User talk:SoWhy/Archive 25

Thank You for the barnstar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFD (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks again for finding that source :-) Regards SoWhy 20:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You declined A7 here but according to the deletion log, it was later A7d anyway by Primefac. Is it the same as what you declined? Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see it was declined. I had that open looking at the A7 claim, forgot about it for a bit, and returned to delete it. Probably should have refreshed before pulling the trigger. Whoops. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:CCSI#ORG and consider ATD next time you review a speedy tagging. Regards SoWhy

06:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy, Could you please userfy the article Brasserie Ellezelloise that you recently deleted Many thanks. ? MHAN2016 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, you can find it at User:MHAN2016/Brasserie Ellezelloise. Happy editing. Regards SoWhy 18:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you take a look at

User:Arnaud.bloquiau/Brasserie Ellezelloise and let me know whether you would have deleted it in its current state? MHAN2016 (talk

) 20:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, since I usually

assume good faith that cited offline sources are indeed covering the subject. I suggest you familiarize yourself with citation templates though and use them instead of the bare-text references. If you don't want to use the template code, you can enable the VisualEditor in your preferences and use it to easily create such templated citations (I myself use it for such purposes). Also, if you can find some of the books on Google Books, it would be great to link them in the references so others can easily check them. Regards SoWhy

20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added Google Books links to most of the sources. I've also had a quick look at the citation templates you linked to. That page says "the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged" – so I'm wondering why you suggest using them rather than not, since at first glance they do seem to complicate things rather. MHAN2016 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The citation templates are a useful way to generate references that contain everything important in a pre-defined way, allowing for a more uniform looking references section. Of course it's a matter of preference but using them allows others, especially using the VisualEditor I mentioned above, to easily tweak them without having to edit the source. Regards SoWhy 06:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I may have been around for a (long) while, but I try to avoid this sort of nonsense, so I'm not familiar with the process. Thanks for your help :-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi – thanks for noticing that I wasn't the one that tagged that article for speedy deletion as quickly as you did. Just leaving a friendly note here to say that your list of declined speedies still incorrectly implicates me as the tagger. Thanks —72 _{talk / contribs} 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@72: You are correct of course. The script I use unfortunately can't always tell if the tagger was first or second. Fixed now, thanks for the heads-up :-) Regards SoWhy 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries – thanks for changing it . —72 _{talk / contribs} 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington DeMolay. Since you had some involvement with the Washington DeMolay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

From my reading of this discussion, it seems like consensus was against redirecting. Could you please take another look? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

WP:R#KEEP, i.e. would the redirect have to be deleted if it were created independently. Only R#DELETE #10 might have applied but the requirement for deletion is that the article could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject (emphasis added). That the first part is not the case is evident by the AfD outcome, so this reason does not apply. Also, R#KEEP #5 is the case here because when multiple editors support redirecting it's safe to assume that people find the redirect useful. So imho the policy-based reasons are (slightly) in favor of keeping such a redirect. Since the topic itself is notable, maybe a list of DeMolay-organizations could be created to redirect this to instead? That would probably be the best solution. Regards SoWhy

15:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy I think the delete !votes rather than "redirect" are inherently an opposition of redirecting, otherwise they would have said redirect. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, your assertion that only three editors objected to redirecting is silly because there is not a required number of participants and it's the weight of the arguments combined with some level of consensus. If the other participants thought it should be redirected wouldn't they have said so? You're assuming an awful lot by saying Since editors arguing for deletion usually do not mind... when there was clear evidence of the opposite in that discussion. Creating redirects where there is no information about the subject being redirected is unhelpful and likely to be confusing for casual readers. There is a big difference between something that just isn't fit as a standalone article and something that has no actual sourcing for anything more than a single sentence, if that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider

WP:R#KEEP

#5 because multiple people thought it useful to have.

As for the numbers argument, I explicitly stated that I did not jsut count the !votes but rather considered the redirect-policy.

Regards SoWhy 15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, since it's just the redirect that is being contested, I'm thinking of taking the matter to RfD instead of DRV. Would that be fair? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the correct choice based on the reasoning that the redirect was technically created after deletion Go for it, I'm under no assumption of infallibility after all. Regards SoWhy 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy Here is why I argue so strongly against ridiculous redirects like this. The majority of Wikipedia's viewers are casual readers. I'd say it's probably likely they don't know what redirects are and not to throw TopCipher under the bus, but this !vote is precisely the reason this is problematic: Redirect to DeMolay International - Wow! Is it just me or do others too see that 'No results found for "Washington DeMolay"' under the Google News section!? In any case, while DeMolay is notable, this particular chapter doesn't seem to be and neither are any reliable references available to verify if any.. A redirects purpose is to be helpful, yes? What use is a redirect if nothing can be written, based on RS, in the target article? It becomes one of two things: an implausible redirect or confusing for casual readers. If a reader is looking for information on Z and is automatically redirected to A with no mention of Z, it is more or less useless. Or a real life example: my high school had an ITS chapter. You could probably google it and show it exists, should that have a redirect?

Also, Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider alternatives to deletion before commenting. {{cn}}, please. It's insulting to suggest that people who disagree with you couldn't possibly have considered other options. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We can of course agree to disagree, no shame in that. I personally think if a reader looks for "Everyville Z" and is redirected to "Z", they are better served by the redirect than by no redirect because maybe they were interested in Z in general but just knew the name "Everyville Z". So it's not like "Z" redirecting to "A" which of course would be useless (cf.

WP:R#DELETE

#5). Or to take your example: If I am looking for "Smallville High International Thespian Society" and am redirected to "International Thespian Society" I might have been looking for the specific chapter but as likely than not I didn't know that this is just a chapter of a larger organization and find it helpful to at least have information on the main organization. And that's how I assessed the consensus to be at that AfD as well.

As for the latter part, I know we don't see eye to eye on a couple of things (sadly) but I had hoped that by now you knew me well enough that I don't insult (and I don't think I ever have). My comment was not insulting, it was merely an observation based on my observations during my tenure as an editor and admin of this project. Unlike yourself and Tavix for example (and of course many others), there is - unfortunately - a significant number of editors who treat deletion in general and AfD in particular as a binary choice: Delete or Keep. Saying that this is the case of course does not mean that everyone who !votes delete didn't consider alternatives and I never meant to imply that it did. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Socking? I've got an SPI ready to go but as far as I can tell Wikilovers12 is the only other creator right? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The new page (which I just deleted) was created by Julereca. Text was different this time around, I suspect meat-puppetry, i.e. that he got one of his friends to create the page but it's not clearly DUCKy. HTH. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Which of the two processes do you recommend: a) contacting you "very nicely", or b) going via the Wikipedia deletion review? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Galesbury. I'm happy to discuss any deletion I made (within reason of course). If you think I made a mistake, please tell me which article it concerns and why you think the decision was a mistake and I will take another look. Regards SoWhy 17:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy Hi thanks for the response, it is a deletion to Joesph-Dubois where a few wikipedia mates have ganged up to force a deletion justified by a policy that is on it's own justifiable, but on balance not enough to delete this entry - all things considered. But the truth is this: crack on pal. I am going to delete my account on wikipedia (understand my edits will persist), because this has been a terrible waste of time already. The article was AFD'd, then no one objected, so they got their mates to REPOST IT for deletion to drum up support for deletion. Poor show, but that's how folk behave on here. Snobby, self-sure, deeming comments along the way. That's what i experienced here. Not a single comment on the content. Only comments on the football policy, no comments on how the player had achieved reconizable status The guy who AFD'd the article knows who the player is, even without an article on wikipedia. So they engaged in bully-boy behaviour. I'm done. Wikipedia can continue without my edits or donations. Enough.

Hi there "SoWhy", I am writing to inquire as to why an article that was written recently was deleted (censored) by you. You sighted A7 as the reason for censorship, however, thousands, or more likely hundreds of thousands of people out there that have read Aaron's work and would disagree with you as to the "significance", or rather lack of, that you stated as being the reason for the censoring of the article.

Not that it matters too much, but I used to contribute money every year to Wiki because I respected the open platform and access to information that it provided. However, now the site seems to be "patrolled" by people who delete articles regardless if the content in said articles is true or false, which in effect has turned Wiki into the very type of platform that it once boasted as being against.

The article that you deleted (an article on Aaron La Lux), was 100% factual, there was no false statements in it. As far as free speech and open platforms go, why would information be purposely censored for any other reason other than said information being false. Therefore I do not understand why you decided to delete it. Even after reading the explanation of what A7 means, I still do not see the grounds for which it was deleted to be fair.

I am not here to specifically request the said article to be reinstated (although that would be great). I am simply here to ask that you carefully examine your actions and beg of you to please not become the very force that the original Wikipedia was created to counteract. Censorship is never good, and it goes against the fundamental tenants of not just Wikipedia, but the internet as a whole.

You are likely much more experienced and knowledgeable in the "internet world", so I am not here to try and argue with you, complain, or tell you how to act. I am only asking that you take an honest look at yourself and your actions, and then decide if you are assisting or hindering the freedom of speech and the spread of information. I'm sure you feel like you are acting on behalf of the powers of the "greater good", but please remember, almost every oppressor and oppressive regime in the history of civilization thought he/she were acting on behalf of the "greater good". We all cold benefit from a bit more self reflection, honestly.

Anyways, I hope this inquiry is not taken offensively in any way. The internet is a very useful tool for open communications, and I am in no way trying to be offensive, I am simply trying to communicate in a way that will assist in shedding light on not only the article that was deleted, but the one that deleted is as well :-) It's all Love & Respect here. Honestly.

Thank you SO much for taking the time to read this inquiry, and feel free to respond in whatever way you desire. AaronLA (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there AaronLA and welcome to Wikipedia!

First of all, please do not use the word "censorship" when referring to deletion. Its negative connotations risk poisoning any conversation, no matter how valid the complaint itself is because it implies the person responsible is following some kind of nefarious agenda. Deletion on the other hand just serves the purpose of the project.

Without talking about the article in question, unfortunately many people wish to misuse Wikipedia's popularity to promote themselves. This is the reason why we have certain rules (called policies and guidelines) that govern what can and cannot be added. A common misconception is that articles are measured by "truth". They are not. Not only is our policy "

the one about authors applies

). While A7 speedy deletion uses a lower standard than that, the article still needs to contain sufficient credible claims that set the subject apart from all the other subjects.

If this author is really as popular as you describe, it's safe to assume that

propose its deletion again due to our biographies of living persons

policy that requires all articles about living persons to contain at least one such source. That would be a waste of time, don't you agree? And even if a single source could be found, for an article to be included the subject needs to have been substantially covered in multiple such sources per the above notability guidelines.

I'm happy to restore the article if you can show me that the subject has been covered by reliable sources. Feel free to ask me for help if you need it.

Regards SoWhy 09:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well, I suppose we both have our perspectives. I am not going to argue, however, what I will say is that many times that censorship has been, and still is, exercised, the ones doing the censoring do not do so with nefarious intent, they do so because they honestly think they are doing the correct thing. I am not saying that that is the case with you, I am simply saying we need to be careful not to become the very thing that we are attempting to liberate ourselves and others from, in this case, the oppression of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Information. Again, I do not mean this in any sort of negative way towards you, I honestly believe that you are doing a great service and have nothing but the best of intentions in the services that you provide. I just think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one ;-) And thank you for at least engaging in a constructive conversation on the matter, you have been both respectful and informative in your communications and that is truly appreciated. Much Love & Respect AaronLA (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lerumo

FYI ADA is not a label - it is a distributor/merchandising company and artists do not get signed to it. The label of the artist in question is supposedly Moore Muzik, which is not partnered with the distributor and is definitely not notable or significant. Would you mind reassessing your a7 decline? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: You appear to be correct, I must have misread the article about ADA. Sorry for that. However, after your message, more content was added, including a couple of links to pages that might qualify as reliable sources, so I don't think it meets A7 now regardless of said mistake. Regards SoWhy 06:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple detags

I would appreciate you taking a look at Ciguli and Danny Levan, which I pulled CSD tags off of. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ‎

@Siuenti:

• Ciguli: The detag was correct, there is clearly context to identify the subject. You are of course allowed to turn it into a PROD if you believe the article should be deleted for other reasons but "no context" is not one of the reasons, so when you change something to PROD, use your own reasoning why the page should be deleted.
• Danny Levan: Clearly not an A7 with claims to be signed to UMG but why convert it to PROD? Do you think the subject lacks notability? As with Ciguli above, you should only PROD something if you believe there is a policy-based reason to delete the article.

Regards SoWhy 13:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think sometimes CSD tagged should be turned into Prod tags based on the nominator's good-faith belief in deletion, but possibly these are not appropriate cases. Thanks for the input. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory

Imagine my surprise that the first result on Google for Midget Handjob was not porn...that was a risky click. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's one reason why SafeSearch exists, no? Regards SoWhy 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

...and I bet

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

13:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What the f*** is safesearch, Google decided to remove the feature anyway leaving tons of porny stuff when searching lol. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

deleting main page

why did you nominate the main page for deletion? The garmine ^(talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@

trouting - at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 24#?!. Regards SoWhy

15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL. thanks!

also, the article

Gardy tribe needs deletion but I don't know what tag I should use. The garmine ^(talk)

15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need deletion? Seems like a good candidate for

WP:ATD-R, just redirect it to Kurdish tribes. Regards SoWhy

15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

sorry. I thought that someone just made it up. The garmine ^(talk) 15:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC) (and mention my name for a faster response)

Well, it has been listed in the latter article for some time now but you might still be right. It's not sufficiently obvious to warrant G3 deletion and A7 can't apply to articles that are about subtribes of notable people, so if you think so and cannot find any sources, take it to AFD. I can only find this source so it might be real (with a different spelling). Regards SoWhy 15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: College of Divine Wisdom

Does it qualify as a college?? Coderzombie (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@

Bachelor of Elementary Education which meets the definition of college and thus is sufficient to qualify it as a educational institution for the purpose of A7. Regards SoWhy

08:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User Jonncornerr

What do you think about this user (here his contributions) that seems that only reason of his life is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Fencing Federation :D --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Either someone who has a single agenda or someone whose efforts to help are seriously misguided. Either way, unless you can find some evidence of sock-puppetry, let's let the AfD do its job. Regards SoWhy 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An
  LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal
  .
• Some
  WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed
  the sanction to the community.
• An
  restrictions on cosmetic changes
  .

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Just a quick note to thank you for pointing to

Papal conclave, 1724. Looks much cleaner, and a nudge in the right direction is always appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk

) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing a page name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_sports - is there any way to capitalize 'Sports" in Chat Sports? The lower case s on the second word is not an accurate representation of the company's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@

sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~~~~. Regards SoWhy

19:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Thatcherist Party

Please can you undelete my article so I may improve it to fit Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Editor362 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Editor362:  Done. You can find it at User:Editor362/Thatcherist Party. Please remember to read and follow the policies and guidelines to avoid further deletions. Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft includes a useful summary. Regards SoWhy 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrator review

Template:Administrator review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheriolett

Can you help me start a wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheriolett (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@

a notable musician, someone else will sooner or later create an article about you. Regards SoWhy

06:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alaska P. Davidson

On 8 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alaska P. Davidson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alaska P. Davidson was the first female FBI special agent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska P. Davidson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alaska P. Davidson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grilled Charlie

Would you care to explain your reasoning a bit more fully? The numerical split was 3-3 for merge/redirect vs. delete. Absent a clear numerical consensus, your reasoning for deletion vs. relisting or no consensus close is both relevant and inscrutable. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Jclemens. You are correct of course and I apologize for not providing a rationale at the time. I added one now. Basically, as I saw it, there was consensus to remove this article (in one way or another) but no consensus whether the content of the article warrant mention at another place (and if so, where) with even those not opposed to merging being wary whether this is really the right course of action. Personally, I am a fan of retaining as much material as possible but when judging AfDs, I cannot choose to ignore when consensus simply does not support such a course of action. But just because the AfD ended in that result does not mean there can't be consensus to add the information to another article or creating a new article and then redirect to it. PS: I kinda missed that you requested desysopping () so if you need a copy of the article, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace. Regards SoWhy 06:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a long story behind that, but it amounts to that I was outed by wikipediocracy, who posted my work details, during an arbitration case in 2013, putting my job at risk. You can search there for details if you want. I've since moved on in every possible way, but "resigning under duress" is not an exception to "Under a cloud", and I had made too many enemies on that ArbCom to ever get a fair hearing. I'd never pass RfA today, so I just work as a curationist, including butting into AfD/DRV again, and work on vital article GA reviews. But thank for mentioning it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I was quite inactive from 2011 to 2015 so I missed all that stuff (probably better that way). Too bad about your tools. Feel free to request anything you need (within reason ) from me. Regards SoWhy 08:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Katfyr deleted

Hey there! Just a quick follow up that the article on Katfyr was eventually deleted. I'm just here to raise the point for your records, as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Basically, I provided proof that WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 were addressed, and in over 3 weeks (relisted 3 times), no one was able to specifically answer as to why those points were invalid. I made the same comment to the person who deleted the article, but the user was unreasonable to argue these points as well, and accepted somehow that the "consensus" as baseless as it was, provided enough reason for deletion. Something appears to be off in this process, appears slightly unethical, and at the same time, it seems that the AFD process is still far from what it should be. Anyways, just like a said, just for the record, and surely, I understand it is a community process, open to flaws like this. Pbigio (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@

Join WP Japan

! 04:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Joe is correct of course. Since I acted as an admin before, I am recusing myself from this topic anyway. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking for Mentor

Dear SoWhy,

I'm a second-year accounting student interested in becoming more involved with Wikipedia. I saw that you're accepting protégé. I'm looking to become a better writer and editor and would appreciate guidance on where to start.

Sincerely, Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Moos (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(not SoWhy but a talk page stalker) I suggest to go to the WP:community portal and start checking references on the pages they suggested. Then ask then what the procedure is to tell them you've checked a reference (hint: there isn't one) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

WP:WELCOME (that link is btw one of the maaaany shortcuts you will encounter as an active editor). I also left you a template

with further links on your talk page.

Wikipedia has many different ways for users to contribute, depending on their skills and interests, such as writing or expanding articles, helping to defend existing articles against

vandalism or working behind the scenes. Judging from your contributions, I see you already started making some edits to existing articles, fixing language and grammar. Keep that up. When you feel ready to create your own article, I suggest using the article wizard

, a helpful process that assists you with your first article.

Whenever you have any questions, feel free to come here and ask me. I'll also be happy to review your first article if you like.

PS: Remember to sign your messages on talk pages such as this one with ~~~~ which creates a

signature

with your name and date.

Regards SoWhy 08:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

Thank you for taking the time to help me become an effective contributor. The template has been fantastic for increasing my comprehension of Wikipedia culture and systems. In order to get the most from Wikipedia, I'm hoping to fill roles that involve learning new material (e.g. reading articles to make revisions), and in the future, perhaps I'll find other ways to do that.

I would be grateful if you could review my first article. My hope is to produce something that is relevant to the community, and, doesn't end up a sad orphan. =c

We'll be in touch,

Mitchell Moos (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

First question, what is the general rule of linking "Example Link" content? In some articles, each instance of an important concept is linked. In others, only the first one is. Thoughts?

Mitchell Moos (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@

MOS:DUPLINK section for details). Regards SoWhy

06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you convert my A7 speedy to a prod (the A11 was not mine)? And not even a sticky prod? Regardless of what the title is, this is a completely unsourced bio which makes makes no credible claim of notability. You might want to look at the editor's talk page. First he claimed to be a 92-year-old dead person writing his or her own obituary, and now a young university student. So, now this is likely going to waste time going to AFD (unless the user doesn't bother to remove your prod). Very strange. Meters (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

WP:NOTWEBHOST biolation but outside A7's scope. But reading it again I agree that it fits A7. I rectified the decision and deleted the article. Thanks for the message. Regards SoWhy

07:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for looking again. I thought maybe I had missed something, but I couldn't see it. Meters (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash and WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. They both seem clear deletes and they have been open for more than 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31 (2nd nomination)? Unfortunately the discussion about whether to redirect has still not taken place completely, so I'm willing to wait another day (relist is from last Wednesday). I closed the other one. I usually go though AfDs listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs and that list is generated from overdue ones the day after the relist-date + 7 days. Regards SoWhy 10:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy, Please i need your help

1. Theoretically speaking, how may one handle a WP editor who is very advanced and conversant with every policy and guideline but somehow has began to act in very bad faith, he/she all of a sudden is a vandal/Disruptive editor who rather than follow polices established chooses to act in their own way using

2. How may i handle an experienxed editor who is acting out of

@

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for more information. Regards SoWhy

13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI. Take care, —

Always happy to help but there a specific reason why you told me about this page? Regards SoWhy 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, curiously, I thought you were currently online. But, looking at the times, you hadn't editied since 12ish. I think maybe I hadn't refreshed the page; sorry sbout that. —

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

10:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Btw, there is a userscript for that I like to use called "Status Check" (see User:Ale jrb/Scripts). It displays a small box based on last edit/log action. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll give that a whirl, cheers. I need to go to VPT about scripts, funnily enough, thanks for the reminder. Des it just go on the .js page? —

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, either common.js or <skin>.js works since it does not require a certain skin. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Sowhy: i need advice on an issue, having failed to obtain this information from most policies or guidelines i thought it wise to ask from an editor, Here is my question; At what point do i start to issue out a level 1 warning to an editor who behaves as a vandal/disruptive editor & at what point also do i begin to issue out a level 2 & so on. I dont usually issue out warnings because i am not satisfied with the knowledge i have on that aspect. Please enlighten me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007:

You can find extensive guidelines to user warnings at

is often considered rude

.

PS: No need to use {{

ping

}} when posting to someone's talk page, changes to the talk page automatically send out a ping.

Regards SoWhy 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, i really appreciate this.Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Administrator review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Administrator SoWhy:

I has come to my attention that an Article written about me is being questioned for its accuracy or sources. I write you because, I see that the article has been on your administrative "radar".

Sometime last year an interested writer contacted and interviewed me. We had more than one discussion. The original focus for this discussion was my involvement in digital audio technologies. But as the conversation deepened I recall that the reason why I had organized my AMP technology team in Croatia was because my co-founders were there. Further I told him that I was very comfortable operating in Eastern Europe because I had considerable familiarity with Russia, having resided there in the early 1990's.

This led to his inquiry as to my work activities there. He found my recounting of this "likely hard for the public to believe" and he asked for proof of my unusual relationships. I decided to avail the writer of links to some of my personal photographic and document archives (with permission to publish). The writer thought these archives were necessary to "prove" that I had relations with prior members of the Russian intelligence community and high officials such as Soviet Premier Ryzhkov.

The rather extensive results of his interest are evident in Wikipedia's article. As I now understand it, such "primary sources" are discouraged, but, under extenuating circumstances, are permissible under Wikipedia rules ^[1]. But, I am the only one in possession of these items and I have them archived in my private cloud which is neither indexed or overtly "published". Otherwise, the author sourced many links, (still visible even from the early 90's) related to my business dealings with KGB.

Perhaps these should be provided to the Wikimedia "Commons"??

Whether or not I am "Notable" is a matter for others to decide.

.....................................................................................................

What is immediately concerning me an unattributed entry made on 209.160.120.146 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC). This suggested suggesting submitting "FOIA Requests" from American intelligence agencies concerning my activities in another life.

I am writing you to ask if Wikipedia could possibly remove that particular "suggestion".

Here are my reasons:

1. These requests take months to process and would not be able to impact the outcome of the discussion in any case.

2. There are unwritten, internal limits placed such on FOIA requests. An increased number of requests could place additional scrutiny on me by U.S. intelligence (and ... I have already had plenty of that.)

3. Such an "influx" of random requests may also interefere with future needs I will have in a book I am very slowly writing/compiling - referenced near the end of the article.

4. I could be harmed by information any information released. U.S. intelligence may release materials which compromise my privacy by failing to carefully redact materials related to my business and personal life. There are precedents for this. Government employees are "only human".

5. Nobody will get anything from the U.S. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) anyway. They recently clamped down on all such requests for active subjects of interest. See ^[2] I therefore would like to "officially" request the deletion and "expunging" of that single "Keep" vote. This is "support" that I honestly don't need and it won't be helpful in determining the merits of the article. It will only serve to provide ideas that could prove invasive to privacy.

Would you kindly look into this matter internally and see if an "Administrator Override" might be accorded to me on this single comment? Obviously, I would also ask that this very request also be deleted (or redacted as you see appropriate) concerning the specific request, since this correspondence would only serve to reiterate my fundamental concerns on the same public forum.

May I also suggest that perhaps another week of commentary may be appropriate. This, because there seems to be a rather limited number of responses. I think you'd agree that more commentary, more "data" would likely result in a richer pot of information to facilitate the formation of the eventual consensus.

Thank you for your time and any assistance you or your colleagues at Wikipedia may be able to provide.

Kind regards,

Brian D. Litman litman_bd (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there litman_bd. I removed the comment following a discussion with fellow editors at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FBrian D. Litman and Brian D. Litman. As for the other part of your message, I'm sorry, but primary sources are only permissible to augment secondary sources, not to base entire sections of an article on them without secondary sources (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources for further details). And they are only sources when accessible by others. So you can upload them to Commons: but without any secondary sources at all adding the content will probably be met with opposition. Regards SoWhy 17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you relisted this. The conversation has been stale for five days and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that he does not meet the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Numerically, yes, but I don't see it. However, while the last three !votes are pretty weak, one claims it's a case of

WP:TOOSOON, which is something not previously discussed. Hence I thought it wise to relist it again to see whether someone will engage in that discussion. Regards SoWhy

18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The page creator already had the chance to address to two of the new !votes after they were cast, and the last !vote saw the response and disagreed. There isn't really much left to respond to that hasn't been addressed already by the page creator. If you think the article should be kept, that is fine, but to me this looks like the relist equivalent of a super-vote, which despite our disagreements on some things is not something that I would have expected. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like priests, Catholic or otherwise, so you can trust me if I tell you that super-!voting the discussion to "keep" was the last thing I thought of when doing that relist. As I said above, I merely thought further discussion might be useful to generate a clearer consensus. Nothing more and nothing less. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I still disagree, but I can respect a different opinion. Apologies if my raising the spectre of super-voting offended, I do respect you quite a lot, but I couldn't see the rationale so I thought I should address it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I can understand when a participant of a discussion wonders why it's not yet closed but I think erring on the side of caution is usually a good approach to deletion (AFD or otherwise). Regards SoWhy 18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrator User:SoWhy:

The opening box says: "All input is welcome".

Yet

I imagined no other alternative venue than my own Talk page [2].

Was I wrong to post a such a defense? I saw no limitation and ... one risks being cast into the dustbin of digital history!

I perceive some kind of ... well... hostility in all of this. And, I would be most keen to get your view of my defense at my Talk page. I intend to offend no one nor breach protocols not defined on the pages in question.

Thank you for your patience, sir.

Best regards, -- Brian ------------------------------------------------------------ litman_bd (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@

their talk page to raise the concern and discuss the matter. I'm sure they are willing to explain themselves to you. Regards SoWhy

06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey curious how Zdenčina is a notable team? The article that the talk page links to is on Hungarian Wiki and was created very recently by presumably the same user. It's also a seemingly non-notable youth team. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page there was a claim he played for

FK Spartak Vrable and NK Lučko which is why I declined it. Regards SoWhy

16:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @DanielleDriveWorks: You can have thousands of references and still not have nobility, as far as conflict of interest, please see What is conflict of interest?. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FlightTime:, Thanks for your reply, I've read the COI page and I noticed it says to propose edits so they can be peer reviewed before being actioned, but I guess I can't do this now as the page has been deleted? Just looking for the best way to get the original page undeleted / suggest edits and add references. New to this so thanks for your help :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, I restored the page to

submit}} template on the draft to get other people to review it. Regards SoWhy

14:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SoWhy:, thank you for restoring it to the draft space :) I will edit the page tomorrow and I will make sure I declare the COI, properly reference the article and then add the template for it to be reviewed. Thanks again for your help & guidance. Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SoWhy:, I'm now ready to submit the DriveWorks page for review, but I can't figure out which template to use from the Submit template page. Could you please give me a bit of guidance on how to submit for review? Thank you :) DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry @Sowhy: I have figured it out :) DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DanielleDriveWorks, I took a look at the draft. I wouldn't submit it for review yet. There are some good sources used, but it will be declined as an advertisement. As I read it, the article says "here is this product, here are the great things it does, and here are the awards it has won." This is a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. What is the cultural relevance? How has it impacted the industry? Articles about commercial products are difficult to write about in an encyclopedic manner, and particularly difficult when you have a COI. I hope that is helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, you declined an A7 speedy on

@

Fram: I did probably miss that, however, couldn't that part have been removed without having to delete the whole article? Regards SoWhy

14:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We then would have had to delete all revisions until then, and we would still end up with an unsourced BLP of dubious notability (even if declining A7 may have been right). Much better to simply delete it.

Fram (talk

) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily agreeing with your last sentence there but I won't fight about it, since the BLPPROD would have had the same outcome most likely, seeing as I could find no sources. Thanks for spotting the BLP violation I missed though. Regards SoWhy 14:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

re correcting Joseph F. McCormick page:

Hi SoWhy... Since I now understand that this page may not be removed, I am seeking to resolve the issues that have caused the warning banners to be placed on it recently.

1. The first banner says: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (June 2017) If I do not meet the notability requirements can you remove the page? If I do, can you remove this banner?

2. The second banner says: This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (June 2017) Yes I have a conflict of interest but there seems to be no other way but for me to make edits to help ensure clarity. How can this issue be resolved?

The section in question -- that caused the banners to be attached a week or so ago -- seems to be the paragraph headed Transpartisan Research. Ideally this is the language I would like use:

"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]

These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.

In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level."

3. The third banner says: Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2017). Since the conferences convened between 2004 and 2007 were off the record due to the sensitivity of prominent participants concerns about being publicly acknowledged for spending extensive time privately getting to know people they or their organizations were in conflict with, there are now a decade later only a couple reference links available. I believe these are the only questionable citations as according to your reliable sources policy:

Citation [9] "Rogue Valley WC experiment ::". wisedemocracy.org. Retrieved 2017-05-17. There were no media reports of this documentary trip in May/June 2003 which only included myself and a small video crew. The only archive of it is the 20 minute mini-doc hosted on the Center for Wise Democracy website. Citation [12] advmediasolutions (2006-12-31), Reuniting America-Short Edit, retrieved 2017-05-24. This is the ONLY archive as a 5 min. video of one of the most successful off the record events that brought Al Gore into relationship with many of his leading conservative critics, co-facilitated by Harvard Profeoor and Getting to Yes co-author Bill Ury.

Thank you for your help resolving these issues.

Joseph McCormick

@Josephfmccormick:

1. Maintenance templates can be added by any user and do not necessarily reflect consensus. Administrators are not allowed to remove potentially notable subject's articles without prior discussion. I'm
   AFD
   in case notability really has changed.
2. Unsure what you wish to be changed here. Pinging JJMC89 who has just edited the article and made some changes, maybe they can help you as well.

Regards SoWhy 17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The maintenance templates were added by 99 (2601:188:180:11f0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63). I restored them since McCormick removed them without explanation (obvious COI). My other edits were to removed unsourced information from a BLP and remove inline external links, which are not permitted. McCormick should not be editing his own article; he should be requesting edits on the talk page using {{request edit}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I would like to second the nomination this page written about me be deleted. If this is not possible, I request the Section entitled Transpartisan Research be edited to read:

"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]

These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.

In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, SoWhy. I got your ping (sorry for the delay - very busy here). I created the article about Mr. McCormick, and I've no doubt the subject more than meets all of the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article. (The unsuccessful runs for political office aren't the only, or even the most notable, qualifications for Wikipedia-compliant notability. His work and activism in the area of "transpartisan politics" is even more substantial.) The present minimal state of the article and references should convey that an appropriate level of coverage in reliable sources exists to warrant an article. That being said, I am personally rather sympathetic to pleas from

living people

to not having biographies published about them when their notability is on the lower-end of the encyclopedic scale, so I will not stand in the way of efforts to have the biography removed. I think, however, it would be an unfortunate loss of some interesting information and history in the field of transpartisan politics.

I'm going to leave a comment at the article Talk page, which is where I think the rest of this discussion should progress. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There was noone in favor of a redirect for this AFD and I can point to a long list of aviation crash AFDs that had similar consensus and were deleted. Please reconsider your ruling. I will go to DRV but why should time be wasted there. You imposed your own view that had no support in the AFD and there is no precedent for....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:SMERGE #5). When the merge occurred before the debate is closed, only redirecting is still to do, which is which I closed the AFD this way. I have, however, clarified the result to clarify that merging was the outcome. Regards SoWhy

14:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. In your edit summary, you said that "Subject might be important/significant", so I looked for some evidence of this and could not find anything. As far as I could see, there was not even any claim of notability. From my point of view, I wasn't "reverting" you (you might ask :Adam9007 why he removed your proposed deletion notice, describing it as "invalid"). I guess you're aware of the creator's activities and that there's a honking great big COI here? Deb (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: You should know better than expecting claims of notability, which A7 does not require. In general, it is clear consensus that A7 speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial cases. If, like here, multiple editors disagreed with the tagging, speedy deletion is no longer valid, even if the article meets the criterion in question. And last I checked, having a COI is not a reason for speedy deletion, is it? I know that some editors feel like it should be but as long as it isn't, admins should follow the policy as it stands.

Also, I'm sorry to say that I noticed a pattern of sloppy speedy deletion work in your logs, from A7 deleting

still expected to lead by example) . Regards SoWhy

09:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I should have said "credible claim of significance" rather than "notability". I still see no such claim here. I also must have missed the "multiple editors disagreeing with the tagging"; where was that? That said, I've apologised to you and I think that's adequate. If you noticed "So Good" [sic], you also noticed the conversations I've already had about it with others; speedy rules do change over the years and I've been doing this a long, long time, maybe too long. We didn't even have infoboxes when I started doing deletions. You'll also have noticed that I have declined speedy requests myself, very recently, and that I've also spent a lot of time "repairing" poorly-written articles. You are always free to restore articles that you think I've incorrectly deleted, and to tell me why, preferably in a friendly way as many others do. Deb (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: Rules do change, that's true, although I don't think there was ever a time that video games were covered under A7. But that's okay, I don't expect infallibility from others and I don't hope they expect it from me. I sincerely apologize if you perceived my message as anything but a friendly question or comment. While not an excuse, as a non-native speaker I cannot rule out that my messages might sound less friendly than intended to native speakers, so I apologize if this has been the case. Feel free to call me out anytime you believe I have been even slightly unfriendly. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm sorry that I did not realise you were not a native speaker - which of course is a compliment! :-) Deb (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As I appear to have been mentioned, I had to decline BLPPROD because there was already a source present in the article. BLPPROD is only for completely unsourced BLPs (yes, even an IMDb link, or a link to their personal website or Facebook, Twitter etc renders it BLPPROD-ineligible, and yes, BLPPROD does require the addition of a reliable source, when properly placed), but it's a very common mistake even amongst admins. I even wrote an essay (yes, it was somewhat inspired by your (SoWhy's) A7 essay ) about it as I was getting a lot of you-know-what over it. I also notice you said I don't think there was ever a time that video games were covered under A7. What about Full Moon (video game)? It's in your decline log but it was deleted A7 anyway. As for significance vs notability, I've encountered people who (seemingly) neither know or care that they are not the same thing. Adam9007 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You were correct to do so, I had missed the imdb source. As for Full Moon, that was another close call. Luk deleting it as web content under A7 was not wrong within the letter of the policy since it was apparently a browser game, not a normal video game (and thus technically web content). Regards SoWhy 11:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, good day. I want to find out what is wrong with this article? Please let me know. 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:6bc3:3700:946e:b10:7546:bde3 (talk • contribs)

As

independent reliable sources covering them in detail, you are invited to create a draft for a new article with those sources. Regards SoWhy

09:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

1) He is currently attach in Finance Ministry. This is a valid online source from Malaysian's government portal. http://www.treasury.gov.my/index.php/en/contact-us/staff-directory.html/ 2) He is a living person and also MCA Perak State Youth Chairman. You can see his name from MALAYSIAN Chinese Association Portal. http://mcaperak.org.my/关于霹雳州马华-about-perak-mca/组织结构-2/马青霹雳州团-youth-committee/#nogo 3) You can locate his Community Service office in Sitiawan through this address. I understand he lost his election in 2013. It does not means the end of a political career. Google search with his Chinese native name 陳大富 or English name Ting Tai Fook will return some results. 4) He was a Candidate for MCA for Perak Sitiawan State N50. Full Election Result through this main stream ENGLISH paper. http://elections.thestar.com.my/results/results_state.aspx?state=perak [[2001:E68:6BC1:7600:E4B1:86A6:F436:5C67 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)]]

Hi there again. Official websites are potentially reliable but what we need are secondary sources, i. e. sources that talk about the subject in detail. Newspaper articles and books are secondary sources, however,

consensus at the deletion discussion was that the sources already in the article were not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Regards SoWhy

11:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy

Thank you for moving this article to draft status. I have edited it with citations for reference. If it mets with your approval can it be moved to the main space? I don't believe I have that facility as a new editor. As he seems to have notoriety in regard to composing music, I wonder if a title change would be appropriate, e.g. John O'Hara (musician/composer). I appreciated your assistance. --LucyLou2002 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@

submit}} template on the draft to alert experienced editors from the articles for creation project to review your article. You could also ask some editor from the related WikiProjects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/Members and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians#Participants) to assess the article for you. If one of my talk page stalkers could help, that would be great too *hint* *hint* Regards SoWhy

17:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

When a person's article is deleted, please remove their entry from a name list, not just the link. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: You are, of course, correct. Sorry if I forgot when handling three dozen AFDs. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So[that's]Why. You are absolved. Go forth and sin no more. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You removed a csd from tis article, helpfully reminding me that fro a speedy to be appropriate there should be no article on the band and no claim of notability. So, why did yoy remove a speedy from an article about a recording where the band have no article and there is no claim of notability? TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@

significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Here we have a release through Krod Records, a potentially notable label as well as three potentially reliable sources covering the album (Kerrang! is certainly one). As usual, this does not mean that notability exists, just that more discussion is warranted. Regards SoWhy

11:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Krod Records a major label? do you know what major means????TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Yes, I do. Please show me were I claimed they were a "major" label. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In the edit summary removing a sppedy from the above mentioned recording.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please re-read the summary given. I wrote "notable", not "major". As I mentioned above, A7 and A9 have a lower standard of inclusion than notability. Being released by a notable label is usually sufficient indication that the musical recording might be worthy of inclusion, which is all that is needed. You might also be interested in my conversation with the tagger of this article. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your closing rationale here. May I ask you to reconsider relisting? Your main reason for a no consensus close seems to be that you think that AfD is an inappropriate place for a conversation on PAID, and that NOTSPAM does not exclude things that do not have promotional language. While I can see that point of view, NOT is explicitly stated as being part of N just as much as GNG is and people were engaging in a conversation as to whether simply intending to promote violates it with someone raising the point of similar paid articles in newspapers. No one who had not already participated in the discussion had engaged that point, and it was in my opinion one of the stronger arguments for that position (to the point I wish I had made it myself.) I think adding more discussion on that is worthwhile, as could be more discussion as to if it meets the GNG. Thanks for considering. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I understand your argument but I still don't think relisting would have been helpful. The discussion had already drifted towards one about PAID violations in general and as long as this question is not resolved, there is a strong risk that many !voters will allow this question to influence their !vote (not necessarily consciously!). Hence any further discussion would have been "tainted" by these questions. I thought about what to do with this AFD for a while but in the end I could not see any potential outcome even after one or more relists. A "keep" result would have disillusioned those who believed their !votes were drowned out by off-topic discussion about PAID in general and a "delete" result would probably have lead to accusations that off-topic reasons were used to justify deleting an article about a notable person. But if another outcome is unlikely, there is no point in prolonging a discussion that will keep on being off-topic. By closing the discussion now and urging those in favor of changing PAID to open an RFC instead, the relevant questions can be addressed without unnecessary delay, which serves the project's interests much better I think. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I certainly understand your predicament, it was not an enviable one. I think we probably have different views re: an RfC as I view PAID vs PROMO as distinct but connected topics and think AfD is much better to judge the latter on a case-by-case basis rather than the inevitable no consensus RfC on a local PAID policy. I'm not sure if I plan to seek a relist at DRV yet, I plan on thinking about it for a while, but will let you know if I do. Always a pleasure to interact, even when we disagree :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe you can start the RfC anyway? Maybe it will end "no consensus, judge individually at AFD" and we would again be wiser than we are now. Plus, waiting a few weeks until the RFC is over won't really be problematic in the grand scheme of things. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a valid deletion rationale. It has been used before and will be again. 😜 Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. However, it includes sections on content as well as sections on style and while

WP:NOTPROMO does not say "delete stuff created by COI editors regardless of its quality" Regards SoWhy

18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, but it does say Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so and

WP:NOT as an equal to GNG. The arguments between the tension to cover something that might be GNG and to exclude something that is excluded under NOT is something that inherently needs to be decided on an individual basis, which makes AfD a better forum for it than an RfC. We obviously differ on this, but I do still think letting the AfD run another week could have brought about a consensus either for keeping or deleting, and I'm not quite sure its worth the hassle of a DRV since I don't disagree that there was no consensus at this time, just that closing it rather than relisting was the best way to handle it. Likely what we're looking at is just another AfD in a few months. TonyBallioni (talk

) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.82.76 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know why you deleted my article of Julian Feifel so fast. It was still in discussion and there where also other user that wanted to keep the article. Several users where already adding and improving the article, so it was in a working process. Is there a way to bring that article back? Let me know what you think is to improved, thanks.Martinfissler (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

notable enough for inclusion. You are welcome to demonstrate that sufficient coverage exists (i.e. newspaper or book sources covering him in-depth and detailed). Regards SoWhy

17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I'm not sure what you mean with "no real discussion". I think these deletion discussions are especially for a smaller group of wikipedia people and I’m not sure how much of interest is an article that is in discussion for deletion for people that are not involved in the writing of that article. However there are user talking about it. There have been also several edits of the article to improve it, frequently. But all that is not telling too much about the relevance for wikipedia of an article about a person, I think. And I think there are a lot of articles on wikipedia from similar music producers/writers with much less success than Julian Feifel.

It was a lot of work to collect all the infos for that article and I didn’t thought that it would be deleted that fast so I couldn't even save these edits. Is there a way to restore it and give it another chance also for other user to improve it? As I wrote before I think Julian Feifel is a notable music producer/writer and musician and it would be very interesting for many people in the music business or people that are interested in music generally to read something on wikipedia about creative people behind the stars like Julian Feifel. I’m not sure if you were reading my previews comments on the deletion page:

Please have also a look at Sofia Reyes Interview mentioning Julian Feifel as an amazing producer. Sofias song "Conmigo", a co-write with Julian Feifel, reached over 16 million views on youtube until now, and went #31 on the billboard Latin Pop charts. Or please look at the german official database for gold and platinum awards it verifies the 7x gold awards for the album "Elle'ments" where Julian Feifel wrote the song "Faith can move a mountain". Regards Martinfissler (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

arguments btw.

I'm happy to restore the article as a draft for you to work on but you need to understand that better sources need to be added. A short mention in one interview does not constitute

significant coverage and neither does a credit in a generic list of such credits. Ask yourself this: If he is such a great producer, where are the newspaper articles covering his work? Where are the books written about his accomplishments? Find those and the article will likely be kept next time around. Regards SoWhy

07:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for your quick answer. Still my question, why are there many other articles about producers with probably less success than Julian Feifel even with no, or few, book/newspaper appearance and sources like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achim_K%C3%B6hler, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henno_Althoff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_Chagall. These articles are just a few random examples and they were not deleted. Here is the thing, in the entertainment business the people/press are always talking and writing about the stars in the spotlight. I think it would be interesting to read more about the creative people in the background. What you think? Martinfissler (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

(

old fashioned!

13:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

<-And here's what you get from OTHERSTUFF arguments:

@

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before. Martinfissler (talk

) 22:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@

replyto}} on the talk page of the person you are replying to, they already get a notification. Regards SoWhy

06:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding
  WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1
  .

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to
  two-factor authentication
  . Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hi there. Saw your note on the AN. Honestly, I’ve thought about the idea of doing RFA, on and off, for some time, but the main problem I see (apart from the incident from 2008, which I’d be obliged to disclose) is I have been periodically inactive, and most of my work (content writing, dispute resolution reform and so on) is from some time ago. And this NAC blew up in my face. I’m not sure what RFA standards are like nowadays, but I would appreciated it, if you have some time, to maybe provide an assessment in your opinion on where I’m lacking? I’ve always preferred working behind the scenes - I can write content but it’s not necessarily where I excel. And with the last RFA being so painful I am reluctant to go through it again.

@

WP:DRN

still does and it always needs people willing to volunteer.

I wouldn't worry about the 2008 incident though, by the time you will likely run it will have been 9-10 years ago - a lifetime in WP years. And the NAC you mention was a mistake, of course, but as you can see, most people didn't actually fault the close but rather the fact that you did it. Add to that the fact that you requested input and most people will probably chalk it up to you being a bit too bold - unless you keep doing such closes.

So feel free to come back in a few months and I'll be happy to give you some updated feedback. And of course all RfA-experienced talk page stalkers are welcome to chime in. Regards SoWhy 20:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate your feedback and will take it on board. I think I will go back to DRN, it's my baby that I've neglected for too long, I think. Thanks again.

Steven Crossin

01:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just come off the back of a successful RfA in which SoWhy was one of the other co-nominators, so I'll say my piece. In my view, the bar for adminship is about right, thought it does vary from one nomination to another depending on who turns up. WP:Advice for RfA candidates and User:Kudpung/RfA criteria are basic standards to adhere to, and if you can cover that lot, you stand a good chance of passing. In particularly, I look for good communication, some content work, accuracy in our deletion procedures and no major recent appearances at ANI.

The biggest question is - what do you need the tools for? The more obvious it is that there's a significance niche in the project that you can fill, the more likely you are to gather support. Unfortunately, the baggage you have is going to be a problem for some people (at the start of an RfA it's standard procedure to list any and all accounts you've ever edited under, so your earlier RfA will get spotted) which is unfair, and the only way to counteract is to accentuate the positives so you get sufficient support to cancel any shenanigans out. Sometimes people just oppose over controversial stuff that happened years ago, especially sharing accounts, and I've seen a few RfAs tank because of it. (On an unrelated note, my kids aren't interested in Wikipedia, but that may not last forever, and the last thing I want is to be desysopped and blocked because of a "sockpuppet" being disruptive as only a 14-year old on the internet who shares my IP address would be) Thankfully this sort of thing isn't very common anymore. I agree than in the meantime, DR sounds like a good alternative venue, and your work will be appreciated. You might also want to check out the

Teahouse, if politely fielding new user questions is your thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:STUBIFY already offers a solution that is based on a editing guideline. Regards SoWhy

10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I hope you will be able to help with this request please. The article on partnership brokering was taken down a few days ago, and I would like to a) enquire about the grounds for deletion b) find out what needs to improve for the next iteration and c) get a copy of the article + article talk page + discussion + discussion talk page, that was live before it got deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you. PBA18 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there

speedy deletion of the draft. Regards SoWhy

18:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, Thanks for your response and the suggestion to re-instate the content to a draft space. Once restored, we will work to improve notability by sourcing and adding further references. PBA18 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done You can find it at Draft:Partnership brokering. Btw, please do remember that accounts are not allowed to be shared. Regards SoWhy 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind sharing the reasoning behind the merge close? I counted four Delete votes, vs one Keep or Merge, and another Merge. The article did not cite any independent sources, so it's unclear to me what content was suitable for merging: Godsbane. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding that primary or non-independent sources can be used as citations in otherwise notable articles, but they don't count for notability. Thus, lack of independent RS coverage is a reason to merge an article with a merge target, but not a reason to delete something that can go elsewhere. Likewise, only one vote, mine, cited the most applicable policy,

WP:FANCRUFT, it also opined that a merge was reasonable, and so you have policy on the side of merge, and not one single !vote correctly articulated how a merge would be against policy. Jclemens (talk

) 03:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As you know, AFD closing is not !vote counting. If it were, we wouldn't need admins to do it, a bot could do it. Let's look at those delete !votes, shall we? We have one

WP:PRESERVE (both policies) tell us to merge content if possible. Regards SoWhy

07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- re your close of the AfD on this one -- I'm puzzled by no-consensus, given that there were two delete contributions after resisting. Would you perhaps reconsider on that basis? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RELIST clearly says that "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Regards SoWhy

07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

I am here on behalf of the author whose page you just deleted. I can assure you that the author in question is legitimate, and that the information on the page is accurate. Would you kindly undo this deed so that people can learn something about the early days of West Coast hip hop from the author's perspective? Thank you.

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG

for more information), I'd be happy to restore the page.

Btw, there is no place for "from the author's perspective" in Wikipedia. If an article exists,

no one owns it. Regards SoWhy

11:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and giving your comments. I will definitely take them under advisement. I clearly need to be less sloppy with my CSD tagging. Thanks again. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask for feedback any time. Regards SoWhy 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you by any chance re-weigh the consensus at this AfD and the level of attention given to the sources pre-offered? SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Sorry for that. With all the AFDs I handled in the last weeks, might have mistakenly closed this as no consensus when I wanted to relist. I restored the AFD and relisted it to generate more discussion. I don't think there was consensus when I judged it but closing it was a mistake when relisting was a viable option. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street you declared the result as a Keep. It was relisted by Winged Blades of Godric on 14 July but then closed by you. There was a discussion continuing about whether it should be kept or merged and it would have been useful to decide an outcome here itself. In you closing result, you suggested that merging can be discussed on the talk. But I have tried posting message to many articles earlier and no one responds to these messages on the talk page. How do I proceed now?--DreamLinker (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD, but in any case something will happen. Regards SoWhy

15:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for answering my query. One editor objected to the merging in the AfD, so I would have liked to have a bit more discussion and opinions. If I start a talk page discussion, how do I get more editors to provide their opinions? In AfD there is a nice list of discussions according to subjects. Is there any such forum or list for merge discussions?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is,

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (which is why AFD is the wrong venue); but the steps I pointed out above (WP:Merging#Proposing a merger) should be followed first. Regards SoWhy

15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to follow the instructions and see how it goes.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• you closed this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) : No Consensus? How, You did not see any of the discussion or ignored it and counted only equal votes?
• you kept it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartPLS : The result was keep. After sources were provided, consensus changed in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. The Delete vote is clearly significant with their points.

• • Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

• • Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks! Light2021 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Light2021, please clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing why I decided how I did or did you already decide that I made mistakes and no amount of explaining will suffice? The wording of your comment indicates the latter (including calling me, who has deleted more than 10,000 pages, an "biased" "Keep admin") but then, I might be wrong, so if you actually want to hear my reasoning, please ask for it, preferably without prejudging my motives. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if my words went wrong, I have no intention to question you or your status or work here. I just would like to know from you and how you make decisions. I have not made my mind on anything or on you. Apologies if it went wrong. Light2021 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't want to spend time explaining my decisions to someone who already made up their mind, which is why I asked. As for the AFDs you mentioned: I handled approx. 200 such discussions within the last week, so I won't rule out that I made a mistake or two but I don't think I did here:

• WP:GNG
  was met. There was one more delete !vote but their claims that the sources (which ones?) were all primary sources in disguise was challenged by Northamerica1000 without further response. There was one relist but no further discussion emerged. I did not see the date of the second relist correctly (which explains the rationale (I now fixed)) when closing though, that I admit. Still, I would have closed it the same way regardless. Neither side made a convincing enough argument, so "no consensus" it was. I don't think any admin would have closed this discussion as delete but I can imagine a keep-close quite well (considering the fact that two out of three delete !votes were based on fixable problems that were actually fixed).
• WP:AEIS
  ) you did not comment further on this.

In general: Whatever I personally think about those articles is irrelevant; in fact, if I had an opinion,

WP:AGF) when doing so. Regards SoWhy

20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your contributions, including the fact that you overwhelmingly advocate deletion, so I understand if you are sometimes surprised when consensus is different. Finding "any possible way of preserving the article" is what both the

WP:WHATISTOBEDONE

) that deletion is but one potential way to handle them, the others being editing or redirecting.

As for your comments: 1) Sorry for abridging your comment in a confusing manner. However, "promotionalism" is, as I pointed out above, not a deletion rationale if the content can be fixed by editing. Whatever motives a page creator had for creating the page, the current policy does not say "delete anything on sight that was created to promote the subject", it says "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." 2) Your comment shows you looked at the sources but it does not actually say "I don't think notability is established". Whether it's suppliyng or having 200 restaurants is a question of content, not notability and why the sources cover the subject - for supplying or for having restaurants - is not relevant per

WP:ATD

).

That said, I'm always grateful for constructive criticism, so please feel free to come here any time to share. I will try to be more specific in my comments in future. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you, I was going to close the AfD as "no consensus" ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has done so now. So that was a waste of time, no? Regards SoWhy

17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping- I do apologise- Not sure for what though! :p "What've I Done Wrong Now"?? —

velut luna

17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well at least popping two "keep" !votes at the bottom does make your non-admin close rather less likely to be challenged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you delete and redirect the article per that discussion, someone has restored that page without consensus and I had requested speedy deletion per

Never mind, it looks like the user "Anthony Appleyard" did the same thing as you did. Raritydash (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RFPP. Regards SoWhy

14:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy, This is regarding the page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI which was recently deleted by you This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

Deletion message: 09:02, 17 July 2017 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (XFDcloser))

I would like to know the reasons why and also how could I possibly re-create a page on the subject, as it was page I had created in 2014 and was running for the last 3 years, before it was mistakenly deleted by me (using db-author) on/merge the 9th of July, 2017, while trying to edit/merge some information. The page was supported by 111 credible/verifiable references, including national and international news links.

Regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

All you did in 2014 was to recreate a page already deleted by consensus at

WP:NPERSON etc.) and that the sources you kept mentioning are not sufficient to prove otherwise. That's what I closed the discussion as I did. That a page survived for a long time is no reason to keep it. If you can provide actual in-depth coverage about him by reliable sources (i.e. not one of the sources that were in the article), I could maybe be persuaded to restore the article as a draft. Regards SoWhy

10:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy, thanks for the response. Please consider the following two links, one published in a leading newspaper called Kashmir reader (http://kashmirreader.com/kashmir-floods-are-we-asking-the-right-questions-22449), the other an article on him, published in a daily called precious kashmir, which has now been closed down due to political reasons, something not very un-common in Kashmir. The article can however be found at archive.is (http://archive.is/vevUc) Samar khurshid (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The first link contains no article. The second might be suitable but not alone. Regards SoWhy 10:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the archived link, thanks http://archive.li/TPbiR Samar khurshid (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but it appears to be an op-ed written by him, not about him, so it does not count as a reliable source. Regards SoWhy 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it clearly mentions him as a social/environmental activist. Here's another one anyway, it's an interview by a JKNNI correspondent, and the JK news network is one of the most trusted media agencies/syndicates in J&K

https://web.archive.org/web/20170718113356/http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/ Regards Samar khurshid (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out before, interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 11:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This link about Mushtaq Pahalgami was published by the Press Trust of Kashmir today. Hope this helps, thanks

http://presstrustofkashmir.com/creating-awareness-about-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-to-save-the-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You certainly are persistent. I'm not sure this source is reliable so I raised the question at

WP:RSN#Press Trust of Kashmir so more people can give feedback. Regards SoWhy

11:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy, the thing is, that this activist is locally very prominent and has been regularly covered by a large number of local newspapers and online news portals over the last 3 years. There's a huge body of news coverage about him and his organization since the inception of his organization, in 2008, but that was mostly in Urdu language. When I created his Wiki page in 2014, it was deleted for the lack of English language references. They subsequently started calling English-language media people to HWO's events and that's how I was able to re-create the page a month later with a significant number of supporting references. I am however, a university professor, not a professional Wikipedian, without thorough technical knowledge of how things operate here and the page got accidentally deleted by me, while trying to transfer content form this page to another, and not for the lack of references supporting notability, which is something I repeatedly mentioned in the deletion debate too, but sadly, no heed was paid. The point is, it is only a matter of time, before we are able to get more references about the subject, like we have got over the last 3 years, which is why I have been requesting you to restore the page, may be even in draft article space, so we could have a more open discussion about it. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's another link for the article mentioned above. This one appeared in a publication called Kashmir patriot

http://kashmirpatriot.com/2017/07/20/creating-awareness-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-save-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If the same article appears in two sources verbatim, that does actually make it look as if both sources are failing

WP:SPIP. Regards SoWhy

13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The PTK is not a publication, but a news syndicate, which means they share information and news articles with other news agencies and publications, who, in turn are free to carry the same verbatim, without copy right issues. That's how PTK, even the Press trust of India works. The stories however, are verified by the publications that carry them, which is why I requested you to confirm the authenticity of the story with the editorial team of Kashmir Patriot, which shared PTK's story. In any case the Kashmir Patriot is a very well followed/circulated publication and that can be independently verified too. The subject Mushtaq Pahalgami also has a very huge following on social media, I know that doesn't count for notability in Wikipedia, but if you check that, you'll at least get some idea that news about him, is not promotional. His organization has come a long way since 2008, particularly after 2014, running conservation campaigns and organizing environment related events almost every month, which is why the local media (even reputed national portals like Millenium post/Down to Earth) readily carry news about him and his organization, and you are more than welcome to verify that with each one of the more than 25 different publications that have carried news about him since 2014. Regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, here's another one carried by the KNS today, http://www.knskashmir.com/Sewage-treatment-plants-in-Pahalgam-lacking-18426 Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, thank you for closing the Sehgal AfD, it must have been a messy one to wade through.

For what it's worth, I think your overall decision of keep was right, as it seemed like there was basically no consensus and defaulting to the status quo was the correct decision. I just wanted to register, in case it comes up again in the future, that some of the specific rationale seemed off to me. None of the sources linked to were 'new', they were all already there to be seen in the article, they were just linked to in the AfD for rhetorical purposes later as well. I'm one 'delete' vote, at least, that was delete having looked at those sources and judged them not to be sufficient to constitute notability. I note that a few of the other votes also talked about the insufficiency of at least some of the sources, so I guess others were weighing them all too.

Also, you mentioned the 'WP:Offline' issue in your closing, but that was a red-herring. I don't think anybody ever raised the sources not being online as a reason to discount them. I did make the case that there were some sources that failed WP:Publish, in that they're not available either on- or off-line for public consultation.

But anyway, these are just minor quibbles. Thanks again. Landscape repton (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm just posting this because you invited questions in your edit summary, but I didn't know where to given the closure. Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Landscape repton, no, that wasn't the case at all. Before scans/archive links were provided at the AfD, references looked like this. As you can see, all of the reliable sources were either dead links or weren't present online. Just see the article's taggings, which were actually added by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear. I meant that the list of sources were already there, there's nothing new in the AfD that wasn't already on that list, not that they were already linked to online copies of them. I really appreciate your work in locating those scanned clippings and archive copies. Landscape repton (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that sources were "provided" in the sense NitinMlk mentions above. As for

WP:OFFLINE, your comment "we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify" seems to imply just that. But thanks for the feedback, I will try to be more clear in the future. Regards SoWhy

09:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. When I said "we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify I meant exactly that, that nobody could access them, not just that they couldn't be accessed online. It was a summary of my talk-page entry about trying to find publicly accessible offline library archives that might cover the old newspaper sources. Landscape repton (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that you deleted a page called "Get Croissant" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Croissant

I am curious if there is any way I can see the original text of this page?

The Google serach returned the first sentence if that helps... "Get Croissant or (Croissant Coworking) is an American online marketplace software technology coworking company that provides on demand access to shared ... "

Thanks! Axcelis555 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(

article wizard. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)}

20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Axcelis555: Could you explain why you'd like to see the text? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)