This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
It took me hours to know hoe to write on a talk page.I really want to say I'm sorry about how I responded.
I hope I get forgiven.
Thank you ma/sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebubechukwu1 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for an WP:ATD-respecting closure. They're too rare these days. Jclemens ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no no, this message wasn't meant for you but rather for the user himself. xD This is the first time this person is on the English Wikipedia, but he was on the Turkish Wikipedia in early February with a different account, where he also tried to create a promotional article about the same company: tr:Kullanıcı:Muratislek. When I CSD'ed that there I received a Telegram message (I'm in the TG group of trwiki so it's not difficult to find me), where he claims that I violated the Turkish copyright law (which also illegalizes the "harming of a companys assets") by adding the CSD tag, and told me that he had reported me to the Presidency of Turkey via CİMER with screenshots and all. :D CİMER is where residents of Turkey can directly send their complaints to the presidency, and by law they have to respond within 30 days. Since his complaint has been way past 30 days by now, I really wonder what their response was. ~Styyx Talk? 14:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you deleted this article after I got it restored after proving it meets Wikipedia guidelines for eligibility to main space. Request you to help me restore it or if you need to suggest anything. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Iam really thankful for your prompt reply and response. Will surely do as you suggested and will update you before moving to main space. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please reconsider your closure. In my view, the consensus was to merge the articles, or at least the AfD should have been relisted.
There were three "keep" opinions, but two of them did not address the reason for which I nominated the article for deletion (i.e., that it is a prohibited content fork of Stock). Oknazevad gave no reason for what is in effect a pure vote ( WP:NOTAVOTE, which means that their view should have been discounted. The same goes for the opinion by Neonchameleon, who raised only procedural concerns and also did not address the reason for deletion.
Thanks for your work and your feedback! Sandstein 10:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi,
One of the things I do is look for orphaned talk pages and I came across this one that you created. But there is no accompanying article/main page. Did you mean for this page to go under a different page title? I hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The article is being repeatedly created in violation of Wikipedia P&G, you may consider WP:SALTING it. –– FormalDude talk 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello there. No offense intended, but I really don't agree with your recent AFD close. I don't think you weighed the validity of the arguments very well - there was a pretty good breakdown on how the sources presented weren't reliable. Additionally, after the first relist, the only responses were two more valid delete !votes.
Anyways, I believe common courtesy is to ask for another relist before taking it to WP:DRV. So I wanted to throw that out there and see what you'd say before proceeding with that. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I am perplexed as to why you'd close it as a "no consensus", when the only Keep !votes were by the creator and another person who said it was a popular song. I respect your decision but thought I'd get some clarification coz I certainly don't see there being "no consensus", IMO it's a straightforward delete based on the discussion. In any case I will be submitting this for review. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 02:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your notes @ Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73: and always happy to discuss my closes. The funniest thing is when I saw this on my alerts I assumed it was going to be re: a coincidence, as I'd e/c'ed earlier today in declining an AfC submission. While I don't see a consensus, I definitely don't think my closes are perfect/not attached to then and happy to get more input on this and happy for someone else to close it as a delete, if they also see it that way. I'll relist it to get it back on the logs as I'm not sure how to do so otherwise. Will leave a note that it doesn't need a further seven days. Going to be offline for a few days, so if this needs further attention - take this as my blessing/consent to ping another admin or get eyes on it elsewhere. I'm not one who edits from their phone and will check back in when I'm back. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) and reping in the event you're not watching @ Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73:
Just my two cents. I strongly agree with Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73. One "keep" vote who created the article failed to prove that it meets WP:GNG by indicating sources and the other "keep" vote only stated WP:POPULARITY. Therefore, I see a strong consensus to delete the article. ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkley Sin. (This is not a criticism of the "keep" closure decision, which I supported for similar reasons to those stated in your closure.) Note that the light blue rectangle that is supposed to include the entire AfD cuts off in the middle of the first "keep" response. I looked at the wikitext and couldn't figure out what was going wrong myself immediately, but maybe you can take another look at it and figure it out. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Please let me see the article so I might work on it or maybe not. Thank you. RTripathiKarnataka ( talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. I started Draft:John Ray Skates. I am having trouble finding an obituary. Also, Catchings, Mississippi in Sharkey County seems to have been a locality and I see it noted in relation to a school district, health center, and even a Main Steeet but scant evidence of it seems to remain? What was it and what did it become? Thanks. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination), two editors supported retention, and one editor supported a redirect. There were reasonable arguments on both sides. I do not see a consensus for a redirect which would require you to completely discount the opinions of both editors who supported retention. Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Cunard ( talk) 04:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Star Mississippi. I created this article about Meesho today not knowing that it was previously deleted. So it now has a speedy deletion notice. But on reading the AfD discussion, it felt less like a discussion and more like a source denial spree. All existing sources were deemed unreliable or "not in-depth" and based on that, I don't know if reliable sources even do exist in any of the small articles in Wikipedia. Can you rather give me an example of an 'Indian' reliable source so that I can compare it with a source from my article for better understanding? Thank you. Excellenc1 ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I agree to the drafting conditions, as there is a scope of more reliable sources on it coming in the future. Like now Meesho rebranding its grocery app is on the news. Thank you, Star Mississippi. Excellenc1 ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Thank you for your kind words about my AfD participation! This is very helpful. When I participate AfDs, I find a lot of the sources through databases available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as well as other databases I have access to. These WP:LIBRARY databases are very underused as I frequently find sources there after several editors have supported deletion and no editors have supported retention. I agree that some AfDs should be WP:SNOW closed a lot sooner while others should be held open for longer to allow for editors to search for offline or non-English sources. I have seen many articles from the pre-Internet era or from non-English-speaking countries that likely would have sources but can only be deleted since no one who saw the AfD has access to those sources.
Thank you again for your willingness to go into such substantial detail about your thought process for this close and openness to discuss any AfDs you nominate or close. Many AfD nominators do not engage after creating an AfD, and many closers provide very brief explanations of their thought process, so it is amazing that you are not like that. Cunard ( talk) 06:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
When admins are closing based on the strength of the arguments and the close does not match the headcount, it can be a surprise to AfD participants and to others who are caught off guard. That's why I liked what Spartaz did in his relisting comment for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Dover (2nd nomination), "Keep.votes don't address the BLP.concerns. Further comment on that would establish if we close by headcount or strength of argument". With seven "keep" votes and two "delete" votes, Spartaz could have closed as "delete" per WP:BLP1E and DRV would have endorsed the close. But by relisting the AfD with such a blunt and explicit relist rationale, Spartaz gave the "keep" AfD participants another chance and made it clear that if they failed to provide better arguments, the AfD would be closed as "delete". I think it'd inspire more confidence for admins to do this more to lessen the chances of an unpleasant surprise. This is just a suggestion if you come across more cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination) in the future where you are considering making a close based on strength of argument that does not match the headcount. In the case of the Rupert Dover AfD that Spartaz had relisted, I had seen the AfD before the relist but did not read the comments in detail or participate as it was a well-attended AfD that seemed on its face to be a "keep" or at worse a "no consensus". I generally do not invest substantial time in conducting research for well-attended AfDs unless I feel I can make a difference in the AfD outcome. That's because I have limited time and if I spend time on a well-attended AfD, I will have to give up spending time on less well-attended AfDs. After Spartaz relisted the AfD with that blunt rationale, I knew the article was at risk of deletion. I spent five hours researching the subject and writing a rationale for why WP:BLP1E does not apply. A relist with a blunt rationale can be a "wake-up call" for current AfD participants to do better or draw in participants who would have otherwise not invested substantial time into participating in the AfD. If no one does better despite the blunt "wake-up call", then it's very well-justified, less controversial, and much less surprising for a "delete" close to follow seven days after the relist.
Another example is in Liz's relisting rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine64: "Two advocates for keeping the article but no sources provided that would establish the notability of the company, not their products, have been offered." (I prefer Spartaz's wording slightly more in being more blunt and explicit that a "delete" close is likely to follow if arguments do not improve though it is unclear whether Liz was considering a "delete" close.)
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a great resource. When searching for sources for AfD, the resources I find most useful are EBSCO, Gale ( Wikipedia:Gale), ProQuest, Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, and Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com. You need to submit an application for Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com (which is approved if you meet account eligibility criteria). The other sources you will have access to by default. When you are searching for sources for museums, I recommend searching in all five of these databases and hopefully you'll find some really good sources so that your this must be notable! turns into this must be notable and I can prove it!. I also have access to NewsBank which The Wikipedia Library is missing. NewsBank frequently has sources that the other databases don't have (and vice versa).
I'll take a look at Talk:Avri Levitan. I hope these databases will return good sources about him. Thank you for the ping there and please feel free to reach out to me whenever you come across any articles where you have trouble finding sources. I'll either find sources, suggest an alternative to deletion, or recommend deletion. I look forward to working more with you in the future. Thanks! Cunard ( talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
JGabbard seems to have created the User:Make Great Music Known account in October 2020. It doesn't seem to have been used for anything of consequence, but should perhaps be blocked too? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello this new created account continues to edit warring and removing sourced material even though they got warned on their page. [ [1]]. Can something be done, also due to persistant edit warrnig of various ip, is it possible to protect the pages, Vojislavljević dynasty and Constantin Bodin, thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 21:23 15.April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ANI is now being used to attack me for editing an article because of the extremely broad nature of the topic ban that has no been in place on me since September of last year, with no really good explanation of why it is so incredibly broad, including a "broadly construed" clause that invites this type of extremely ANI bringing up, and no good explanation as to why it still needs to be in place at all. I wish there was a way to get it at least re-written so it was not so overly restrictive. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that JPL is subject to any kind of ban on any topic on Wikipedia. The machine is turning screwy for that to happen. That is all. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This entry seems strange to me. I'm not seeing where the politicians who led and funded the commission are named? FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow! It looks like you've been busy. If you het a chance and have any interest I would be happy to have some helped with newspaper accounts of the violence and arrests at Draft:Moss Point High School after desegregation. As an aside, if you ever come across Sovereignty Commission films or a way to view them please let me know. I'd be very interested to see them. Thanks for all your help. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you please post the links User:Praxidicae? Maybe my talk page or better yet the drsft talk so as not to clutter Star Mississippi page. Thanks! FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you are the admin who recently closed the deletion discussion for the article on Tomás Matos, stating the consensus was that we don't have "significant coverage" of the subject to warrant an article. I could see the article headed for deletion, but I do not believe the discussion which unfolded there was well-founded in our policies and guidelines, and i am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the deletion. Please consider the following:
Which is why I am having some difficulty accepting the outcome of the discussion. I feel the facts of the article were presented incorrectly, that the wrong notability guidelines were applied to the subject, that other editors did not actually review the source materials cited, and that some valid sources and evidence of notability were dismissed for the wrong reasons. Each time I brought these things up, no one cared-- maybe they didn't want to respond because there was no defense. And if there was no defense, then it feels like the article maybe shouldn't have been deleted.
Please do not decide immediately how you are going to respond. Please take at least one day, please review all of the sources that were originally in the article, and then, without regard to anything I ever actually wrote about him, ask yourself, "Considering all of this, is it likely that this person is in fact notable? Even if he isn't the star of a Broadway show yet? Is there enough evidence to show that he is notable now? Do we have enough material to write up an article about him on Wikipedia? Is he being talked about?" I am certain that you will eventually agree that the answers to these questions is "yes", even if the community in its clumsy way said, "Nah."
...And when you've been interviewed by the New York Times.... The notability is real, even if it is behind a paywall. Thank you. A loose necktie ( talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you think we should indef block them and revoke their talk page access? They're getting quite annoying. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Star Mississippi,
I hope you are well. You tagged this article as being promotional but it reads like a technological development, not advertising. I don't think I'm seeing what you saw. Also, is there a reason why you didn't delete this article yourself instead of tagging it? Thanks for any info you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I managed to get that article up to GA, and then I figured she was probably lonely in mainspace so I threw together an article for her husband, Jesse Lawson, which I just nominated for GA. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flea Circus Hi!, just reaching out after my uninformed change and then selfrevert. Any particular reason for soft over regular? ( watching) Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 08:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey! In the deletion discussion for Ukraine genocide that you closed, I noted that the redirects Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian genocide (which currently go to the Holodomor article) should also be deleted as a result of the discussion. I know the first one is long-standing, but in light of the current discussion I think they ought to be deleted as they are basically variations on the deleted page's title, and this seems to be the opinion of others in the discussion too. Thank you! -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 07:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have access to the Houston Chronicle archives, so I can check if I can get access to important articles about Houston Christian High School.
But I want to see if I can find more. If you like I can mail the articles to you. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I found
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has an unblock request there. I cannot make any sense of the talk page discussions. What should I tell him? What advice can I give him? If any? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I note that you suppressed the red links to David Carson Berry in the Schenkerian analysis article. This indeed was necessary. But I don't understand why you also suppressed the reference to his Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature, which IMO remains an important source of information on Schenkerian studies. Can you explain? — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For patience and endurance above and beyond any reasonable expectation at UTRS appeal #57763 FWIW, I'm in Florida. If you want to know what that's like, search Twitter for #FloridaMan. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC) |
feels almost Joycean -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2022 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
It took me hours to know hoe to write on a talk page.I really want to say I'm sorry about how I responded.
I hope I get forgiven.
Thank you ma/sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebubechukwu1 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for an WP:ATD-respecting closure. They're too rare these days. Jclemens ( talk) 04:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no no, this message wasn't meant for you but rather for the user himself. xD This is the first time this person is on the English Wikipedia, but he was on the Turkish Wikipedia in early February with a different account, where he also tried to create a promotional article about the same company: tr:Kullanıcı:Muratislek. When I CSD'ed that there I received a Telegram message (I'm in the TG group of trwiki so it's not difficult to find me), where he claims that I violated the Turkish copyright law (which also illegalizes the "harming of a companys assets") by adding the CSD tag, and told me that he had reported me to the Presidency of Turkey via CİMER with screenshots and all. :D CİMER is where residents of Turkey can directly send their complaints to the presidency, and by law they have to respond within 30 days. Since his complaint has been way past 30 days by now, I really wonder what their response was. ~Styyx Talk? 14:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you deleted this article after I got it restored after proving it meets Wikipedia guidelines for eligibility to main space. Request you to help me restore it or if you need to suggest anything. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Iam really thankful for your prompt reply and response. Will surely do as you suggested and will update you before moving to main space. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please reconsider your closure. In my view, the consensus was to merge the articles, or at least the AfD should have been relisted.
There were three "keep" opinions, but two of them did not address the reason for which I nominated the article for deletion (i.e., that it is a prohibited content fork of Stock). Oknazevad gave no reason for what is in effect a pure vote ( WP:NOTAVOTE, which means that their view should have been discounted. The same goes for the opinion by Neonchameleon, who raised only procedural concerns and also did not address the reason for deletion.
Thanks for your work and your feedback! Sandstein 10:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Star Mississippi,
One of the things I do is look for orphaned talk pages and I came across this one that you created. But there is no accompanying article/main page. Did you mean for this page to go under a different page title? I hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The article is being repeatedly created in violation of Wikipedia P&G, you may consider WP:SALTING it. –– FormalDude talk 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello there. No offense intended, but I really don't agree with your recent AFD close. I don't think you weighed the validity of the arguments very well - there was a pretty good breakdown on how the sources presented weren't reliable. Additionally, after the first relist, the only responses were two more valid delete !votes.
Anyways, I believe common courtesy is to ask for another relist before taking it to WP:DRV. So I wanted to throw that out there and see what you'd say before proceeding with that. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I am perplexed as to why you'd close it as a "no consensus", when the only Keep !votes were by the creator and another person who said it was a popular song. I respect your decision but thought I'd get some clarification coz I certainly don't see there being "no consensus", IMO it's a straightforward delete based on the discussion. In any case I will be submitting this for review. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 02:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your notes @ Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73: and always happy to discuss my closes. The funniest thing is when I saw this on my alerts I assumed it was going to be re: a coincidence, as I'd e/c'ed earlier today in declining an AfC submission. While I don't see a consensus, I definitely don't think my closes are perfect/not attached to then and happy to get more input on this and happy for someone else to close it as a delete, if they also see it that way. I'll relist it to get it back on the logs as I'm not sure how to do so otherwise. Will leave a note that it doesn't need a further seven days. Going to be offline for a few days, so if this needs further attention - take this as my blessing/consent to ping another admin or get eyes on it elsewhere. I'm not one who edits from their phone and will check back in when I'm back. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) and reping in the event you're not watching @ Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73:
Just my two cents. I strongly agree with Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73. One "keep" vote who created the article failed to prove that it meets WP:GNG by indicating sources and the other "keep" vote only stated WP:POPULARITY. Therefore, I see a strong consensus to delete the article. ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkley Sin. (This is not a criticism of the "keep" closure decision, which I supported for similar reasons to those stated in your closure.) Note that the light blue rectangle that is supposed to include the entire AfD cuts off in the middle of the first "keep" response. I looked at the wikitext and couldn't figure out what was going wrong myself immediately, but maybe you can take another look at it and figure it out. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Please let me see the article so I might work on it or maybe not. Thank you. RTripathiKarnataka ( talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. I started Draft:John Ray Skates. I am having trouble finding an obituary. Also, Catchings, Mississippi in Sharkey County seems to have been a locality and I see it noted in relation to a school district, health center, and even a Main Steeet but scant evidence of it seems to remain? What was it and what did it become? Thanks. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination), two editors supported retention, and one editor supported a redirect. There were reasonable arguments on both sides. I do not see a consensus for a redirect which would require you to completely discount the opinions of both editors who supported retention. Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Cunard ( talk) 04:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Star Mississippi. I created this article about Meesho today not knowing that it was previously deleted. So it now has a speedy deletion notice. But on reading the AfD discussion, it felt less like a discussion and more like a source denial spree. All existing sources were deemed unreliable or "not in-depth" and based on that, I don't know if reliable sources even do exist in any of the small articles in Wikipedia. Can you rather give me an example of an 'Indian' reliable source so that I can compare it with a source from my article for better understanding? Thank you. Excellenc1 ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I agree to the drafting conditions, as there is a scope of more reliable sources on it coming in the future. Like now Meesho rebranding its grocery app is on the news. Thank you, Star Mississippi. Excellenc1 ( talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Thank you for your kind words about my AfD participation! This is very helpful. When I participate AfDs, I find a lot of the sources through databases available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as well as other databases I have access to. These WP:LIBRARY databases are very underused as I frequently find sources there after several editors have supported deletion and no editors have supported retention. I agree that some AfDs should be WP:SNOW closed a lot sooner while others should be held open for longer to allow for editors to search for offline or non-English sources. I have seen many articles from the pre-Internet era or from non-English-speaking countries that likely would have sources but can only be deleted since no one who saw the AfD has access to those sources.
Thank you again for your willingness to go into such substantial detail about your thought process for this close and openness to discuss any AfDs you nominate or close. Many AfD nominators do not engage after creating an AfD, and many closers provide very brief explanations of their thought process, so it is amazing that you are not like that. Cunard ( talk) 06:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
When admins are closing based on the strength of the arguments and the close does not match the headcount, it can be a surprise to AfD participants and to others who are caught off guard. That's why I liked what Spartaz did in his relisting comment for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Dover (2nd nomination), "Keep.votes don't address the BLP.concerns. Further comment on that would establish if we close by headcount or strength of argument". With seven "keep" votes and two "delete" votes, Spartaz could have closed as "delete" per WP:BLP1E and DRV would have endorsed the close. But by relisting the AfD with such a blunt and explicit relist rationale, Spartaz gave the "keep" AfD participants another chance and made it clear that if they failed to provide better arguments, the AfD would be closed as "delete". I think it'd inspire more confidence for admins to do this more to lessen the chances of an unpleasant surprise. This is just a suggestion if you come across more cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination) in the future where you are considering making a close based on strength of argument that does not match the headcount. In the case of the Rupert Dover AfD that Spartaz had relisted, I had seen the AfD before the relist but did not read the comments in detail or participate as it was a well-attended AfD that seemed on its face to be a "keep" or at worse a "no consensus". I generally do not invest substantial time in conducting research for well-attended AfDs unless I feel I can make a difference in the AfD outcome. That's because I have limited time and if I spend time on a well-attended AfD, I will have to give up spending time on less well-attended AfDs. After Spartaz relisted the AfD with that blunt rationale, I knew the article was at risk of deletion. I spent five hours researching the subject and writing a rationale for why WP:BLP1E does not apply. A relist with a blunt rationale can be a "wake-up call" for current AfD participants to do better or draw in participants who would have otherwise not invested substantial time into participating in the AfD. If no one does better despite the blunt "wake-up call", then it's very well-justified, less controversial, and much less surprising for a "delete" close to follow seven days after the relist.
Another example is in Liz's relisting rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine64: "Two advocates for keeping the article but no sources provided that would establish the notability of the company, not their products, have been offered." (I prefer Spartaz's wording slightly more in being more blunt and explicit that a "delete" close is likely to follow if arguments do not improve though it is unclear whether Liz was considering a "delete" close.)
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a great resource. When searching for sources for AfD, the resources I find most useful are EBSCO, Gale ( Wikipedia:Gale), ProQuest, Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, and Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com. You need to submit an application for Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com (which is approved if you meet account eligibility criteria). The other sources you will have access to by default. When you are searching for sources for museums, I recommend searching in all five of these databases and hopefully you'll find some really good sources so that your this must be notable! turns into this must be notable and I can prove it!. I also have access to NewsBank which The Wikipedia Library is missing. NewsBank frequently has sources that the other databases don't have (and vice versa).
I'll take a look at Talk:Avri Levitan. I hope these databases will return good sources about him. Thank you for the ping there and please feel free to reach out to me whenever you come across any articles where you have trouble finding sources. I'll either find sources, suggest an alternative to deletion, or recommend deletion. I look forward to working more with you in the future. Thanks! Cunard ( talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
JGabbard seems to have created the User:Make Great Music Known account in October 2020. It doesn't seem to have been used for anything of consequence, but should perhaps be blocked too? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello this new created account continues to edit warring and removing sourced material even though they got warned on their page. [ [1]]. Can something be done, also due to persistant edit warrnig of various ip, is it possible to protect the pages, Vojislavljević dynasty and Constantin Bodin, thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 21:23 15.April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ANI is now being used to attack me for editing an article because of the extremely broad nature of the topic ban that has no been in place on me since September of last year, with no really good explanation of why it is so incredibly broad, including a "broadly construed" clause that invites this type of extremely ANI bringing up, and no good explanation as to why it still needs to be in place at all. I wish there was a way to get it at least re-written so it was not so overly restrictive. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that JPL is subject to any kind of ban on any topic on Wikipedia. The machine is turning screwy for that to happen. That is all. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This entry seems strange to me. I'm not seeing where the politicians who led and funded the commission are named? FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow! It looks like you've been busy. If you het a chance and have any interest I would be happy to have some helped with newspaper accounts of the violence and arrests at Draft:Moss Point High School after desegregation. As an aside, if you ever come across Sovereignty Commission films or a way to view them please let me know. I'd be very interested to see them. Thanks for all your help. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you please post the links User:Praxidicae? Maybe my talk page or better yet the drsft talk so as not to clutter Star Mississippi page. Thanks! FloridaArmy ( talk) 19:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you are the admin who recently closed the deletion discussion for the article on Tomás Matos, stating the consensus was that we don't have "significant coverage" of the subject to warrant an article. I could see the article headed for deletion, but I do not believe the discussion which unfolded there was well-founded in our policies and guidelines, and i am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the deletion. Please consider the following:
Which is why I am having some difficulty accepting the outcome of the discussion. I feel the facts of the article were presented incorrectly, that the wrong notability guidelines were applied to the subject, that other editors did not actually review the source materials cited, and that some valid sources and evidence of notability were dismissed for the wrong reasons. Each time I brought these things up, no one cared-- maybe they didn't want to respond because there was no defense. And if there was no defense, then it feels like the article maybe shouldn't have been deleted.
Please do not decide immediately how you are going to respond. Please take at least one day, please review all of the sources that were originally in the article, and then, without regard to anything I ever actually wrote about him, ask yourself, "Considering all of this, is it likely that this person is in fact notable? Even if he isn't the star of a Broadway show yet? Is there enough evidence to show that he is notable now? Do we have enough material to write up an article about him on Wikipedia? Is he being talked about?" I am certain that you will eventually agree that the answers to these questions is "yes", even if the community in its clumsy way said, "Nah."
...And when you've been interviewed by the New York Times.... The notability is real, even if it is behind a paywall. Thank you. A loose necktie ( talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you think we should indef block them and revoke their talk page access? They're getting quite annoying. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Star Mississippi,
I hope you are well. You tagged this article as being promotional but it reads like a technological development, not advertising. I don't think I'm seeing what you saw. Also, is there a reason why you didn't delete this article yourself instead of tagging it? Thanks for any info you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I managed to get that article up to GA, and then I figured she was probably lonely in mainspace so I threw together an article for her husband, Jesse Lawson, which I just nominated for GA. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flea Circus Hi!, just reaching out after my uninformed change and then selfrevert. Any particular reason for soft over regular? ( watching) Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 08:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey! In the deletion discussion for Ukraine genocide that you closed, I noted that the redirects Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian genocide (which currently go to the Holodomor article) should also be deleted as a result of the discussion. I know the first one is long-standing, but in light of the current discussion I think they ought to be deleted as they are basically variations on the deleted page's title, and this seems to be the opinion of others in the discussion too. Thank you! -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 07:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I have access to the Houston Chronicle archives, so I can check if I can get access to important articles about Houston Christian High School.
But I want to see if I can find more. If you like I can mail the articles to you. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I found
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has an unblock request there. I cannot make any sense of the talk page discussions. What should I tell him? What advice can I give him? If any? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I note that you suppressed the red links to David Carson Berry in the Schenkerian analysis article. This indeed was necessary. But I don't understand why you also suppressed the reference to his Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature, which IMO remains an important source of information on Schenkerian studies. Can you explain? — Hucbald.SaintAmand ( talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For patience and endurance above and beyond any reasonable expectation at UTRS appeal #57763 FWIW, I'm in Florida. If you want to know what that's like, search Twitter for #FloridaMan. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC) |
feels almost Joycean -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)