User talk:Paulmcdonald/Archives/2023/January

Regarding the deletions of Achamillai Achamillai (TV series) and Irul
Hi, I came across your removal of the links at Index of Singapore-related articles and had followed the links. The rationale you put was that these were created in violation of block or ban. May I know specifically under what reason that they are deleted? The only two possible reasons for block/ban I see from the account's user page and talk page are that it was first blocked as a copyvio violator, then was subsequently identified as a sock master. Were they copyvio that went undetected for years, or because the account that created them is a sock master? – robertsky (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, another admin requested a speedy deletion of articles such as Achamillai Achamillai (TV series) under category WP:G5 and the reason that they gave was that the article was created by a banned or blocked user (user:Arnav19) in violation of ban or block. As you can see, that user account "has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts" -- hence that article and others were deleted.  The links back to the index you reference were removed once the articles themselves were removed.  If you believe the artricles should not have been deleted, please let me know and we can discuss.  My role was simply what we call "mop and bucket" operations (basic cleanup) if you like we can visit with the original requestor for comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Looking at G5's list of criteria, it would qualify if the article was created after the ban/block was imposed or the account that created the article is a sock. Since the account in question does not seem to be a sock account, the only other two rationales are that the article was created after the ban/block was imposed (which is kinda impossible, unless the article was in cold storage in the user space until a sock moved it to the mainspace after the ban happened, and the move to the mainspace is considered as the article creation date. Just positing without access to the deleted page history), or copyvio, which would be under G12, not G5. – robertsky (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Should they be restored?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not know honestly. I didn't have a look at the content prior to the deletion. But assuming the content is fine or there's potential for improvement, then yes. – robertsky (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion reverted
I've undone your deletion of Ron Clinton Smith, which you deleted under criterion WP:G7. The editor who tagged the article is 2 weeks old, while the article was created in 2007. They tried G7 after their multiple requests under WP:A1 and WP:A3 were declined. I've declined a number of this editor's completely invalid G7 tags today and I've been going through their history to clean up their malformed AfDs from the past week or so.

When patrolling CSD, please verify that the requested criterion is valid before deleting a page. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Miss World 2022
Hello, Paul,

You deleted this page because it was a broken redirect (which it was) but that is because the last editor to the page turned it into a redirect which then became broken. The article had over 1500 edits to it so I think it might be worth considering restoring this article and moving to the version of the article right before it was turned into a redirect (which then became broken). Just something I thought you might consider. I often delete broken redirects and sometimes they are not actually broken, they've just been pointed to an incorrect or non-existing target page. Thank you and I hope you are having a good week. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * good advice, I'll take a look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're right but I'm having some trouble getting it done. I'll recruit some help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked for help at Administrators' noticeboard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Chance Odolena Voda
Could you please undelete Chance Odolena Voda? As a general rule years-old redirects should not be speedy deleted per G6, but instead brought to RfD if they are thought to be incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chance Odolena Voda. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the deletions of List of years in Korea prior to 1945
Hi, Paul. This is Waltzingmogumogupeach. I have noticed that you have deleted the article that I created called List of years in Korea prior to 1945 for not having sufficient substantial information.However, I want to inform you that the article in question was needed to do what I was trying to do. Sure, the article was in bad shape cause the article 1945 in Korea, which is currently a draft article has been moved to draft space(tho List of years in South Korea or List of years in North Korea article currently exists, even List of years in the United States exist in a similar format so I don't know why this article seems to be elgible for delteion for not containing substantial information, cause it is a list after all), but it is needed to add things that I want to add on the english wikipedia. So the thing is in the Korean wikipedia, there are lot of series of articles that has "(Year) in Korea"(The korean wikipedia chose this because it is mainly written by south koreans who chose to write the whole korean peninsula as united) format that has a series of events, sort of like in the same fashion as in for example(in the english wikipedia) like the article 1945 in the United States. But the thing is here in the english wikipedia the article after 1945 is seperate, like "19xx in North Korea" or "19xx in South Korea"(and I think we need these articles because if I, say add some korean events on the normal 1945 or 1946 page(which are normally anglo or western centric) I know it would be not considered notable enough to add for a global entry, but it would be notable enough for a korean entry.). The problem seemed more obvious when I found that surprisingly the article "1947 in South Korea" was awkwardly in here(This makes things just very tricky, cause this was even before south or north korea was a country, tho it did have different trajectories from north korea at the time).So to fix this, I added the missing "19xx in south or north Korea" articles for things that happened after liberation of korea(from japan) and treated what happened befre korea was liberated from japan seperately.In that line of thinking this article was created, which means it not only tries to add the 1945 in korea, but articles that includes even "189x in korea" or many other years.Also I am having trouble with the templates here cause years in korea template before 1948 just links to the normal 19xx years, which also kinda makes things tricky. So, I do need your help on how to meet wikipedia standards regarding the arrangement of articles when I were to create this article again according to my plans.Thank you.Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's not ready, try working it up as a draft or in your sandbox first. Wile Wikipedia is far from complete, articles should be at least in pretty good shape when they are in mainspace.  Also, I suggest a totally different title--but that's a minor editing issue, not deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)