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.

Hi, per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." In this case, the AfD should have been closed as "delete", because the "keep" opinions did not engage with the reasons for deletion at all. The AfD should therefore have been closed by an administrator. Please revert your closure accordingly. Sandstein 09:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a fairly active admin @ Sandstein. I'm happy to revert my closure and relist if you really disagree with it, but I do not see a consensus here. Please let me know how you'd like me to proceed. Note, after about half an hour, I'll be offline for much of the day and we can continue the conversation this evening. Star Mississippi 14:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I somegow overlooked that you're in fact an admin. I'll be requesting a review at WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

See now Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 11. Sandstein 16:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it happens especially with the RfA under a different name. Opined at the DRV to keep the content discussion centrally located. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 23:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested in knowing that 98.186.54.177 immediately started creating unreferenced, poorly written WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON articles drafts about future sporting events the very day his month-long block ended, which is the very reason you declined his unblock requests. I've seen this IP in action long before you became involved, and I'm 100% convinced he is not of adequate competence to continue being an editor. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 04:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging @ SportsGuy789. I'd noticed one in AfC last night and had a feeling it was 98, but didn't have the chance to dig. I've reblocked. He's 100% a long term trouble maker and likely a sock, but I wasn't able to ID the master Star Mississippi 13:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for reblocking. I'll ping you if I ever begin to suspect he has socks or if I can somehow locate a master account. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 13:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Housekeeping/sock hunting is good team work and imagine based on your screen name, you're more frequently in the sports articles than I am so you're more likely to spot it first. Star Mississippi 16:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

and I just saw the response to me. As if we had any doubt it was the same problematic editor. Star Mississippi 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

We have two recent drafts about the Philippines and Vietnam after these nations qualified for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, and Vietnam doesn't seem to be better than the Philippines. It is really unjustified to forcibly remove the Philippines' Women's World Cup article back to draft just because it is Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. For example, was Finland at the UEFA European Championship article forced to return to the draft as the country just qualified for the first time? It's just about the participation of the Women's World Cup of a country, your action is pretty unnecessary. HiddenFace101 ( talk) 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ HiddenFace101. I don't remember these articles specifically, so links would be helpful if you'd like me to review my actions. The Vietnam article's existence does not mean it's better than the Philippines. You're welcome to submit it through AfC for another editor's review, but I'd suggest you remember to assume good faith and not assign motives to editors' actions. Star Mississippi 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

t

Hi Star Mississippi -- I've deprodded this because there's a long article at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: [1] which I've just added to the article. This is the third hit for Kelso in Google for me, after Wikipedia & her website, so I've got to ask, do you consider this inadequate or unreliable, or does Google in your locale come up with something different? Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the feedback, sourcing @ Espresso Addict. I just double checked myself. That's definitely not on the first two pages for me which were book versions of imdb type sites, her goodreads and audible listings, and some retail and social media sites. I do see it as the as second listing on the third page of results. Glad Google decided to make your life easier and as a result the encyclopedia better. Thanks again Star Mississippi 01:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That's weird. I'm not in Australia, and I don't Google on sf&f very often. A JSTOR search reveals that actually I've heard of her, in the context of crit of Lois McMaster Bujold, so perhaps Google was just reading my mind? I might try to improve the article, though I've got a long list of things I should be doing stacked up at present. Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a few more sources, [2] [3] [4] [5] Women of Other Worlds: Excursions through Science Fiction and Feminism by Helen Merrick, Tess Williams ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the ads I get served, I fully believe google is reading our minds. I think she'll keep until you have time to work on it, should you choose.

I'm currently working through the May 2010 notability backlog and I have to say the articles there a mix of "yikes, definitely notable" (including some where the tag was addressed and not removed) and "yikes, how did this survive this long". Having just found this, I'm going to chalk this one up to an oops on my end. Thanks for remedying! Thanks to you too, Radish! Star Mississippi 02:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Google also conspires to make us look bad from time to time, to keep us humble. I've had a few AfDs I've withdrawn after someone provided a pile of sources that I somehow never found. I don't spend an hour on every before search, but generally in 10 minutes I'll get an indication of someone is notable, and once in a while I just fail, which of course leads to the inevitable "nominator ignored WP:BEFORE." ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't find it now but there was definitely one I withdrew with "my google is broken" or something along those lines. While there are poor nominations, nominator ignored BEFORE drives me nuts. How do you know unless their nomination refers to specifically what's in the article. There are very tactful ways to do it, like @ Espresso Addict's query here. I wish we had a better process for AfDs. Or that merger discussions had more eyeballs. A lot of the times articles I stumble on could be covered somewhere, but the question is figuring out the where. Anyone have a handy magic wand? Star Mississippi 13:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I almost wish there was a Legobot for AfDs. More disinterested participation would certainly help in a lot of cases. Especially for aging AfDs or AfDs relisted with fewer than three comments. I feel that if the participants were more of a general group of editors, rather than people who care about and watch the article my nom of the article on He-Man's sword would have turned out differently. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I remember that AfD, but even by the power of grayskull I couldn't decide how I felt about that. My 80s child wanted to scream "but it's famous" Star Mississippi 01:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• [Random outdent] I'm glad you thought that was tactful, Star Mississippi, I worried it was a bit too blunt! It's genuinely nice to encounter editors who withdraw from deletion debates gracefully when others bring sources; it is not at all common, in my experience. I'll try to bear in mind in future that Google is even more capricious than I'd previously thought! The new Wikipedia Library set up is a bit of a mixed blessing, imo; I find the general search engine only rarely finds things, and digging in the different underlying databases is often much more productive.

Cripes, working through the notability tags from 2010 sounds like tedious work. I'm not surprised you are finding a mix of insta-delete with clearly notable; that's certainly been my experience of patrolling prods. I'll try to remember to come back to Kelso, though I might actually need a proper tbd list to keep up with all the articles I've promised, if only to myself, to try to assist. Must be more organised!!

ScottishFinnishRadish: I'd also be interested in trying to get more independent participation in AfDs. The delsort lists are useful but some (eg women, academics & educators) are overwhelming in volume, and it's almost impossible to follow older nominations where new evidence has been brought. AfD, at least to my eyes as a card-carrying inclusionist, seems to attract deletionists; it's hard to participate there much if one can't help getting stressed and upset when potentially worthwhile content ends up being deleted. I've been mulling trying to revive the wikiproject that used to patrol prods, but something similar for AfDs might be useful -- though long-term editors remember the Article Rescue Squadron with a good deal of disfavour, and it would be important to find a different model. Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 06:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely tactful. And feel free to question any decision I make. I generally think I'm correct but know my decisions aren't infallible. A discussion where the nomination has proved faulty for whatever reason is a waste of everyone's time. I touched on that above at #Regarding_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meesho when I said to Cunard that part of what I discounted in a close was the nom: Lacks reliable media sources. Most of the links provided deal with investment or acquisition deals. And seems like page was created by someone that was affiliated to the company. NancyAggarwal1999 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) yep, discarded the nomination. Those all speak to problems with the content as it existed, not the subject of the article. It's not an invalid nomination, but nor is it a particularly good one because it doesn't address the issues with the subject matter. This doesn't tell me why we shouldn't have an article about Meesho.

While there isn't an official AfD backlog, there isn't enough input and the logs are too long. If there's an opportunity to remove even one discussion to allow participants to focus on those where it's closer would be so helpful. ARS could work, but the problem was the lack of nuance and good faith. While the ANI might have solved the worst of the drama, there are still active editors who model their keeps off ARS and it's just not helpful to the discussion. On the other hand, the three of us could disagree on an article's notability, but we'd walk away likely thinking each of us made a good argument, even if we disagreed with it. Recentism bias for sure, but this is one of my favorite N/C closes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand firefighters killed in the line of duty because folks arguing their case on both sides explained why. Infinitely better discussion than "keep, the firefighters existed" and "delete, they weren't notable" which happens all too often.

And yes, I've made a working to-do list on my user page after I lost a draft to G13. I hadn't started it so wasn't notified. Now I try to keep a more activeeye on those. Star Mississippi 17:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello my friend, with regards to this recently closed AfD, there was two votes, one keep and one delete, and I think we both made fair arguments. Did you consider my keep to be so unconvincing to be discounted? It seems like no consensus to me... No? I'd welcome some feedback about why my keep could be overlooked. CT55555 ( talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Would you like me to relist it? I'm happy to as it wasn't a strong consensus.

My read was that Praxicidae's !vote countered yours because they pointed out that the New Times was paid for content and not editorial coverage.

Let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 16:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If the content was paid for, then my !vote is wrong. I just didn't see anything to back that up. I would have no objection if you consider it a fact that it was paid for. I didn't look into that claim, as I was expecting more contributions, so was just waiting to see what others said.

I don't have strong feelings. But I would suggest:

If you think that sources I added were paid, keep as close. If you are not sure, maybe more time or no consensus seems reasonable? I just searched and did not find anything about The New Times on the reliable sources noticed board archive, I see the article describes it as a national newspaper that is a too close to the government, so that suggests maybe not a good source for politics, but for culture....? CT55555 ( talk) 17:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I do think it's paid and does not appear to have strong editorial control, but that's a debatable conversation and happy to have further input. Now that it's reopened, you might want to tweak your signature. I knew it was yours as I'd looked at the history, but I think you accidentally used three or five tildes, and your name isn't showing. Thanks, as always, for your note. Star Mississippi 17:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It has been three months since I was forbidden to participate in AFDs and my ban is up now. My ban began on February 9 and it is now May 9. I am confirming this with you to make sure of this. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not close the discussion. You should touch base with @ Sandstein to confirm any underlying elements. Star Mississippi 15:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I have messaged Sandstein, but have not received any response. When the ban was issued to me I was told it was up three months from now and I was to do the math. Since it has now been three months I will take it that my ban is up now. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be the case per the ANI, which he notified you of. I would just caution you not to return to the behavior that led to your restrictions. If @ Sandstein has not responded to your query, and you have questions I'd guess you can take them up at ANI. Courtesy ping to @ Pilaz who filed the ANI. Star Mississippi 17:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have learned my lesson and will do my best to make sure that I don't do that behaviour again. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart, I don't recall any question by you. If you have one, feel free to ask it on my talk page. Sandstein 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some poorly thought out !votes from you already.

• *Keep, interesting article that gives good information here
• *Keep, show is a very watched one. here
• *Keep, he has appeared in multiple TV shows. here

@ Davidgoodheart please consider policy when weighing in, or you're going to find yourself back at ANI. Star Mississippi 01:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I just removed one vote from one article and for another article I gave a better reason to keep it. I really hope that that makes the situation better. Heaven forbid that I end back up at ANI. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. Try to keep doing that as it really makes for a better discussion. Star Mississippi 02:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyramid_Party_of_India was a good close. I would have supported deletion. Venkat TL ( talk) 17:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi, am confused how this one could be considered uncontroversial given there was a keep argument and the only deletion vote other than the nominator provided no reasoning. Would you be willing to reconsider it? Thanks NemesisAT ( talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ NemesisAT and thanks for your note. they are noticeable is not a valid keep reason, nor is sourcing cited to Facebook. This might be a viable source but it's not enough on its own. I'll reconsider as it was functionally an expired PROD, but I'll relist rather than restore as I do not think this will pass AfD. Happy to be wrong. Give me about 5m please to do the restoration cleanup. Star Mississippi 16:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't expect you to go back on your decision to close this, but can you at least specify which source-based arguments you found the most convincing, given that not many of them commmented on the sources directly (and some of those who did, in my opinion, were not truthful about it)? Several of the sources talked about a completely different event; as a consequence, much of the topic's perceived notability is actually due to a different topic, and the article which you kept is has been reworked -- during the discussion itself -- into a SYNTHesis of two separate events which none of the keep voters thought existed when they were voting keep to begin with. Avilich ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'm about to hop offline so more full answer/!vote review later this evening. I just want to quickly say I've seen this and I think gave my fairest assessment. I disregarded those who seemed more focused on critiquing you as a "deletionist" than discussing the merit of the content. I was most swayed by Peterkingiron, SpinningSpark who believed that based on the sourcing, the article could be improved. If the improvements mean it's discussing another event, that's a renaming issue that can be handled editorially. Whether that can happen during an AfD, whether nominator can revert is a meta conversation for another venue. More thorough review later, didn't want to not acknowledge your message. Star Mississippi 19:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Back online and have re-read and re-analysed including your comments throughout. What it seemed that everyone was in agreement on was that the content should exist somewhere. I read your nom and first followups as saying it was covered elsewwhere and didn't need to be covered as a standalone. The second arm of disagreement seemed to be on whether there was better (more recent/better scholarship/less racism, etc) sources available and whether that changed the argument as to where this was notable. It does not appear that you collectively found a consensus on that. So that left us with where there was an active reason to delete the content and no one seemed to make that case.

Let me know if this helps or if you'd like more info. Star Mississippi 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Avilich - I am not here to comment on the close but to comment (again) on my close of your DRN request. It appears that Star Mississippi had already closed the AFD before I closed the DRN. That doesn't matter. You requested content dispute resolution when there was an AFD in progress. DRN does not address a dispute that is already pending in another forum, including in a deletion discussion. As I said in my DRN close, if you think that the content of the article should be changed, whether trimmed, expanded, revised, or whatever, discuss that at the article talk page. That's what they're for. If discussion at the article talk page is extensive and inconclusive, a new request to DRN can be made. The close of the AFD is a finding that an article should exist. It doesn't preclude a renaming or change in scope, but any such action should be discussed first. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @ Robert McClenon. I'd missed that discussion as I don't follow DRN. @ Avilich let me know if you need anything else from me on this? Have a good day, both Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• That is enough, I won't be going after this anymore for the time being. thanks for your time Avilich ( talk) 17:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome. Happy to help. Star Mississippi 17:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A week ago, you nominated Ammon Covino for merge into the main Seaquest article. There's been no discussion on it at all, other than my vote in support. How do you plan to proceed? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the preferred timeline for input as I don't often work in merges. Do you know? If not, I'll have a further look. Thanks! Star Mississippi 21:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE There are a lot of "ifs" involved, but basically, it's been a week and you're the one who proposed it, so you're fine. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 02:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do this in the morning. Too many steps for this hour. Star Mississippi 02:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Herman Otten (actor). 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. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 ( talk) 09:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the notability guidelines: (b) Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has ... solved a major problem in their academic discipline. The Meyers-Serrin-Theorem is one of the most basic results in the theory of Sobolev spaces. It is covered in any advanced course on PDE and is found in virtually any advanced text book on PDE. As stated in the bible on Sobolev spaces by Adams, the result was a major contribution (see the page on the Meyers–Serrin theorem). IMHO the guy hence meets the notability guidelines. Mathuvw ( talk) 13:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! You're welcome to add sourcing that indicates his work in the field and then submit it again. None present in the draft article meets that. Let me know if you need anything further. Happy to help. Star Mississippi 13:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work with AFDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miel de Botton. Just a reminder that as per WP:RELIST, relisting an AFD is not a substitute for closing as no consensus when there is indeed no consensus, and if you relist a debate for a third or subsequent time, it's asked that you write a relisting rationale. Thank you! Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

and yours as well. Love loading tab to find you acted on it in the interim off the log. Thanks for the reminder re: rationale.

I am really hoping the flood of nominations drops to a more manageable level so folks can weigh in and we have fewer punts in the form of relists/no-consensuses. Have a great day Star Mississippi 13:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Delhi

Hi! I notice that American Embassy School closed as delete.

I wanted to see if there were some reliable sources on the school from an EBSCOHost database. From the AFD deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Embassy School) I see that the NYT article was already quoted but that some users wanted more sources.

There are two articles I found on EBSCOHost that could help with notability:

• "American School in Delhi not run by Embassy: US". Economic Times. 2014-01-17. - The Indian government had accused the school of violating Indian law, and so the US Embassy clarified that despite the school's name, the US Embassy does not directly operate the school. I count a source as notable when a key aspect of the school is the main topic.
• Kehe, Alan (2013-12-03). "Take Your Seat for the Puja". The International Educator. - It talks about the opening of a new library on the campus. While some of the article is dedicated to the ceremony, other parts talk about the new library itself. When I write articles about schools I typically consider a change in the school's building plant (building a new building, renovation, demolition, etc) as a non-routine source that builds notability. (the periodical does not have its own article, but it appears in EBSCOHost's database)

Additionally there could be sourced information about the school's pollution mitigation efforts:

• Roy, Shubajit (2015-04-02). "Embassy schools only place where alarm bells heard". Indian Express. - Not all of the article is about AES, but several paragraphs discuss how the school's PE classes deal with pollution.
• "Reduction of particulate matter concentrations by local removal in a building courtyard: Case study for the Delhi American Embassy School". doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.154. - As science is not my field, I'm not entirely certain how to handle this source

I would hope that there are archives of Indian newspapers about this school, but I am not sure how accessible they are. I would like to see what publications like The Hindu wrote about this school when it opened. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Would you like me to restore it to draft to see what you can find in The Hindu and whether someone science based could help flesh it out? I'm happy to, and I'd gather that would be best procedure a few weeks after the AfD closed. Let me know. Star Mississippi 01:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan! I'll check with the Indian noticeboard to see if editors in India can find some key articles about the school WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Great. It's at Draft:American Embassy School for your work. You'll see I'm still in the process of restoring all of the history. Needed to be done in batches since the article goes back to 2005. Let me know if you need anything else on this or any other article. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ETA: I made a mess that I can't seem to fix. The current version you should work from is Draft:American Embassy School/temp. The rest is at Draft:American Embassy School/temp2. Putting in a request for a history merge, so maybe wait a few hours. Apologies. Star Mississippi 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks Primefac Star Mississippi 15:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I added some of the sources I knew. In the meantime I found the school was used as a case study for this PHD thesis from the University of Minnesota. There was also a master's degree thesis using this school as a case study, but AFAIK those usually are not used for notability unless they had a scholarly impact (for example if a published book uses the master's degree thesis as a source) WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Any time. Is there an active education wikiproject? It's not an area I frequently edit in so I'm not sure, but I feel like they might have some ideas as to how to show why the school mattered to those writing theses, etc which could help bolster notability. Star Mississippi 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools may help on that matter. I can check the thesis, which describes itself as a "case study", to see why the author chose the school and put the comments in the talk page. WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked about notability here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Question_on_American_Embassy_School_notability, asking if the PhD thesis needed to have a specific statement on why the school was chosen as a case study WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Since I didn't get a response from the schools project, I re-asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Notability_from_a_Phd_thesis?_Is_it_necessary_for_the_thesis_author_to_say_why_he_chose_the_school_in_a_case_study? Anyway it seems somebody tried to get the draft published and it got deleted. The situation seems like a complete mess and I wish that didn't happen... WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I can follow what happened. I see @ Liz deleted the redirect, which is fine. But I can't see the actual reason why the article you were actively working on was deleted. Liz, @ Rusalkii, would you mind weighing in here? I think I'm just missing something. I had undeleted this for @ WhisperToMe to me to work on in draftspace, and he was actively improving it. If it's eventually restored to draft space, the history is here American Embassy School, New Delhi so your work isn't lost. Thanks all! Star Mississippi 15:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the draft got deleted again after I accepted it? I can't see why someone would do that without notifying the creator; is there an explanation somewhere? When I reviewed I remember looking over the AfD, which closed with what I interpreted to be consensus that if a couple more sources were found that weren't about the visa scandal, it would probably be notable. The draft as it stood when I looked at it had a couple sources about the air filtration work on the school, plus the visa scandal, plus more routine coverage which gave the general impression that this was very prominent school in the area. Rusalkii ( talk) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears so @ Rusalkii. Don't want to speak for @ WhisperToMe but I believe that was their train of thought as well, which was why they were working on it and pinging relevant sources of info (see above). Because this has been moved so often (and no issue with that, precision is good), I can't find the most recent content deletion. I think @ Liz can probably clarify it for all of us and maybe? restore it to draft space. Last notifications I can see are on User_talk:Kappa#Nomination_of_American_Embassy_School_for_deletion ahead of the AfD that brought Whisper to my Talk originally. Star Mississippi 16:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This article has quite a convoluted history, being moved in and out of Draft space to a number of different page names before ending up at American Embassy School, New Delhi. The editor who tagged the page for deletion had a link to the AFD which makes no mention of Draftification. As far as I could see the AFD was closed just a month ago with a decision to "Delete" and this justified an CSD G4 deletion. If I was wrong here, the page can be restored, I have no issues with that.

But I'd question the decision to move an article that was just judged to be "Deleted" so quickly out of Draft space back into the main space of the project. That move was bound to result in the article being tagged CSD G4 by our New Page patrollers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the deletion discussion and it seemed sufficiently improved (on the axes mentioned in the discussion) that G4 didn't seem relevant. Is there a general principle that we shouldn't move articles back into mainspace that have been deleted recently even if in our judgment the issues that led to its deletion have been resolved? We could run it through AfC again and see if another reviewer agrees with me, I know that I lean somewhat more lenient than the average reviewer, though my best guess is that it will be accepted again. Rusalkii ( talk) 05:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz. I must have missed the CSD tag in the convoluted history. Does anyone have an objection to draft restoration so @ WhisperToMe and @ Rusalkii can work on it? I'll stay out of the restoration as the admin who closed the AfD but would have no issue with the decision in either direction of an AfC reviewer. Star Mississippi 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still trying to see if I can find users who have access to libraries in India which may have newspaper articles. Additionally I found info about the Bombay school on the Wikipedia Library, so at some point if/when you're ready I can show those sources. WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That makes total sense. @ Liz would you have anny issue with a restoration to draft so Whisper, @ Rusalkii can continue to work on sourcing. G4 shouldn't be an issue in draftspace. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Since there seemed to be no issue, and an interest in working on this: Draft:American Embassy School, New Delhi has been restored. Liz, I'll leave it to your call whether you want this to go through AfC, DRV on completion. I'm personally fine with established editors main spacing it without either. @ WhisperToMe and Rusalikii:, let me know if you need anything else on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star_Mississippi ( talk • contribs) with a dif for the archive bot eventually. Star Mississippi 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ WhisperToMe I've taken the article off my watchlist as @ NicoleMN6 is making some edits (thank you!). Ping me here or a talk there if you need anything else, but I think this one is settled from an admin issues POV? Thanks both for your work on it. Star Mississippi 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Aloosenecktie saw your move of this article, which I'm fine with. Just looping you in on this larger conversation in the event it's deleted again. And I just realized I never signed the above so @ WhisperToMe, Rusalikii, and Liz: on my comment above and Necktie's move back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 22:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh my I'm a menace today with pings. CC @ A loose necktie Star Mississippi 22:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mumbai

Thank you for helping restore the Delhi school! Now I found some sources for the Mumbai school, so if it would be alright I would like to try adding to that draft too WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Got the ping, had a look at the article and said, "This looks like it's notable to me," saw every reason to put it in the mainspace. Might get a deletion nomination again, who knows? But I kind of doubt it. Seems like it's a notable school to me. A loose necktie ( talk) 23:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Is that one I need to restore @ WhisperToMe? Feel free to drop the link and I'm happy to provide it for draft or mainspace incubation. With established editors such as you, @ Rusalkii & @ A loose necktie involved I'm not worried about quality. @ A loose necktie I hope it isn't nominated. The poor article has whiplash! Star Mississippi 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! American School of Bombay should be the title. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Draft:American School of Bombay. It definitely needs some love before returning. I left the AfC header since it was there, but it doesn't need to go through AfC/DRV to go back. Star Mississippi 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I found two Times of India articles that talk about the ASB and its programs in detail: one about a tax exemption the school maintained, and another about the Indian government using the ASB's online learning content during the COVID-19 pandemic. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see it in mainspace finally! I have nothing to add to Whisper's great work, and good luck with this next one. Rusalkii ( talk) 14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As for Draft:American School of Bombay, I'm wondering if it's fine as is or if it needs more work WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging @ WhisperToMe as I wasn't watching the draft. I think it's fine for mainspace, but I question whether we need the outdated and unsourced Special programs section. Thoughts on that? Star Mississippi 16:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the material not from secondary sources while keeping the Writer's Club (as that info comes from an article in The Hindu). Is it OK if I move to the mainspace? WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Sorry should have made that clearer. I just copyedit it lightly but we're out of G4 territory. Star Mississippi 16:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you so much! I may explore Chennai later to see if I can find sources for that WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Chennai

Here you go Draft:American International School Chennai. Not watching it, but as above feel free to ping me if you need action on it. Star Mississippi 19:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder whether you might perhaps reconsider your close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abu-Abdullah_Adelabu - the more I looked at the sourcing for the article in question, the more I found lacking. Take a look at the comment I left - I was writing it up as you were closing (edit clash), so I thought I've leave it there for now pending your thoughts. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ Iskandar323 and thanks for your note.

The main challenge with that discussion is there's no input. I don't see a third one changing that and even factoring in your edit conflicted !vote, there still isn't a clear consensus. The comments, especially @ Reading Beans could be read as leaning keep in that they say it needs clean up rather than deleting. WHat I would recommend is re-nominating this at a time when AfD isn't flooded and see if you can get more input. THe last week or two have been high volume due to sports and television discussions leading to others not getting the input they merit. What do you think of that? Star Mississippi 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to add a comment regarding my overturn contribution at the DRV of 2020–2022 Pakistani political crises, especially in light of your endorsement of my (self-reverted) closure at the AfD on Alisha Kramer. I hope my comment at DRV was read as equally civil as I read your closure at the AfD. Just trying to say I (very much) appreciated the endorsement and I hope my disagreement at DRV did not convey any incivility whatsoever. Kind regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ Goldsztajn. I took absolutely no offense to your comment at the DRV, just as I had no issue with Sandstein's decision to request the review ( #Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020–2022_Pakistani_political_crises) since we all have the same goal of getting the correct outcome. We disagree on what that was in this particular case, but we both made our cases based on what we saw in the discussion, which is what should happen. This (as well as the Alisha Kramer one you referenced) were complex discussions. This is why we all need to explain our !votes rather than just weigh in because it really helps inform the conversation. Much more helpful than just Keep/Delete/etc. !votes. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not delete the page Utkirbek Kakhorov. It is not the copy of the previously deleted page. It is rewritten and information has been updated. Please check the content and ita references and leave the article without deletion if possible

Thank you Lostinniagarafalls ( talk) 16:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ Lostinniagarafalls. The same issues remain, but I will leave it for a neutral reviewer, which is why I tagged but did not delete it. Please also see @ Praxidicae's note and declare any relevant COI. Star Mississippi 17:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. COI means certificate of insurance? Right? And if it is, what should I provide, can you make it clearer? Thank you Lostinniagarafalls ( talk) 18:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! No to clarify it means a Conflict of Interest especially if you're being paid to edit on behalf of these subjects. Thanks! Star Mississippi 18:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewa Dynasty - Can I renominate this for a second time with advertisements at talk-pages of relevant wiki-projects to attract participation? TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) there is nothing in any policies that I know of to prevent your doing so provided you do it in good faith. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ TrangaBellam and thanks @ Timtrent. I agree with my colleague here, no reason you can't re-nominate it. All I'd add is that since there was an interest in redirecting, perhaps a talk page discussion to determine the ideal target would be helpful instead of/in addition to an AfD. Star Mississippi 20:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I left it a while to consider the matter. I have decided to save @ TrangaBellam any embarrassment of being seen to renominate the article by nominating it myself. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll weigh in if I have time to research. It's not a subject I'm at all familiar with. Star Mississippi 13:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have been advising the creating editor, which is why I offer you a cordial invitation to contribute at your discretion to the deletion discussion. I do not seek to influence your opinion. 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

THank you! I will go read and !vote if I have input. See my updated note on the Wilbraham Man SPI as well. Star Mississippi 19:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also left a note for the accepting reviewer telling them that we simply have different opinions, they and I, and that the community is greater than either of us. We all get some acceptances sent to AfD, but if this is their first they may be upset. Perhaps an additional kind word from you will ease their feelings 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

will do. I actually thought I might have been the reviewer until I looked at the history because I remembered thinking maybe when I stumbled on the article. So few of the articles are black & white in terms of acceptance which is why discussion helps, whether it's AfC/D or elsewhere.

PS: @ Netherzone I think I said somewhere that you'll get great help if you decide to become an AfC reviewer. Here's an example in action here. YOu're in good hands. Star Mississippi 20:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll read up on the case. Netherzone ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I left a comment on the AfD (not an !vote). The sourcing is indeed CITEKILL and I think it would help the creator if they pruned the blogs, name-checks and items that seem like run-of-the-mill PR/press release copy. I asked the creator to list the three strongest citations. This will help reveal if this borderline case is WP:TOOSOON, or if she squeeks over the bar. My instinct is that it is the former, and in a few more years there won't be questions about her notability. Netherzone ( talk) 23:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, as always @ Netherzone. And for the cleanup too on Femme Fatale after my quick stub. Star Mississippi 03:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying here for posterity, although I know it was clear to participants. I was showing Netherzone a post AfC conversation and was not asking them to !vote in either direction, similarly to how Timtrent was putting the discussion on my radar as I had been involved in the article's history. Star Mississippi 00:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I did !vote on the AfD, but was not canvassed to do so. My !vote earlier today was based strictly on my analysis of the article sourcing, and knowledge of WP notability criteria. Netherzone ( talk) 01:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Star, would you be able to relist this AfD? You closed it as keep at 4 keeps only while there were 3 deletes, a minimal difference, where the keeps did not adequately address an official-policy-based concern of the deletes. It had been relisted ONLY ONCE and the deletes were picking up. Imho, this was closed prematurely without consensus or even an emerging consensus. It happens. Moreover, this was slowly tilting the other way with a clear quality gap in arguments. Relisting will be much appreciated. gidonb ( talk) 22:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note @ Gidonb. I've relisted as there's no harm in additional input. I think I got all the steps, but it's been a while since I relisted one after a few days' gap. If I missed anything, please handle or flag for me. Star Mississippi 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for relisting! gidonb ( talk) 04:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Star Mississippi, I hope you're doing great. Could you consider looking into Janhit Mein Jaari article and marking it as PageTriage. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{( 💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ C1K98V. Unfortunately PageTriage/New Page Patrol is not something I'm active in nor familiar with. If you check Special:ListUsers/patroller, someone there should be able to help you. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you C1K98V ^{( 💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Star, here's a [new] musical that's gonna need a redirect change. When this article's set to be created by "whoever" (it won't be by me though), the current redirect to Sugar (musical) will have to ultimately be dropped so we can have the Some Like It Hot (musical) article. Both, of course, are adapted from the film Some Like It Hot. The musical opens (after previews) December 11, 2022. Might you consider doing this, so it's done right?! Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 17:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for flagging this, I hadn't yet seen the news beyond the recent industry event. So exciting. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. The 2022-23 season is going to be great. Personally, Roundabout's 1776 is the one I'm most excited for. Any preferences on your end? Star Mississippi 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

These six open-ended musicals for the upcoming 2022-23 season: Kimberly Akimbo, KPOP, Camelot (Revival), Some Like It Hot, Sing Street, and also 1776 (Revival). Thanks! Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 17:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw Kimberly Akimbo Off Broadway. What a a great production.

As you may have seen, Some... is done. I need to link from Sugar and the film but need to dig into how best to do so. And now we know why Christian Borle left the Encores! production of Into the Woods. Thanks again for flagging this Star Mississippi 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the Some Like It Hot (musical) article! Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was one hell of a longstanding redirect. I looked at the history to see who I should notify that I absconded with their redirect and saw that @ Soundofmusicals created it fifteen+ years ago! Oddly this announcement was almost to the day Star Mississippi 18:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a long time. Have a happy, merry Earth Day also! Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

was surprised J. Harrison Ghee didn't exist. Your guidance on show Talk pages was helpful when I began working on those. Are you at all familiar with actor Talks? Not sure what should be added there. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 21:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I would probably use both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Musical Theatre to begin with (though I might be missing some), since the article is just a stub, at least for now. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! There's reception from the Seattle production of Doubtfire so it will ideally grow beyond a stub soon. Might even be at my hand, the red link was just bothering me since I knew he was a notable actor. There just aren't enough of us editing in the theatre world. Star Mississippi 21:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you saw my edit on the talk page for Some Like It Hot (musical). WikiProject Theatre is usually tended for plays, and WikiProject Musical Theatre is for musicals, however any sort of uncertainty ("Is it a play, musical, or something else?") would have the show under WikiProject Theatre. Maybe you already know and just mis-typed. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the musical theatre one, or I don't think I was but appreciate the heads up in either case. Or even if I knew and did it wrong because that's what improves all articles. Until today's run on theatre, it had been a while since I created any Broadway show articles and believe all or most that I did (Birthday Candles, Chicken & Biscuits) were all plays. Thanks again Star Mississippi 22:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

When I first heard about Chicken & Biscuits, the first thing I thought about was Chicken in a Biskit. Quite strange, hmmm. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 22:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that anything about the OKC bombing is funny, but your comment so close to the anniversary made me chuckle. One of my dear friends had moved to the city just months before when her husband was assigned to Tinker Air Force Base and they could feel the shock waves from their downtown apartment. When I went to visit in subsequent years, I had had Chicken in a Biskit for the first time. We didn't have them on the East Coast at the time, although I occasionally see them now. Whenever I do, I think of OKC and her children who in some cases have children of their own now. Star Mississippi 01:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I just made an article for Adrianna Hicks, which IMO was long overdue. I think I got the categories/projects right borrowing from Ghee, but if I missed any, please let me know. Star Mississippi 01:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the editor probably needs a block. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Le sigh. Thanks @ Praxidicae. I've indeffed. I was optimistic that it was a where did my article go not malicious editing around protection. Star Mississippi 18:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware that this article Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen has been deleted and I am not certain if I had edited it before or even seen it. Could you please show me what it looked like before it was deleted. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 19:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. @ Explicit closed it as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanne Pedersen. It's eligible for REFUND as a soft deletion if you'd like to go that route. I nominated it, so I'm not going to be the one to restore it, but you might check with them. I can say there was no assertion of notability when I nominated, nor one to be found via search Star Mississippi 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I have been with Wikipedia for a few months and I enjoy AFD, it is a nice break from content editing, and it is a great place to learn our policies and apply them. I have been attempting some (what I thought) non-controversial closures. So far, they seem fine. However before, an editor asked me to revert my closure at Alexander Bagrationi. Please may I ask if you feel my closure was inappropriate? The editor who asked me to undo has been here for 14 years, I have been here as an editor for six months, so I immediately undid my closure, and also the closure here where that same editor was recently contributing. My questions are: would you have closed these like I did, and is it okay for me to continue closing? I know that if a closure is undone by administrators, it is best for the non-admin closer to wait a bit before continuing. Was I right to revert my close and leave for someone more experienced? I have turned to you because you are an admin I see closing lots of AFD's. Thanks - MaxnaCarter ( talk) 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Good morning @ Such-change47. For Bagrationi, since there was ongoing conversation about whether NCHESS was relevant, significant, I would have let the conversation continue. That's not to say your closure was wrong, but I think admin or not it would have been better to let it resolve. I saw Kausar in the overdue AfDs and did not close it because I feel sports, especially cricket, are very contentious and it was too late for me to fully explain a closing statement, which I like to do when consensus is unsettled. I see nothing that indicates you shouldn't be closing though. Your input, closes are thoughtful and well reasoned. Even here 15? years and semi active at AfD, some of my closes end up challenged. I see it as we all want the right answer, so if it takes soome time to get there, that's fine. Happy to help/answer any other questions. Star Mississippi 13:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice, encouragement, and reassurance :) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 13:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Also - good morning but goodnight. It is midnight here in east Australia! MaxnaCarter ( talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Waves* Have a good sleep. I didn't spend much time in Sydney but adore Brisbane where I lived for a short time in 2005. Star Mississippi 13:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just coming to say this is an excellent close/reason @ Such-change47 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Brazilian sentiment and thanks for getting to today's log. I love editors in opposite time zones as in East Coast summer time, it flips over too late for my eyeballs. Star Mississippi 02:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I had an okay sleep thanks, but my goodness it was freezing. Only 5 degrees/41f overnight, which is super cold for us! I think I will habitually try and stick to discussions recently at the end of the seven day period, and grab all the low hanging fruit. There are some I have left because I may be best to spend a few months closing easy ones before keeping/nc anything that is borderline! I do not want to step on toes. Please trout me if you see me do anything silly! MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, what do you think we should do for Joom? I honestly feel like this meets G11 for speedy deletion. Instead of closing n/c or relisting a third time, is it permissable to vote for speedy deletion in an AFD? Will administrators ever consider speedy deleting if there is only one argument, provided it is made on solid grounds? I feel like this should have been speedy nominated instead of AFD, because if it is closed then as I understand it we can never PROD or speedy delete the article again. Thoughts? MaxnaCarter ( talk) 05:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hah! We'll trade some degrees, it was 90/30+ and it's too early in the year for that nonsense!

My take, speaking as an editor not an admin is that it isn't suitably spammy that I'd call it a G11. I don't know if the numbers of downloads or users make it notable or not, but they don't seem to be actively trying to promote Joom.

Speaking as an admin, calling it "speedy" for whichever of the applicable reasons only makes sense in the first few days. Otherwise if it will hit the 7/14 etc. day clock it's not speedy. I think the only exception is if facts change and there's a new reason that it's speedy eligible: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alireza Najafzadeh would be an example of that where the results of the SPI provided new information (or confirmed it). Let me know if that's helpful. Star Mississippi 21:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Hi @ Johnpacklambert. I think Mr. Lambert is probably more than you are going to get from any editor as we don't have that level of formality. For example, I'm Star, StarM most frequently. If @ Lugnuts is not willing to refer to you in the way you prefer and you are unhappy with how they choose to refer to you, it may be time for an interaction ban. I don't think either of you want that given your overlapping work at AfD, but it may be the only solution. Have you tried Dispute Resolution about this issue? I know you have with regard to sports AfDs. Star Mississippi 17:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed the IBAN at ANI Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @ Spartaz. I think we have hit wits end on this otherwise. I'll chime in. Star Mississippi 19:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the Draft:Soufia Taloni Though I worked hard for it, I was trepidatious about acceptance through AFC. As I had never created such a long article for AFC, I was worried too. Thanking you again. Regards - 196.78.216.195 ( talk) 13:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's possible someone will come along later when better sourcing exists. Have a great day IP 196 Star Mississippi 13:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• FYI this IP is evading multiple global locks and a local block PRAXIDICAE💕 13:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  in which case I've treated them to an all expenses paid three month vacation. Thanks for the heads up @ Praxidicae, as always. Star Mississippi 14:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  and I just semi'ed the draft. I don't feel like playing whack a mole this morning. Star Mississippi 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's pointless, they change IPs pretty quickly. I'd say we should G5 it since it's technically a block evasion but it serves as a fine honeypot. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's a new musical, opening October 11 → Almost Famous (musical), adapted from Almost Famous. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 16:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

On it, thanks for the heads up! And the new production of Death of a Salesman is going to be amazing. My to-see is getting long, and I love it. Star Mississippi 16:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

On my go-to-see list also. Thanks again for yet another musical article creation! Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Any time, it makes for great teamwork. Star Mississippi 16:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

and @ HM2021 to the rescue. Thank you! And um welcome to this unofficial collaboration Star Mississippi 01:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Star, between me and you, our Broadway collaboration is official, nothing less. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 21:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am curious to know the reason why you had recently merged the article MainSource Bank into First Financial Bank (Ohio) on 2 June 2022‎? I am unable to find any discussion that would justify such a move. Was there a WP:AFD discussion that I have overlooked? I am unable to find any mention of such a discussion on either Talk:MainSource Bank or Talk:First Financial Bank (Ohio).

Before your merger, the MainSource Bank article appeared to have at least 8 citations from third party sources, so it should satisfy WP:RS and WP:N. Looking at the last version of the article, I think the article MainSource Bank should have been rewritten better but not eliminated. At the very minimum, I think a discussion should have be opened on the respective talk pages before the merger was implemented so that community can come to a consensus. Just curious. -- 96.64.134.61 ( talk) 19:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 96. That was simply a bold move on my part as I do not think MainSource meets WP:ORG and it made sense to cover it within First Financial, where much of the information already was. But since you raise a valid disagreement as part of BRD, I'm happy to revert and open a formal merger discussion. SHould be done within about ten minutes. Thanks for raising your concern, and look forward to hearing from you in the discussion. Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant to uncheck "Tag page only, don't delete" on User:Naserademi2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but forgot. By the time I noticed a minute later and went to correct the mistake, you'd already deleted the page! Speedy deletion indeed. :D -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 02:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

oh not to worry. If history is any indication on their pages, you'll have a chance to use the shiny new-ish mop soon. Congrats by the way! Star Mississippi 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2600:387:15:633:0:0:0:7 is getting out of hand. Can there's a section on ANI about them as well. Any help is appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_sockpuppets_of_Jinnifer ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours as I'm about to log off and go to bed. Should stop the disruption and allow someone else to sort it out at ANI. Here's my official blessing for anyone to modify it as needed as I'll be offline. Thanks for heads up. Star Mississippi 02:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Was starting to wear out the touchscreen on my phone. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

happy to help at any time. Have a great day Star Mississippi 11:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. Cricket in LA in 2028? This is the best venue at the moment, but I believe there's plans to build a whole new stadium. Might be worth a trip back to California to see it! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's On like Donkey Kong! I can't remember whether it was Fiji or Australia where I was first at a bar and saw cricket fans in action. It was awesome! I love visiting former Olympic grounds, my favorites probably being Lake Placid and Seoul. I attended a World Cup match in Osaka in 2002 but have never been to the Olympics. Star Mississippi 12:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that the page 'Underwood Ammo' should have been good enough to keep, and a lot of work went in to making it. That said, I know that I was "outvoted" and others chose to delete it. If I wanted to get it back as a draft so that I could work on it again, exactly as it was, and then later re-submit it to the main space. How would I go about making that happen? Thanks! ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 02:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ Th78blue and courtesy @ Bbb23 as nominator and who had earlier discussions about the article in October 2021. Consensus was clear that this wasn't notable, and I'm concerned because you also moved it to mainspace despite AfC reviewers telling you it wasn't notable. Is there a particular reason you're focused on this article? If it were restored, would you agree to run it through AfC and abide by consensus and not move it again? Note, I will be going offline for the night so unless Bbb23 wants to take action on this, it will wait until morning. Star Mississippi 02:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the info. I only moved it after adding more source material in what I thought brought it to notable, that said, there was disagreement and I respect that of course. It is an article that I just find very interesting based on a product that I personally use is all, to answer your question. In the industry within which this product operates, it is a very well known company, so I was just surprised about the notability component, and sources that I provided largely talk more about the product than the company itself, which I think was the major problem. Outside of that, I would respect your ask and not move it to the main space again until I can get more agreement and add more sources which I feel should exist, and was given insufficient time to flesh that out in full. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 02:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Good morning and thanks for your extended reply. With regard to sources discussing the product v. company, do you think that should be the article subject? That might be a good solution until/unless more sources cover the company? Star Mississippi 13:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Th78hlue, I think you should find a better use of your time rather than stubbornly insisting that an article about the company - or the product - is a useful addition to the project. You fought against it repeatedly at the AfD, badgering, albeit civilly, every user who voted to delete the article. I would not like to see such a situation repeated simply because you disagree with the community about notability.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thats an interesting point. I never thought about that. @ Bbb23:, what do you think about that? The article covering the products (which notable secondary sources do exist for? Rather than the company specifically? I suppose it could even still be called the same thing, since the product is ammo after all that they sell. Kind of like if an ice cream company had ice cream in their name, but there were no notable secondary sources about the company, but many about their ice cream (which is the case here). Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I have started a deletion review and wanted to keep you updated about it. Best regards! NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there to keep it centralized Star Mississippi 14:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Operation Balboa. 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. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind relisting or reconsidering this one? I think it's pretty clear the !votes based on the (non-SIGCOV) announcement of his footballer of the year win should be disregarded now that it's evident it was a press release. I think the fact that @ Fenix down relisted when it was 7k 3d should be a big indication that the keeps were already weak at that point, too. Thanks. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ JoelleJay. While I don't think relisting it is going to sway the weight, happy for more input. Give me a few moments to do the digital paperwork. One thing that would be super helpful when you make a request is a link. A few of us are high volume patrollers and may not always remember without a link. Thanks. Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, here it is. Thanks! JoelleJay ( talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Had Command-F in my contributions but will make everyone's lives easier in general if you can. Have a good day. Star Mississippi 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Really baffled by your closing statement [6]: two well-established editors ( Oaktree_b and myself) agreeing that the article should be deleted versus two SPA-s with an obvious COI and less than 100 edits each arguing against, and you've called it "no consensus"? — kashmīrī  ^TALK 11:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. Honestly the primary issue was the lack of input despite two relists. It could have marginally been a delete, but I'm not sure that would have stood. If you think you can get more participation - perhaps in a week or so when AfD is less flooded - you can and should renominate. If you feel strongly I erred, no worries about a DRV. I just don't see a consensus coming out of this discussion. Star Mississippi 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, will renominate in a few weeks' time, unless the article is significantly improved. Cheers, — kashmīrī  ^TALK 14:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Great. I think that's the best solution.

I think I made it clear in close that a speedy renom is fine but if anyone raises but it just closed, feel free to ping me. Star Mississippi 14:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)