing that has the season eight episode list, there is a typo on the red link. There's an extra " Family Goy Abce2| Talk Sign 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You've got mail. Regards, Javért | Talk 05:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a histmerge request for Mida over at WT:VG by User:New Age Retro Hippie, who developed the article pretty significantly on his userspace. Was going to slap a histmerge tag on it but since it's a userspace thing combined with a redirect figured it'd be better to direct you to the discussion since you did the one on Toad (Mario) recently. Discussion link.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Saebjon. It's wonderful to have enthusiasm, but can I suggest that you only welcome users who have made a constructive edit. That way you avoid welcoming vandals and clogging up the New Pages log. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 07:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are discussions here and here which you may be interested in. pablo hablo. 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
When you closed the AfD on this article, you didn't delete the actual article, which its author had moved to Pittsboro, Indiana Businesses and Buildings. You just deleted the redirect he left behind. Deor ( talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for approaching A Nobody directly and your comments at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Do you think that the discussion has reached a consensus, or would it benefit from RfC/CENT? If you feel that you cannot make a fair determination, would you recommend another admin to consult? Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm giving cookies for the people who resolved the dispte at the Philippnes quickly. Thanks!-- 23prootie ( talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
23prootie has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
I think the article can be safely unprotected at this point. The main warmonger, Boxedor ( talk · contribs · logs), is now indefed as a sock of a known Philippine-related article warrior. I think there's some cleanup that needs to be done now that he's been knocked down again. Thanks, The V-Man ( Said · Done) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello \ /, you closed the AfD, but the notice on the article is still there. Shouldn't it be removed or am I missing something? Thanks. -- Mokhov ( talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)