![]() |
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
The date of death on his tombstone states JULY 25 2020, but you incessantly change it to the 24th, just because some media outlets incorrectly reported it as so, and you incorrectly report it on Wikipedia. I have changed it repeatedly and will continue to do so, with the reference, until it stays. I think the family who erected the stone knows better, than media publications.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.111.54 ( talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
With all due respect how is this disruptive editing? I am a friend of the Philbin family and know for a fact he died on the 25th of July, again also as evidenced by his tombstone. But if you wish to report inaccurate info on the page so be it. Shame.
|}
Hi Daniel. I’ve got sort of a technical question over what recently happened at Michael E. Rodgers and WT:AFD. The IP felt that the article should be deleted; so, they added {{ AFD}} to the top of the article, but didn’t complete the rest of the process. Maybe they tried to do that and just didn’t know how or maybe there’s some technical reason which prevented them from doing so. Regardless, the IP instead went to WT:AFD a few minutes later and requested the that someone else finish creating the AFD. A couple of more minutes pass and nobody responds to the IP’s request and the AFD discussion has apparently still not been created. The IP then decided that it would be better to redirect the article instead; so, that’s what they boldly did. They then removed their post from WT:AFD, which nobody still had not responded to, and probably figured that nothing more needed to be done. It was at that point that things started to go off the rails and the back-and-forth reverting started to happen at both pages, ultimately leading to a RPP request. My question is whether the AFD was formally created as soon as the IP added the template to the article. The IP didn’t finish the rest of the process and seemed to have no intention of doing so. The other editors involved in the dispute also didn’t seem to intend to start an AFD. I thought about doing so just for procedural reasons, but reverts kept coming and you eventually locked the page. Is there a partially completed AFD now floating around in the system that needs to be taken care of in someway? The IP has reappeared on the article’s talk page to apologize, and has also apologized on one of the other editor’s user talk pages. So, if the AFD is in limbo and still needs to be completed, I can explain that to the IP and give them a chance to sort things out. Does the IP need to create the discussion page, and then withdraw or otherwise explain their nomination? — Marchjuly ( talk) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC) replyNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Craig Dillon. 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.
Hi Daniel, I have requested a review of the deletion and salting of the page Craig_Dillon here:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 17
I believe this page passes the gng and it should not have been deleted without a discussion, the 1st article for deletion is from 2006 and referencing a different person, and the recent article was well sourced with the subject appearing in multiple reputable news sources as the main subject. The deletion at least deserved a proper debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply
You closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Junior Fed Cup Final as consensus to merge into Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. We have two editors asking for delete, one for keep, and one for merge/redirect. The article to redirect to is a huge list of 35 years of finals. By saying to merge we would have to do the same with 35 other created finals articles. It would be unwieldy. We've also had many other similar articles that were just deleted such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Junior Fed Cup Final] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Junior Fed Cup Final, etc... There were several others that were simply redirected here, and here, and here.
Yours is the only one that was decided as a merge so the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup article would now have to be rebuilt with the chart split in half while accommodating a single year, 1996. Please reconsider your choice of merge. Really, once the first one of these was listed and deleted, the rest should have been done as a group so this situation would not have happened and the origianl editor requesting these deletes should be told as such. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello. I noticed today that the page for Citinite had been deleted, and read your reasons for doing so. I understand but I don’t think it's strictly true that there is a lack of sources addressing Citinite directly — there are some, one of which shows up in the first set of Google search results which is a news item about the closure of the label. Many other articles that can be found are reviews of Citinite releases. No doubt some reviews were written on sites that no longer exist and so may no longer be easy to find, if at all, but that's a problem with the internet rather than a problem with the label’s merit. In addition to The Fader, releases were reviewed in print in DJ Magazine, The Washington Post, and XLR8R Magazine. Online reviews can also be read in The Wire magazine but they can only be viewed if you are a subscriber to the magazine. I notice there are also a few Wikipedia pages which also mention Citinite. I hope the page can be restored. Thankyou. Cosmau ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27 § Jamie Spears, Vaticidalprophet has raised the question of whether the existence of James Parnell Spears goes against the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Spears. As you were the deleting admin there, do you have any comment on that? Specifically I'm curious whether this falls into G4 territory. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of P2P_Foundation. 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. Mitar ( talk) 20:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
![]()
|
In your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Volkers did you ignore my comments? After the allegations are removed from that article, it will no longer be a target that mentions Scott Volkers. What is the rationale for redirecting it there? -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel—I'm very surprised to see that you closed this discussion as "No consensus." I feel that admins have an obligation to try to carefully interpret consensus and avoid using "no consensus" whenever possible: it just kicks the can down the road and invites future renominations. In this case, the nominator presented no valid deletion rationale and one very experienced user (Jeepday) refuted that and argued to keep. Reasonable outcomes would have been "keep" or relist, but I can't see how "no consensus" is a reasonable summarization of a discussion where nobody supported the nomination. pburka ( talk) 19:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, the page was added to AfD about a month ago. It’s re-listed a couple of times. It’s about a month. The Artist is well known in his area and keeping it marked for deletion any further is a humiliation to him. Can you make decision on this case? Your help would be highly appreciated Rnair2020 ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Rnair2020 ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Who is this User:Drmies? Thanks very much that you chose to support so early in the process. Please call on me if I can be helpful or if I shoot myself in the foot. BusterD ( talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Are you closing redirect one article, or all the articles on nomination?? Govvy ( talk) 23:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello. Would it be possible to relist Onfleet, rather than the soft delete? The close is correct on paper, but usually something with low participation gets at least two weeks at AfD. --- Possibly ☎ 19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, I'm trying to improve the anil pallala page whenever I got the information giving reliable citation links to it, can you please recover it. Poojasrireddy ( talk) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Why was the overwhelming support for the Aliza Kelly article completely ignored? Why was the page deleted after comment after comment of back up of the legitimacy of the article being there? This group of users and admins that saw to it that this article was removed seems to operate with extreme bias and delete pages with content they simply don’t believe in or agree with. There was no unbiased review. This was complete unjustified. Ek2931 ( talk) 02:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel, you made an excellent point here. I also observed that this page was deleted due to an irrational attitude of hostility against the subject's profession. The subject was unfairly held to a ridiculously high standard, for example coverage of her company/brand was featured in the New Yorker and the New York Post, yet Wikipedia 'editors' deemed this press 'not significant,' twisting the guidelines to suit their ends, which was to delete the article. The subject's book was published by Simon and Schuster, meeting notability standards as an author, yet she took a great deal of abuse on the discussion page, with one editor, saying something like, she couldn't possibly give an intelligent view of business, she's an astrologer, for chrissake. That was an awful comment. This kind of ganging up on the subject is troubling, and must be addressed if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility. It's very disheartening. Magdalamar ( talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Thanks a lot again Daniel for all your consideration regarding the article on Kamla Nath Sharma. I have redrafted some paras where required, added more references, deleted some irrelevant ones, and pruned repetition, so as to make this article hopefully as desired. This elderly gentleman is an engineer, literary writer and exponent of scientific subjects from oldest/ancient Indian scriptures written in Sanskrit language, a combination of 3 different types of knowledge streams rarely seen and demonstrated through publications. Although you had authorized me to move this article to the mainspace after editing, I request you to please do it. I thank you again. Regards, Aaditya.Bahuguna ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi there, you closed this AfD on 5 August, but only deleted one of 5 articles up for AfD in this particular discussion. Could you rectify this please. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi! It is very strange that the article Forbes list of Russia's 200 richest people 2021 was deleted so quickly. I do not visit Wikipedia every day, I did not have time to react and complete the text. And it also seems to me that fears of copyright infringement are unfounded. Anyway, is it possible to restore the article and talk page to me in drafts? I carried out analytical work to find out what articles are missing. And he did not keep a copy for himself. This is essential for me in creating articles about persons from the list. Thanks. -- ArkadySorkin ( talk) 11:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi, I believe your summary misrepresented the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYSLINUX. It particular your views on the article sources:
Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark ( talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, Regarding article Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College which was deleted on 8 August 2021, here I am requesting you to userfy same article to my user page. Thanks,---- Irshadpp ( talk) 06:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks--
Irshadpp (
talk)
05:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
There was no consensus for deletion of this article, the decision should have been keep. Waiting 6 days after relisting for a delete vote and then deleting the following day after without any further discussion was not a fair decision. - Indefensible ( talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
|}
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
![]() |
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
The date of death on his tombstone states JULY 25 2020, but you incessantly change it to the 24th, just because some media outlets incorrectly reported it as so, and you incorrectly report it on Wikipedia. I have changed it repeatedly and will continue to do so, with the reference, until it stays. I think the family who erected the stone knows better, than media publications.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.111.54 ( talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC) reply
With all due respect how is this disruptive editing? I am a friend of the Philbin family and know for a fact he died on the 25th of July, again also as evidenced by his tombstone. But if you wish to report inaccurate info on the page so be it. Shame.
|}
Hi Daniel. I’ve got sort of a technical question over what recently happened at Michael E. Rodgers and WT:AFD. The IP felt that the article should be deleted; so, they added {{ AFD}} to the top of the article, but didn’t complete the rest of the process. Maybe they tried to do that and just didn’t know how or maybe there’s some technical reason which prevented them from doing so. Regardless, the IP instead went to WT:AFD a few minutes later and requested the that someone else finish creating the AFD. A couple of more minutes pass and nobody responds to the IP’s request and the AFD discussion has apparently still not been created. The IP then decided that it would be better to redirect the article instead; so, that’s what they boldly did. They then removed their post from WT:AFD, which nobody still had not responded to, and probably figured that nothing more needed to be done. It was at that point that things started to go off the rails and the back-and-forth reverting started to happen at both pages, ultimately leading to a RPP request. My question is whether the AFD was formally created as soon as the IP added the template to the article. The IP didn’t finish the rest of the process and seemed to have no intention of doing so. The other editors involved in the dispute also didn’t seem to intend to start an AFD. I thought about doing so just for procedural reasons, but reverts kept coming and you eventually locked the page. Is there a partially completed AFD now floating around in the system that needs to be taken care of in someway? The IP has reappeared on the article’s talk page to apologize, and has also apologized on one of the other editor’s user talk pages. So, if the AFD is in limbo and still needs to be completed, I can explain that to the IP and give them a chance to sort things out. Does the IP need to create the discussion page, and then withdraw or otherwise explain their nomination? — Marchjuly ( talk) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC) replyNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Craig Dillon. 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.
Hi Daniel, I have requested a review of the deletion and salting of the page Craig_Dillon here:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 17
I believe this page passes the gng and it should not have been deleted without a discussion, the 1st article for deletion is from 2006 and referencing a different person, and the recent article was well sourced with the subject appearing in multiple reputable news sources as the main subject. The deletion at least deserved a proper debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply
You closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Junior Fed Cup Final as consensus to merge into Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. We have two editors asking for delete, one for keep, and one for merge/redirect. The article to redirect to is a huge list of 35 years of finals. By saying to merge we would have to do the same with 35 other created finals articles. It would be unwieldy. We've also had many other similar articles that were just deleted such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Junior Fed Cup Final] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Junior Fed Cup Final, etc... There were several others that were simply redirected here, and here, and here.
Yours is the only one that was decided as a merge so the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup article would now have to be rebuilt with the chart split in half while accommodating a single year, 1996. Please reconsider your choice of merge. Really, once the first one of these was listed and deleted, the rest should have been done as a group so this situation would not have happened and the origianl editor requesting these deletes should be told as such. Cheers. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello. I noticed today that the page for Citinite had been deleted, and read your reasons for doing so. I understand but I don’t think it's strictly true that there is a lack of sources addressing Citinite directly — there are some, one of which shows up in the first set of Google search results which is a news item about the closure of the label. Many other articles that can be found are reviews of Citinite releases. No doubt some reviews were written on sites that no longer exist and so may no longer be easy to find, if at all, but that's a problem with the internet rather than a problem with the label’s merit. In addition to The Fader, releases were reviewed in print in DJ Magazine, The Washington Post, and XLR8R Magazine. Online reviews can also be read in The Wire magazine but they can only be viewed if you are a subscriber to the magazine. I notice there are also a few Wikipedia pages which also mention Citinite. I hope the page can be restored. Thankyou. Cosmau ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27 § Jamie Spears, Vaticidalprophet has raised the question of whether the existence of James Parnell Spears goes against the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Spears. As you were the deleting admin there, do you have any comment on that? Specifically I'm curious whether this falls into G4 territory. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC) reply
An editor has asked for a deletion review of P2P_Foundation. 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. Mitar ( talk) 20:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
![]()
|
In your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Volkers did you ignore my comments? After the allegations are removed from that article, it will no longer be a target that mentions Scott Volkers. What is the rationale for redirecting it there? -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel—I'm very surprised to see that you closed this discussion as "No consensus." I feel that admins have an obligation to try to carefully interpret consensus and avoid using "no consensus" whenever possible: it just kicks the can down the road and invites future renominations. In this case, the nominator presented no valid deletion rationale and one very experienced user (Jeepday) refuted that and argued to keep. Reasonable outcomes would have been "keep" or relist, but I can't see how "no consensus" is a reasonable summarization of a discussion where nobody supported the nomination. pburka ( talk) 19:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, the page was added to AfD about a month ago. It’s re-listed a couple of times. It’s about a month. The Artist is well known in his area and keeping it marked for deletion any further is a humiliation to him. Can you make decision on this case? Your help would be highly appreciated Rnair2020 ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Rnair2020 ( talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Who is this User:Drmies? Thanks very much that you chose to support so early in the process. Please call on me if I can be helpful or if I shoot myself in the foot. BusterD ( talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Are you closing redirect one article, or all the articles on nomination?? Govvy ( talk) 23:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello. Would it be possible to relist Onfleet, rather than the soft delete? The close is correct on paper, but usually something with low participation gets at least two weeks at AfD. --- Possibly ☎ 19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, I'm trying to improve the anil pallala page whenever I got the information giving reliable citation links to it, can you please recover it. Poojasrireddy ( talk) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Why was the overwhelming support for the Aliza Kelly article completely ignored? Why was the page deleted after comment after comment of back up of the legitimacy of the article being there? This group of users and admins that saw to it that this article was removed seems to operate with extreme bias and delete pages with content they simply don’t believe in or agree with. There was no unbiased review. This was complete unjustified. Ek2931 ( talk) 02:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Daniel, you made an excellent point here. I also observed that this page was deleted due to an irrational attitude of hostility against the subject's profession. The subject was unfairly held to a ridiculously high standard, for example coverage of her company/brand was featured in the New Yorker and the New York Post, yet Wikipedia 'editors' deemed this press 'not significant,' twisting the guidelines to suit their ends, which was to delete the article. The subject's book was published by Simon and Schuster, meeting notability standards as an author, yet she took a great deal of abuse on the discussion page, with one editor, saying something like, she couldn't possibly give an intelligent view of business, she's an astrologer, for chrissake. That was an awful comment. This kind of ganging up on the subject is troubling, and must be addressed if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility. It's very disheartening. Magdalamar ( talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
![]()
|
Thanks a lot again Daniel for all your consideration regarding the article on Kamla Nath Sharma. I have redrafted some paras where required, added more references, deleted some irrelevant ones, and pruned repetition, so as to make this article hopefully as desired. This elderly gentleman is an engineer, literary writer and exponent of scientific subjects from oldest/ancient Indian scriptures written in Sanskrit language, a combination of 3 different types of knowledge streams rarely seen and demonstrated through publications. Although you had authorized me to move this article to the mainspace after editing, I request you to please do it. I thank you again. Regards, Aaditya.Bahuguna ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi there, you closed this AfD on 5 August, but only deleted one of 5 articles up for AfD in this particular discussion. Could you rectify this please. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi! It is very strange that the article Forbes list of Russia's 200 richest people 2021 was deleted so quickly. I do not visit Wikipedia every day, I did not have time to react and complete the text. And it also seems to me that fears of copyright infringement are unfounded. Anyway, is it possible to restore the article and talk page to me in drafts? I carried out analytical work to find out what articles are missing. And he did not keep a copy for himself. This is essential for me in creating articles about persons from the list. Thanks. -- ArkadySorkin ( talk) 11:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi, I believe your summary misrepresented the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYSLINUX. It particular your views on the article sources:
Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark ( talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel, Regarding article Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College which was deleted on 8 August 2021, here I am requesting you to userfy same article to my user page. Thanks,---- Irshadpp ( talk) 06:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks--
Irshadpp (
talk)
05:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
reply
There was no consensus for deletion of this article, the decision should have been keep. Waiting 6 days after relisting for a delete vote and then deleting the following day after without any further discussion was not a fair decision. - Indefensible ( talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
|}
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).