This page 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.

I was queried about a recent close of mine, where I didn't give much weight to a deletion decision on another language wiki. Specifically, Maltese-language wiki, for a topic of Maltese interest. How would other people have handed this close? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Each wiki has its own notability/inclusion criteria, and quite a few other wikis have much laxer BLP and RS criteria than we do. I remember one case so bad that the display of an interwiki link to another language Wikipedia was suppressed. Other wikis also have stricter criteria for the use of nonfree images. If the reasoning of the other-wiki discussion isn't endorsed by consensus here, then the outcome is unpersuasive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision. I don't actually see any evidence at all that the article was deleted on the Maltese Wikipedia for lack of notability. The nominator mentioned it was deleted there, but didn't say anything about notability and didn't provide any links. WP:N doesn't have any interwiki links for Maltese, so they might not actually have a notability guideline at all. Even if they do it may be radically different from ours and it certainly doesn't have any force here. If a foreign language Wikipedia deleted something for a pretty objective reason, such as being a hoax, then I would be more inclined to take that into account, but not notability. Hut 8.5 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• The mere fact that an article was deleted or retained on another language Wikipedia should have no bearing on whether the article should be kept on the English Wikipedia. As you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Hut 8.5, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages note, other Wikipedias have different notability criteria.

  The more important factor is why the article was deleted or retained. Was King's Own Band deleted at an AfD because the Maltese participants searched for and were unable to find Maltese-language sources?

  1. If the Maltese Wikipedia AfD participants explicitly explained that they looked for sources and couldn't find any about a Maltese topic, that is a strong argument for deletion on the English Wikipedia.
  2. But if the Maltese Wikipedia AfD participants did not say they looked for sources, that the Maltese Wikipedia article was deleted is a poor argument for deletion on the English Wikipedia.
  In both cases, however, English Wikipedia AfD participants must still do their due diligence to look for sources.

  The same applies if the Maltese Wikipedia AfD participants found significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject and explicitly listed the sources in the AfD. Listing the sources from the Maltese Wikipedia AfD discussion at the English Wikipedia AfD discussion would be a strong argument for retention.

  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Own Band (2nd nomination), the nominator wrote:

  It seems it was deleted from Maltese Wikipedia, but I can't find the link (just comment by creator that it was already on Maltese WP).

  I found the deleted article at mt:King's Own Band. The deletion log is here. The deleting admin, mt:Utent:Leli Forte ( User:Leli Forte), wrote in the deletion log:

  il-kontenut kien:Il-banda King's Own kellha l-unur li tkun l-ewwel banda li ddoqq L-Innu Malti f'1936.

  The Google Translate of the text:

  content was: The King's Own Band had the honor of being the first band that sounds The Anthem f'1936.

  The Maltese Wikipedia Special:WhatLinksHere log, mt:Speċjali:XiJwassalHawn/King's Own Band, does not return any deletion discussions.

  Therefore, since the AfD was unilaterally speedy deleted by one administrator for the Maltese Wikipedia equivalent of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content, I would give no weight to the fact that the article was deleted on the Maltese Wikipedia.

  I endorse the "no consensus" AfD close that gave little or no weight to the deletion on the Maltese Wikipedia.

  I've also added newspaper articles and book sources to King's Own Band to demonstrate that it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard ( talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think RoySmith made the correct decision in this specific case. I think that the wider principle is more complicated and nuanced than just "different rules, different culture, different decision". For some wikis which are large, established and relatively stable, where the subject's sources are mostly in a foreign language relevant to that wiki, a decision there is something a closer might consider taking into account.

  For a hypothetical but plausible example, let's say someone nominates the Oberburgermeister of a German city for deletion, on the grounds that "Oberburgermeister" means "mayor" and mayors aren't notable ---- well, in practice such a nomination would probably fail and rightly so, but if it was tending towards a "delete" outcome I would hope the closer would just think to check de.wiki before clicking any buttons.— S Marshall T/ C 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who raised the concern with Roy at his talkpage. I'm very appreciative for his openness to discussing his closure. In my view, it's hard to rationalize how a band that has no article on its own country's Wikipedia could possibly be notable enough to merit an article on the English Wikipedia. However, as I've begun digging around at AFD, I'm starting to feel like the discussions need to be held with a presumption that the burden-of-proof lies with those wishing to KEEP the articles, instead of vice-versa. The problem is that a "No Consensus" close, in a case like this where the "keep" recommendations seemed very weak in their reasoning (none specifically addressed how KOB fulfilled notability requirements--just unilaterally claimed they did, with no support), defaults to keep. But such a huge revamp to the AFD discussion process is probably a much larger discussion for a different time. I just think that the English Wikipedia is getting so bloated with marginally (at best) notable articles, that such a discussion does need to take place at some point. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) ( My talkpage)} 01:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good day... I want to recreate a page called Chimsnero Goldsmith that was previously deleted, as new source are available now. I will be glad if this issue is solved thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I need multiple third-party reliable sources and i will be glad if my article is restored. As i have contacted the administrator that closed it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be glad if the article Chimsnero Goldsmith will be undeleted as i have multiple third-party reliable sources now, and i have contacted the administrator that closed it. I will be glad if this issue is solved. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• @ Realonehqsource: This isn't really the right place exactly. You need to post a request on the main page. Since you do appear to be a little confused, I'll launch it for you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Actually, there's a draft available at Draft:Chimsnero Goldsmith, so I'd recommend that you work on cleaning that article up and showing the sources before coming to DRV. I do have to ask: are you related to any of the prior accounts that tried to add the article to Wikipedia? If so, then you do need to disclose this, even if it's just that you forgot the passwords to the other accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 is there other way we can talk apart from here? Like FB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In general, all discussions regarding wikipedia should take place in public. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would prefer that all discussions remain on Wikipedia, for the reasons in the link Roy gave above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to make changes in my previously edited matter VikasAnsal ( talk) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• @ VikasAnsal: What page are you talking about? I only see one edit prior to you posting here, where you tried to add a sentence to an article about Kanwar Pal Gujjar. It was removed by Serols, likely because it was unsourced. Content in an article about a living person needs to be sourced per WP:BLP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)