User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2012/May

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hmdcjpj/sandbox
Perhaps a little quick for tagging it spam. I deleted it, however, as a blatant copyvio of the college's own site http://hmdc.org/admission, which the user's name reflects. (Interestingly, they appear to have a time machine at the college - it's Copyright 2011-2013.) Whenever I see something worded like that, I drop a bit into Google and see what floats up. Usually something does... 8-) Peridon (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't check the article that deeply this time - often I would do the same as you - but saw it was hasty-able! If it's the same content, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hashmat Medical & Dental College (HM&DC) will need copyvio-deleting too --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Copy and paste - Hopspital, even... Peridon (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

sumehr
Hi, can you explain this close: Articles_for_deletion/SumEHR? There was one vote for merge, which I had suggested as wel, but you closed as 'no consensus'? thanks, --KarlB (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion again (and seeing that you did indeed suggest a merger) I incorrectly closed this, and have now re-closed it as "merge". Thanks for letting me know! Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Best Selling Boybands
Hi, you deleted the page List of best-selling boy bands because 2 people gave their opinion to delete the page but I think it's an unfair decision. Not enough people had contributed and on this female equivalent page List of best-selling girl groups that was nominated for deletion too, more people contributed and the result was keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups. It doesn't even make sense that one page got deleted while the other didn't even though it's very similar in structures. Krystaleen (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I judged that enough people had contributed to be able to see a consensus. The result of the other discussion isn't strictly relevant to this one, but even so - in that discussion several people said that it should be kept - in this discussion you were the only person to recommend keeping the article as opposed to 3 people (including the nominator) who recommended deleting. The argument for deletion was that this constitutes original research, and that the criteria was vague. The main argument for keeping this article was that there was another similar article. That is not generally considered a reason for keeping a specific article. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument for the deletion of the girl group page was exactly the same. So wikipedia isn't consistent in determining which should be kept and which isn't then? If this boyband article is fit for deletion then there's no reason why the girl group page isn't. We should delete both, then. Otherwise there's no consistency. This is the very case this article you linked described as a valid point.Krystaleen (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument for deletion was indeed exactly the same, but the consensus was not. On the boy bands list discussion, the consensus was clearly to delete. The number of participants is irrelevant - and even if I had closed the other discussion (which I would have closed as 'keep' just like the admin who did close it), the discussion there would not have a bearing. Each discussion is independent of the others. Crying "more people discussed the other article" is not a reason for overturning my deletion, as the deletion was based on the consensus for this article. It had already been open for longer than the required 7 days, so there had been enough time for discussion.
 * If you feel that my closure did not reflect the consensus (as opposed to just disagreeing with it!) then you are welcome to go to Deletion Review to ask for the community to discuss it. If you do go by that route, mention this discussion and let me know, as per the instructions on that page. Otherwise, I feel that this discussion is over, as I am not going to change my opinion on this! Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm not asking you to undelete the page or anything. I'm new in this, what I want to know now is where I can ask and bring this issue to other more experienced editors (more experienced than me, not than you) in determining whether both articles should be deleted or not because this is inconsistency. I'm sure you'd agree with me on it being inconsistent as per the page you linked me to "But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same." I just want to know where I can bring this to discussion because deletion review would only review whether the boyband list was fit for deletion when the issue I want to raise is whether both boyband and girlband article were fit for deletion. I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Krystaleen (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration! However, each discussion is judged separately - and in this case, the consensus was clearly different in the two cases! Although on the face of it, there is an inconsistency, in fact both myself and the other admin have followed the procedures correctly, and given the correct results to both AfDs. As the other one was correctly closed as per the consensus, it can't be taken to review. You could discuss this on the girl band list article's talk page, and you could leave it a couple of weeks and if you still feel that the girl's page should be deleted as well, then take it to Articles for deletion - just don't use "the boy's page was deleted" as a reason for deletion!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. Indeed, I know the admins have taken the correct action by following the consensus. It's just that I was following both discussions and both parties raised very good points. If only the ones who raised good points in favor of deleting the article went to the girl group afd discussion page and vice versa, I'm sure the outcome would've been different. Too bad they didn't. Both discussions were unbalanced, IMO. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. Krystaleen (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: E- kart
You're absolutely correct and I apologize for that. I misread the G1 section description, and will appropriately tag for translation. Thanks! Wrathofjames (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton
Judging by the commentary at Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton, in which most editors were unswayed by the references provided by JJB, I would have adjudged the consensus to be delete. Please reconsider your closure.

I have not read the debate, so I may be missing something important. However, I do not believe your closing rationale ("The is no clear consensus, and the discussion is too long to justify relisting. However, this closure is without prejudice against a re-nomination in the future") is an acceptable summary of the discussion. The participants deserve a more detailed dissection of the arguments.

At Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement and Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation), provided detailed closing rationales: breakdowns of whose votes he disqualified, summaries of the relevant arguments, guidelines, and policies, and explanations of how he came to a decision of "no consensus".

Would you consider doing this for Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton? This will aid participants in future AfD discussions.

I found this AfD from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=492102253#Editor_deliberately_confusing_his_responses_at_AfD.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider doing that, but it would have to wait - I have my kids waking up and needing to be dealt with, and then I won't be on Wikipedia for a week or so, as I'm back at work. As such, I do not have the time at the moment to write up a detailed breakdown. If you can wait, that'd be great - if you can't, and disagree with the closure, then I'm afraid you'll have to go to Deletion review.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not mind waiting one week for an extended rationale. I cannot take this AfD to DRV because I have not read the entire debate and cannot know whether it is a correct close before I hear your reasoning. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve. This is a reminder that you haven't added a closing rationale yet. If you don't have time yet to add a closing rationale, no worries. I do not mind waiting. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cunard. Between work, kids and preparing for a wedding, life is busy. My suggestion is this - read through the discussion. See if there was a consensus which I missed. If there is a consensus, take this to AfD. Regards, --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the closer, you should be able to provide an extended rationale when asked. Because of current time constraints, you are unable to do so right now. I am willing to wait one week, two weeks, one month, or three months or longer if necessary until you have time to write an extended rationale. If you do not wish to provide an extended rationale, please undo your closure so another admin can reclose. I've skimmed the AfD, and I think a "delete" is the more accurate assessment of the AfD. Although I find "delete" to be more accurate, there is rarely a consensus at DRV to overturn long, convoluted discussions from "no consensus" to "delete" because participants give deference to admins willing to close lengthy debates. I'd like to hear your reasoning for "no consensus"; perhaps it is an accurate assessment of the consensus and I overlooked something. Cunard (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not having the time to deal with this in the near future, I have undone my closure, and re-listed it in the "old AfD" list. Someone else can close this, and provide an extended rationale. My apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you don't have the time to provide an extended rationale in the near future. I would have been interested in your thoughts about this AfD. Thank you for undoing your closure. I find that few admins are willing to reverse their actions when asked. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I make a mistake, I am willing to change it! In this case, I don't think I made a mistake - it's not quite as clear cut as the current closing admin says - but I only get a few mins here or there, so would not have the time to type up a proper analysis of my thinking. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Robet Muller
Am concerned that you are considering (apparently) deleting an article on the above person. I would have to say that he is one of the top 5 persons in the general "peace" movement in the past 45 years. Now, I realize many people don't consider "peace" a noteworthy topic, but he has had a major impact on all those involved the peace movement who are now in their 50's to 90's. Again, that may not be your category, and not one that you care about. Robert is somebody who I am pleased to have met (up at the UN, in 2005) in an event featuring Mikhail Gorbachev and Ted Turner. Prior to that, we had corresponded (he was very generous with his time in this respect) and I had read 5 of his books on the peace issue. While one need not agree with his particular viewpoint, he was somebody who, in his optimism and caring, appealed to all. He founded the University of Peace, in Costa Rica. He was an Undersecretary General of the UN for many decades. I cannot imagine him being deleted from wikipedia. yours, James T. Ranney (Professor, Widener Law School) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.220.137 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. A discussion is ongoing at Articles for deletion/Robert Muller on whether the article should be deleted or not. Whether someone should have an article on Wikipedia depends on whether they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not. Part of this involves significant coverage of the individual at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. In this case, I did not feel that Muller met our criteria for inclusion, hence the decision to nominate the page for deletion. It has no bearing on whether he is a noble person, or whether "peace" is a noteworthy subject - it merely reflects that he does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. In this case, there was no consensus for deletion, and so the article has not in fact been deleted at this time. Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)