User talk:Onel5969/Archive 90

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 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

Archive 78:May 2021

For the first time in a long while I came across an article that got me confused. This is the

) 22:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, wow, that certainly is a tough one. You could have tagged it for speedy, since it was deleted through AfD back in 2017. Definitely promotional. You could probably have tagged it as pure promotion, but that depends on what admin reviews the tag. The fan view tag is definitely appropriate, as is the notable tag. I think you could definitely justify draftify if there are no improvements in a few weeks. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

yes! It definitely does help. Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think my Datong, Anhui and Shouchun, Anhui pages should not be in draftspace, because of

.

Also, can you delete User talk:Pizza0614/TWA? Pizza0614 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Pizza0614: you can request to have User talk:Pizza0614/TWA by adding {{Db-g7}} at the top of the page. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Pizza0614, have moved back as per draftify, regardless of the poor quality of the article. It's been tagged for over a month without improvement, no infobox.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Pizza0614 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi , onel5969 articles named 2016 Tamil Nadu Premier League , 2017 Tamil Nadu Premier League , 2018 Tamil Nadu Premier League & 2019 Tamil Nadu Premier League are redirected to Tamil Nadu Premier League by you with reason ( articles are not notable ) but these articles are useful for users for TNPL stats , like most runs , most wickets , season champions , runner , points table so please I request you to don't redirected these pages because single article Tamil Nadu Premier League can't provide all these information . User:தனீஷ் (talk)

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I quite shocked to see that the article I started writing on UCL Press was simply deleted without any discussion and without providing myself or others with any opportunity to expand the article. This is highly disappointing and also makes me think Wikipedia is simply not a place which is welcome to new editors. If someone acted in such a high handed and unilateral manner where I work, they would not merely be unpopular but at risk of disciplinary.

The publishing house of the largest university proper in the UK, one of the highest ranked in the world, as well as the first open source university publisher and which has published dozens of books to date, is inherently notable. The onus is on others to disprove this. There are numerous reference to the press in reputable third party sources including in the Bookseller which is the leading trade publication in the UK.

I do not have the time to invest in lengthy battles here so will not bother to pursue this further. It has shown me that Wikipedia editing is not a constructive use of my time. TopkapiMusik (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

TopkapiMusik, First, it wasn't deleted, a redirect was restored, with notation that there wasn't enough coverage to show notability. Second, if the assertions you make above are correct and true, then simply add them to the article and provide proper citations to back them up. Third, you asked to discuss on talk page, which I did, and which you seemingly did not truly mean, as you failed to discuss this on the talk page, instead coming here. Here's a hint, if you want help, don't be officious, and ask for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. First, I can't see the discussion you started, please can you provide a link, I would be happy to discuss there instead. I am happy to try to develop the article and add more sources (was planning to do so over the next few days), but how can I do this if it will simply be deleted? Deletion also prevents others adding to the article and working on it together. Why not leave it there for a least a few weeks to be developed? If you can help me to develop the article, it would be much appreciated. The subject appears, to me at least, to be inherently notable and will not be going away, it is the press of one of the largest research universities in the world.TopkapiMusik (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Now found the talk page discussion and replied there)TopkapiMusik (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging this page! I've added citations. Do you think the tag can be removed? If not, could you point out specific claims that you feel are not sufficiently supported?--Brett (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Brett, nice job. I know you split it from the main article, so thanks for taking this on. Still needs a few more cites. For example, there's a quote by William Bullokar, which definitely needs a footnot, the entire section "Types of prepositions" is unsourced. And there are several other assertions made in the piece without citations. If it only need two or 3, you could take the tag off and simply add CN tags where needed, but there still appears to be significant referencing needed, even after all your good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you have another look now?--Brett (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently relegated an article that I had created -

) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, according to a message received on my User talk:Neuralia page on April 14, 2021, you deleted page Tim Gorski which I had created weeks before, "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". I wonder if you would care to comment further about the specific parts of the page that in your view gave grounds for that qualification. Since the deleted page is not visible now for further reference, I have retrieved from my own sandbox records the initial content of the page at the time of its creation, which is visible now on my subpage User:Neuralia/sandbox/TG. May I ask if in your view such (initial) content already incurred in advertising or if the content responsible for the disqualification was something else, presumably added after I created the page. Your help with this will be greatly appreciated, as (as a learning editor) one wishes not to make the same type of mistake more than once. Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Neuralia, hi, it's difficult to accurately answer your question. I review hundreds of articles each day, and honestly I don't remember that article from 3 weeks ago. But you must understand that I didn't delete the article, I simply nominated it for speedy deletion as advertising. An admin looked at my recommendation and agreed with my assessment and then deleted the article. I took a glance at your sandbox, but did not do a deep dive. There is still a promotional angle to the piece, and I am not sure they pass notability. None of his documentaries appears to be notable. My advice would be to create the article and then put it through the AfC process, there, experienced editors can give you advice and constructive criticism. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How are you doing, User talk:Onel5969? Good, I hope. Considering all the time and energy I put into making those articles, I ask what all can I do to make them notable and fully accepted - seeing that they are both now within the Scope of Wikipedia. Thanks to you for reading this.(LonerXL (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC))

WP:PLOT which says that fictional elements should be treated "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking your time to give me a response on this matter. And it helped, because I now have some understanding of what you are saying. I have a question: Does this mean that the articles for both Marvel Universe and DC Universe are written from an in-universe perspective, also? I ask that question, because those articles were looked at as a "template" of sorts in my attempt to make one for Valiant Universe. Thanks again. (LonerXL (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)) LonerXL (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Onel. I need your opinion if possible. I nominated

) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY the nickname, an argument could be made to take it to RFD. Redirects do not need to meet notability criteria. In fact, they are great for things which don't make notability criteria, but are mentioned in other articles, such as this case. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for the advice. I will leave the redirect as it is. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the sources I have added for the Draft:

is the Swedish National Encyclopedia www.ne.se and the Swedish State Calendar which is the official calendar of the Swedish state - both surely must be taken as reliable indications of notability and relevance to list this learned society in Wikipedia as is. Apart from the society itself, ne.se and the state calendar, it is hard to find others writing about the society. The learned publications series are of high quality but as little admissible as the society website. But this does not alter the fact that ne.se article should suffice as an indication of notability and relevance. Jonar242 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CORPDEPTH would also apply. I would say the se piece indicates that it is likely notable, but without passing WP guidelines, it isn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Labour for a Republic

Thank you for reviewing this article.—TrottieTrue (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, you're welcome. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice that you have reviewed it again today (seemingly without a change). Thanks, but I'm just wondering why?--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, when the other editor made his changes, and then you reverted, it re-added it to the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know there was a "queue" for these things.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, may I ask why you reverted my changes to the

page? My changes made perfect sense, as also explained in the change message. Thanks, Vormoza (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CUTANDPASTE". What you are attempting to do is not allowed due to attribution reasons. You must "move" the page in order to maintain its editing history. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Onel5969. I took care of it according to Wiki-norms now. Vormoza (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Vormoza, I saw that. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, thank you for your review of the Nicholas Simon page. I saw that your reason for proposing the article for deletion is because there is "not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER." Given that there are three separate in-depth sources on the page's subject (they address the topic directly and in detail, not needing original research; the sources are authoritative - the NYFA is a reputable establishment in the film industry, and Peter Fox and Patrick Brzeski are known film and media journalists/commentators; they are secondary sources; they are independent sources, as interviews aren't press releases) and WP:GNG states that there is no fixed number of sources required, I was wondering what other sources would you consider necessary for the article to meet the guideline?

In regards to the concern about not meeting WP:FILMMAKER, I was wondering if the page's subject must fulfill all four points? While I do believe that Simon is an important figure (as one of the few producers working on international feature films and TV shows), has played a major role in co-creating significant/well-known works (namely Extraction and A Prayer Before Dawn, as these were mostly filmed in Thailand, and scenes in several Avengers movies), and his works have become a significant monument (in that they mark a growth in SEA's developing film industry), I don't think he has (or at least, as far as I'm aware of) originated a new concept/theory/technique. However, I believe he does fulfill these three other points and is an encyclopedia-worthy subject.

I would appreciate any further advice and comments you have, as I want to fix the page before the week is over and prevent it from being deleted.

Many thanks!

Kind regards,

-- Minekovaa (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG. Your second point, regarding FILMMAKER, isn't as strong. While he worked on films, his roles on the films he worked on are not of the level to meet FILMMAKER (imho). Associate and co-producers on modern films don't qualify. And no, they don't have to meet all 4 points. I will tell you that I think this is an article that I feel falls just below notability criteria, and if you removed the tag, I wouldn't contest it. I would let another NPP reviewer take a look at it. I hope this helps. And welcome to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for honestly answering my questions. I will remove the prod tag and provide a summary of my reasons (namely regarding the

WP:GNG

issue) as you have suggested. Will I need to tag another NPP reviewer on the article's talk page or will they naturally come across the article and review it?

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

-- Minekovaa (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Minekovaa, it'll sit in the queue until another NPP reviewer comes along. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thank you for letting me know, and thanks again for all your help.

Kind regards,

-- Minekovaa (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

) 05:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Imelda Staunton filmography article

Hi Onel5969. I just wanted to ask you which particular policy of WP:Split mandated that a standalaone article on Imelda Staunton's acting credits was not necessary, especially considering how vast it is? Will keep that in mind for sure before doing the same in future. Thanks. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTSPLIT, neither of which this qualifies under. In addition, when you split an article, you have to provide attribution. If you do, please put something like, "Split from XXXXX, please see that page's history for attribution. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

But the acting credits standalone article had all the filmography tables fully referenced with added notes and was of >89kB size. The size of Staunton's biography article is 45kB. So now, if I edit the filmography tables in her biography article to make them look like the ones in the article I had created, the size of the biography article would certainly go above 100kB. That sure demands a split as per WP:SIZESPLIT, right? Jovian Eclipse (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Jovian Eclipse, the size split figures refer to "readable prose", and don't include tables. Right now, the readable prose size is 11kB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Onel, I'm creating articles of former Mexican footballers who are now coaches and I wanted to ask you if you could help me in creating some of them, these are the following: Juan Manuel Rivera, Octavio Becerril, Luis Fernando Soto, Esteve Padilla, Luis Manuel Díaz, Martín Pérez Padrón, Félix Martínez Mendoza and Filadelfo Rangel.

It would be great and I would appreciate if you could help me in creating some of them.

SputnikXX (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, You keep reverted my edit on

)

WP:MOVEREQ, and state your reasons for the move. Or, you can move it yourself, if you have that editing right. The current redirect might be blocking you from making that move, so you can request the redirect to be deleted under a speedy G6. You'll again be asked to supply a rationale for the requested move. Other editors/admins will evaluate your request in each case, and if they agree a move is warranted, they'll comply with your request. Thanks for engaging in conversation, as simply continuing to cut and paste will lead to you getting blocked. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You suggested deletion as it requires additional external citations - it contains citations from 3 newspapers, various NHS and charity organisations. Without spamming it with citations I’m not sure what change you are actually suggesting here. Imaginarium Monkey (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Imaginarium Monkey, as stated in the prod, the citations have to be both from independent sources, and be in-depth about the subject, not mere mentions. In addition, the sources have to be secondary. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think I see what you’re getting at, the Scottish Trauma Network cited document is a fairly detailed discussion of the service, cost benefit analysis and discussed PICTs role in training other advanced practitioners. Are you suggesting more citations similar to this are needed? Imaginarium Monkey (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Imaginarium Monkey, not only that, but the sources have to be independent, and the STN is not independent, since they are affiliated. They also have to be from reliable sources (for examples, blogs and social media stuff doesn't count). Are there any in-depth articles from magazines or books or newspapers? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my new page and for your comments.

No worries, keep up the good work. (and remember to "sign" your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've tagged Valerie Ann Mah with issues on notability. There multiple references on her from trusted and independent secondary sources including those from the City of Toronto, Canada's national broadcaster, and others. I plan to remove the tag in the next few days considering the significant coverage on Mah, if you have issues with this, please feel free to respond on my talk. -- Sjschen (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the articles have to be independent, reliable and in-depth. Other than the obit in the Toronto paper, none meet those criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at WP:VERIFY but am still unsure on how to correct the citation issues. I've provided an additional citation on the page regarding one of it's historical structures if that helps. I've looked around at various Italian governmental websites but I assume due to the obscurity of the town that most documents related to it are likely locally-held or preserved through books and private documents. Is there anything I can do, within reason, to correct the issues? I don't live in the town itself but I do have family that lives there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C280:2720:6D57:6286:DF93:D21C (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't simply list a book, you have state specifically where in the book the information is located (same with newspapers, magazines, long pdf files, etc.). Hope that helps. Nice article, otherwise. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the speedy reply, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:580:C280:2720:6D57:6286:DF93:D21C (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

For reviewing my pages!

15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

TheSokks, you're welcome. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added new sources in the Draft:Anastasiia Kotliar. Please review the draft. The Supermind (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing my articles! T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

T. E. Meeks, you're welcome! Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm HeinzMaster. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Zdzisław Józef Porosiński, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

HeinzMaster (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

HeinzMaster, any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 It's nominated for deletion, once it clears that I will review the page as before.HeinzMaster (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

HeinzMaster, that's not a valid reason. At NPP, once an article goes to AfD, it should be marked as reviewed, since the AfD discussion will determine the ultimate outcome of the article. Only articles which are prodded or CSD'd should not be marked as reviewed, since the outcome is in doubt, and the article might still need to be reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 Okay thanks for the info, will keep it in mind.HeinzMaster (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your page reviewing on behalf of

) 19:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Link20XX, thanks. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you placed UPE tags on couple of articles I accepted. Can you guide me how do I identify if the article is UPE or not? And in which cases I should put this tag? Would prefer to be more aware on this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, absolutely, since this is an area I struggle in myself, so when I place a UPE tag, it has to be pretty blatant. Without knowing which ones they are, it probably means that there is a picture in the article, and if you click on the picture it will say it is the editor's "own work". That's a key giveaway to potential UPE. Another easy way is something in the editor's username which indicates a relation to the article's subject, but in those instances, it might simply be a fan, and I would normally tag them COI, rather than UPE. Hope this helps. Let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely helpful. What you have deduced is actually common sense. I should have figured myself the picture thing at least. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, it's something we cover in NPP School. But I've been doing this a loooong time. Thanks for your help reviewing, btw. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What is NPP school? How do I join? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPPS -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs}

08:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Mark Elworth Jr.

FYI - See my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Elworth_Jr.&type=revision&diff=1022823536&oldid=1022432133

I think subject needs a fresh AfD, he may fail again, but it looks like he might make it this time. Jeepday (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeepday, no worries. Since I can't see deleted articles, I don't have any way of knowing how similar the new article is, so as a matter of course I throw up the CSD tag, so that one of you guys can take a look at it. If the tag gets removed, then I'll review it like I would any new article. The only times I don't do that is if the draft came through AfC, which is the appropriate avenue to create an article after it's been deleted through AfD, or if the AfD is over 5 years old. In the latter instance, If I don't see any notability, I'll speedy it again, but if I do see a chance, I won't. In this particular instance, the AfD was 4 years ago, so it was just under my threshold, hence the tag. I agree, they might pass an AfD now, but it would be close, imho. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but really I don't know how to provide notability, but I can surely provide the sources. But you instead deleted the whole. Please you should have atleast try to talk with me or at least add a "problem with article" template above. Also, this was not a new article created it was a splitted article from another article . Please I think it should be added again. Please follow

) 11:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

JaMongKut, hi. I didn't delete the article, simply restored the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to say that I reverted the redirect move you made, as the game comfortably passes

) 12:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, was it you who linked all of those common words in "Boundary organization"? If not, I note that you didn't remove them. I've just spent 10 minutes doing so. Tony (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony1, not sure why you would think that. An 8 second review of the page's history would have shown you that 2 years ago I removed a bunch of links to common words. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's good to hear! As you can see, I became frustrated at the extent of the job, and must have tired before I tried to identify the phantom linker from the page history. Tony (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony1, can totally relate. No worries. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been such a help. Thank you! When you have a chance, could you look at 1 more articles by me: Curtis Williamson. I confess I do feel better when I have your approval. Thanks again, Joan arden murray (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC) also, can you move articles on the internet? Walter Yarwood, I could hardly find the wikipedia article for all the dealers and it should be first. Someone put it with Painters Eleven, the group he belonged to. Also, I hate how when you put in Canadian Art, the article that comes up is Canadian Art magazine. Ouch! and I worked hard on Canadian Art for wikipedia. And I am sorry about ever touching my own article. I won`t do it again.Joan arden murray (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:TEAHOUSE. Someone might know more about it there. Although on my search engine, Yarwood's article comes up first, and Canadian art comes up second, after the magazine. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you. You have the patience of Job!Joan arden murray (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Joan arden murray, well, you're definitely in the minority with that opinion, but thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit on Blackie Dammett. Please explain what is wrong with the article, and why you think it should be (only) a redirect. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 United Wiffleball National Championship, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 United Wiffleball National Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 it seems that when you reviewed the last section (images copyright) you didn't add a new section? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Asartea, sorry about the delay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to say that I reverted the reversion you made on my Ashley Mizuki Robbins article to it's old revert state, back to the article I wrote, as I feel like with the information and opinions I sourced that it comfortably passes WP:GNG. You mentioned it being "simple blurbs", yet I fail to see how. I admit the article is not worded as heavily as it could be at the moment, but deleting the thing due to that is absurd. And "trivial mentions"? I am not sure how a qualified game journalist considering Ashley one of the greatest females characters in gaming is "trivial", I also don't know how her impact on Japanese gaming culture in helping to cement the adventure genre into the mainstream populous is "trivial" either. Her character being so easily to relate to and surrogate onto was a fairly large part behind the modern resurgence of point-and-click games in Japan, as the article states and cites.

I mean no offence by pointing this out, but I notice that this whole "trivial blurbs and citing" is a problem other users have also had with you in the past. I don't want to make a hassle out of this, but if you honestly want to revert the page back to a redirect, can you go through a legit channel to do it, please? I feel comfortable in the page passing the standards for notability. Thanks. --176.250.33.49 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, other editors have difficulty with the truth sometimes. Reviews have to be in-depth and about the subject of the article, not simple mentions, or listings, or character descriptions in fan magazines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Is what I've currently got cited on the page not note-worthy enough? As I feel like it is now, particularly with my latest additions. I grant you on their own, the other sources do not signify much, but I feel that Ashley's character being utalised in such a study due to her easy identity as a proxy, as signified by thye other sources, surely ties it together somewhat. Ashley's character is considered easy to relate to, and a good entry into video game narrative, to the point where this has been utalised by scholars. I think that makes her noteworthy enough of a piece of video game history in her own right, in my opinion. --176.250.33.49 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's what's written and translated from German Wikipedia. I don't maintain it veificability in face of few resources and general Wikia resources of said Fantasy universes. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

WP:VERIFY. Btw, don't know if you're a fan of the series, but I am. I think I've read it 3 times now.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Why don't we return the article and give attribution? I'm fan. I own the books. I think there are reasonable amount of citations, but it's up to you. 89.25.63.188 (talk) 89.25.63.188 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FICTION, in other words, that the sources aren't simply in-universe. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

23:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me. Sorry. Did it from smartphone. I'll try to find good references. If you could restore the article and with me find some references it would be very cool. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

Why Did You Redriect 2021-22 NBA season article for

I believe I would vote to delete the article per

) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ron Oliver, typically, after I've returned an article like this to a redirect, I'll wait several days to let another NPP reviewer take a look at it. If by the weekend, no one else has weighed in, I'll afD it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Som time ago, I did an article on Maia-Mari Sutnik and no one checked it. Could you look it over? It`s at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia-Mari_Sutnik. Thank you,Joan arden murray (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Joan arden murray, hi again. It was reviewed back in early April by Ipigott, and sure looks good to me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Joan arden murray (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you never let me finish. Next edit, fully updated page. Would you like to retract that AfD? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, nope. You don't simply revert without improving the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You did notice this, right? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't a dePROD, it was an unredirect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, yes I did notice, still doesn't pass bcast. And I never said it was a deProd, simply said you reverted without improvement. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you did, in your AfD statement.

How does it not still pass NMEDIA? Has a license? Check. Carries it's own programming? Check. Can be verified as on the air? Check. Notable, passes NMEDIA.

This is considered "improvement". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no, that was to see if you had actually read the above section. Now I can say you have and you are intentionally not participating in the conversation. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what a maroon. No, it means that you have nothing cogent to add to the discussion, therefore I decline to participate, And with that, don't post on my talk page again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey talk:Onel5969, thanks for looking at this. I wish I had looked closer: boy it was borderline plagiarism. I wonder if anything should be revdeleted; maybe Diannaa can tell us that. Anyway, please have another look and see if the tag can go. Thank you so much. (I'm a bit embarrassed; no student of mine should have written like this, and I should have caught it.) Dr Aaij (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Aaij, thanks for the message. The issue is resolved, but let the CV guru, Diannaa take a look at it regarding revdel. I had already marked it "reviewed" as passing other new article criteria, it was just the paraphrasing thing which stuck out. Thanks for guiding new editors along the right path. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done some more cleanup.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, thank you so much. I had already marked it "reviewed", in anticipation of whatever you were going to do there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, thank you so much. I am so sorry, and I am really embarrassed that I didn't catch it. It was the end of the semester, she wrote (well, "wrote") it in a day after I suggested it--the student really took the easy way out, and I just didn't spend enough time comparing it to the sources. Thank you--and you too, Onel5969. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Onel5969. Could you explain this? [2] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, no, that's why I tagged it for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What seemed to be wrong with my revision of the page, it was a recreation of the original from scratch. --Scratchu90 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Scratchu90, as I said in the edit summary, the issues which have existed for years still exist. Namely not nearly enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show it meets notability. You would need many more references regarding development, production and reception. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I'll keep that in mind. Scratchu90 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Scratchu90, no worries. Don't be afraid to ask questions if you're unsure of something. Although I see you've been on WP for a few years, you haven't done many edits, so sometimes it can get confusing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_K._Prakash when you have time? Thank you, Joan arden murray (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Oops, I have to make some corrections.Too close to sources. I will tell you when it`s ready. Thanks for your patience.Joan arden murray (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are the subject of an ANI thread. Per ANI rules, I am required to alert you of this thread, which can be found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you've moved my article Polish football clubs in European competitions to draftspace. Can you elaborate on what sections need ref improvement. All of them base on the information available on Wikipedia. I added some refs but they seem to be a bit obsolete. Moreover, there are more articles in this category that also could be moved to draftspace, if you would treat them the same way. SandoLorris (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY. Since you've objected, I've moved it back to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I can see your point but do you require me to cite on every result which are already provided with citations in the linked articles? SandoLorris (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

SandoLorris, theoretically, yes. Hopefully there are some sources which will cover broad swaths of the info on the article, One of the policies of WP is that anything not cited can be removed at any time. If the cites already exist in the articles you brought together, simply cut and paste the refs, that would be suggestion. Look at what I did on List of RKO Pictures films. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_K._Prakash is alright to read now. Thank you, Joan arden murray (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated you reading it! Joan arden murray (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

When I saw this. Tbh, I think they are correct. Celestina007 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, thank you kindly. And thanks for all your efforts on the project. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that you reverted edits done by me in

) 04:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Bhu1147, once deleted through AfD, if you wish to create the article, you need to go through the AfC process. Create the article as a draft, and submit it for review. And then be patient, their backlog is a bit long. Hope this helps. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Strange Tales/Strange Stories

Hi, are you able to help then, instead of just reverting back to the old revisions. I've been trimming the article and adding lots of new content too, it's just that the title ought to be Strange Tales since that's the more common translation, not sure how to work around the move. Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Or is it possible to delete the current redirect and move the page? Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce, hi. You have to "move" the article, not cut and paste it, this is one of the hard and fast rules of WP. If the current redirect is blocking the move then you should ask to have the redirect deleted to make way for the move under G6. The you can move the title, to preserve the history for attribution purposes, leaving behind a redirect. Or, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to have the page moved for you. Hope this helps. (was writing this when you made your second suggestion). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Doh, I tried to "move" it but was bl;ocked from doing so because of the redirect. Didn't think of attribution. Thanks! Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure G6 was a relevant criterion here too :P Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce, yes, housekeeping. Simply state your reason in the space when prompted. I used to do it all the time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

All I did was split it's content from

) 23:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT on how to do it properly. Without knowing you split, there was no way to tell that there might be a mirror issue, so the action was appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

23:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Do it properly": Many of the original editors of these articles are no longer active, and there seems to be nearly nobody currently active that is knowledgeable in this franchise, so there was no point in trying to start a discussion about moving that would go absolutely nowhere. That's why I've gone around and just done everything without discussion, because things can just get done. On top of that, I didn't know that the episode guide was ripped off from somewhere else. I didn't "incorrectly" split anything. I will recreate the page from scratch if I need to. I was only in

good faith. ToQ100gou (talk

) 00:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ToQ100gou, who said anything about discussion? Please read the guideline provided. And stop with the attitude. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with starting a discussion and waiting for others to join in, maybe their are others who are watching the article, but haven't edited it yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You abruptly had an article deleted whose issues I could have rectified. You could have at least moved it to draftspace and notified me that it needed improvement. Now in order to recreate the page, the entire episode table has to be recreated, something I do not know how to, nor even want to do. This was a very bad move regardless of the guidelines. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ToQ100gou, not with a copyvio. Your edits were the bad move. Own up to them, understand your mistakes, and learn from them. And why does the table need to be recreated? If, as you say, you simply copied it from another article, it's still there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like what I (indirectly) did is being insinuated as being of malicious intent. I didn't go ahead and say "yeah, I'm gonna violate copyright and I'm gonna do it for kicks" in splitting the article. That's what's annoying me the most and why I had "attitude". ToQ100gou (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ToQ100gou, can't help how you feel. You came onto my talkpage with an attitude, rather than attempting to figure out what went wrong. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be wasting my time figuring out what went wrong because it was obviously wrong. Even though I had no ill intent and even though I wasn't actually the one who originally copy-pasted the copyright violating text in the first place. It was good faith. And the "attitude" is out of frustration. I have a lot going on in real life and this situation happened to tip me over the edge. I'm not really even angry at you. Just this whole thing. ToQ100gou (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR. In this case, you leave a comment on the admin's page who deleted the article, explain that you split without attribution, and ask them to check to make sure the copyvio wasn't a mirror of the original page. If they do check, they'll restore the page. I'm not an admin, so I don't have access to the deleted page. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

02:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Cazzie David

Hiya - quick one. You tagged Cazzie David for notability, the page creator removed it. I'm minded to AfD as most of the coverage is dependent on her father - what's your view? Had a couple of recent AfD flubs, so not perhaps as confident as I could be! :O) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NACTOR. I never worry about the AfD outcomes, if based on policy, it should be nominated. I've had 20 or so AfD's be closed as keep simply as vote counts in the last few months, rather than on the policies. Can't worry about those. What I do hesitate about is borderline cases. Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about this one to nominate it. But that's me. If you don't feel strongly, don't nominate. But do feel free to re-add the notability tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)p

Yup, agree, on the balance of things. Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Given

) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, absolutely, it was created by an UPE editor, who has now been blocked. As per discussion with the blocking admin, we've moved those pages to draftspace as per wp:draftify (segregating UPE). It's interesting though, usually there's a little note at the top of the page indicating that the page has been through AfD, and this one did not have that. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As you were replying I noticed your UPE comment in the edit summary which I should have noticed earlier. Sorry for distubing you. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, no worries. We all miss stuff sometimes (Lord knows, I do). Thanks for your polite inquiry. And thanks for all your contributions to the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Vesak, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy and Blessed Vesak to you and yours! User:JaMongKut (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, I am confused by your request for speedy deletion of the WORKS San José article. Nevertheless I have tried to address everything that may seem promotional. That is not the intention of the article. WORKS is a historical cultural institution that deserves documentation on WP. Please let me know how the article might be improved further. Thank you Maxmarsh2021 (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Maxmarsh2021

A tag has been placed on

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you participate in the RM for War in Iraq (2013–2017)? Thanks Ridax2020 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ridax2020, sorry, I really don't have the expertise offer my opinion non that move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Did you just erase an article with more than 15 specific sources in major news magazines and papers about the CEO of a 30 billions dollars company which employs 100 000 people? That looks bold... and not really constructive.

What annoys you on this page? It looks really common to me with no particular issue

Best,

Remi Mathis (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Remi Mathis, No. I redirected it. Other than the announcements of his promotion, not enough in-depth coverage about him to show that he passes GNG. CEO's, even of billion dollar companies, are not inherently notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

How should I do it the way it’s properly done? I did it to

) 12:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bohbot Communications

, which is now a redirect to BKN. I feel that since all the constituent parts were part of the parent organization, and if you have no objection, I will do that. If that occurs, then the article can be stand as written, since it would not appear to meet either of the two parameters for splitting (size or content). The Content fork would be the best argument for splitting, but I would suggest you start a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus for a split, which is the other way to split the article.

Now, the second issue is simpler, when you do split an article, you must provide proper attribution in the edit summary, something along the lines of "Content was split from [[XXXXX]], please see that page's history for attribution." Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. My original plan was to split the page into three standalone pages to begin with - One for the block itself (which I could rename as the Bohbot Kids Network, or keep as BKN), one for Bohbot Communications themselves and the other for BKN International, as they’re all technically different from one another.

Should I revert the BKN International page, or wait first? Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, I think the question is are folks looking for this information better served by a single article, or by 3 short articles? My personal opinion is that normally, it's less clunky to have to go from one page to another if you're looking at the overall picture. But I think you should start a discussion on the article talk page, rather than here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And I already sent the BKNI page back to the main article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I’ll go for that then. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the page a bit more now, but it still feels like a complete mess. It's gotten me thinking, a page like

DIC Kids Network aren't together because they're two different things, so why can't Bohbot, BKN and BKNI be the same? Bohbot was the parent company that distributed and produced programmes and ran the block, BKN/Amazin' Adventures was the syndicated block that aired the shows, and BKN International was the sucessor company that solely produced shows. Luigitehplumber (talk

) 15:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they can't be separate articles, just that there should be a discussion to get consensus for that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, that's gonna be a problem on my own behalf, as i'm sure nobody would even notice (as i've done similar things before), but i'll give it a try! Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, that's okay if no one responds. After a couple of weeks, if there is no response, take it as unopposed, and go ahead with the split. But if you get several editors chiming in to split the article in the first week, that's even better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty-O. That’s settled! Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, good luck with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I need some help with a round swap or whatever it's called. Can you move the page to Bohbot Entertainment? I read in the sources that Bohbot Communications only traded under that name until 1994, and it split into two, so I think it's best if it remains as Bohbot Entertainment to avoid any more confusion. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, thank you. Just waiting for the day when I can finally split away the article, well that's if anyone accepts the splitting or nobody turns up.Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, I looked at the history, and there is at least one editor who is relatively active. Also, it's not canvassing if you reach out to editors on the edit history page who have edited the article and ask them to vote (don't ask them to vote in favor - that is canvassing). Also, you can post a notice of discussion on the talk pages of the projects the article is part of. One thing I've learned on WP is patience. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

How should I talk it through with editors who edit the page frequently? I don’t want to just pop up and randomly say stuff about the planned split, as that would seem awkward. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, do you know how to ping editors? If you don't, and you wanted to ping me you could simply type {{u|Onel5969}}. On the talk page where you've started the discussion, simply post something like, "Pinging potentially interested editors who have edited the page in the last 6 months, (then list the pings). A quick count, not including you or me (or the admin who simply protected the page), there are about a dozen editors. If even a quarter of them respond, that's good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course I do know how to message users on their talk pages (I have been on the site for a long time!) but okay then! He he. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTPHarry, no, not on their talk pages! On the talk page of the article, that's less intrusive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You wrote that there's not a single in-depth reference from a secondary, independent source. Is there a reason that this (among others) doesn't count as precisely that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, two small paragraphs, half of one of which is a quote from him... gonna have to say no on that one. But thanks for asking, and please keep up your good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a 3000-word profile split equally between him and the institute's co-director. The reporter met with him over dinner, quotes him several times, and gives biographical details about his upbringing in addition to his current work. Sorry, but I'm struggling to see how that is not quintessential SIGCOV. There were no notability concerns raised when this article went through DYK and appeared on the main page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, well, if it's as you described, it's an interview, which is a primary source, and therefore doesn't go to notability. And even if it weren't, it's a single source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page? There was nothing wrong by with it. JuanGLP (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NALBUM, which I said in my edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

04:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello

When you have time, could you review this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Bellefleur? Thank you,Joan arden murray (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Joan arden murray (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I see you review some of my articles. As if you mind reviewing these articles I made

01:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

MoviesandTelevisionFan, hi. I tend to go through the queue in order. Most of your articles are fine (if a little skimpy from time to time), occasionally I'll come across one which I think is a working actor, rather than a notable one. I especially appreciate your work in providing articles on Emmy winners. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk 20:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you reviewing my articles, whether it's suitable. As I learned more of Wikipedia of your reviewing. Thanks! MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Always great to receive props. Great to be wiki ing with you Sucker for All (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to explain proper protocol to me. It is much appreciated. I'm happy to hear that you are intrigued by Mr. Archibong's aesthetic. I would hate that the public would not have the opportunity to learn about Mr. Archibong's practice because of my mistake and ignorance about Wikipedia practices. Please find answers to your previous questions below.

1. What is your relationship to User:Electriclamb? I do not know Electriclamb or have any relationship. I only discovered the existence of Mr. Archibong's Wikipedia page a few weeks ago. 2. I'm assuming you're the ip editor who removed the prod tag, correct? Yes, correct. I didn't understand why that tag was placed there and foolishly assumed it was an error. 3. Do you have any relationship with User:LuGgcy? Yes, she is my colleague. As Mr. Archibong is in the Visual Arts field, I asked her to assist in uploading visual content to Wiki Commons thinking this would also offer more context into Mr. Archibong's approach and notable projects Katelovesdesign212 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)