User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 29

Deletion decision re: B. S. Daya Sagar
Hi, Silk Tork, I am contacting you regarding your recent decision to retain the article on B. S. Daya Sagar following a deletion discussion that you ended with "no consensus" with the final outcome hinging on the subject's membership in the Royal Geographical Society. I decided to do some follow-up research on the RGS, in particular their fellowship program, and wanted to share my findings with you. According to the RGS website, "Application for Fellowship is open to anyone, based in the UK or overseas, over the age of 21 who can demonstrate a sufficient involvement in geography or allied subject through training, professional work, research, publications or other work of a similar nature, or not less than five years continuous commitment to the Society as an Ordinary Member at the discretion of Council." It goes on to state that membership requires nomination by an existing fellow, or that a person can submit evidence of their work to the society directly for consideration, and then on the application itself there is a minimum fee of ₤114 to be become a fellow if you pay by Direct Debit (slightly more if you pay by cheque, credit card, or debit card). All of this means that it looks to me like "fellowship" at the RGS is mostly a device for the organization to collect money rather than a signifier of notability worthy of Wikipedia's attention (such as are "fellowships" in many other organizations, Fullbright, etc.). If this rings true for you as well, do you think it might be worthwhile for me to renominate for deletion? If not, then please let me know how all this strikes you. Thanks! KDS 4444 Talk  02:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about the suitability of the fellowship as an indicator of notability for the reasons you state, and wondered if there should be a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and on Category talk:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society regarding the fellowship's status. However, it's worth saying that in my close I also took into account DGG's comments which rely on other criteria. As it stands I don't think there is sufficient clarity regarding the subject's notability - it's not a clear yes or no, and I'm not sure without additional information that a new AfD would be worthwhile. This article is fairly borderline; we could be spending our efforts better on more obviously non-notable subjects, and/or on making the notability guidelines clearer. Perhaps a line in WP:Prof that says that subscription fellowships, such as the RGS one, are explicitly not evidence of notability.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SilkTork I spent around 1 hour in discovering the person over Internet and failed to find the independent references. I was looking for the answers, like "what" all notable things i.e. work done by the subject. In-fact the work(s) done and the awards won by the subject is very common and you will find nearly millions of people with similarity in republic of India itself. This subject simply does not meets the notability criteria for academics as well as GNG. — CutestPenguinHangout 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that you feel this person does not meet our notability criteria. Others felt he did meet the criteria. In such situations where there is sufficient doubt we default to No consensus, and the article is kept. The matter can be taken to Deletion review, though you would need to say why you felt my close was inappropriate, rather than why you feel the subject is non-notable. Deletion Review is not a second chance at AfD. You can renominate the article for AfD for that - though it is generally frowned upon to simply open a new AfD soon after a closed one simply because you disagree with the outcome; there would need to be fresh information. If you feel I may have misread consensus, or not taken into account pertinent comments made, then that would be an appropriate use of Deletion Review. Though if you brought those to my attention first, then I would be happy to relook.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC
As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Comment left.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Request
Hi! In view of past conversations, could I ask if you'd be kind enough to look at my recent posts at WP:COIN just to check that no lines have been crossed? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm rarely comfortable with editors sleuthing other editors, and chasing up their linkedin accounts in order to make complaints about them. If there's a fault with the article, concentrate on that first. If there's no fault with the article, then leave the editor alone. If an editor appears to making mistakes, such as introducing a POV to an article then deal with that as you see it. Talk to the editor. If they don't respond, seek assistance. But don't make assumptions and guesses about the private life of an editor, and go off hunting for information on them. That way be dragons. Editors, some of them highly respected, and with advanced permissions on Wikipedia, have been banned for that behaviour. Remember that we have rules and guidelines on NPOV, and if any editor - regardless of any personal involvement - infringes those rules, then you can deal with that. You don't need to go sleuthing to find personal involvement, because it doesn't matter. What matters is the content, not who put it there.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not quite the answer I was expecting, but taken on board. I asked you rather than someone else precisely because you have given me similar advice in the past. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Young (singer)
Hi, can I ask please why for the third consecutive time the article by Alex Young (singer), has been deleted? The artist is perfectly in line with the guidance for articles of bands and artists. In the article were included over 60 references. You can see that the artist has a very rich past, and how it is promoted by major blog, important sites and youtube channels. The artist is famous, has collaborated with major producer, writers. I hope there are not personal reasons for all this. The artist must be on this encyclopedia, for her contribution to the music industry, there are many pagini really unnecessary, of artists that no one knows. And I could list so many! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndCx (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 November 2014‎
 * In my close at Articles for deletion/Alex Young (singer) (2nd nomination) I said: "The result was delete. Sources were either not reliable, or if reliable did not contain "significant" coverage. Much of the material in sources was repeated from press releases, which does not qualify as independent." YouTube does not qualify as a Reliable source. There is a difference between someone promoting themselves via blogs, press releases, YouTube, etc, and someone independently writing about them. The consensus in the discussion was that this individual had not gathered enough coverage in the places where it matters. It's generally not about the amount of coverage, it's about the quality of that coverage. Does that help? If not, please let me know.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Search from youtube, needs to explain how artist contribuited in music industry. Sources were repeated for wikipedia guide line. I apologize, but I disagree with your response. I invite you to control many pages in this encyclopedia, which are no references, and without a purpose, and do not follow any guiding principle of Wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndCx (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 November 2014‎ ‎


 * I agree with you that there are plenty of articles which need attention, and should be deleted. But that there are such articles doesn't mean we keep bad ones. That's like letting someone off for theft or murder because other thefts and murders have not yet been dealt with. See: Other stuff exists. Hopefully we will get around to dealing with all the articles on Wikipedia that need our attention. Your assertion that sources were provided that met with guidelines has not been agreed with by the other editors in the discussion, nor by myself when reviewing the matter. When you are in the minority, and when explanations and guidelines have been provided for you, it's perhaps time to consider if it is you who are mistaken.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Conquests of Hannibal
I don't see consensus for redirection here. Would you consider relisting it instead? czar ⨹   02:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you argued for deletion, however the !voting went delete, redirect, delete after being listed for over seven days. As there is no need to delete in this case, because there is no copyvio or personal attacks or BLP concerns, it's a toss up between deletion or redirection, and as redirects are cheap, and the title is a viable search term (I checked that it is a phrase that is used), a default to redirect seemed fine.  As nobody was asking to keep, and what I did accorded  with what everyone wanted: the article to be gone from Wikipedia mainspace (and I went round and tidied up so any links to the redirect were removed), I thought this was such an uncontroversial close I didn't give a rational as I normally do. I did pause to consider if I should delete first and then redirect, then decided that as there had been some history, and there was the possibility that an article could be created on that title at some future date, keeping both the history for a future editor to examine, and also to avoid the awkwardness of the recreation of a deleted article scenario, it seemed more appropriate to leave the history in place. If you feel strongly that there shouldn't be a redirect, then you could open a discussion at Redirects for discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt only strongly enough to ask you and not to take it through another process. I mentioned that I did a search myself, and didn't see the phrase in wide usage such that a redirect would be helpful—I said as much too and thought it would have been enough to sway consensus. I agree that a d+r would have been unnecessary. If you disagree with relisting the debate or undoing the redirect, I suppose it dies here. czar ⨹   16:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-piracy measures in Somalia
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anti-piracy measures in Somalia, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.security.gr/piracy-somalia/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Trappist beer and the Holy Trinity
Hi there, SilkTork. Happy holidays and thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia, particular beer-related edits, and particularly to the article on Trappist beer.

I thought I would drop you this note to let you know that I deleted one sentence from Trappist beer that I believe was your work. You might want to restore it, so I figured I'd better explain myself.

The sentence is this:

Considering the importance of the Holy Trinity in the church, it is unlikely that the choice of three types of beers was accidental.[7]

Since this is a statement of a personal judgment (i.e. regarding "liklihood"), most probably by the author of the paper that is sourced, I believe it should be attributed to whoever made it. I would have been happy to do this myself online, but the source is not online. Perhaps it's in your personal library?

Thanks again for your good work! Frappyjohn (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't done by me, but even if it was, no worries - you can change whatever you feel is appropriate in a Wikipedia article without having to notify anyone. If someone else disagrees with your change, or wants to improve on it, they'll do so without notifying you. If an editor wants to keep track on the changes on an article, they can do so via the Watchlist. So, go ahead, make changes. If it matters to someone, or it's wrong, your change will get ammended or reverted at some point. If your change is appropriate, then it will remain. No need to ask permission or forgiveness. Just be bold!  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DRV
You are up in front of the beak. Deletion_review/Log/2014_December_26. Not by me I'll add... Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. It's rare for one of my closes to go to DRV, even though I only ever close the tough ones, so it's interesting when it happens.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)