User:2011 luciana salazar

'''::Toddst1, you are mistaken about the order of operation, and it is very unkind to suggest in such a haughty way that he should read up before challenging an admin. That's just not the way we should do things around here. The fact is, the article had a very clear assertion of notability, and the speedy deletion was in error, and the author was right to complain about it. Errors happen, and that's no big deal. But hollering at people who are doing the right thing is not the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, no Jimmmy. I'm sure you know that an article may be deleted under WP:CSD if it does not assert notability. It's not clear to me and apparently BWilkins that the article asserted that. A claim of being the 10th most popular website in a small country claims (local) popularity, not notability. It was a borderline case at best. Perhaps you would be more in touch with this type of thing if you did more of the heavy lifting like Bwilkins, instead of breezing by and sharing your out-of-touch opinions like this. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)'''

Nairaland
You speedily deleted an entry on Wikipedia for Nairaland without bothering to contact me or wait for me to update it with more information.

Nairaland is Nigeria's leading online website and is the third most visited social online site in Nigeria after Facebook and Twitter. Can you explain your justification for deleting Nairaland other than that you have not heard about it.

Did you even attempt to visit any of the reference points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for sticking my nose in here, but the burden of establishing notability of the website is on you, the article creator. It isn't up to Bwilkins to chase down every link in the article or otherwise do research. None of the claims in the now-deleted article assert that the website satisfies WP:NWEB.  I suggest you read up on WP:CSD and WP:YFA before further challenging Bwilkins or any other admin.   I realize that having your article deleted may be frustrating, but I think you're missing a few major tenets of our policies in your opinion.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Toddst1, you are mistaken about the order of operation, and it is very unkind to suggest in such a haughty way that he should read up before challenging an admin. That's just not the way we should do things around here.  The fact is, the article had a very clear assertion of notability, and the speedy deletion was in error, and the author was right to complain about it.  Errors happen, and that's no big deal.  But hollering at people who are doing the right thing is not the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no Jimmmy. I'm sure you know that an article may be deleted under WP:CSD if it does not assert notability.  It's not clear to me and apparently BWilkins that the article  asserted that.  A claim of being the 10th most popular website in a small country claims (local) popularity, not notability.   It was a borderline case at best and that's stretching it.      Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Toddst1, you are misreading or misunderstanding policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no CSD for failure to show notability; A7 is the one that requires that an article show some type of importance, which, the version I checked, certainly had ("one of the most popular websites, measured by X") It may not be notable, but that's a decision that can only be made at AFD. CSD is when there is no indication of importance (not notability) in the part. --M ASEM  (t) 13:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Look mate it is people like you that will destroy Wikipedia. I put valid references up but your trigger finger deleted. Best of luck to Wikipedia, but the emerging market will develop its own solutions and work around and Wikipedia will go the way of Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm not frustrated just disappointed at juvenile and narrow points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of Akinsope's post to WP:N, I looked at the deleted article, and deleting it per CSD was absolutely unwarranted. Ignoring the Alexa source, there's three sources - I'm not sure of their reliability but they're not directly tied with the site and don't appear to be SPS. Ergo, there is indiciation of importance. There may be notability issues that would require a full AFD to review, but CSD is not the place to make notability assessments. Akinsope constructed the article properly for a starting article on WP to avoid CSD, and is completley reasonable to keep. I strongly recommend restoration, otherwise they will need to be a deletion review of this. --M ASEM (t) 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I appreciate the many eyes here, I would have been quite happy to review my decision about CSD in this specific article - especially surrounding WP:N. In this case, I did not agree that there was a clear/valid assertion of notability.  However, in my mind it was quite borderline.  As the basics appeared to me to be a bit spammy, that broke the tie that led me to click delete.  However, based on polite policy-based requests, I obviously would have restored either as a userspace draft, or perhaps back to articlespace.  Using angry phrases like "unwarranted" really is not necessary unless I become a little more belligerent :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was a borderline case, you shouldn't have done anything; the article did explain its importance per A7. CSD is not for deciding if an article meets WP:N; this has been very clear in the past, because that is only an determination that can be done at AFD. The better action would have been to deny the speedy but suggest an AFD if you questioned its notability. We cannot be deleting articles that have some basic promise, even if they are borderline to start, and I strongly recommend you be more cautious in the future with these types of deletions. --M ASEM  (t) 13:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not determine Notability, I determined that notability (based on the ref's provided) was not well-established. You might want to readjust your WP:AGF-compass, your snarkiness is showing :-)  I am always cautious in my application of CSD, and will continue to do so ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources listed on Jimbo's page, I see three non-trivial sources about the site. Its status as the #8 ranked website in Nigeria might also count as an "award" for the second criterion.  I don't see a fair claim of non-notability here, much less enough proof for you to make this decision without taking it to an AFD. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not being snarky, I'm being really concerned here, given how deep I am into notability on WP and how we've finally gotten to a point where it has been accepted, and where cases like this serve to erode that. CSD is not AFD. As an admin dealing with CSD cases, it should be expected that you tread the careful line and throw caution towards inclusion rather than deletion (particularly as it was not a BLP, a marketing dump, or outright copyvio).  Again, I will stress this: notability does not factor into any of the current CSD requirements; the closest thing is A7's "importance" which is a very different determination than notability.  You should not be making any calls at CSD based on the non-notability of a topic. --M ASEM  (t) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Importance was clearly not established. I will continue to deal with CSD with the care I usually do.  As I said, I would have undeleted this one, even if for a userspace draft ... but others jumped in instead. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad you would have undeleted it, and as I said up above, mistakes will happen and that's no big deal. What is a big deal is if people have the mistaken idea (which I don't think you do) that A7 requires any particular "magic words" to make a claim of importance.  The article clearly made some claims that clearly indicated that the author thought that, under Wikipedia's normal approach to things, this would be a suitable article about a suitable topic with sufficient notability.  There was a claim to the site being important in Nigeria, and several cites.  As I have said, and just to repeat myself, I have no really strong view on whether or not the site actually should have an entry in Wikipedia - a quick google when I first looked into it this morning didn't overwhelm me, but that isn't the final word of course.  I'm just really quite certain that speedying was an error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)