![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Replying here so as to not overwhelm conversation on a different RfC: I'd be very happy to help on trying to get an RfC on this together. I think there is an appetite to settle the ambiguity in the A7 wording now. Re: CCSI as compared to the SNGs: the current NSPORTs discussion I think shows how there are many in the community that are frustrated with SNGs. Not enough to get a consensus to do GNG alone, but I think getting an equivalent of that through on CSDs would be difficult. I think it is a very good supplemental essay and it has caused my CSD tagging to change a lot personally, but personally think upgrading WP:SIGNIFICANCE now and then treating CCSI as something like OUTCOMES might be able to get more people behind it. You are of course much more familiar with me than this, but putting in my 2¢ as a relative newcomer who wants to see clarification on this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Has a credible association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague[2] (per WP:INVALIDBIO these pages can be redirected instead of deleted)goes. No offence to you or Ritchie333, but my latest "I have A7 completely wrong" episode as well as this show that that statement is way outside consensus, despite WP:INVALIDBIO's wording. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The most important thing with overuse of A7 is emphasizing that if there is a reason someone might want to bring up another option at AfD, it should go to AfD. Full stop. Once I started viewing the criteria that way, I have been using it a lot less, and as I have expressed in the past, I do thank all the users who have been pinged/are a part of a conversation for that emphasis. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
The PROD removed here was a BLPPROD. It was removed due to the addition of sources. It's not quite the same as contesting a normal PROD as BLPPROD is strictly about the article's sourcing, not the subject's notability or anything else. Just thought I'd point this out to you as you seemed to imply you thought the editor contested a normal PROD? Adam9007 ( talk) 02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
-barrelroll.dev ( talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering whether the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rao Farman Ali Malik matches with Rao Farman Ali Malik.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 12:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't actually published a new book by Terry since 1986 so there's no commercial conflict. As Terry's agent, I hope I can find published sources to add to the entry, but as there were a number of refs to my website, I've been doing my best to put in further details.
Footnotes were removed only where they referred back to fn.26 and in each case I think I have added factual information to replace the wording which merely referred to my website, such as publication dates and the marriage date (I have a copy of the marriage Certificate). fn26 refers to 'About Terry', and that source is now to be found at http://colinsmythe.co.uk/terry-pratchett/ and is called 'Terry Pratchett and His Work'. I see the link is up-to-date.
I also deleted a reference to a Bucks Free Press initiative for the High Wycombe Library setting up a site to reprint all the children's stories. As this was not a BFP site, under UK copyright law they had no right to approve this, and I as Terry's agent demanded it be stopped as a breach of Terry's copyright. Only a few stories had been put online and the project stopped immediately. This took place years ago. Had the BFP set it up as their initiative on their site, this would have been legal as the paper would have been republishing work it had itself already published. I therefore removed a sentence and the accompanying footnote on that occasion. I do not know how I would justify that removal to a reader, as it was never reported: all I can say is that it took place.
If you have individual concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me which worry you.
Very best wishes
Colin Smythe 2 May 2017-- ColinSmythe ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
It just occurred to me that I spent several hours of my life today (which I will never get back) reading about Vipul and friends. Why am I mentioning this? Because I hadn't originally read it when it unfolded and only stumbled across it by starting with the decision by Andrevan to unblock Riceissa without consulting the blocking admin. Minutes ago I just unblocked an editor without consulting the blocking admin, you. I think the case is a very distinguishable but given how many times I said to myself "how on earth could you perform the unblock without checking further", at the very least I want to get you in the loop. In short, you blocked user:Tamikothiel as having the same name is a famous person. That editor reached out to me at OTRS, and provided sufficient evidence, so I think this is straightforward but again I certainly owe it to you to let you know. If there are extenuating circumstances I should've asked about please let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was researching (as a Wikipedia user) image-sharing websites, and noticed an interesting and, I thought, rather popular website/app was missing from the [ [1]] : VSCo. I was wondering why, and figured the reasons might be that it was not suggested to begin with, but then I couldn't even suggest it myself because it doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, which [ necessary] for a website to be listed there. It did have a page, but it was deleted twice, last time by you.
I am a very scarce contributor to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if what I'm doing is wasting your time or annoying in any way. But since you deleted the page for being promotional (and not just you, the previous user did it for the same reason among others), I was wondering if its content could be altered to make it neutral and Wikipedia-compliant, or would it be too much work? I'd be happy to re-work it of course. I am not used to creating a wiki page from scratch, so I'm sure I would make a lot of really silly mistakes if I tried to do this, besides it wouldn't make much sense. But cleaning the deleted page from promotional content, that I can do.
It's just I think this website/app is pretty popular [1], at least popular enough for me to use it (and rather prefer it to certain others). So it's a pity it isn't featured in Wikipedia, isn't it?
Please let me know, and have a good day :)
-- Thetys36 ( talk) 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Thetys36
I apologise for incorrectly tagging the article. It seems that I had my WP:AfD hat on when tagging for WP:CSD. User:Chrissymad is infact doing what you suggested on my talkpage. Thanks again for your time in this instance and in general. All the best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
How is He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him.
, Regarded as on one of the top social media influencers promoting peace between Arab and Israelis. Write about stuff that will make people as him for talks, interviews, etc.
, Stuff about how awesome the website is. We need to promote the website so we can eventually either cut a partnership deal with Facebook, or move people over to our own platform.
, Talk about what Ense is. What Nas puts on it. Etc. This is to help out Iqram and the Ense team
, Yassin's path to a new lifestyle began with the realization that he was a third of the way through his life expectancy, and he was spending most of that time in an office. Yassin calculated that he was 32% done with life based on the average male
life expectancy in the
United States of 76 years old.
etc... not promotional? Or rather, how is that remotely encyclopedic?
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
20:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him." I'm sorry for "forcing" you to resolve an EC but garbage like that is totally unacceptable on an encyclopedia and we've deleted other articles for a lot less. This was a clear attempt at promoting an artist (and nothing more) and gaining something out of it and not contributing to an encyclopedia as per all the examples I've given you. This was a bad call on your part. You can have your trout back, I don't like fish. :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Aquinas House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Aquinas House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. India1277 ( talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
hi thanks for considering speedy deletion.. but take a note why i nominated it and then decide if still want that article on wiki ok
do u think these are notable achivement
i spent lot time on this article to consider it delete nomination... but now i pass this to you... if u think it should remain on wiki no prob ... and if we think the tag was right ... please nominate again... thank you India1277 ( talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC) p.s. the same editor created St. Thomas Aquinas House (Covington Latin School) which was deleted earlier on same issue thank you India1277 ( talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
hi... i thought of merging first... but after looking at there school wiki page decided not to... i mean its just school house why to merge them into imp school article.. and there are no ref which can i refer to rewrite article as per encyclopedic... who knows maybe its a hoax India1277 ( talk) 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello and many thanks for your review of the page I started for the artist Katfyr. At this point, with the new 6 references, do you think the page will be in good standing to avoid deletion? Really hoping so, but I'm willing to add more if needed. pbigio ( talk) 04:46, 05 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks for letting me know about the A7 deletion criteria. I still believe that the article fails WP:NMEDIA. As you are far more experienced editor then me and have reviewed the article, I wanted to check with you before nominating the article for deletion. Razer Text me 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy
You deleted the page i started recently under SpeedyDeletion criteria A7 I am sorry about that, and need to inform you that i don't agree with this deletion. Yes, it's a real person, but it's a very important emerging photographer in the asian background. It's one of the youngest photographer working in this artistic field. This photographer has already been shortlisted in several contest, exhibiting in recognize institutions and has, at this day, three books published.
I totally agree the following : You close the page before the sources were listed and the article ended. You didn't knew the facts above, (whatever the reason, maybe you're not interested by art/photography/asia...). You didn't made any other research to find WHY someone open a case, or find it hard because of the chinese translations. You admit by closing this page that the person was not important, this is an abusive/fast judgement and it's the main reason to ask for the page back.
I hope for revision. Best regards
le carré bleu coupé ( talk) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) May 10th 2017
{{
subst:submit}}
at the top of the page so an experienced editor will review your article before it's published.Hello, user:SoWhyThanks for the message. Since the firm in question is not notable, what would have been the proper speedy deletion? I used the correct tag: Db-inc for a company. Would you be so kind to assist me in what I did wrong? Was I even close? Help walk me through? I would like to learn this procedure. Thanks! Geejayen ( talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the create protection of this article. While it may have only been created twice, it was created twice in a relatively short time frame by a particularly prolific and persistent sockpuppeteer. User:10alatham has been socking continuously since 2010. Simply put, I have every reason to believe the article will just pop up again in a few days time if it's not salted. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of National liberalism. 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. Rupert Loup ( talk) 02:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created a page for [Retief Burger]. I got a message that it is deleted. I don't understand it at all. {The message is on my talk page.} I did read that above-mentioned link you gave. The code that is given in A7 I want to know what qualifies as a legitimate reason to keep a page. The person who I want to create the page of (Retief Burger), is quiet a well-know South African singer. He has recorded 5 CD's already, and he often sings in big venues in South Africa. Now, I don't necessarily want you to put the page back up, but I would like to know how to create pages, etc. [I am rather new to this aspect of Wikipedia] Please advise me on this. Thank you Freddie2016 ( talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
subst:submit}}
to the page after you are done. It will place the page in the
articles for creation review queue and experienced editors will review it. You are welcome to notify me instead if you like. Regards
So
Why
15:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank You for the barnstar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFD ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You declined A7 here but according to the deletion log, it was later A7d anyway by Primefac. Is it the same as what you declined? Adam9007 ( talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, Could you please userfy the article Brasserie Ellezelloise that you recently deleted Many thanks. ? MHAN2016 ( talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I may have been around for a (long) while, but I try to avoid this sort of nonsense, so I'm not familiar with the process. Thanks for your help :-) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi – thanks for noticing that I wasn't the one that tagged that article for speedy deletion as quickly as you did. Just leaving a friendly note here to say that your list of declined speedies still incorrectly implicates me as the tagger. Thanks — 72 talk / contribs 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington DeMolay. Since you had some involvement with the Washington DeMolay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
From my reading of this discussion, it seems like consensus was against redirecting. Could you please take another look? -- Tavix ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since editors arguing for deletion usually do not mind...when there was clear evidence of the opposite in that discussion. Creating redirects where there is no information about the subject being redirected is unhelpful and likely to be confusing for casual readers. There is a big difference between something that just isn't fit as a standalone article and something that has no actual sourcing for anything more than a single sentence, if that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to DeMolay International - Wow! Is it just me or do others too see that 'No results found for "Washington DeMolay"' under the Google News section!? In any case, while DeMolay is notable, this particular chapter doesn't seem to be and neither are any reliable references available to verify if any.. A redirects purpose is to be helpful, yes? What use is a redirect if nothing can be written, based on RS, in the target article? It becomes one of two things: an implausible redirect or confusing for casual readers. If a reader is looking for information on Z and is automatically redirected to A with no mention of Z, it is more or less useless. Or a real life example: my high school had an ITS chapter. You could probably google it and show it exists, should that have a redirect?
Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider alternatives to deletion before commenting.{{cn}}, please. It's insulting to suggest that people who disagree with you couldn't possibly have considered other options. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Socking? I've got an SPI ready to go but as far as I can tell Wikilovers12 is the only other creator right? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Which of the two processes do you recommend: a) contacting you "very nicely", or b) going via the Wikipedia deletion review? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy Hi thanks for the response, it is a deletion to Joesph-Dubois where a few wikipedia mates have ganged up to force a deletion justified by a policy that is on it's own justifiable, but on balance not enough to delete this entry - all things considered. But the truth is this: crack on pal. I am going to delete my account on wikipedia (understand my edits will persist), because this has been a terrible waste of time already. The article was AFD'd, then no one objected, so they got their mates to REPOST IT for deletion to drum up support for deletion. Poor show, but that's how folk behave on here. Snobby, self-sure, deeming comments along the way. That's what i experienced here. Not a single comment on the content. Only comments on the football policy, no comments on how the player had achieved reconizable status The guy who AFD'd the article knows who the player is, even without an article on wikipedia. So they engaged in bully-boy behaviour. I'm done. Wikipedia can continue without my edits or donations. Enough.
Hi there "SoWhy", I am writing to inquire as to why an article that was written recently was deleted (censored) by you. You sighted A7 as the reason for censorship, however, thousands, or more likely hundreds of thousands of people out there that have read Aaron's work and would disagree with you as to the "significance", or rather lack of, that you stated as being the reason for the censoring of the article.
Not that it matters too much, but I used to contribute money every year to Wiki because I respected the open platform and access to information that it provided. However, now the site seems to be "patrolled" by people who delete articles regardless if the content in said articles is true or false, which in effect has turned Wiki into the very type of platform that it once boasted as being against.
The article that you deleted (an article on Aaron La Lux), was 100% factual, there was no false statements in it. As far as free speech and open platforms go, why would information be purposely censored for any other reason other than said information being false. Therefore I do not understand why you decided to delete it. Even after reading the explanation of what A7 means, I still do not see the grounds for which it was deleted to be fair.
I am not here to specifically request the said article to be reinstated (although that would be great). I am simply here to ask that you carefully examine your actions and beg of you to please not become the very force that the original Wikipedia was created to counteract. Censorship is never good, and it goes against the fundamental tenants of not just Wikipedia, but the internet as a whole.
You are likely much more experienced and knowledgeable in the "internet world", so I am not here to try and argue with you, complain, or tell you how to act. I am only asking that you take an honest look at yourself and your actions, and then decide if you are assisting or hindering the freedom of speech and the spread of information. I'm sure you feel like you are acting on behalf of the powers of the "greater good", but please remember, almost every oppressor and oppressive regime in the history of civilization thought he/she were acting on behalf of the "greater good". We all cold benefit from a bit more self reflection, honestly.
Anyways, I hope this inquiry is not taken offensively in any way. The internet is a very useful tool for open communications, and I am in no way trying to be offensive, I am simply trying to communicate in a way that will assist in shedding light on not only the article that was deleted, but the one that deleted is as well :-) It's all Love & Respect here. Honestly.
Thank you SO much for taking the time to read this inquiry, and feel free to respond in whatever way you desire. AaronLA ( talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well, I suppose we both have our perspectives. I am not going to argue, however, what I will say is that many times that censorship has been, and still is, exercised, the ones doing the censoring do not do so with nefarious intent, they do so because they honestly think they are doing the correct thing. I am not saying that that is the case with you, I am simply saying we need to be careful not to become the very thing that we are attempting to liberate ourselves and others from, in this case, the oppression of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Information. Again, I do not mean this in any sort of negative way towards you, I honestly believe that you are doing a great service and have nothing but the best of intentions in the services that you provide. I just think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one ;-) And thank you for at least engaging in a constructive conversation on the matter, you have been both respectful and informative in your communications and that is truly appreciated. Much Love & Respect AaronLA ( talk) 06:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI ADA is not a label - it is a distributor/merchandising company and artists do not get signed to it. The label of the artist in question is supposedly Moore Muzik, which is not partnered with the distributor and is definitely not notable or significant. Would you mind reassessing your a7 decline? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate you taking a look at Ciguli and Danny Levan, which I pulled CSD tags off of. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise that the first result on Google for
Midget Handjob was not porn...that was a risky click.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
why did you nominate the main page for deletion? The garmine (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Does it qualify as a college?? Coderzombie ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about this user ( here his contributions) that seems that only reason of his life is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Fencing Federation :D -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 09:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Just a quick note to thank you for pointing to Help:Shortened footnotes when you did the DYK review for Papal conclave, March 1605. This early modern conclave series of articles I am working on are the first that have extensively used offline sources that have multiple pages. Just got around to changing the citations over on that one and Papal conclave, 1724. Looks much cleaner, and a nudge in the right direction is always appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Chat_sports - is there any way to capitalize 'Sports" in Chat Sports? The lower case s on the second word is not an accurate representation of the company's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Please can you undelete my article so I may improve it to fit Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Editor362 ( talk) 08:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Administrator review has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you help me start a wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheriolett ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
On 8 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alaska P. Davidson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alaska P. Davidson was the first female FBI special agent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska P. Davidson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Alaska P. Davidson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your reasoning a bit more fully? The numerical split was 3-3 for merge/redirect vs. delete. Absent a clear numerical consensus, your reasoning for deletion vs. relisting or no consensus close is both relevant and inscrutable. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey there! Just a quick follow up that the article on Katfyr was eventually deleted. I'm just here to raise the point for your records, as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Basically, I provided proof that WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 were addressed, and in over 3 weeks (relisted 3 times), no one was able to specifically answer as to why those points were invalid. I made the same comment to the person who deleted the article, but the user was unreasonable to argue these points as well, and accepted somehow that the "consensus" as baseless as it was, provided enough reason for deletion. Something appears to be off in this process, appears slightly unethical, and at the same time, it seems that the AFD process is still far from what it should be. Anyways, just like a said, just for the record, and surely, I understand it is a community process, open to flaws like this. Pbigio ( talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I'm a second-year accounting student interested in becoming more involved with Wikipedia. I saw that you're accepting protégé. I'm looking to become a better writer and editor and would appreciate guidance on where to start.
Sincerely, Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Moos ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
~~~~
which creates a
signature with your name and date.Why did you convert my A7 speedy to a prod (the A11 was not mine)? And not even a sticky prod? Regardless of what the title is, this is a completely unsourced bio which makes makes no credible claim of notability. You might want to look at the editor's talk page. First he claimed to be a 92-year-old dead person writing his or her own obituary, and now a young university student. So, now this is likely going to waste time going to AFD (unless the user doesn't bother to remove your prod). Very strange. Meters ( talk) 06:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash and WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. They both seem clear deletes and they have been open for more than 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, Please i need your help
1. Theoretically speaking, how may one handle a WP editor who is very advanced and conversant with every policy and guideline but somehow has began to act in very bad faith, he/she all of a sudden is a vandal/Disruptive editor who rather than follow polices established chooses to act in their own way using WP:IAR as an excuse to continue their vandalism. This is all theoretical of course as i am not at the moment facing this problem.
2. How may i handle an experienxed editor who is acting out of WP:REVENGE ?? for example, i nominate an article for deletion because i deem it of no encylopedic value, (unfortunately the article is "his own") when the article eventually is deleted he goes on rage and start to nominate articles i created which clearly are of encylopedic value and qualify primary notability guidelines for deletion. How may i tackle this as well? where do i go to report such unacceptable behavior? Please i beg of you to enlighten me. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI. Take care, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Sowhy: i need advice on an issue, having failed to obtain this information from most policies or guidelines i thought it wise to ask from an editor, Here is my question; At what point do i start to issue out a level 1 warning to an editor who behaves as a vandal/disruptive editor & at what point also do i begin to issue out a level 2 & so on. I dont usually issue out warnings because i am not satisfied with the knowledge i have on that aspect. Please enlighten me. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Administrator review has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Administrator SoWhy:
I has come to my attention that an Article written about me is being questioned for its accuracy or sources. I write you because, I see that the article has been on your administrative "radar".
Sometime last year an interested writer contacted and interviewed me. We had more than one discussion. The original focus for this discussion was my involvement in digital audio technologies. But as the conversation deepened I recall that the reason why I had organized my AMP technology team in Croatia was because my co-founders were there. Further I told him that I was very comfortable operating in Eastern Europe because I had considerable familiarity with Russia, having resided there in the early 1990's.
This led to his inquiry as to my work activities there. He found my recounting of this "likely hard for the public to believe" and he asked for proof of my unusual relationships. I decided to avail the writer of links to some of my personal photographic and document archives (with permission to publish). The writer thought these archives were necessary to "prove" that I had relations with prior members of the Russian intelligence community and high officials such as Soviet Premier Ryzhkov.
The rather extensive results of his interest are evident in Wikipedia's article. As I now understand it, such "primary sources" are discouraged, but, under extenuating circumstances, are permissible under Wikipedia rules [1]. But, I am the only one in possession of these items and I have them archived in my private cloud which is neither indexed or overtly "published". Otherwise, the author sourced many links, (still visible even from the early 90's) related to my business dealings with KGB.
Perhaps these should be provided to the Wikimedia "Commons"??
Whether or not I am "Notable" is a matter for others to decide.
.....................................................................................................
What is immediately concerning me an unattributed entry made on 209.160.120.146 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC). This suggested suggesting submitting "FOIA Requests" from American intelligence agencies concerning my activities in another life.
I am writing you to ask if Wikipedia could possibly remove that particular "suggestion".
Here are my reasons:
1. These requests take months to process and would not be able to impact the outcome of the discussion in any case.
2. There are unwritten, internal limits placed such on FOIA requests. An increased number of requests could place additional scrutiny on me by U.S. intelligence (and ... I have already had plenty of that.)
3. Such an "influx" of random requests may also interefere with future needs I will have in a book I am very slowly writing/compiling - referenced near the end of the article.
4. I could be harmed by information any information released. U.S. intelligence may release materials which compromise my privacy by failing to carefully redact materials related to my business and personal life. There are precedents for this. Government employees are "only human".
5. Nobody will get anything from the U.S. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) anyway. They recently clamped down on all such requests for active subjects of interest. See [2] I therefore would like to "officially" request the deletion and "expunging" of that single "Keep" vote. This is "support" that I honestly don't need and it won't be helpful in determining the merits of the article. It will only serve to provide ideas that could prove invasive to privacy.
Would you kindly look into this matter internally and see if an "Administrator Override" might be accorded to me on this single comment? Obviously, I would also ask that this very request also be deleted (or redacted as you see appropriate) concerning the specific request, since this correspondence would only serve to reiterate my fundamental concerns on the same public forum.
May I also suggest that perhaps another week of commentary may be appropriate. This, because there seems to be a rather limited number of responses. I think you'd agree that more commentary, more "data" would likely result in a richer pot of information to facilitate the formation of the eventual consensus.
Thank you for your time and any assistance you or your colleagues at Wikipedia may be able to provide.
Kind regards,
Brian D. Litman litman_bd ( talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm curious as to why you relisted this. The conversation has been stale for five days and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that he does not meet the GNG. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Administrator User:SoWhy:
The opening box says: "All input is welcome".
Yet User:Power~enwiki admonished me for a long post and reverted (see history) of [1]
The revert included a simple explanation to a comment he made I only wanted to clarify.
I am confused.
I imagined no other alternative venue than my own Talk page [2].
Was I wrong to post a such a defense? I saw no limitation and ... one risks being cast into the dustbin of digital history!
I perceive some kind of ... well... hostility in all of this. And, I would be most keen to get your view of my defense at my Talk page. I intend to offend no one nor breach protocols not defined on the pages in question.
Thank you for your patience, sir.
Best regards, -- Brian ------------------------------------------------------------ litman_bd ( talk) 02:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hey curious how Zdenčina is a notable team? The article that the talk page links to is on Hungarian Wiki and was created very recently by presumably the same user. It's also a seemingly non-notable youth team. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy,
I noticed you'd deleted the 'DriveWorks' page so I just wanted to chat with you about having it undeleted/restored. The article was flagged for deletion after I'd edited it as it lacked notability and had some marketing speak in it.
I'm a new editor to wiki and I wanted to add more information to the page to properly describe what DriveWorks does, so I copied a paragraph from our website which flagged it as marketing speak. When I recieved the message from admin Velella I immediately removed the part I'd copied over and restored it to how it was before - my mistake, I just wanted to add informative information.
This then flagged up the page as lacking notability / conflict of interest so it needed cleaning up. Before I tried to clean it up and add references, I went away and started reading through wiki's guidelines of what is classed as a primary and secondary source, so I could gather a list of apprpriate sources. I also re-read the guidelines on how to edit a page and the type of language to use.
Whilst I was doing this research, the page has been removed but as it's been up since 2008 I really do want to get it back and fix it to meet wiki's guidelines.
I've been reading the posts about requesting undeletion and it says to message the admin who deleted it first to discuss before requesting undeletion.
Could you please tell me what I can do from here to get the page back? I'm still gathering sources so I can add notability to the page so I don't have a list to show you yet, but if it's best to do that I can come back to you with a list of sources?
Thanks and sorry for the long message!
Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ FlightTime:, Thanks for your reply, I've read the COI page and I noticed it says to propose edits so they can be peer reviewed before being actioned, but I guess I can't do this now as the page has been deleted? Just looking for the best way to get the original page undeleted / suggest edits and add references. New to this so thanks for your help :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ SoWhy:, thank you for restoring it to the draft space :) I will edit the page tomorrow and I will make sure I declare the COI, properly reference the article and then add the template for it to be reviewed. Thanks again for your help & guidance. Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ SoWhy:, I'm now ready to submit the DriveWorks page for review, but I can't figure out which template to use from the Submit template page. Could you please give me a bit of guidance on how to submit for review? Thank you :) DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry @ Sowhy: I have figured it out :) DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, you declined an A7 speedy on NBA Youngboy because he worked with a famous artist. Fair enough, but on reading this article you perhaps should have noticed that this unsourced BLP claimed " was accused of first-degree murder." (right before the claim that he worked with that rapper), and further on "He was sent to prison of first degree murder after a concert in Austin, Texas. He also went to court for a robbery after dropping out of high school. " and "was in jail from November 28, 2016 to March 30, 2017". We don't get many more obvious G10 speedies than this :-) Fram ( talk) 14:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
re correcting Joseph F. McCormick page:
Hi SoWhy... Since I now understand that this page may not be removed, I am seeking to resolve the issues that have caused the warning banners to be placed on it recently.
1. The first banner says: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (June 2017) If I do not meet the notability requirements can you remove the page? If I do, can you remove this banner?
2. The second banner says: This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (June 2017) Yes I have a conflict of interest but there seems to be no other way but for me to make edits to help ensure clarity. How can this issue be resolved?
The section in question -- that caused the banners to be attached a week or so ago -- seems to be the paragraph headed Transpartisan Research. Ideally this is the language I would like use:
"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]
These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.
In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level."
3. The third banner says: Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2017). Since the conferences convened between 2004 and 2007 were off the record due to the sensitivity of prominent participants concerns about being publicly acknowledged for spending extensive time privately getting to know people they or their organizations were in conflict with, there are now a decade later only a couple reference links available. I believe these are the only questionable citations as according to your reliable sources policy:
Citation [9] "Rogue Valley WC experiment ::". wisedemocracy.org. Retrieved 2017-05-17. There were no media reports of this documentary trip in May/June 2003 which only included myself and a small video crew. The only archive of it is the 20 minute mini-doc hosted on the Center for Wise Democracy website. Citation [12] advmediasolutions (2006-12-31), Reuniting America-Short Edit, retrieved 2017-05-24. This is the ONLY archive as a 5 min. video of one of the most successful off the record events that brought Al Gore into relationship with many of his leading conservative critics, co-facilitated by Harvard Profeoor and Getting to Yes co-author Bill Ury.
Thank you for your help resolving these issues.
Joseph McCormick
{{
request edit}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Hi SoWhy. I would like to second the nomination this page written about me be deleted. If this is not possible, I request the Section entitled Transpartisan Research be edited to read:
"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]
These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.
In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There was noone in favor of a redirect for this AFD and I can point to a long list of aviation crash AFDs that had similar consensus and were deleted. Please reconsider your ruling. I will go to DRV but why should time be wasted there. You imposed your own view that had no support in the AFD and there is no precedent for. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. In your edit summary, you said that "Subject might be important/significant", so I looked for some evidence of this and could not find anything. As far as I could see, there was not even any claim of notability. From my point of view, I wasn't "reverting" you (you might ask :Adam9007 why he removed your proposed deletion notice, describing it as "invalid"). I guess you're aware of the creator's activities and that there's a honking great big COI here? Deb ( talk) 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a time that video games were covered under A7. What about Full Moon (video game)? It's in your decline log but it was deleted A7 anyway. As for significance vs notability, I've encountered people who (seemingly) neither know or care that they are not the same thing.
Hi, good day. I want to find out what is wrong with this article? Please let me know. 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:6bc3:3700:946e:b10:7546:bde3 ( talk • contribs)
1) He is currently attach in Finance Ministry. This is a valid online source from Malaysian's government portal. http://www.treasury.gov.my/index.php/en/contact-us/staff-directory.html/ 2) He is a living person and also MCA Perak State Youth Chairman. You can see his name from MALAYSIAN Chinese Association Portal. http://mcaperak.org.my/关于霹雳州马华-about-perak-mca/组织结构-2/马青霹雳州团-youth-committee/#nogo 3) You can locate his Community Service office in Sitiawan through this address. I understand he lost his election in 2013. It does not means the end of a political career. Google search with his Chinese native name 陳大富 or English name Ting Tai Fook will return some results. 4) He was a Candidate for MCA for Perak Sitiawan State N50. Full Election Result through this main stream ENGLISH paper. http://elections.thestar.com.my/results/results_state.aspx?state=perak [[ 2001:E68:6BC1:7600:E4B1:86A6:F436:5C67 ( talk) 09:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)]]
Hello SoWhy
Thank you for moving this article to draft status. I have edited it with citations for reference. If it mets with your approval can it be moved to the main space? I don't believe I have that facility as a new editor. As he seems to have notoriety in regard to composing music, I wonder if a title change would be appropriate, e.g. John O'Hara (musician/composer). I appreciated your assistance. -- LucyLou2002 ( talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
When a person's article is deleted, please remove their entry from a name list, not just the link. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You removed a csd from tis article, helpfully reminding me that fro a speedy to be appropriate there should be no article on the band and no claim of notability. So, why did yoy remove a speedy from an article about a recording where the band have no article and there is no claim of notability? TheLongTone ( talk) 11:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Krod Records a major label? do you know what major means???? TheLongTone ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your closing rationale here. May I ask you to reconsider relisting? Your main reason for a no consensus close seems to be that you think that AfD is an inappropriate place for a conversation on PAID, and that NOTSPAM does not exclude things that do not have promotional language. While I can see that point of view, NOT is explicitly stated as being part of N just as much as GNG is and people were engaging in a conversation as to whether simply intending to promote violates it with someone raising the point of similar paid articles in newspapers. No one who had not already participated in the discussion had engaged that point, and it was in my opinion one of the stronger arguments for that position (to the point I wish I had made it myself.) I think adding more discussion on that is worthwhile, as could be more discussion as to if it meets the GNG. Thanks for considering. TonyBallioni ( talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do soand WP:N incorporates WP:NOT as an equal to GNG. The arguments between the tension to cover something that might be GNG and to exclude something that is excluded under NOT is something that inherently needs to be decided on an individual basis, which makes AfD a better forum for it than an RfC. We obviously differ on this, but I do still think letting the AfD run another week could have brought about a consensus either for keeping or deleting, and I'm not quite sure its worth the hassle of a DRV since I don't disagree that there was no consensus at this time, just that closing it rather than relisting was the best way to handle it. Likely what we're looking at is just another AfD in a few months. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.82.76 ( talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know why you deleted my article of Julian Feifel so fast. It was still in discussion and there where also other user that wanted to keep the article. Several users where already adding and improving the article, so it was in a working process. Is there a way to bring that article back? Let me know what you think is to improved, thanks. Martinfissler ( talk) 15:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
<-And here's what you get from OTHERSTUFF arguments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achim Köhler -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.User:Jtbobwaysf has asked for a deletion review of KSL Capital Partners. 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. — Cryptic 10:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Saw your note on the AN. Honestly, I’ve thought about the idea of doing RFA, on and off, for some time, but the main problem I see (apart from the incident from 2008, which I’d be obliged to disclose) is I have been periodically inactive, and most of my work (content writing, dispute resolution reform and so on) is from some time ago. And this NAC blew up in my face. I’m not sure what RFA standards are like nowadays, but I would appreciated it, if you have some time, to maybe provide an assessment in your opinion on where I’m lacking? I’ve always preferred working behind the scenes - I can write content but it’s not necessarily where I excel. And with the last RFA being so painful I am reluctant to go through it again. Steven Crossin 18:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Very surprised to hear that WP:TNT is a non-policy argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G Smith.What led you to this idea? Winged Blades Godric 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I hope you will be able to help with this request please. The article on partnership brokering was taken down a few days ago, and I would like to a) enquire about the grounds for deletion b) find out what needs to improve for the next iteration and c) get a copy of the article + article talk page + discussion + discussion talk page, that was live before it got deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you. PBA18 ( talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, Thanks for your response and the suggestion to re-instate the content to a draft space. Once restored, we will work to improve notability by sourcing and adding further references. PBA18 ( talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind sharing the reasoning behind the merge close? I counted four Delete votes, vs one Keep or Merge, and another Merge. The article did not cite any independent sources, so it's unclear to me what content was suitable for merging: Godsbane. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- re your close of the AfD on this one -- I'm puzzled by no-consensus, given that there were two delete contributions after resisting. Would you perhaps reconsider on that basis? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I am here on behalf of the author whose page you just deleted. I can assure you that the author in question is legitimate, and that the information on the page is accurate. Would you kindly undo this deed so that people can learn something about the early days of West Coast hip hop from the author's perspective? Thank you.
Yours,
Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by and giving your comments. I will definitely take them under advisement. I clearly need to be less sloppy with my CSD tagging. Thanks again. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you by any chance re-weigh the consensus at this AfD and the level of attention given to the sources pre-offered? SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street you declared the result as a Keep. It was relisted by Winged Blades of Godric on 14 July but then closed by you. There was a discussion continuing about whether it should be kept or merged and it would have been useful to decide an outcome here itself. In you closing result, you suggested that merging can be discussed on the talk. But I have tried posting message to many articles earlier and no one responds to these messages on the talk page. How do I proceed now?-- DreamLinker ( talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've participated in a lot of deletion discussions and I do admit that your closes sometimes leave me perplexed. For example, above you describe my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) as "[not] actually explain[ing] why the perceived 'promotionalism' cannot be fixed by editing (per WP:PRESERVE)". My full statement in this case was "promotionalism and trivia, as in: "Crowdspring maintains a blog which was launched in mid-2008.[16]" etc. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here". That's not just about promotionalism, but also about the article being full of trivia and none of the content being encyclopedically relevant.
In another example ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pista House), you described by !vote as follows: "the only later !vote does not really discuss those sources but mainly argues based on WP:UGLY". My !vote was "if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping"; this shows that I did look at the sources.
The promotionalism deletion rationale is part of WP:NOT and is not the same as UGLY. The closes do come across as trying to find any possible way of preserving the article and dismissing "delete" votes, which is not the approach I've previously encountered. Hope you take this feedback as constructive criticism; as you can appreciate, I did not like to see my good faith !votes dismissed as trivial complaints under UGLY. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."2) Your comment shows you looked at the sources but it does not actually say "I don't think notability is established". Whether it's suppliyng or having 200 restaurants is a question of content, not notability and why the sources cover the subject - for supplying or for having restaurants - is not relevant per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Geoff did show there were multiple sources covering the subject while you did not actually dispute that the coverage is substantial enough to establish notability. As for the latter part, "too promotional to be worth keeping" is - as I pointed out above - only a reason for deletion if editing cannot fix it (and remember, with notable subjects, that editing can include WP:STUBIFYing per WP:ATD).
I edit conflicted with you, I was going to close the AfD as "no consensus" ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you delete and redirect the article per that discussion, someone has restored that page without consensus and I had requested speedy deletion per WP:G4, should it be deleted or be redirected back to album? Raritydash ( talk) 04:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, This is regarding the page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI which was recently deleted by you This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
Deletion message: 09:02, 17 July 2017 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (XFDcloser))
I would like to know the reasons why and also how could I possibly re-create a page on the subject, as it was page I had created in 2014 and was running for the last 3 years, before it was mistakenly deleted by me (using db-author) on/merge the 9th of July, 2017, while trying to edit/merge some information. The page was supported by 111 credible/verifiable references, including national and international news links.
Regards, Samar khurshid ( talk) 10:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the archived link, thanks http://archive.li/TPbiR Samar khurshid ( talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20170718113356/http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/ Regards Samar khurshid ( talk) 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
http://presstrustofkashmir.com/creating-awareness-about-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-to-save-the-environment/ Samar khurshid ( talk) 10:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
http://kashmirpatriot.com/2017/07/20/creating-awareness-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-save-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid ( talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's another one carried by the KNS today, http://www.knskashmir.com/Sewage-treatment-plants-in-Pahalgam-lacking-18426 Regards, Samar Samar khurshid ( talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly, thank you for closing the Sehgal AfD, it must have been a messy one to wade through.
For what it's worth, I think your overall decision of keep was right, as it seemed like there was basically no consensus and defaulting to the status quo was the correct decision. I just wanted to register, in case it comes up again in the future, that some of the specific rationale seemed off to me. None of the sources linked to were 'new', they were all already there to be seen in the article, they were just linked to in the AfD for rhetorical purposes later as well. I'm one 'delete' vote, at least, that was delete having looked at those sources and judged them not to be sufficient to constitute notability. I note that a few of the other votes also talked about the insufficiency of at least some of the sources, so I guess others were weighing them all too.
Also, you mentioned the 'WP:Offline' issue in your closing, but that was a red-herring. I don't think anybody ever raised the sources not being online as a reason to discount them. I did make the case that there were some sources that failed WP:Publish, in that they're not available either on- or off-line for public consultation.
But anyway, these are just minor quibbles. Thanks again. Landscape repton ( talk) 18:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I'm just posting this because you invited questions in your edit summary, but I didn't know where to given the closure. Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify" seems to imply just that. But thanks for the feedback, I will try to be more clear in the future. Regards So Why 09:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verifyI meant exactly that, that nobody could access them, not just that they couldn't be accessed online. It was a summary of my talk-page entry about trying to find publicly accessible offline library archives that might cover the old newspaper sources. Landscape repton ( talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that you deleted a page called "Get Croissant" /info/en/?search=Get_Croissant
I am curious if there is any way I can see the original text of this page?
The Google serach returned the first sentence if that helps... "Get Croissant or (Croissant Coworking) is an American online marketplace software technology coworking company that provides on demand access to shared ... "
Thanks! Axcelis555 ( talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Replying here so as to not overwhelm conversation on a different RfC: I'd be very happy to help on trying to get an RfC on this together. I think there is an appetite to settle the ambiguity in the A7 wording now. Re: CCSI as compared to the SNGs: the current NSPORTs discussion I think shows how there are many in the community that are frustrated with SNGs. Not enough to get a consensus to do GNG alone, but I think getting an equivalent of that through on CSDs would be difficult. I think it is a very good supplemental essay and it has caused my CSD tagging to change a lot personally, but personally think upgrading WP:SIGNIFICANCE now and then treating CCSI as something like OUTCOMES might be able to get more people behind it. You are of course much more familiar with me than this, but putting in my 2¢ as a relative newcomer who wants to see clarification on this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Has a credible association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague[2] (per WP:INVALIDBIO these pages can be redirected instead of deleted)goes. No offence to you or Ritchie333, but my latest "I have A7 completely wrong" episode as well as this show that that statement is way outside consensus, despite WP:INVALIDBIO's wording. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The most important thing with overuse of A7 is emphasizing that if there is a reason someone might want to bring up another option at AfD, it should go to AfD. Full stop. Once I started viewing the criteria that way, I have been using it a lot less, and as I have expressed in the past, I do thank all the users who have been pinged/are a part of a conversation for that emphasis. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
The PROD removed here was a BLPPROD. It was removed due to the addition of sources. It's not quite the same as contesting a normal PROD as BLPPROD is strictly about the article's sourcing, not the subject's notability or anything else. Just thought I'd point this out to you as you seemed to imply you thought the editor contested a normal PROD? Adam9007 ( talk) 02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
-barrelroll.dev ( talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering whether the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rao Farman Ali Malik matches with Rao Farman Ali Malik.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 12:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't actually published a new book by Terry since 1986 so there's no commercial conflict. As Terry's agent, I hope I can find published sources to add to the entry, but as there were a number of refs to my website, I've been doing my best to put in further details.
Footnotes were removed only where they referred back to fn.26 and in each case I think I have added factual information to replace the wording which merely referred to my website, such as publication dates and the marriage date (I have a copy of the marriage Certificate). fn26 refers to 'About Terry', and that source is now to be found at http://colinsmythe.co.uk/terry-pratchett/ and is called 'Terry Pratchett and His Work'. I see the link is up-to-date.
I also deleted a reference to a Bucks Free Press initiative for the High Wycombe Library setting up a site to reprint all the children's stories. As this was not a BFP site, under UK copyright law they had no right to approve this, and I as Terry's agent demanded it be stopped as a breach of Terry's copyright. Only a few stories had been put online and the project stopped immediately. This took place years ago. Had the BFP set it up as their initiative on their site, this would have been legal as the paper would have been republishing work it had itself already published. I therefore removed a sentence and the accompanying footnote on that occasion. I do not know how I would justify that removal to a reader, as it was never reported: all I can say is that it took place.
If you have individual concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me which worry you.
Very best wishes
Colin Smythe 2 May 2017-- ColinSmythe ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
It just occurred to me that I spent several hours of my life today (which I will never get back) reading about Vipul and friends. Why am I mentioning this? Because I hadn't originally read it when it unfolded and only stumbled across it by starting with the decision by Andrevan to unblock Riceissa without consulting the blocking admin. Minutes ago I just unblocked an editor without consulting the blocking admin, you. I think the case is a very distinguishable but given how many times I said to myself "how on earth could you perform the unblock without checking further", at the very least I want to get you in the loop. In short, you blocked user:Tamikothiel as having the same name is a famous person. That editor reached out to me at OTRS, and provided sufficient evidence, so I think this is straightforward but again I certainly owe it to you to let you know. If there are extenuating circumstances I should've asked about please let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I was researching (as a Wikipedia user) image-sharing websites, and noticed an interesting and, I thought, rather popular website/app was missing from the [ [1]] : VSCo. I was wondering why, and figured the reasons might be that it was not suggested to begin with, but then I couldn't even suggest it myself because it doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, which [ necessary] for a website to be listed there. It did have a page, but it was deleted twice, last time by you.
I am a very scarce contributor to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if what I'm doing is wasting your time or annoying in any way. But since you deleted the page for being promotional (and not just you, the previous user did it for the same reason among others), I was wondering if its content could be altered to make it neutral and Wikipedia-compliant, or would it be too much work? I'd be happy to re-work it of course. I am not used to creating a wiki page from scratch, so I'm sure I would make a lot of really silly mistakes if I tried to do this, besides it wouldn't make much sense. But cleaning the deleted page from promotional content, that I can do.
It's just I think this website/app is pretty popular [1], at least popular enough for me to use it (and rather prefer it to certain others). So it's a pity it isn't featured in Wikipedia, isn't it?
Please let me know, and have a good day :)
-- Thetys36 ( talk) 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Thetys36
I apologise for incorrectly tagging the article. It seems that I had my WP:AfD hat on when tagging for WP:CSD. User:Chrissymad is infact doing what you suggested on my talkpage. Thanks again for your time in this instance and in general. All the best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
How is He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him.
, Regarded as on one of the top social media influencers promoting peace between Arab and Israelis. Write about stuff that will make people as him for talks, interviews, etc.
, Stuff about how awesome the website is. We need to promote the website so we can eventually either cut a partnership deal with Facebook, or move people over to our own platform.
, Talk about what Ense is. What Nas puts on it. Etc. This is to help out Iqram and the Ense team
, Yassin's path to a new lifestyle began with the realization that he was a third of the way through his life expectancy, and he was spending most of that time in an office. Yassin calculated that he was 32% done with life based on the average male
life expectancy in the
United States of 76 years old.
etc... not promotional? Or rather, how is that remotely encyclopedic?
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
20:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him." I'm sorry for "forcing" you to resolve an EC but garbage like that is totally unacceptable on an encyclopedia and we've deleted other articles for a lot less. This was a clear attempt at promoting an artist (and nothing more) and gaining something out of it and not contributing to an encyclopedia as per all the examples I've given you. This was a bad call on your part. You can have your trout back, I don't like fish. :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Aquinas House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Aquinas House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. India1277 ( talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
hi thanks for considering speedy deletion.. but take a note why i nominated it and then decide if still want that article on wiki ok
do u think these are notable achivement
i spent lot time on this article to consider it delete nomination... but now i pass this to you... if u think it should remain on wiki no prob ... and if we think the tag was right ... please nominate again... thank you India1277 ( talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC) p.s. the same editor created St. Thomas Aquinas House (Covington Latin School) which was deleted earlier on same issue thank you India1277 ( talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
hi... i thought of merging first... but after looking at there school wiki page decided not to... i mean its just school house why to merge them into imp school article.. and there are no ref which can i refer to rewrite article as per encyclopedic... who knows maybe its a hoax India1277 ( talk) 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello and many thanks for your review of the page I started for the artist Katfyr. At this point, with the new 6 references, do you think the page will be in good standing to avoid deletion? Really hoping so, but I'm willing to add more if needed. pbigio ( talk) 04:46, 05 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Thanks for letting me know about the A7 deletion criteria. I still believe that the article fails WP:NMEDIA. As you are far more experienced editor then me and have reviewed the article, I wanted to check with you before nominating the article for deletion. Razer Text me 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy
You deleted the page i started recently under SpeedyDeletion criteria A7 I am sorry about that, and need to inform you that i don't agree with this deletion. Yes, it's a real person, but it's a very important emerging photographer in the asian background. It's one of the youngest photographer working in this artistic field. This photographer has already been shortlisted in several contest, exhibiting in recognize institutions and has, at this day, three books published.
I totally agree the following : You close the page before the sources were listed and the article ended. You didn't knew the facts above, (whatever the reason, maybe you're not interested by art/photography/asia...). You didn't made any other research to find WHY someone open a case, or find it hard because of the chinese translations. You admit by closing this page that the person was not important, this is an abusive/fast judgement and it's the main reason to ask for the page back.
I hope for revision. Best regards
le carré bleu coupé ( talk) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) May 10th 2017
{{
subst:submit}}
at the top of the page so an experienced editor will review your article before it's published.Hello, user:SoWhyThanks for the message. Since the firm in question is not notable, what would have been the proper speedy deletion? I used the correct tag: Db-inc for a company. Would you be so kind to assist me in what I did wrong? Was I even close? Help walk me through? I would like to learn this procedure. Thanks! Geejayen ( talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the create protection of this article. While it may have only been created twice, it was created twice in a relatively short time frame by a particularly prolific and persistent sockpuppeteer. User:10alatham has been socking continuously since 2010. Simply put, I have every reason to believe the article will just pop up again in a few days time if it's not salted. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of National liberalism. 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. Rupert Loup ( talk) 02:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created a page for [Retief Burger]. I got a message that it is deleted. I don't understand it at all. {The message is on my talk page.} I did read that above-mentioned link you gave. The code that is given in A7 I want to know what qualifies as a legitimate reason to keep a page. The person who I want to create the page of (Retief Burger), is quiet a well-know South African singer. He has recorded 5 CD's already, and he often sings in big venues in South Africa. Now, I don't necessarily want you to put the page back up, but I would like to know how to create pages, etc. [I am rather new to this aspect of Wikipedia] Please advise me on this. Thank you Freddie2016 ( talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
subst:submit}}
to the page after you are done. It will place the page in the
articles for creation review queue and experienced editors will review it. You are welcome to notify me instead if you like. Regards
So
Why
15:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank You for the barnstar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFD ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You declined A7 here but according to the deletion log, it was later A7d anyway by Primefac. Is it the same as what you declined? Adam9007 ( talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, Could you please userfy the article Brasserie Ellezelloise that you recently deleted Many thanks. ? MHAN2016 ( talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I may have been around for a (long) while, but I try to avoid this sort of nonsense, so I'm not familiar with the process. Thanks for your help :-) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi – thanks for noticing that I wasn't the one that tagged that article for speedy deletion as quickly as you did. Just leaving a friendly note here to say that your list of declined speedies still incorrectly implicates me as the tagger. Thanks — 72 talk / contribs 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington DeMolay. Since you had some involvement with the Washington DeMolay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
From my reading of this discussion, it seems like consensus was against redirecting. Could you please take another look? -- Tavix ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Since editors arguing for deletion usually do not mind...when there was clear evidence of the opposite in that discussion. Creating redirects where there is no information about the subject being redirected is unhelpful and likely to be confusing for casual readers. There is a big difference between something that just isn't fit as a standalone article and something that has no actual sourcing for anything more than a single sentence, if that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to DeMolay International - Wow! Is it just me or do others too see that 'No results found for "Washington DeMolay"' under the Google News section!? In any case, while DeMolay is notable, this particular chapter doesn't seem to be and neither are any reliable references available to verify if any.. A redirects purpose is to be helpful, yes? What use is a redirect if nothing can be written, based on RS, in the target article? It becomes one of two things: an implausible redirect or confusing for casual readers. If a reader is looking for information on Z and is automatically redirected to A with no mention of Z, it is more or less useless. Or a real life example: my high school had an ITS chapter. You could probably google it and show it exists, should that have a redirect?
Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider alternatives to deletion before commenting.{{cn}}, please. It's insulting to suggest that people who disagree with you couldn't possibly have considered other options. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Socking? I've got an SPI ready to go but as far as I can tell Wikilovers12 is the only other creator right? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Which of the two processes do you recommend: a) contacting you "very nicely", or b) going via the Wikipedia deletion review? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy Hi thanks for the response, it is a deletion to Joesph-Dubois where a few wikipedia mates have ganged up to force a deletion justified by a policy that is on it's own justifiable, but on balance not enough to delete this entry - all things considered. But the truth is this: crack on pal. I am going to delete my account on wikipedia (understand my edits will persist), because this has been a terrible waste of time already. The article was AFD'd, then no one objected, so they got their mates to REPOST IT for deletion to drum up support for deletion. Poor show, but that's how folk behave on here. Snobby, self-sure, deeming comments along the way. That's what i experienced here. Not a single comment on the content. Only comments on the football policy, no comments on how the player had achieved reconizable status The guy who AFD'd the article knows who the player is, even without an article on wikipedia. So they engaged in bully-boy behaviour. I'm done. Wikipedia can continue without my edits or donations. Enough.
Hi there "SoWhy", I am writing to inquire as to why an article that was written recently was deleted (censored) by you. You sighted A7 as the reason for censorship, however, thousands, or more likely hundreds of thousands of people out there that have read Aaron's work and would disagree with you as to the "significance", or rather lack of, that you stated as being the reason for the censoring of the article.
Not that it matters too much, but I used to contribute money every year to Wiki because I respected the open platform and access to information that it provided. However, now the site seems to be "patrolled" by people who delete articles regardless if the content in said articles is true or false, which in effect has turned Wiki into the very type of platform that it once boasted as being against.
The article that you deleted (an article on Aaron La Lux), was 100% factual, there was no false statements in it. As far as free speech and open platforms go, why would information be purposely censored for any other reason other than said information being false. Therefore I do not understand why you decided to delete it. Even after reading the explanation of what A7 means, I still do not see the grounds for which it was deleted to be fair.
I am not here to specifically request the said article to be reinstated (although that would be great). I am simply here to ask that you carefully examine your actions and beg of you to please not become the very force that the original Wikipedia was created to counteract. Censorship is never good, and it goes against the fundamental tenants of not just Wikipedia, but the internet as a whole.
You are likely much more experienced and knowledgeable in the "internet world", so I am not here to try and argue with you, complain, or tell you how to act. I am only asking that you take an honest look at yourself and your actions, and then decide if you are assisting or hindering the freedom of speech and the spread of information. I'm sure you feel like you are acting on behalf of the powers of the "greater good", but please remember, almost every oppressor and oppressive regime in the history of civilization thought he/she were acting on behalf of the "greater good". We all cold benefit from a bit more self reflection, honestly.
Anyways, I hope this inquiry is not taken offensively in any way. The internet is a very useful tool for open communications, and I am in no way trying to be offensive, I am simply trying to communicate in a way that will assist in shedding light on not only the article that was deleted, but the one that deleted is as well :-) It's all Love & Respect here. Honestly.
Thank you SO much for taking the time to read this inquiry, and feel free to respond in whatever way you desire. AaronLA ( talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well, I suppose we both have our perspectives. I am not going to argue, however, what I will say is that many times that censorship has been, and still is, exercised, the ones doing the censoring do not do so with nefarious intent, they do so because they honestly think they are doing the correct thing. I am not saying that that is the case with you, I am simply saying we need to be careful not to become the very thing that we are attempting to liberate ourselves and others from, in this case, the oppression of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Information. Again, I do not mean this in any sort of negative way towards you, I honestly believe that you are doing a great service and have nothing but the best of intentions in the services that you provide. I just think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one ;-) And thank you for at least engaging in a constructive conversation on the matter, you have been both respectful and informative in your communications and that is truly appreciated. Much Love & Respect AaronLA ( talk) 06:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI ADA is not a label - it is a distributor/merchandising company and artists do not get signed to it. The label of the artist in question is supposedly Moore Muzik, which is not partnered with the distributor and is definitely not notable or significant. Would you mind reassessing your a7 decline? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate you taking a look at Ciguli and Danny Levan, which I pulled CSD tags off of. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise that the first result on Google for
Midget Handjob was not porn...that was a risky click.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
why did you nominate the main page for deletion? The garmine (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Does it qualify as a college?? Coderzombie ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about this user ( here his contributions) that seems that only reason of his life is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Fencing Federation :D -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 09:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Just a quick note to thank you for pointing to Help:Shortened footnotes when you did the DYK review for Papal conclave, March 1605. This early modern conclave series of articles I am working on are the first that have extensively used offline sources that have multiple pages. Just got around to changing the citations over on that one and Papal conclave, 1724. Looks much cleaner, and a nudge in the right direction is always appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Chat_sports - is there any way to capitalize 'Sports" in Chat Sports? The lower case s on the second word is not an accurate representation of the company's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Please can you undelete my article so I may improve it to fit Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Editor362 ( talk) 08:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Administrator review has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you help me start a wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheriolett ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
On 8 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alaska P. Davidson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alaska P. Davidson was the first female FBI special agent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska P. Davidson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Alaska P. Davidson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your reasoning a bit more fully? The numerical split was 3-3 for merge/redirect vs. delete. Absent a clear numerical consensus, your reasoning for deletion vs. relisting or no consensus close is both relevant and inscrutable. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey there! Just a quick follow up that the article on Katfyr was eventually deleted. I'm just here to raise the point for your records, as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Basically, I provided proof that WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 were addressed, and in over 3 weeks (relisted 3 times), no one was able to specifically answer as to why those points were invalid. I made the same comment to the person who deleted the article, but the user was unreasonable to argue these points as well, and accepted somehow that the "consensus" as baseless as it was, provided enough reason for deletion. Something appears to be off in this process, appears slightly unethical, and at the same time, it seems that the AFD process is still far from what it should be. Anyways, just like a said, just for the record, and surely, I understand it is a community process, open to flaws like this. Pbigio ( talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I'm a second-year accounting student interested in becoming more involved with Wikipedia. I saw that you're accepting protégé. I'm looking to become a better writer and editor and would appreciate guidance on where to start.
Sincerely, Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Moos ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
~~~~
which creates a
signature with your name and date.Why did you convert my A7 speedy to a prod (the A11 was not mine)? And not even a sticky prod? Regardless of what the title is, this is a completely unsourced bio which makes makes no credible claim of notability. You might want to look at the editor's talk page. First he claimed to be a 92-year-old dead person writing his or her own obituary, and now a young university student. So, now this is likely going to waste time going to AFD (unless the user doesn't bother to remove your prod). Very strange. Meters ( talk) 06:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:Articles for deletion/2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash and WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. They both seem clear deletes and they have been open for more than 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, Please i need your help
1. Theoretically speaking, how may one handle a WP editor who is very advanced and conversant with every policy and guideline but somehow has began to act in very bad faith, he/she all of a sudden is a vandal/Disruptive editor who rather than follow polices established chooses to act in their own way using WP:IAR as an excuse to continue their vandalism. This is all theoretical of course as i am not at the moment facing this problem.
2. How may i handle an experienxed editor who is acting out of WP:REVENGE ?? for example, i nominate an article for deletion because i deem it of no encylopedic value, (unfortunately the article is "his own") when the article eventually is deleted he goes on rage and start to nominate articles i created which clearly are of encylopedic value and qualify primary notability guidelines for deletion. How may i tackle this as well? where do i go to report such unacceptable behavior? Please i beg of you to enlighten me. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI. Take care, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Sowhy: i need advice on an issue, having failed to obtain this information from most policies or guidelines i thought it wise to ask from an editor, Here is my question; At what point do i start to issue out a level 1 warning to an editor who behaves as a vandal/disruptive editor & at what point also do i begin to issue out a level 2 & so on. I dont usually issue out warnings because i am not satisfied with the knowledge i have on that aspect. Please enlighten me. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Administrator review has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Dear Administrator SoWhy:
I has come to my attention that an Article written about me is being questioned for its accuracy or sources. I write you because, I see that the article has been on your administrative "radar".
Sometime last year an interested writer contacted and interviewed me. We had more than one discussion. The original focus for this discussion was my involvement in digital audio technologies. But as the conversation deepened I recall that the reason why I had organized my AMP technology team in Croatia was because my co-founders were there. Further I told him that I was very comfortable operating in Eastern Europe because I had considerable familiarity with Russia, having resided there in the early 1990's.
This led to his inquiry as to my work activities there. He found my recounting of this "likely hard for the public to believe" and he asked for proof of my unusual relationships. I decided to avail the writer of links to some of my personal photographic and document archives (with permission to publish). The writer thought these archives were necessary to "prove" that I had relations with prior members of the Russian intelligence community and high officials such as Soviet Premier Ryzhkov.
The rather extensive results of his interest are evident in Wikipedia's article. As I now understand it, such "primary sources" are discouraged, but, under extenuating circumstances, are permissible under Wikipedia rules [1]. But, I am the only one in possession of these items and I have them archived in my private cloud which is neither indexed or overtly "published". Otherwise, the author sourced many links, (still visible even from the early 90's) related to my business dealings with KGB.
Perhaps these should be provided to the Wikimedia "Commons"??
Whether or not I am "Notable" is a matter for others to decide.
.....................................................................................................
What is immediately concerning me an unattributed entry made on 209.160.120.146 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC). This suggested suggesting submitting "FOIA Requests" from American intelligence agencies concerning my activities in another life.
I am writing you to ask if Wikipedia could possibly remove that particular "suggestion".
Here are my reasons:
1. These requests take months to process and would not be able to impact the outcome of the discussion in any case.
2. There are unwritten, internal limits placed such on FOIA requests. An increased number of requests could place additional scrutiny on me by U.S. intelligence (and ... I have already had plenty of that.)
3. Such an "influx" of random requests may also interefere with future needs I will have in a book I am very slowly writing/compiling - referenced near the end of the article.
4. I could be harmed by information any information released. U.S. intelligence may release materials which compromise my privacy by failing to carefully redact materials related to my business and personal life. There are precedents for this. Government employees are "only human".
5. Nobody will get anything from the U.S. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) anyway. They recently clamped down on all such requests for active subjects of interest. See [2] I therefore would like to "officially" request the deletion and "expunging" of that single "Keep" vote. This is "support" that I honestly don't need and it won't be helpful in determining the merits of the article. It will only serve to provide ideas that could prove invasive to privacy.
Would you kindly look into this matter internally and see if an "Administrator Override" might be accorded to me on this single comment? Obviously, I would also ask that this very request also be deleted (or redacted as you see appropriate) concerning the specific request, since this correspondence would only serve to reiterate my fundamental concerns on the same public forum.
May I also suggest that perhaps another week of commentary may be appropriate. This, because there seems to be a rather limited number of responses. I think you'd agree that more commentary, more "data" would likely result in a richer pot of information to facilitate the formation of the eventual consensus.
Thank you for your time and any assistance you or your colleagues at Wikipedia may be able to provide.
Kind regards,
Brian D. Litman litman_bd ( talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I'm curious as to why you relisted this. The conversation has been stale for five days and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that he does not meet the GNG. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Administrator User:SoWhy:
The opening box says: "All input is welcome".
Yet User:Power~enwiki admonished me for a long post and reverted (see history) of [1]
The revert included a simple explanation to a comment he made I only wanted to clarify.
I am confused.
I imagined no other alternative venue than my own Talk page [2].
Was I wrong to post a such a defense? I saw no limitation and ... one risks being cast into the dustbin of digital history!
I perceive some kind of ... well... hostility in all of this. And, I would be most keen to get your view of my defense at my Talk page. I intend to offend no one nor breach protocols not defined on the pages in question.
Thank you for your patience, sir.
Best regards, -- Brian ------------------------------------------------------------ litman_bd ( talk) 02:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hey curious how Zdenčina is a notable team? The article that the talk page links to is on Hungarian Wiki and was created very recently by presumably the same user. It's also a seemingly non-notable youth team. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy,
I noticed you'd deleted the 'DriveWorks' page so I just wanted to chat with you about having it undeleted/restored. The article was flagged for deletion after I'd edited it as it lacked notability and had some marketing speak in it.
I'm a new editor to wiki and I wanted to add more information to the page to properly describe what DriveWorks does, so I copied a paragraph from our website which flagged it as marketing speak. When I recieved the message from admin Velella I immediately removed the part I'd copied over and restored it to how it was before - my mistake, I just wanted to add informative information.
This then flagged up the page as lacking notability / conflict of interest so it needed cleaning up. Before I tried to clean it up and add references, I went away and started reading through wiki's guidelines of what is classed as a primary and secondary source, so I could gather a list of apprpriate sources. I also re-read the guidelines on how to edit a page and the type of language to use.
Whilst I was doing this research, the page has been removed but as it's been up since 2008 I really do want to get it back and fix it to meet wiki's guidelines.
I've been reading the posts about requesting undeletion and it says to message the admin who deleted it first to discuss before requesting undeletion.
Could you please tell me what I can do from here to get the page back? I'm still gathering sources so I can add notability to the page so I don't have a list to show you yet, but if it's best to do that I can come back to you with a list of sources?
Thanks and sorry for the long message!
Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ FlightTime:, Thanks for your reply, I've read the COI page and I noticed it says to propose edits so they can be peer reviewed before being actioned, but I guess I can't do this now as the page has been deleted? Just looking for the best way to get the original page undeleted / suggest edits and add references. New to this so thanks for your help :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ SoWhy:, thank you for restoring it to the draft space :) I will edit the page tomorrow and I will make sure I declare the COI, properly reference the article and then add the template for it to be reviewed. Thanks again for your help & guidance. Danielle DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ SoWhy:, I'm now ready to submit the DriveWorks page for review, but I can't figure out which template to use from the Submit template page. Could you please give me a bit of guidance on how to submit for review? Thank you :) DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry @ Sowhy: I have figured it out :) DanielleDriveWorks ( talk) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, you declined an A7 speedy on NBA Youngboy because he worked with a famous artist. Fair enough, but on reading this article you perhaps should have noticed that this unsourced BLP claimed " was accused of first-degree murder." (right before the claim that he worked with that rapper), and further on "He was sent to prison of first degree murder after a concert in Austin, Texas. He also went to court for a robbery after dropping out of high school. " and "was in jail from November 28, 2016 to March 30, 2017". We don't get many more obvious G10 speedies than this :-) Fram ( talk) 14:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
re correcting Joseph F. McCormick page:
Hi SoWhy... Since I now understand that this page may not be removed, I am seeking to resolve the issues that have caused the warning banners to be placed on it recently.
1. The first banner says: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (June 2017) If I do not meet the notability requirements can you remove the page? If I do, can you remove this banner?
2. The second banner says: This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (June 2017) Yes I have a conflict of interest but there seems to be no other way but for me to make edits to help ensure clarity. How can this issue be resolved?
The section in question -- that caused the banners to be attached a week or so ago -- seems to be the paragraph headed Transpartisan Research. Ideally this is the language I would like use:
"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]
These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.
In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level."
3. The third banner says: Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2017). Since the conferences convened between 2004 and 2007 were off the record due to the sensitivity of prominent participants concerns about being publicly acknowledged for spending extensive time privately getting to know people they or their organizations were in conflict with, there are now a decade later only a couple reference links available. I believe these are the only questionable citations as according to your reliable sources policy:
Citation [9] "Rogue Valley WC experiment ::". wisedemocracy.org. Retrieved 2017-05-17. There were no media reports of this documentary trip in May/June 2003 which only included myself and a small video crew. The only archive of it is the 20 minute mini-doc hosted on the Center for Wise Democracy website. Citation [12] advmediasolutions (2006-12-31), Reuniting America-Short Edit, retrieved 2017-05-24. This is the ONLY archive as a 5 min. video of one of the most successful off the record events that brought Al Gore into relationship with many of his leading conservative critics, co-facilitated by Harvard Profeoor and Getting to Yes co-author Bill Ury.
Thank you for your help resolving these issues.
Joseph McCormick
{{
request edit}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Hi SoWhy. I would like to second the nomination this page written about me be deleted. If this is not possible, I request the Section entitled Transpartisan Research be edited to read:
"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]
These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.
In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There was noone in favor of a redirect for this AFD and I can point to a long list of aviation crash AFDs that had similar consensus and were deleted. Please reconsider your ruling. I will go to DRV but why should time be wasted there. You imposed your own view that had no support in the AFD and there is no precedent for. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. In your edit summary, you said that "Subject might be important/significant", so I looked for some evidence of this and could not find anything. As far as I could see, there was not even any claim of notability. From my point of view, I wasn't "reverting" you (you might ask :Adam9007 why he removed your proposed deletion notice, describing it as "invalid"). I guess you're aware of the creator's activities and that there's a honking great big COI here? Deb ( talk) 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a time that video games were covered under A7. What about Full Moon (video game)? It's in your decline log but it was deleted A7 anyway. As for significance vs notability, I've encountered people who (seemingly) neither know or care that they are not the same thing.
Hi, good day. I want to find out what is wrong with this article? Please let me know. 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:6bc3:3700:946e:b10:7546:bde3 ( talk • contribs)
1) He is currently attach in Finance Ministry. This is a valid online source from Malaysian's government portal. http://www.treasury.gov.my/index.php/en/contact-us/staff-directory.html/ 2) He is a living person and also MCA Perak State Youth Chairman. You can see his name from MALAYSIAN Chinese Association Portal. http://mcaperak.org.my/关于霹雳州马华-about-perak-mca/组织结构-2/马青霹雳州团-youth-committee/#nogo 3) You can locate his Community Service office in Sitiawan through this address. I understand he lost his election in 2013. It does not means the end of a political career. Google search with his Chinese native name 陳大富 or English name Ting Tai Fook will return some results. 4) He was a Candidate for MCA for Perak Sitiawan State N50. Full Election Result through this main stream ENGLISH paper. http://elections.thestar.com.my/results/results_state.aspx?state=perak [[ 2001:E68:6BC1:7600:E4B1:86A6:F436:5C67 ( talk) 09:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)]]
Hello SoWhy
Thank you for moving this article to draft status. I have edited it with citations for reference. If it mets with your approval can it be moved to the main space? I don't believe I have that facility as a new editor. As he seems to have notoriety in regard to composing music, I wonder if a title change would be appropriate, e.g. John O'Hara (musician/composer). I appreciated your assistance. -- LucyLou2002 ( talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
When a person's article is deleted, please remove their entry from a name list, not just the link. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You removed a csd from tis article, helpfully reminding me that fro a speedy to be appropriate there should be no article on the band and no claim of notability. So, why did yoy remove a speedy from an article about a recording where the band have no article and there is no claim of notability? TheLongTone ( talk) 11:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Krod Records a major label? do you know what major means???? TheLongTone ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your closing rationale here. May I ask you to reconsider relisting? Your main reason for a no consensus close seems to be that you think that AfD is an inappropriate place for a conversation on PAID, and that NOTSPAM does not exclude things that do not have promotional language. While I can see that point of view, NOT is explicitly stated as being part of N just as much as GNG is and people were engaging in a conversation as to whether simply intending to promote violates it with someone raising the point of similar paid articles in newspapers. No one who had not already participated in the discussion had engaged that point, and it was in my opinion one of the stronger arguments for that position (to the point I wish I had made it myself.) I think adding more discussion on that is worthwhile, as could be more discussion as to if it meets the GNG. Thanks for considering. TonyBallioni ( talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do soand WP:N incorporates WP:NOT as an equal to GNG. The arguments between the tension to cover something that might be GNG and to exclude something that is excluded under NOT is something that inherently needs to be decided on an individual basis, which makes AfD a better forum for it than an RfC. We obviously differ on this, but I do still think letting the AfD run another week could have brought about a consensus either for keeping or deleting, and I'm not quite sure its worth the hassle of a DRV since I don't disagree that there was no consensus at this time, just that closing it rather than relisting was the best way to handle it. Likely what we're looking at is just another AfD in a few months. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.82.76 ( talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know why you deleted my article of Julian Feifel so fast. It was still in discussion and there where also other user that wanted to keep the article. Several users where already adding and improving the article, so it was in a working process. Is there a way to bring that article back? Let me know what you think is to improved, thanks. Martinfissler ( talk) 15:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
<-And here's what you get from OTHERSTUFF arguments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achim Köhler -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.User:Jtbobwaysf has asked for a deletion review of KSL Capital Partners. 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. — Cryptic 10:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Saw your note on the AN. Honestly, I’ve thought about the idea of doing RFA, on and off, for some time, but the main problem I see (apart from the incident from 2008, which I’d be obliged to disclose) is I have been periodically inactive, and most of my work (content writing, dispute resolution reform and so on) is from some time ago. And this NAC blew up in my face. I’m not sure what RFA standards are like nowadays, but I would appreciated it, if you have some time, to maybe provide an assessment in your opinion on where I’m lacking? I’ve always preferred working behind the scenes - I can write content but it’s not necessarily where I excel. And with the last RFA being so painful I am reluctant to go through it again. Steven Crossin 18:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Very surprised to hear that WP:TNT is a non-policy argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G Smith.What led you to this idea? Winged Blades Godric 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I hope you will be able to help with this request please. The article on partnership brokering was taken down a few days ago, and I would like to a) enquire about the grounds for deletion b) find out what needs to improve for the next iteration and c) get a copy of the article + article talk page + discussion + discussion talk page, that was live before it got deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you. PBA18 ( talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, Thanks for your response and the suggestion to re-instate the content to a draft space. Once restored, we will work to improve notability by sourcing and adding further references. PBA18 ( talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind sharing the reasoning behind the merge close? I counted four Delete votes, vs one Keep or Merge, and another Merge. The article did not cite any independent sources, so it's unclear to me what content was suitable for merging: Godsbane. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- re your close of the AfD on this one -- I'm puzzled by no-consensus, given that there were two delete contributions after resisting. Would you perhaps reconsider on that basis? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I am here on behalf of the author whose page you just deleted. I can assure you that the author in question is legitimate, and that the information on the page is accurate. Would you kindly undo this deed so that people can learn something about the early days of West Coast hip hop from the author's perspective? Thank you.
Yours,
Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by and giving your comments. I will definitely take them under advisement. I clearly need to be less sloppy with my CSD tagging. Thanks again. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you by any chance re-weigh the consensus at this AfD and the level of attention given to the sources pre-offered? SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street you declared the result as a Keep. It was relisted by Winged Blades of Godric on 14 July but then closed by you. There was a discussion continuing about whether it should be kept or merged and it would have been useful to decide an outcome here itself. In you closing result, you suggested that merging can be discussed on the talk. But I have tried posting message to many articles earlier and no one responds to these messages on the talk page. How do I proceed now?-- DreamLinker ( talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've participated in a lot of deletion discussions and I do admit that your closes sometimes leave me perplexed. For example, above you describe my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) as "[not] actually explain[ing] why the perceived 'promotionalism' cannot be fixed by editing (per WP:PRESERVE)". My full statement in this case was "promotionalism and trivia, as in: "Crowdspring maintains a blog which was launched in mid-2008.[16]" etc. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here". That's not just about promotionalism, but also about the article being full of trivia and none of the content being encyclopedically relevant.
In another example ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pista House), you described by !vote as follows: "the only later !vote does not really discuss those sources but mainly argues based on WP:UGLY". My !vote was "if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping"; this shows that I did look at the sources.
The promotionalism deletion rationale is part of WP:NOT and is not the same as UGLY. The closes do come across as trying to find any possible way of preserving the article and dismissing "delete" votes, which is not the approach I've previously encountered. Hope you take this feedback as constructive criticism; as you can appreciate, I did not like to see my good faith !votes dismissed as trivial complaints under UGLY. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."2) Your comment shows you looked at the sources but it does not actually say "I don't think notability is established". Whether it's suppliyng or having 200 restaurants is a question of content, not notability and why the sources cover the subject - for supplying or for having restaurants - is not relevant per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Geoff did show there were multiple sources covering the subject while you did not actually dispute that the coverage is substantial enough to establish notability. As for the latter part, "too promotional to be worth keeping" is - as I pointed out above - only a reason for deletion if editing cannot fix it (and remember, with notable subjects, that editing can include WP:STUBIFYing per WP:ATD).
I edit conflicted with you, I was going to close the AfD as "no consensus" ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you delete and redirect the article per that discussion, someone has restored that page without consensus and I had requested speedy deletion per WP:G4, should it be deleted or be redirected back to album? Raritydash ( talk) 04:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, This is regarding the page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI which was recently deleted by you This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
Deletion message: 09:02, 17 July 2017 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (XFDcloser))
I would like to know the reasons why and also how could I possibly re-create a page on the subject, as it was page I had created in 2014 and was running for the last 3 years, before it was mistakenly deleted by me (using db-author) on/merge the 9th of July, 2017, while trying to edit/merge some information. The page was supported by 111 credible/verifiable references, including national and international news links.
Regards, Samar khurshid ( talk) 10:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the archived link, thanks http://archive.li/TPbiR Samar khurshid ( talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20170718113356/http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/ Regards Samar khurshid ( talk) 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
http://presstrustofkashmir.com/creating-awareness-about-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-to-save-the-environment/ Samar khurshid ( talk) 10:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
http://kashmirpatriot.com/2017/07/20/creating-awareness-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-save-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid ( talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's another one carried by the KNS today, http://www.knskashmir.com/Sewage-treatment-plants-in-Pahalgam-lacking-18426 Regards, Samar Samar khurshid ( talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Firstly, thank you for closing the Sehgal AfD, it must have been a messy one to wade through.
For what it's worth, I think your overall decision of keep was right, as it seemed like there was basically no consensus and defaulting to the status quo was the correct decision. I just wanted to register, in case it comes up again in the future, that some of the specific rationale seemed off to me. None of the sources linked to were 'new', they were all already there to be seen in the article, they were just linked to in the AfD for rhetorical purposes later as well. I'm one 'delete' vote, at least, that was delete having looked at those sources and judged them not to be sufficient to constitute notability. I note that a few of the other votes also talked about the insufficiency of at least some of the sources, so I guess others were weighing them all too.
Also, you mentioned the 'WP:Offline' issue in your closing, but that was a red-herring. I don't think anybody ever raised the sources not being online as a reason to discount them. I did make the case that there were some sources that failed WP:Publish, in that they're not available either on- or off-line for public consultation.
But anyway, these are just minor quibbles. Thanks again. Landscape repton ( talk) 18:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I'm just posting this because you invited questions in your edit summary, but I didn't know where to given the closure. Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify" seems to imply just that. But thanks for the feedback, I will try to be more clear in the future. Regards So Why 09:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verifyI meant exactly that, that nobody could access them, not just that they couldn't be accessed online. It was a summary of my talk-page entry about trying to find publicly accessible offline library archives that might cover the old newspaper sources. Landscape repton ( talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that you deleted a page called "Get Croissant" /info/en/?search=Get_Croissant
I am curious if there is any way I can see the original text of this page?
The Google serach returned the first sentence if that helps... "Get Croissant or (Croissant Coworking) is an American online marketplace software technology coworking company that provides on demand access to shared ... "
Thanks! Axcelis555 ( talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)