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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
I would like to know why the page /info/en/?search=Balkrishan_Goenka was deleted. There was no discussion after the nomination and sudden delete happened even without replying to the talk and discussion. Jbadshah ( talk) 09:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you OK tidying up their mess? All those moves are kind of confusing... Girth Summit (blether) 18:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this should be re-opened. While there were more merge !votes, one of them was merely WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE, with another argument being that he simply is no longer relevant in the series, which is not a reason for a merge. I don't see a consensus here. MoonJet ( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saving Grace animal rescue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Star Mississippi!
Thanks for the review of my submitted draft. Your review says the draft was declined, and I would kindly request some more clarification on the following:
1) the review says the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The cited sources are: Leiden University official website, Amazon.com (official website), Centre d'Estudis del Bages official website, globalscholarships.com, EduRank.org. the Spectator official website, Baismag official website, History Reclaimed official website, and 2 official PDF documents (one by Leiden University, and one by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) I would really appreciate more info on which of these sources are not reliable enough and what to improve in particular.
2) the review says the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. It says the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I would appreciate additional insight into the specific parts that could be seen as biased, as well as in terms of sources, ie which of the cited sources are not independent, reliable, or published, and how to improve on that. I would also like to clarify that I am not the author of any of the materials listed as sources in the submitted draft.
Thanks in advance for the reply! Erica2687 ( talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
On 26 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Todd Haimes, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If we compare any award given away with only Nobel Prize, Oscars, Bookers, etc. then that would not be fair at all. As there are many awards and recognitions given away by government bodies recognizing the work done by artists, authors etc. and these hold a lot of importance in that country. There are no fixed guidelines as to which award holds the most important after the Booker Prize for literary work. The deletion of the Wikipedia page: Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth suggested is not fair. Aintabli (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC), has rightly commented that Indian Government has awarded 'Rahul Sankrityayan Award' for the year 2018–19 to this Book. Ministry of Tourism, under the Government of India has awarded this Rahul Sankrityayan Award. No it would not be apt to consider Sahitya Akademi Award as the more "major" option in India. Moreover, the English version of this book: Patriotic Pilgrimage Of India, is available at the National Library of India. Hence meeting the threshold standards (Criteria) also. It is my humble submission to re consider this deletion of the article and also help me to publish the same. Raksha57 ( talk) 07:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for catching that other one! Also for the p-block; I was going to indef if I found one more problem, but you got there first. If you've no objection I'll probably move that page back to Munshiganj, as that's the name it's found under in the various WP:RS I've quickly checked for it. I answered your question about WikiProjects in the AfD, but didn't want to ping any editor to that discussion. Apart from myself, the only active editor I can think of right now with long-term interest in livestock breeds is Steven Walling, whose advice I have sought more than once in the past. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi star! Just reaching out because you're a regular closing admin at AFD. Question. On the May 2 deletion log, there is a discussion for Mohit Parmar. I'm curious. Another admin has speedily deleted that article before the discussion could close. I was considering doing an early closure, but thought it best to 1 ask if that is correct and 2 even if correct, leave for an admin as I am not one. Just out of curiosity, what is the correct procedure here? Is it closed, or should we leave it open in case someone requests undeletion and then we have a consensus for deletion allowing it to be redeleted in future? MaxnaCarta ( talk) 02:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Jovanovic close as a delete. Mostly because the last time I looked, it seemed like a pile-on, so I didn't think it was the best use of my time and didn't opine.
But as this went to AFD because it was moved to Draft, and back again quickly - shouldn't it go back to draft? This is a young, very active player. Can you draftify? Thanks Nfitz ( talk) 03:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate it is a difficult task but can you help me understand why you've closed as No Consensus here? None of the sources meet our GNG/NCORP guidelines. Cunard's argument now is that essentially a review of the website is the same thing as a review of the company, which has no support whatsoever in any of our guidelines. Cielquiparle's references fell short and their argument is that sources may be combined (which you'll see on the Talk page of NCORP has been dismissed). I understand there must be consensus but these arguments fail at a fundamental level, which is sources that meet guidelines for establishing notability. Thank you. HighKing ++ 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The guidelines stress that notability isn't transferable.recently. Need to find it again and see how it closed. Just noting I've seen this but am likely offline for the next 24 hours or so, and will come back to you with a fuller answer by Tuesday at the latest. Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
You mention above that as a community we don't have consensus on whether the coverage of Company Y's product/channel rolls up to company or not. I think it is already covered pretty well in the NCORP guidelines which admittedly could be better phrased in parts. It must be remembered that NCORP provides guidelines for companies/organizations *or* products, so where the example in NCORP says "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products" this does not mean that a film featuring the product can be used to establish notability for the company - as per INHERITORG
it says Sources are not transferable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing coverage of that organization".and I don't disagree that it's written as such, I'm jut not sure it's reality. If a non notable company produces a notable product, to my (editor) brain, that doesn't make sense. If it's only one of the two, the company is notable and not their products, the other way doesn't make sense to me.
Consensus was determined but either it has changed, wasn't clearly implemented in guidelines, or isn't clearly applied in practice.. I take a simple approach. I read the guidelines, that's it. The guidelines are essentially the currently captured consensus. If consensus has changed then the guidelines should be changed. If consensus hasn't been applied in practice then that is down to either a misunderstanding by participants at AfD (which happens frequently lets be honest) or its down to AfD closers who also fail to understand the guidelines and instead are swayed by "interpretations" put forward by participants.
In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy.(bolding mine), which to me means we generally should not be creating separate articles with instances like Coca Cola/ The Coca-Cola Company being an exception because of the volume and depth of coverage about each. S0091 ( talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic, this again refers to a potential clash between two or more "notable" and valid alternatives for a title. I'd also add that the primary/root guideline WP:N is very clear that topics must be notable. Yes, I agree that WP:PRODUCT uses the word "known" as opposed to "notable" in the first sentence and this is therefore unclear and "open to interpretation" but I suppose that part of the "unclear" nature or the guidelines. There have been a couple of related discussion at the WP:NCORP Talk page over the years. For example in 2007 (16 years ago, yikes!) this exact question was asked and no clear direction or response emerged. A more recent discussion from 2020 on "creative" companies is slightly more helpful in my opinion. It asks the question on whether "publishers" can be notable (or other creative companies) and acknowledges that companies don't become notable by having notable products. I don't think you can say a clear consensus emerged to create an exception for "creative" companies but it touches on the same questions being asked and for me it does acknowledge that you simply don't create articles on topics which are not notable. HighKing ++ 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Not directly related to this specific discussion but you and @ HighKing: may be interested in WT:NCORP#NCORP and The Oregonian. S0091 ( talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
According to policy when the votes are close, the voting must be extended one more week to get a better consensus. Why was this AFD closed and not extended? I Have posted my arguments as to why it meets notability and there were also several other Keeps. Let me know what is the official process for requesting an extension on the AFD. Hkkingg ( talk) 05:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this until it closed. Since notability was the only issue raised, would you consider undeleting the content and redirecting to List of Jericho episodes as an obviously valid but not raised in the discussion ATD? Jclemens ( talk) 08:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Same request, different article. Would you mind undeleting, and redirecting to List of Angel episodes? I just spent a few minutes fixing the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep Tight (Angel), and suspect this one will be fixable too. Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate it! Now, if there was a way to merge the page history of the page with the draft, that would be great too. I would do it, but I don't have admin privileges. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, could you please reconsider your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969? With three “weak keep”, three “redirect and three merge votes (rough count, so may have missed something), there’s no consensus here. The case for redirecting or merging is even weaker when we consider that Timothy’a vote didn’t even attempt to put forward an argument and CastJared’s vote is a simple agreement with Timothy’s - these should have been discounted completely. Ajf773‘s vote completely mischaracterised a source, claiming it was a trivial mention when the article was dedicated to this route.
Thanks for your consideration Garuda3 ( talk) 09:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The issue with the weak keeps was that the depth of sourcing wasn't there beyond MyLondon news source, which you identified.While this is a fair viewpoint (though I personally disagree that you need multiple WP:GNG-worthy sources to form an article), it wasn't what was expressed in the discussion. Instead, MyLondon was described incorrectly and discarded, and subsequent redirect voters didn't bother to put forward an argument at all. While gidonb puts forward a good argument, it is very much a merge argument rather than a redirect and there isn't really consensus for it.
Could you provide a little more explanation for how you came to the "no consensus" conclusion? While AfD is not a vote, it isn't obvious to me that the strength of the arguments for keeping is sufficient to overcome the 6 to 3 preference for deletion. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability) and so there would also have to have been more than just one editor arguing that further, currently-inaccessible coverage could be presumed to exist on the subject for this to be a solid NC. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi,
Thanks for taking the time to review our submission on Herman Bouwer - I am writing you through my daughter's wiki account.
I need a little help understanding your comments in order to revise the entry.
Herman Bouwer was a scientist whose work has greatly helped the hydrologists who bring groundwater throughout the world for growing crops, in your house, running power plants etc. So his work, and in particular to subsurface water storage, affects everyone. He is not well known outside of the hydrology community, and that is why we (four hydrogeology professionals late in our careers) drafted his page in order to get the word out about him. There is nothing to promote (he's long dead) besides to put him in the encyclopedia where he belongs - his little corner of the museum. His family is aware that we are doing this, but they have not been involved.
Verification. There are no references to cite, besides the citations presented on the things he invented - that is how science works. I can send you screenshots that show how many times each the papers we cited have been referenced by others (Bouwer and Rice 1984 1765 times), but there is not a simple tool that lists all of his papers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=H+Bouwer&btnG= shows a few of his papers. Would linking to google scholar for each citation help?
With regards to promotional, I've looked at other entries for scientists in the popular culture (Einstein, Neil deGrasse Tyson etc.) and they in some ways those entries are more promotional than what we have written. But they are well-known, Herman is not. But I can guarantee you that, as I am writing this, someone, somewhere in world is using one of the methods or tools that he invented. He was a big deal.
So I am a little stumped as to what to do.
Thanks for your time, I appreciate any help you can give me
Mike Milczarek, Tucson, AZ Mikaelam5512 ( talk) 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star. Our page Netskope has been deleted and re-submitted it three weeks on the un-deletion request page. Did you have any visibility on that? Please let us know how to proceed. Kind regards,
EarleofNola (
talk) 21:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This title is currently a redirect, and you locked the redirect in April 2021. The history of that title shows that there was sockpuppetry, and I assume that is one of the reasons why you locked the redirect, because the expansion of the title into an article was mostly not being done by good-faith editors. For your information, a draft, Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) has been submitted for review. I have declined it and have asked the submitter(s) to discuss at the parent article talk page, Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (film). I am just informing you. I don't really have an opinion, except that consensus should be determined by discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello I am contacting you to ask if its possible to request an unblock of my account. On 28 April 2023, the user 331dot told me that before unblocking my account he have to see at least one draft accepted into the encyclopedia by an Articles for Creation reviewer. I have received the first draft accepted ( Oleksandr Zub), please let me know how I can proceed and in the best scenario, if I will get unclock let me know the best way how you want me to do. Regards Iliochori2 ( talk) 12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. and someone will review it. I personally don't think you're ready since another one of the articles you created is looking like it will be deleted and I'm not sure yet you're ready to edit in mainspace. But it's possible that someone else will disagree with my opinion. While waiting to be unblocked, you can continue to edit and improve the drafts to show your familiarity with sourcing, notability requirements. Does that help?
Star
Mississippi 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Just so you know, it appears as though the editor Tonitorrent is a sockpuppet of Iliochori2. The account was setup just a few days ago, and it has only made edits to pages very actively edited by Iliochori2, using almost identical language, updates, and techniques. I just wanted to make you aware of this, as Iliochori2 is current banned from editing in the mainspace. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, StarMississipi, I was the author of the second draft of Modhalum Kaadhalum, I won’t submit the draft yet since you said it’s disruptive and could be deleted - other people’s hard work shouldn’t go to waste. Can you give an eval of sources, like Timothy did in our initial AfD discussion so I can update sources and find new ones accordingly. I’ll still keep in drafts, don’t worry about that. Aspiringeditor1 ( talk) 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the review of Modhalum Kaadhalum article. I have noticed the debate regarding GNG, and from the debate I believe that this and many other articles have been reviewed unfairly.
In comparison with other articles already available on Wikipedia, I don't think the debate gave a clear rationale for the article's deletion (and my own article's rejection) as many articles already available on Wikipedia contrast the statement. In my opinion, I think the rejection is invalid and articles already available support this.
It would be grateful if you reply with a proper rationale with why my article was rejected, because the debate is not helpful, and almost all Tamil serial articles have the same sources reviewed by Timothy. If you think sources are the issue, I'd request that you review the many other articles currently on the mainspace that should be removed for this reason. Tirishan ( talk) 11:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Source-wise we can try as hard as we possibly can, but it’s hard to have them to the same standard as American and British soaps. I did get your message about sourcing for the cast, which I have done but have a tad bit more to do. I get notifications for this somehow, but my two cents. Aspiringeditor1 ( talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There were two votes for redirect and two for keep that is not a consensus. I have recreated the article with the changes that were made by /info/en/?search=User:Skimel. Brian.butt ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
continue to create articles about this band; you've already got Draft:Halocene, so work on that until it's acceptable as a mainspace article. Do not keep creating new pages; that would be disruptive, as Star mentions above. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 01:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote this on the board but I think it is not the place, this is what they answered me:
A delete query was performed with the result of merging ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Awards Canada), since that was the only vote given in the discussion. I would like the article to be re-evaluated. Thanks in advance. — ChuchoVCJMuzik ( talk) 04:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[ reply
Could you help me? Now what's next? ChuchoVCJMuzik ( talk) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bilal Mahmood. 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. FlamingMoth ( talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Would you be willing to relist this discussion one more time? There were only two votes, Canadian Paul and TimothyBlue - CP said that he found sufficient sources and listed them (though they seem to be non-accessible to us) and TB just copy-pasted his rationale that he always puts at sportspeople AFDs - that some editors actually pointed out issues with (I've seen you quote that line in a few deletion discussions and it doesn't have anything to do with N.
) FWIW, had I noticed CP's sources I probably would have !voted keep.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I sincerely apology by my personnal attacks against you during last October. I was wrong and I appreciate your labor over here in wikipedia. Best regards. HugoAcosta9 ( talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
I would like to know why the page /info/en/?search=Balkrishan_Goenka was deleted. There was no discussion after the nomination and sudden delete happened even without replying to the talk and discussion. Jbadshah ( talk) 09:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you OK tidying up their mess? All those moves are kind of confusing... Girth Summit (blether) 18:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this should be re-opened. While there were more merge !votes, one of them was merely WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE, with another argument being that he simply is no longer relevant in the series, which is not a reason for a merge. I don't see a consensus here. MoonJet ( talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saving Grace animal rescue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Star Mississippi!
Thanks for the review of my submitted draft. Your review says the draft was declined, and I would kindly request some more clarification on the following:
1) the review says the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The cited sources are: Leiden University official website, Amazon.com (official website), Centre d'Estudis del Bages official website, globalscholarships.com, EduRank.org. the Spectator official website, Baismag official website, History Reclaimed official website, and 2 official PDF documents (one by Leiden University, and one by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) I would really appreciate more info on which of these sources are not reliable enough and what to improve in particular.
2) the review says the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. It says the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I would appreciate additional insight into the specific parts that could be seen as biased, as well as in terms of sources, ie which of the cited sources are not independent, reliable, or published, and how to improve on that. I would also like to clarify that I am not the author of any of the materials listed as sources in the submitted draft.
Thanks in advance for the reply! Erica2687 ( talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
On 26 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Todd Haimes, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If we compare any award given away with only Nobel Prize, Oscars, Bookers, etc. then that would not be fair at all. As there are many awards and recognitions given away by government bodies recognizing the work done by artists, authors etc. and these hold a lot of importance in that country. There are no fixed guidelines as to which award holds the most important after the Booker Prize for literary work. The deletion of the Wikipedia page: Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth suggested is not fair. Aintabli (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC), has rightly commented that Indian Government has awarded 'Rahul Sankrityayan Award' for the year 2018–19 to this Book. Ministry of Tourism, under the Government of India has awarded this Rahul Sankrityayan Award. No it would not be apt to consider Sahitya Akademi Award as the more "major" option in India. Moreover, the English version of this book: Patriotic Pilgrimage Of India, is available at the National Library of India. Hence meeting the threshold standards (Criteria) also. It is my humble submission to re consider this deletion of the article and also help me to publish the same. Raksha57 ( talk) 07:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for catching that other one! Also for the p-block; I was going to indef if I found one more problem, but you got there first. If you've no objection I'll probably move that page back to Munshiganj, as that's the name it's found under in the various WP:RS I've quickly checked for it. I answered your question about WikiProjects in the AfD, but didn't want to ping any editor to that discussion. Apart from myself, the only active editor I can think of right now with long-term interest in livestock breeds is Steven Walling, whose advice I have sought more than once in the past. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi star! Just reaching out because you're a regular closing admin at AFD. Question. On the May 2 deletion log, there is a discussion for Mohit Parmar. I'm curious. Another admin has speedily deleted that article before the discussion could close. I was considering doing an early closure, but thought it best to 1 ask if that is correct and 2 even if correct, leave for an admin as I am not one. Just out of curiosity, what is the correct procedure here? Is it closed, or should we leave it open in case someone requests undeletion and then we have a consensus for deletion allowing it to be redeleted in future? MaxnaCarta ( talk) 02:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Jovanovic close as a delete. Mostly because the last time I looked, it seemed like a pile-on, so I didn't think it was the best use of my time and didn't opine.
But as this went to AFD because it was moved to Draft, and back again quickly - shouldn't it go back to draft? This is a young, very active player. Can you draftify? Thanks Nfitz ( talk) 03:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate it is a difficult task but can you help me understand why you've closed as No Consensus here? None of the sources meet our GNG/NCORP guidelines. Cunard's argument now is that essentially a review of the website is the same thing as a review of the company, which has no support whatsoever in any of our guidelines. Cielquiparle's references fell short and their argument is that sources may be combined (which you'll see on the Talk page of NCORP has been dismissed). I understand there must be consensus but these arguments fail at a fundamental level, which is sources that meet guidelines for establishing notability. Thank you. HighKing ++ 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The guidelines stress that notability isn't transferable.recently. Need to find it again and see how it closed. Just noting I've seen this but am likely offline for the next 24 hours or so, and will come back to you with a fuller answer by Tuesday at the latest. Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
You mention above that as a community we don't have consensus on whether the coverage of Company Y's product/channel rolls up to company or not. I think it is already covered pretty well in the NCORP guidelines which admittedly could be better phrased in parts. It must be remembered that NCORP provides guidelines for companies/organizations *or* products, so where the example in NCORP says "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products" this does not mean that a film featuring the product can be used to establish notability for the company - as per INHERITORG
it says Sources are not transferable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing coverage of that organization".and I don't disagree that it's written as such, I'm jut not sure it's reality. If a non notable company produces a notable product, to my (editor) brain, that doesn't make sense. If it's only one of the two, the company is notable and not their products, the other way doesn't make sense to me.
Consensus was determined but either it has changed, wasn't clearly implemented in guidelines, or isn't clearly applied in practice.. I take a simple approach. I read the guidelines, that's it. The guidelines are essentially the currently captured consensus. If consensus has changed then the guidelines should be changed. If consensus hasn't been applied in practice then that is down to either a misunderstanding by participants at AfD (which happens frequently lets be honest) or its down to AfD closers who also fail to understand the guidelines and instead are swayed by "interpretations" put forward by participants.
In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy.(bolding mine), which to me means we generally should not be creating separate articles with instances like Coca Cola/ The Coca-Cola Company being an exception because of the volume and depth of coverage about each. S0091 ( talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic, this again refers to a potential clash between two or more "notable" and valid alternatives for a title. I'd also add that the primary/root guideline WP:N is very clear that topics must be notable. Yes, I agree that WP:PRODUCT uses the word "known" as opposed to "notable" in the first sentence and this is therefore unclear and "open to interpretation" but I suppose that part of the "unclear" nature or the guidelines. There have been a couple of related discussion at the WP:NCORP Talk page over the years. For example in 2007 (16 years ago, yikes!) this exact question was asked and no clear direction or response emerged. A more recent discussion from 2020 on "creative" companies is slightly more helpful in my opinion. It asks the question on whether "publishers" can be notable (or other creative companies) and acknowledges that companies don't become notable by having notable products. I don't think you can say a clear consensus emerged to create an exception for "creative" companies but it touches on the same questions being asked and for me it does acknowledge that you simply don't create articles on topics which are not notable. HighKing ++ 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Not directly related to this specific discussion but you and @ HighKing: may be interested in WT:NCORP#NCORP and The Oregonian. S0091 ( talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
According to policy when the votes are close, the voting must be extended one more week to get a better consensus. Why was this AFD closed and not extended? I Have posted my arguments as to why it meets notability and there were also several other Keeps. Let me know what is the official process for requesting an extension on the AFD. Hkkingg ( talk) 05:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this until it closed. Since notability was the only issue raised, would you consider undeleting the content and redirecting to List of Jericho episodes as an obviously valid but not raised in the discussion ATD? Jclemens ( talk) 08:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Same request, different article. Would you mind undeleting, and redirecting to List of Angel episodes? I just spent a few minutes fixing the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep Tight (Angel), and suspect this one will be fixable too. Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate it! Now, if there was a way to merge the page history of the page with the draft, that would be great too. I would do it, but I don't have admin privileges. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, could you please reconsider your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969? With three “weak keep”, three “redirect and three merge votes (rough count, so may have missed something), there’s no consensus here. The case for redirecting or merging is even weaker when we consider that Timothy’a vote didn’t even attempt to put forward an argument and CastJared’s vote is a simple agreement with Timothy’s - these should have been discounted completely. Ajf773‘s vote completely mischaracterised a source, claiming it was a trivial mention when the article was dedicated to this route.
Thanks for your consideration Garuda3 ( talk) 09:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The issue with the weak keeps was that the depth of sourcing wasn't there beyond MyLondon news source, which you identified.While this is a fair viewpoint (though I personally disagree that you need multiple WP:GNG-worthy sources to form an article), it wasn't what was expressed in the discussion. Instead, MyLondon was described incorrectly and discarded, and subsequent redirect voters didn't bother to put forward an argument at all. While gidonb puts forward a good argument, it is very much a merge argument rather than a redirect and there isn't really consensus for it.
Could you provide a little more explanation for how you came to the "no consensus" conclusion? While AfD is not a vote, it isn't obvious to me that the strength of the arguments for keeping is sufficient to overcome the 6 to 3 preference for deletion. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability) and so there would also have to have been more than just one editor arguing that further, currently-inaccessible coverage could be presumed to exist on the subject for this to be a solid NC. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi,
Thanks for taking the time to review our submission on Herman Bouwer - I am writing you through my daughter's wiki account.
I need a little help understanding your comments in order to revise the entry.
Herman Bouwer was a scientist whose work has greatly helped the hydrologists who bring groundwater throughout the world for growing crops, in your house, running power plants etc. So his work, and in particular to subsurface water storage, affects everyone. He is not well known outside of the hydrology community, and that is why we (four hydrogeology professionals late in our careers) drafted his page in order to get the word out about him. There is nothing to promote (he's long dead) besides to put him in the encyclopedia where he belongs - his little corner of the museum. His family is aware that we are doing this, but they have not been involved.
Verification. There are no references to cite, besides the citations presented on the things he invented - that is how science works. I can send you screenshots that show how many times each the papers we cited have been referenced by others (Bouwer and Rice 1984 1765 times), but there is not a simple tool that lists all of his papers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=H+Bouwer&btnG= shows a few of his papers. Would linking to google scholar for each citation help?
With regards to promotional, I've looked at other entries for scientists in the popular culture (Einstein, Neil deGrasse Tyson etc.) and they in some ways those entries are more promotional than what we have written. But they are well-known, Herman is not. But I can guarantee you that, as I am writing this, someone, somewhere in world is using one of the methods or tools that he invented. He was a big deal.
So I am a little stumped as to what to do.
Thanks for your time, I appreciate any help you can give me
Mike Milczarek, Tucson, AZ Mikaelam5512 ( talk) 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star. Our page Netskope has been deleted and re-submitted it three weeks on the un-deletion request page. Did you have any visibility on that? Please let us know how to proceed. Kind regards,
EarleofNola (
talk) 21:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
This title is currently a redirect, and you locked the redirect in April 2021. The history of that title shows that there was sockpuppetry, and I assume that is one of the reasons why you locked the redirect, because the expansion of the title into an article was mostly not being done by good-faith editors. For your information, a draft, Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) has been submitted for review. I have declined it and have asked the submitter(s) to discuss at the parent article talk page, Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (film). I am just informing you. I don't really have an opinion, except that consensus should be determined by discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello I am contacting you to ask if its possible to request an unblock of my account. On 28 April 2023, the user 331dot told me that before unblocking my account he have to see at least one draft accepted into the encyclopedia by an Articles for Creation reviewer. I have received the first draft accepted ( Oleksandr Zub), please let me know how I can proceed and in the best scenario, if I will get unclock let me know the best way how you want me to do. Regards Iliochori2 ( talk) 12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. and someone will review it. I personally don't think you're ready since another one of the articles you created is looking like it will be deleted and I'm not sure yet you're ready to edit in mainspace. But it's possible that someone else will disagree with my opinion. While waiting to be unblocked, you can continue to edit and improve the drafts to show your familiarity with sourcing, notability requirements. Does that help?
Star
Mississippi 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Just so you know, it appears as though the editor Tonitorrent is a sockpuppet of Iliochori2. The account was setup just a few days ago, and it has only made edits to pages very actively edited by Iliochori2, using almost identical language, updates, and techniques. I just wanted to make you aware of this, as Iliochori2 is current banned from editing in the mainspace. Anwegmann ( talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, StarMississipi, I was the author of the second draft of Modhalum Kaadhalum, I won’t submit the draft yet since you said it’s disruptive and could be deleted - other people’s hard work shouldn’t go to waste. Can you give an eval of sources, like Timothy did in our initial AfD discussion so I can update sources and find new ones accordingly. I’ll still keep in drafts, don’t worry about that. Aspiringeditor1 ( talk) 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the review of Modhalum Kaadhalum article. I have noticed the debate regarding GNG, and from the debate I believe that this and many other articles have been reviewed unfairly.
In comparison with other articles already available on Wikipedia, I don't think the debate gave a clear rationale for the article's deletion (and my own article's rejection) as many articles already available on Wikipedia contrast the statement. In my opinion, I think the rejection is invalid and articles already available support this.
It would be grateful if you reply with a proper rationale with why my article was rejected, because the debate is not helpful, and almost all Tamil serial articles have the same sources reviewed by Timothy. If you think sources are the issue, I'd request that you review the many other articles currently on the mainspace that should be removed for this reason. Tirishan ( talk) 11:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Source-wise we can try as hard as we possibly can, but it’s hard to have them to the same standard as American and British soaps. I did get your message about sourcing for the cast, which I have done but have a tad bit more to do. I get notifications for this somehow, but my two cents. Aspiringeditor1 ( talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There were two votes for redirect and two for keep that is not a consensus. I have recreated the article with the changes that were made by /info/en/?search=User:Skimel. Brian.butt ( talk) 04:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
continue to create articles about this band; you've already got Draft:Halocene, so work on that until it's acceptable as a mainspace article. Do not keep creating new pages; that would be disruptive, as Star mentions above. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 01:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote this on the board but I think it is not the place, this is what they answered me:
A delete query was performed with the result of merging ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Awards Canada), since that was the only vote given in the discussion. I would like the article to be re-evaluated. Thanks in advance. — ChuchoVCJMuzik ( talk) 04:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[ reply
Could you help me? Now what's next? ChuchoVCJMuzik ( talk) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bilal Mahmood. 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. FlamingMoth ( talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Would you be willing to relist this discussion one more time? There were only two votes, Canadian Paul and TimothyBlue - CP said that he found sufficient sources and listed them (though they seem to be non-accessible to us) and TB just copy-pasted his rationale that he always puts at sportspeople AFDs - that some editors actually pointed out issues with (I've seen you quote that line in a few deletion discussions and it doesn't have anything to do with N.
) FWIW, had I noticed CP's sources I probably would have !voted keep.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I sincerely apology by my personnal attacks against you during last October. I was wrong and I appreciate your labor over here in wikipedia. Best regards. HugoAcosta9 ( talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)