User talk:RoySmith/Archive 14

AfD of ItBit closed as Delete
I believe your recent closure of the AfD for ItBit as Delete was premature. A more appropriate action under the circumstances would have been to relist the article. I request that you do so—and undelete it provisionally, without prejudice to the final outcome of the deletion discussion. Your closing statement read:
 * The result was delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Some people felt that the sources presented were rehashed press releases; there's no consensus on that particular, but they clearly failed to convince the other participants that they met our requirements. Salting was suggested, but I don't see any support for that.

But even the last Delete vote, by, stated (emphasis added):
 * Cunard makes a good case by arguing that there are enough sources present to use for this article. However, nine months after the previous AfD, no progress in sourcing is made. To go even further: a week after the start of the second AfD, we still basically have the same poor article as we had in January this year (although one reference was added). So, unless something will change drastically, a deletion of this article is the best option.

That doesn't sound like failure to convince, but rather impatience with lack of change in the actual state of sourcing in the article, which by WP:NEXIST is not relevant to notability:
 * If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Remarks like "Kill this spam with fire" suggest a similar impatience, irrelevant from a policy standpoint, on the part of other Delete voters.

As to realistic prospects for the state of the page to "change drastically": although I did not even learn of the existence of the article on ItBit until a few days ago, it was I who added that "one reference" (a textbook!) that had found. I had also found (and fully cited) several other references—in the AfD. Deletion of the article creates a Catch-22 by foreclosing the possibility of improvement.

Also, the quality of the argumentation on the Delete side up to this point, at least on certain aspects, has been so poor that it could not possibly create consensus by the standards of WP:CONSENSUS, no matter how overwhelming the numerical majority involved. In particular, the allegation of "recycled PR" (from itBit, it was implied—press releases from the NYDFS are another matter entirely) was based on no evidence whatsoever—it was pure naked assertion. The use made of WP:GNG, WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH was only marginally better; these guidelines are supposed to be used as the basis for a "structured discussion".

For these reasons, I ask you to reopen the discussion, without prejudice to its ultimate outcome.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's also mention that the words "GNG" and "general notability guideline" appear five times, but only one editor claimed the topic failed the GNG. Yet the close claims that there was consensus that the topic failed GNG.  That one editor made a proof by assertion that was rebutted by my pointing out that had the editor provided WP:BEFORE results, those results would have shown WP:GNG.  The GNG ruling lays the ground for future difficulties, because IMO the future for this topic is to be returned to the encyclopedia with the perspective of history.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Syrenka, after the first AfD, virtually no improvements were made to the article, and I didn’t expect any major improvements to it if the article was saved another time. The best option would be to request an editor to give you the text of the article, copy it to your Sandbox, and edit it until the sourcing of the article is ok. Then you can ask for someone to look at it, and it can be reinserted in Wikipedia. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for CRMNEXT
An editor has asked for a deletion review of CRMNEXT. 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. NiK (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of page MCskill ThaPreacha
Hi Roy, how are you? I need advice before taking this to DRV. Reaching out to you because you participated in DRV the first time i took this there last year. I recently found some news sources on the subject MCskill ThaPreacha and I'd like to know if you think they are suitable enough to get the artist article restored. And yes, i reached out to the admin who closed the discussion originally but no response for about a month now. She's probably very busy. Find links below.

1. https://www.channelstv.com/2017/09/22/for-hip-hop-community-to-grow-rappers-should-unite-mc-skill-tha-preacher/

2. http://thenationonlineng.net/mcskill-thapreacha-drops-new-video/

3. http://thenet.ng/2017/08/mcskill-thapreacha-goes-reflective-on-man-in-the-mirror-video/

4. Germany's Juice Magazin (Edition #173, p.72) Juice Magazine. Berlin, March 2016. ISBN 4194503705909.

5. http://rapstation.com/article/mcskill-thapreacha-spotlight-interview

6. MCskill preaches change in Man in the Mirror''. Vol.17: NO.9174, p.27 Vanguard (Nigeria) | Vanguard. Nigeria, September 23 2017.

I have photos of the offline sources. Will appreciate a feedback. MustaphaNG (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I look at some of these. Here's my take on them:
 * www.channelstv.com. This is largely an interview.  Interviews tend to not be useful sources for establishing notability.  See WP:Interviews.
 * thenationonlineng.net. I'm not sure what to make of this one.  The fact that the byline reads "Posted By: Our Reporter" makes it sound like a blog.  I don't think that will be valuable.
 * thenet.ng. This doesn't really go into much detail.
 * rapstation.com: Another interview.
 * I also notice that most of the dates are very recent. Of the four I looked at, three were in the past month or two.  You're probably going to have problems with WP:RECENT.  That all these sources are from Nigerian publications isn't strictly a problem, but reviewers will be more impressed if you can find international sources talking about him.  Overall, I don't think these are going to change people's minds.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I think its best i wait for more reliable sources then. Thanks again. MustaphaNG (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. Let me know if you need any more help.  One thing that might be useful when you think you're ready is to use the Articles for Creation process.  This will get you some additional review from experienced editors.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting anytime i have more reliable sources i should go ahead and write a new article on the subject through Afc rather than trying to get the previous one restored? MustaphaNG (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings
Back in July, you indefinitely semi-protected Battle of Hastings, but you did not remove the pending changes protection that was already in place. Because of the indef semi-protection, it no longer needs pending changes protection since all edits will be automatically accepted. Can you remove the pending changes from the article (keeping semi-protection in place)? — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the pending changes protection cause any problems? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't. It just won't have any effect because the only ones who can edit are autoconfirmed users, whose edits will always be automatically accepted, thus defeating the purpose of PC protection. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 02:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting..
Any comments about .Sole contributions are !voting in seemingly unrelated AfDs.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Tehreek Labaik Pakistan
You deleted Tehreek Labaik Pakistan on 15 Sept after an AfD. In light of the recent media coverage, can we have it back? See: DAWN, The News & The Nation. IMO, it satisfies WP:GNG. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD was pretty clear. I took a quick look at your sources and don't think they would have made a difference.  -- RoySmith (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page Jason Brett Serle
Hi, Roy, could you please tell me why you felt the need to delete the page I created for Jason Brett Serle. I understand that he is not a mainstream personality but he is much respected by people interested in the themes he speaks about. The only pages I have created are about people whose work has influenced my life and who are not already on Wikipedia. I really do not see what Wikipedia has to gain by not having this information. The page I created only contained facts. I have spent my time and energy adding to the information here and the other pages I have in mind to create are also concerned with fringe personalities as these are the people who have touched my life. Is Wikipedia not for people like me? Your deletion makes me think that I am wasting my time here and I find it unreasonable that other people should decide what information is 'important' or not. The page contained only facts - verifiable facts. Why would it be a problem for Wikipedia to have this information available for people in one place? Don't tell me Wikipedia can have a page on Kim Kardashian that talks about her sex tapes and who she's married to but has no place for a man who makes documentaries and writes about serious matters. I'm sure that there are people you admire who I don't and yet I am not pro-actively attempting to have their pages deleted. There is space for everything and everyone here and as long as the information is factual, I do not see the problem. I hope you consider my concerns. -- Fabulistical (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can tell you beyond what you already know from your participation in WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Brett Serle. Other than yourself, there was unanimous agreement that the requirements laid out in WP:CREATIVE were not met.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Unanimous agreement? What? Amongst people who don't even know or appreciate the work of Jason Brett Serle? Have you read anything he's written? Have you seen any of his films? Heard any of his music? Who are you to judge then? It's a 'unanimous agreement' by those who know nothing of the subject at hand. A decision made in perfect ignorance does not constitute a reasonable decision. Fabulistical (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

My previous comment has questions. They are not rhetorical. Thanks. - Fabulistical (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a community-driven process. As I explained above (and was mentioned in WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Brett Serle), the requirements for an article about a person such as the subject of this article are laid out in WP:CREATIVE.  There was clear consensus among the participants in the AfD that these requirements were not met.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

JCED
I have composed a much more substantial article on an organization whose [| article] you deleted 16 months ago. JCED has only grown stronger since then. How do you suggest I resubmit the new, much larger article? Jzsj (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking over the logs, I see I closed the AfD by moving it to draft space, and eventually that draft was deleted by as a stale draft.  Officially, the process to restore that draft is described at Requests for undeletion/G13, but since you've already contacted me directly, I can just handle it.  I've gone ahead and restored the deleted draft.  You can replace the current contents with your new text.  While not strictly required, my suggestion would be to use the WP:AfC process.  This will give your new article some review from experienced editors.  Alternatively, you could just be WP:BOLD and move it back into the main article space on your own.  But, be aware that anybody can come along and challenge it again, which is why I recommend going through the WP:AfC review process.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your tending to this. I'll use the draft process, as I can ever be sure of development centres in the direct creation process. Jzsj (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

John Iadarola
Had I known about this AfD, I would have argued against it. They snuck it by. You screwed up by going outside the voting and taking a single minority opinion to merge, thus destroying the data. The damage is done. Please restore to my sandbox for further development and restoration to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You're talking about Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination).  I really wish people would give me a link, as requested in the page notice.  I had to go dig through my editing history to figure out what you were talking about.  Be that as it may, you haven't given me anything that convinces me the AfD close was wrong.  My advice to you is to go with the suggestion in the AfD, work on adding material about him to the main article, and spin it back out into its own article when there's sources to support it.  Nothing has been destroyed.  The article history is still there.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

NACDEL
Are you trying to have this as an RfC on the proposal page itself, or would you rather it be a subpage? I was going to add headers, but was unsure of what you were trying to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with the RfC process.  My goal is to have it discussed by whoever might be interested.  I'm open to any suggestions you have for the right way to implement that.  Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sabrina Ho
Hi, can you please redirect Sabrina Ho to Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng which I have carefully rewritten as not to violate the article's original copyright. Editor43043 (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not happening. In fact, I've deleted and protected Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng.  Please gain consensus before trying to recreate this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

List of PlayStation 2 games compatible with PlayStation 3
Xfdcloser seems to have missed deleting this, but it got the other one. Wasn't sure if you were still working on it so decided to just drop a note. -- ferret (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the heads up. I think it barfed when trying to process 400-some-odd backlinks :-) I'll take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just want to say Thank You
I appreciate your efforts at the problematic AfD that was prematurely closed. Unfortunately, it appears the powers that be are refusing to let it run a fair course - it is now a "close pending" which shuts down the iVoting. I've never seen anything like this in my years as an editor. I guess the lesson I'll take away from it is to exercise more caution when evaluating candidates at RfA. I do see a stark difference between admin actions taken by those who were content creators and those who just sort of piddled around with it. Anyway, thank you again. Atsme 📞📧 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Reading over the closing statement from User:Oshwah, it seems pretty reasonable.  I haven't actually read the whole AfD, but I don't see anything in the analysis that gives me cause for concern.  This is obviously a topic which engenders strong emotions in people, on both sides.  I doubt it's possible for any close to make everybody happy.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a set time frame for an AfD to run uninterrupted. I'll keep this one handy in my archives as a lesson learned. I truly was unaware that we could request an admin closure prior to an 11 day contiguous run, and that an improper NAC closure after only 4 days running would prevail. I will make sure editors are aware of this closure at VP because it appears to have set a new precedent. Live and learn! Thanks again. Atsme 📞📧 02:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see what point you're trying to make. The AfD was open for 11 days.  The standard time is a minimum of 7 days.  The WP:NAC was clearly bogus, but that was backed out.  So, explain to me what the problem is?  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm going blind, it was only open for 4 days when a non-admin closed it as a SNOW KEEP. See this explanation. Atsme 📞📧 03:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point. The 11 days was from the first calendar date the AfD was open to the calendar date it was finally closed by an admin, but that includes the span from Nov 19th (the WP:NAC) to the 26th (when I reopened it).  Be that as it may, looking at the existing discussion, I don't see any way this could have swung over to delete had it been open another three days.  And, as User:Jclemens pointed out in the DRV, this material was never going to be removed anyway; if by some chance the article got deleted, it would just end up back in the main Roy Moore article.  So, yes, while proper procedure wasn't followed, we ended up in the right place and we should all just move on.  My personal opinion is that we shouldn't be covering current events at all; that's the job of a newspaper, not an encyclopedia.  But, I lost that argument long ago.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Roy, it never left Roy Moore - it's in lede, and there's a whole section on it. Now it's just POVforked into a full page so more negative material can be added before the Dec 12th election. We even have the whole list of victims names despite WP:BLPNAME but oh well - maybe the Russians were behind that too. I can only imagine what a nightmare it must be when innocent people are judged and sentenced by MSM and public opinion. I know of a case or two where an angry ex-wife lied about a husband's relationship with their child. He was denied visiting rights and shunned by friends - it's one of the worst allegations an innocent person can endure - the guilty deserve it and worse - but that requires due process here in the US. Come to think of it, I was reminded of BLP policy for jokingly altering a person's name on a TP (it was actually an exaggerated jest of other inadvertent misspellings) but an admin swooped down to remind me of that person's right to human dignity. I guess the latter only applies when there's a humorous name change because it certainly doesn't apply to derogatory unsupported allegations that could ruin a person's life...as long as it's properly cited, of course. Hell, we can even create a stand alone article filled with unsupported allegations as long as they're properly cited but don't dare make fun of anyone's name. SMirC-unnerved.svg Atsme 📞📧 19:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Stifle (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Catalan Republic (2017) (3rd nomination)
Hi, I think you misread this AfD. There's consensus that this is a content fork, but nobody proposed a merger - because all relevant content is already at Catalan declaration of independence. If you think there's no consensus to delete outright, redirect would, I think, be the proper outcome. This still allows the talk page merger discussion to conclude that they still want to merge some stuff from history.  Sandstein  19:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say the same thing. Not a single editor proposed a merge. A few were comfortable compromising with a redirect but merging was never weighted as a beneficial outcome. I suggest you reconsider to a redirect conclusion for the same reasons as Sandstein mentioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm kind of confused. If this is a fork, and the consensus is that it should not have been forked, how is merging it back into where it was forked from not the way to undo the fork?  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there is nothing of substance to merge. If there had been, somebody would have said so.  Sandstein   20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get your point, but I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I left it up to whoever does the merge to figure out how much material should be merged.  If, as you say, there's nothing of substance to merge, then they don't have to merge anything.  The real decision here is that this should not exist as a stand-alone article.  Anything beyond that seems like a content dispute, which AfD shouldn't get involved with.  How would things be different if I had just closed it as redirect?  The history would still be there, and people would still be free to mine the history for content to add to the redirect target.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The practical difference is that the redirect is made now, and any attempt to revert it would contradict the AfD consensus. Otherwise the problematic article is likely to hang around for a long time because I for one would not know how to merge this entirely redundant content.  Sandstein   20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you're coming from. I'm still not convinced it matters much one way or the other, but I'll implement the redirect now, and update my closing statement to make it clear that people are free to merge from the history as they see fit.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan_Republic_(2017)
Hi After the AfD, the merging have been done, so could you close the request merge ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I did that by removing the templates. Did I miss something?  If so, let me know and I'll fix it.  Or, feel free to fix it yourself if you prefer.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Done.

Discussion closures
Hello there, Next time if any non admin closure discussion can get commented then I'll relist them instead of closing them. Thanks -- HindWikiConnect  00:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RfA comment
Thank you for your retraction and apology, which was quite a decent thing to do. In turn, I apologize for any self-righteous snark in my reply. Please have a good New Years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

List of most followed Instagram accounts
You reclosed Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most-followed_Instagram_accounts as no consensus - however shouldn't the talk page (its history) be restored? While I can recreate the redirects, you may also want to undelete the redirects Sandstein deleted (which are at the bottom of here) Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I think I got talk page right this time, but I'm not seeing the missing redirects you mention.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They're Most followed users on Instagram, List of the most followed users on Instagram, List of most followed users on Instagram, List of most-followed users on Instagram; sandstein also deleted their talk pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

AFD
Hi, Well as you can see here a whole 6 hours later it gained 3 merges and 1 "wrong venue" ..... so your reverting of my close was a complete waste of time, Your comments at DRV were completely out of order - You may disagree with the closure but to say "And a big trout to Davey2010, who really should just stay away from WP:NAC" is completely out of order! - I'm sure you've made plenty of mistakes even at AFD!, I'll also say in future if you have an issue with me then discuss it with me first - Communication goes a long way and a simple "Dave your AFD was closed ridiculously early please reopen it" would've sufficed and would've had a better effect on myself and everyone else. Thanks and have a nice day, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly a stickler for the rules, but being uninvolved is a pretty basic requirement for closing an AfD. My comment might have been a little more pointed than it needed to be, for which I apologize.  But, this was brought up at DRV; once it got there, it needed to be addressed at that forum.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree I shouldn't of closed it being involved and all that but at the time I just thought it'd get closed as merge so may aswell speedy things up but lesson learnt shant repeat that again, But the nominator did admit they didn't even ask me had they asked I would've opened it without any issue,
 * Thank you that does mean alot and it goes without saying I apologise for my reaction over at my talkpage as well as at the AFD, Absolutely but in my eyes it would've been better to have reverted the nom and point them to my talkpage, But anyway new day and all that, Thanks again for apologising and again apologies for my reaction and comments, Have a nice day, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your comment in Articles for deletion: Steak and Blowjob Day (4th nomination)
Thanks for your comment on Steak and BJ Day. I'm inexperienced in this process and was trying to follow the instructions given here: sorry I missed including the deletion review conversation. I must admit to bafflement about the entire process, perhaps by going through it I'll get a better understanding of what's going on. Anyhow, I look forward to seeing your opinion once it's formed on this matter. To me, the article is a collection of misleading quotes from sources that aren't reliable, and a search for alternate sources shows that these are probably the best available. Anyhow, however you end up voting, thanks for including the link to the deletion review (which, I believe if I've read it correctly, means more literally the "review to consider undeleting something previously deleted." :-). Best wishes for the new year, Dictioneer (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. It's just that the AfD page automatically gets a list of previous AfD's, but not DRV's (Deletion Reviews).  I just wanted to make sure people were aware of it.  And don't worry about being baffled by the process; that's pretty much par for the course on wikipedia :-) . -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

XFD templates
XFD templates are still there at talk pages. Talk:Samina Khan, Talk:Muhammad Sheeraz & Talk:Mufti Said Janan. Thank you   M A A Z     T A L K   20:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Close of Deletion Review for Conor Lamb
I would ask you to review your close here. First, I am challenging consensus,so I meet the first point of WP:DRVPURPOSE. Second, I am not coming back to get a different result. The original was closed as delete. I challenged that and it was re-listed. The next discussion resulted in only keep votes and arguments. I am not sure how that then results in no consensus and I would like that reviewed. Finally, there is a difference between keep and no consensus. While the article remains, I think there is now established consensus that it should remain. I would like that reviewed.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's almost inconceivable that the NC close would get overturned at DRV. Mostly because it makes no difference.  We're here to write an encyclopedia, not spend endless amounts of time arguing over minutia.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There were some experienced experienced Wikipedians arguing policy-based reasons for "delete", and a lot of weak, evidence-lacking "keep"!votes. User:Spartaz's "no consensus" is very easily defended, and well within admin discretion.  A difference between keep and no consensus?  Virtually nothing, the biggest being the custom that a "no consensus" results means wait at least 2 months before re-nominating, a "keep" results means 6 months.  After 6 months, there is no difference.  Renominating before these waiting periods may elicit complaints, but after 6 months, fresher stronger arguments may see it then deleted with no procedural basis for a complaint.  Your wish for review is a waste of others' time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
 * Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news
 * A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of American Bank Note Company Printing Plant
Hello! Your submission of American Bank Note Company Printing Plant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Sounder Bruce  08:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Bank Note Company Printing Plant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/American_Bank_Note_Company_Printing_Plant check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/American_Bank_Note_Company_Printing_Plant?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees
Is the any reason why this list is being kept - it is a list containing only one artist (the title List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees implies that there are multiple winners), as per the general consensus at the AfD lists which have only one artist listed should be deleted. In this case the information could be incorporated into the article on Rubén Blades and therefore there is no need for this article to be kept. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Cape Verdean Grammy Award winners and nominees
Is the any reason why this list is being kept - it is a list containing only one artist (the title List of Cape Verdean Grammy Award winners and nominees implies that there are multiple winners), as per the general consensus at the AfD lists which have only one artist listed should be deleted. In this case the information could be incorporated into the article on Cesária Évora and therefore there is no need for this article to be kept. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Uruguayan Grammy Award winners and nominees
Is the any reason why this list is being kept - it is a list containing only one artist (the title List of Uruguayan Grammy Award winners and nominees implies that there are multiple winners), as per the general consensus at the AfD lists which have only one artist listed should be deleted. In this case the information clearly already exists at List of awards and nominations received by Jorge Drexler and there is no need for this article to be kept. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said in my close, this was a mess of a discussion to close, because of the large number of pages nominated. Any page that had anybody arguing for anything other than delete, I kept, just to keep things sane.  If you feel that any of the kept pages really should have been deleted, please just bring them back to AfD for reconsideration.  Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, in accordance with WP:NPASR it should have probably been a Soft Delete however I respect that it is your call. I have therefore listed each as a separate AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That might have also been a good way to go. But, I figure at least we got most of these out of the way, so we made some forward progress, with no impediment to immediately reconsidering the rest of them.  That's better than the alternative of throwing up your hands and saying, WP:TRAINWRECK, I can't do anything here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It was getting messy and I'm satisfied with the outcome - just need to get rid of these three lists and then look at tidying up the lists that remain. Dan arndt (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Michael Brooks Show
Firstly, where is the last version of the article saved? Secondly, the closure statement of the AfD has major inaccuracies. At least one non-founding editor made policy arguments and does not have an extremely small editing history. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific?  What policy argument in particular do you think I missed?  Also, you could have saved me time if you provided a link to the AfD, as requested. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To follow up on this, I assume from your query about the last version of the article, that you would like to re-use the text for another purpose? Another plausible way I could have closed the AfD was as merge to Michael J. Brooks.  If you're willing to take on performing the merge, I could restore the article in-place and re-close the AfD.  Does that work for you?  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I complied with your request and linked the article as the headline for the section! My policy arguments were in refuting others, to where quoting the policy itself is not necessary. As for deleted articles, I refer to the practice of the article being moved usually to a user page in order to improve it and re-introduce it as an article or to salvage it for merging into other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored it and moved it to User:Onetwothreeip/The Michael Brooks Show. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th nomination)
Just hoping to get some clarity regarding the policy-based reason for keeping. Clear numeric majority, but not seeing any strong arguments that the subject as a whole is actually notable (only that individual entries can be sourced, or arguments that have no basis in policy/guideline at all). Granted, there's not a lot by way of substance on the delete side either, so I'm not actually suggesting a different outcome; it just seems that the quality of the discussion merits at least one relisting, no? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I disagree with your closure here, which is why I had just relisted it. Rhododendrites argument near the end was particularly strong and worth considering: the keeps simply weren't policy based: they were only "I like it" or "Just create more lists like this". The comments near the end were trending delete, and I think that another week of discussion would be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the above when I posted this. Sorry for the double post. In general though, I'd like think that if another admin decides to relist an article, it's normally good to ask them about it first before deciding that they were wrong, especially since WP:Relist bias isn't really a thing when someone has all the button available. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my bad. I didn't notice the recent relist notice.  I'll back out my close.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry if that came off pissy. I was just confused a bit with the wording since I had relisted it. All's good on my end . TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

TalkBack
Please see my reply at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/UrduPoint. ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)  ~ Winged Blades Godric  08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rahul Verma (social activist)
Hi, I have created Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 ). Please have a look. Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not my place to approve or disapprove. As I mentioned in my DRV close, WP:AFC would have been a good place to get a review, but it's too late for that now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about Articles for deletion/Ernest H. Rosasco
I'm sorry to bother you about this, but should I read your closure as saying that in this case the consensus is that NPOL overrides GNG or that in general NPOL overrides GNG. That is, 3 of the 5 delete !votes and the nom invoked NPOL, 1 delete !vote invoked "inherent notability", the 2 keep !votes invoked "significance" or "Congressional tribute", and my weak keep !vote invoked GNG, etc. So to reword, should I read your closure as saying that my GNG argument did not receive a consensus or that my GNG argument should not receive high weight given I conceded the subject did not meet NPOL. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 05:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're overanalyzing this. People clearly felt there were insufficient sources to demonstrate WP:N. Trying to nitpick which of several guidelines to cite is pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding 2018 UPSL season deletion review
At this point I have no interest in continuing to have the debate around whether or not the article should be relisted because it has been more trouble than it is worth. I'm more curious about my specific argument regarding WP:SYNTH and your interpretation of my argument/the policy. This is my first time proposing something for deletion and I want to make sure I understand the policy better in the future, so I'd like to ask for your advice as the closing admin. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I'm fairly confident that I went about the process of proposing for deletion wrong, as I proposed some templates and categories related to the article for deletion before the outcome was decided. I'd like to withdraw those nominations, but I'm not sure how to do so. Your help would be appreciated. Jay eyem (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The one thing I would have changed with your nomination is to be more specific. You said it failed WP:GNG, but that's a rather broad statement.  Exactly which requirement did it fail?  I think the main point you were trying to make was that the season hadn't happened yet, so maybe WP:CRYSTAL was a good policy to cite.  In any case, I don't think it really made much difference; once the debate got going, it took on a life of its own and the details of what you cited in your nomination probably didn't matter much.
 * Unfortunately, there's no hard and fast rules about what will pass AfD and what won't. There's pages and pages and pages about what makes something notable, but in the end it comes down to who shows up for the debate and how persuasive they are.
 * You didn't note exactly what other nominations you made, but it's no big deal to withdraw them. Just strike out your nomination statement (with and ), add a statement that you're withdrawing your nomination, and for what reason.  Somebody will eventually come along and clean up the details.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, thank you for your insight. Cheers! Jay eyem (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ref. "Is there anything on the internet which can't be improved by the addition of kittens?"
(Ref. your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka&oldid=826786106 ) Anything which contains kittens can be improved by adding better kittens. :-) DexterPointy (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I want ponies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, then, here you go. --DexterPointy (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius
I'd like to ask you to overturn your closure here. The arguments for retention cited multiple different applicable Wikipedia guidelines, Notability, Notability (Books) and Reliable sources. In proof of Notability, they cited a dozen highly reliable sources that wrote about the book, including in depth reviews in The Washington Post and The Times, the papers of record of two rather important countries.

The arguments for deletion were that the sources, all the sources, shouldn't be considered reliable because they didn't consider the book skeptically enough from the volunteer editors' point of view. The arguments for deletion didn't cite any reliable published sources for their arguments, or any Wikipedia guidelines that showed that highly respected sources should be considered unreliable because editors consider them insufficiently critical. They mentioned WP:FRINGE, but didn't seem to have read it: at no point does WP:FRINGE say that reliable sources become somehow less reliable. In fact it says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia", and then cites the Notability guidelines directly as the guide for keeping the idea in or removing it.

You cited that more editors argued for deletion, that is true, but I always thought that AFD was not a vote, and rather that the arguments grounded in policies and guidelines should carry the day. --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The opinion column in the Washington Post that you cite includes the following: "At 9 he began working on a theory in astrophysics that, according to those who can understand it, may put him in line for the Nobel Prize..." I hope you see that a source such as this loses the benefit of the Washington Post's reliability (which stems from its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy).  Per the WP:RS guideline, "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy".  To cover a fringe topic like this from a neutral perspective explicitly requires balancing sources.  The fact that there are so few balancing sources to counter the media-generated hype is why we cannot have an article that conforms to our policies.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure I made the right call here. I'm absolutely sure there is no decision that will satisfy both sides. If you really feel strongly about this, I have no objection if you want to bring this to DRV. That would certainly be better than re-litigating the AfD on my talk page :-) Thanks for talking to me first, though. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

pageants
good close.  DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius
DGG has persistently argued against WP coverage of Jacob Barnett and The Spark not on the basis of WP policy, but in support of his passionately held beliefs about stage parenting. The media covered these because they wished to promote the fact that autism can come with special abilities, but those who, for various reasons, were upset by it have coalesced at Wikipedia to ensure that, even if the decision is overturned at DRV, their strength of feeling will likely render any article unsustainable. Viewfinder (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I assume you're talking about WP:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius? Is there some specific request you have?  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was responding to DGG's comment, which I assumed to be a reference to your closure of The Spark. If, on the other hand, you have also closed another article named "pageants" then please point that out and I apologise. Viewfinder (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * He was referring to WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 19 :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Spark: A Mother&
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Spark: A Mother&. 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. GRuban (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchu studies
I’d like to ask why you believed Articles for deletion/Manchu studies should have been closed so quickly under WP:A7, when the nominator was clearly wrong in saying the search term “Manchu studies” only brings up a single research group. Thanks.-—Prisencolin (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask the same. I can't see the deleted article, but the nomination makes it appear as though the article was about the general discipline and not about some organisation. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't about anything. It was one short sentence, and an eight month old template complaining there were no references.  If you want to write an article on the subject, I encourage you to do so, but arguing about this for a week at AfD is a waste of everybody's time.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But having it there for a week is the most likely way the article would get improved. Of course it can be rewritten, but in practice having it under treat of deletion serves as an effective reminder. Regardless of how AfD is theoretically supposed to work, that's how it does work.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Restored, and re-listed at AfD. Knock yourselves out. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's still a procedural error in using WP:A7 because the article isn't about a "individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events".--Prisencolin (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleting a one-sentence article on a notable topic, using a speedy deletion criterion that doesn't apply, does save people the effort of debating it at AfD, but as we're seeing here, it creates more work in dealing with the people who come to complain about it. – Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)