User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 59

Peter Fenton (guitarist) of Siouxsie and the Banshees
Hello SilkTork, best wishes for this new year to you and your family. Would it be possible that you take a look at that recently created article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fenton_(guitarist) and the song that he co-wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_in_a_Void_(song) and tell me what do you think because I must missed something. Your view is more than welcome whether positive or negative but at least, I would get an opinion from someone who contributes a lot to music related articles. Carliertwo (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you as well, Carlier. I've taken a look. I had looked earlier because I have your talkpage watchlisted, and I thought at the time that there wasn't enough notability there to keep the article. I didn't think it was enough of an issue, though, to vote delete. It was more of a "meh, whatever". I've looked again since you asked, and while Fenton does get some mentions in minor sources such as WycombeGigs and a few times by Kris Needs in ZigZag and Record Collector (not officially online, just paper sources, though can be read via thebansheesandothercreatures.co.uk and RocksBackPages if you have a subscription), and there is a little bit to say about him, it is fairly minor, and can be dealt with in the Banshees main article. My suggestion is to merge in the interesting details - which is mainly that he was a rock guitarist that the rest of the band felt didn't fit in with the Banshees style and ambitions (they particularly didn't like that he had an orange guitar lead!), and that Siouxsie had enough during the Dingwalls gig so angrily confronted him on stage and pulled out his guitar lead. The incident leading to the Banshees being banned from playing at Dingwalls. The information about why they didn't like him, and how he got sacked, is part of the Banshees story and should be in the main article. The rest of the stuff about him is either too minor to mention, or is already in the article. Oh. Apart from the demos. There are some details in a Record Collector issue about that demo which should be in the article. Here's one of the tracks from that demo: you can hear his over-dominant rock guitar style. She was right to sack him! SilkTork (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for pointing those articles, especially the Wycombegigs website. I had to read it while doing some research, I have their official autobiography with those quotes. Yes, it's maybe better to include a part of the content from Peter Fenton (guitarist) into the main article about the band. I'm going to wait for the conclusion of this deletion discussion but I don't hold my breath on it, it is better for me. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

New year
Thank you for your note to Flyer22 and her sister, - green for hope. On the Main page now: a DYK about seeking solace, in a new year's song. - Have a good 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale FAC
Hi. I saw your name in my edit watchlist (Neo soul) and wanted to ask if you could comment on or review my FAC for Love for Sale (Bilal album). It is a not a long article, but the review has become a sprawling mess with ambiguous or reluctant takes on the sourcing in particular, and no new comments have been made in a week or so. So any thoughts would be welcome. Thank you. isento (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me Isento, but I rarely get involved in either GA or FA these days, and when I do, I have a marked preference for GA. SilkTork (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
—S MALL JIM


 * Yes. SilkTork (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Desysop proposal
Just so you know I'm somewhat anxiously awaiting your participation in the desysop proposal. I almost held off participating until you had, but then decided I wanted to get my points out there early in hopes of letting others react to it as consensus formed. But your thinking on this would still matter to me. I hope you participate when you have a chance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Barkeep49. I am aware of it, but only looked at it briefly when the discussion started, and there were loads of supports. I looked just now, and see that opposes have started and are catching up. I'm not sure where I stand at the moment as I haven't thought deeply about it, but my initial reactions were a) I am strongly supportive of the notion that the community should be able to handle a desysop - it is something I've supported for most of my time here; b) I am uneasy about this proposal for fear of a knee-jerk reaction to a single event with a subsequent pile on - we have seen these things happen; c) I am hesitant to impede or complicate a proposal for a community desysop, because previous proposals have come unstuck on similar minor issues - perhaps it is better to have one, albeit imperfect at first, but with the natural tendency that Wikipedia has of improving the process as we go along, than nothing. I have other things to do now, but I will look again later. SilkTork (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Centuries/five wicket hauls AfD
Hi, I think your closing decision is really disappointing. Appreciate that you said my arguments were valid, but 1) how are editors supposed to go and check the sourcing of a large number of nominations to prove whether or not they meet LISTN, 2) no one seems to have looked at offline sources like Wisden, books on individual cricket grounds, etc. and checked whether they cover these things (grounds like Lords and the MCG/SCG do have features from time to time on particular famous hundreds or 5 wicket hauls, so it's not out of the question), and 3) you didn't address why a merge or a redirect wasn't inappropriate, despite saying my arguments were valid (and a merge doesn't require compliance with LISTN because it would merge some statistics into the larger ground article). The real issue I had with this AfD was the mass nomination - users shouldn't be able to just bundle everything together and expect the articles to all be treated the same way. I note you've offered to userfy articles to enable them to be merged, but if a merge was a valid option (which you appear to concede) then the outcome should have reflected that a merge or a redirect was an appropriate way to close the AfD. It's not fair that keep !voters should now have to "apply" to get everything restored - that should have just been the default option (or closed as no consensus). I'd be really grateful if you could do something to fix the disappointing outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know I only nominated those lists where there was no chance of meeting WP:NLIST and WP:BEFORE confirmed that. See Template:International cricket five-wicket hauls by ground and Template:International cricket centuries by ground where there are a large number of notable lists which were left by me for a reason (they have a chance of meeting WP:NLIST). SilkTork did a fair job and summarized the whole discussion in his closing remarks. Störm   (talk)  01:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought you did a good job in defending those list articles, User:Deus et lex; sadly you were the only one, and my obligation was to read the consensus. To answer your questions:
 * 1) and 2) The lists were all nominated under the same principle - that they didn't meet NLIST which requires that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". All the list articles were created under the same principle, that five wicket hauls or centuries on a particular ground (not just five wicket hauls or centuries, but on a particular ground) was something that reliable sources had discussed. If one of them met that NLIST criteria, then they all would have met NLIST. If one of them failed that criteria, then they all fail that criteria. There may well be articles "on particular famous hundreds or 5 wicket hauls", but what is needed is an article on the concept not of a particular famous hundred or five wicket haul, but on the concept of them as a set on a particular ground. Without the evidence of a reliable source talking about that concept, the lists are essentially original research, and one could create a list on anything, such as List of international cricket Nelsons on English cricket grounds. While a Nelson is notable enough for an article, and examples of notable Nelsons could be incorporated into such an article, it would be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia to create a stand alone list article on the number of Nelsons scored on various grounds, unless, of course, someone had already done so and published it, or the concept itself had been discussed in reliable sources. I understand the notion that there may be a discussion on five wicket hauls on particular grounds somewhere, such as in Wisden, but given that evidence of such discussions were looked for in those list articles and found missing (and I looked myself, and couldn't find any), and that you were asked to provide such evidence and couldn't find it, then the fair conclusion is that such discussions have not taken place. Now, if you were able yourself to find such discussions (to establish notability, at least two reliable sources discussing it would be required, though even one would be better than nothing) then you could present that evidence to me or via Requests for undeletion and seek to get the list articles undeleted.
 * 3) I'm not saying that a merge isn't appropriate, which is why I offered to provide the contents to anyone on request. But I couldn't close the AfD as a Merge because there was no consensus for that. I could be accused of a "Forced-compromise supervote" (see Supervote) if I closed a discussion with an outcome that had not gained consensus. Essentially the work load for a person wishing to merge is just the same, but the potential workload for me has been increased, so I have done myself no favours by making that offer. If you don't wish to take advantage of it, I'd be quite happy. But the offer is still there if you want to take advantage of it. I will userfy on request, but I would only agree to doing one list at a time, and would expect, per Userfication, that the merge be done in a reasonable space of time, and I would re-delete the list after the merge had been done or after six months, whichever came first. As part of the process, and to save anyone from doing extra work, I would also commit to being the person who ensures that contributors to the deleted list that was merged are noted on the talkpage of the target article to meet the requirements of CC BY-SA and GFDL.
 * I hope that helps. SilkTork (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , this is SilkTork's talk page, not a public discussion board, and you weren't asked or invited to comment here by me - this was solely addressed to Silktork, so I'd prefer you keep out of this conversation. I find your continual deletion of cricket articles and poor justification of Wikipedia principles disappointing, and the fact you want to have a further say here to gloat speaks volumes about the motivations behind your deletionism. Deus et lex (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think it's unfair that editors like me have to put in detailed arguments about keeping articles, and are then told it's our responsibility to find sources all the time to keep articles. I don't have the time to put in to go and search for sources all the time, yet it's the deletionists who always seem to get away with doing no work, the deletionists can rely on lazy and poor arguments and then tell others they have to go and find the sources. And I don't understand why, if you thought merging was an appropriate option, that you didn't raise that wit the editors and keep the AfD open for a bit longer to canvas that possibility? Merge and redirect are required to be considered before deletion, so it would be in accordance with Wikipedia policy to do that. I hope you understand my frustration, I'm not having a go at you, but I'm just tired of doing the work to get people to think about Wikipedia policy and keeping article and get no support back from others. Deus et lex (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deus et lex, it is Wikipedia policy that articles are reliably sourced, and that they meet our inclusion criteria. If articles appear not to meet our policies and guidelines they are either speedy deleted (if they meet certain criteria) or they are discussed to see if there is a consensus that they don't meet our policies and guidelines and are unlikely to meet such guidelines even if cleaned up. Anyone who comes upon an article that appears not to meet our guidelines is encouraged to raise the issue by tagging the article with their concerns, or prodding the article, or nominating it for discussion at AfD. They are also encouraged and expected to check if the article cannot be improved per WP:Before. When looking into this AfD I did look into the issue of if the list articles could be improved so they could be kept. The way to do that in this instance was to find reliable sources. That very issue was brought up, and you yourself could not find such sources, and I checked and I could not find such sources. So everything appropriate by our guidelines and policies was done. As regards if it is fair that users have to find reliable sources. Well, it's not just fair, it is expected. Users who create or write articles have to do it. If an article is not appropriately sourced it should be deleted. If you don't wish to do the research necessary to either write an article or to keep it when it is brought to AfD, that's fine. We are all volunteers, and you have to do no more than you wish to. But if you yourself are not willing to do the research then as sure as eggs are eggs you cannot demand that others do your work for you.
 * As regards keeping the AfD open. We typically keep AfDs open for seven days. This particular AfD had been open so long - much longer than our guidelines suggest - that it had been noted as of concern, which is why I got involved. We don't like an AfD to be relisted, we especially don't like it when they are relisted three times - see WP:RELIST. If, as the closing admin, I could see a consensus decision, the responsibility is on me to close the AfD with that decision. If I could not see a consensus decision I would not have closed the AfD - I would have done something else. There was no consensus for a redirect, so I couldn't close it that way. But there was a consensus for deletion by our rules. However, as redirect had been mentioned, I made that offer. I hope that clarifies that I followed procedures and made what seemed to me based on my experience to be the appropriate decision. While I can, like anyone else, make errors of judgement, I did think carefully about this close, and you have twice now encouraged me to rethink it, and I have been satisfied both times that the decision was the appropriate one.
 * I hope that answers your questions. I suspect you will remain frustrated and aggrieved. This happens. But I hope that you are at least satisfied that I did the appropriate thing according to our rules and procedures, and that I made a reasonable and fair personal offer to undelete on request (an offer which I did not have to make).
 * As regards User:Störm commenting here. Yes, that's not just allowed, but encouraged. You can put forward your point of view, and others are welcome to do the same. Even those who were not part of the AfD, but may happen to read this discussion. That's what happens on Wikipedia. And I like that aspect of it. We should not repress other people's appropriate views and opinions just because we don't like them.
 * And you needn't ping a user on their own talkpage. And when you do ping a user if you don't get their name exactly right, the ping won't work. My user name is SilkTork, not Silktork. This is just a FYI - people often get my user name wrong. It doesn't bother me, so no need to apologise. When pinging other users, I generally copy and paste their name so mistakes are not made. Keep well. SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for getting your username wrong - I should have noticed it was redlinked. I wanted to be clear though that it's not that I can't be bothered finding sources, but I'm always the one that has to do it, I don't have time to do a mass search of umpteen articles as was listed here within the short timeframes that AfDs allow. I appreciate your offer to undelete but I (respectfully) think your decision to delete was not the correct one - the correct one should have been no consensus. You will no doubt disagree with me but I hope you see the point I'm making here. Storm and others are going to use this as some sort of "precedent" and continue to assert that other articles should also be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Deus et lex, you didn't need a reliable source for each list, just for the concept of the set. Each of the list articles are constructed on the same concept (well, two concepts including centuries) that taking five wickets at ANY particular ground (not just taking five wickets) is noteworthy, and something that reliable sources have talked about. Once you have evidence for that concept, then you have an argument not just for keeping one list article, but for keeping them all. Conversely, once you have consensus that such a concept is not notable, and that there are no reliable sources, then any and all such list articles which are based on that concept may be deleted. Secondary to that, there is the notion that reliable sources talking about taking five wickets at a certain ground makes a list article on taking five wickets at that ground notable. So there are two things. The notability of the concept as a whole, and the notability of the concept as it applies to a particular ground. This was discussed in the AfD, with the notion that a five wicket haul at Lord's might be considered notable because of the highly notable status of that ground. I'm thinking that despite your worthy defence of the NOTSTATS principle, you didn't quite grasp the arguments behind NLIST. It may save us both a little bit of time and effort if you went to WP:NLIST and read it carefully. Then go back to the AfD and read through it again carefully, and then, finally, look again at my closing statement. Hopefully after doing that you might understand the principle under which those list articles were deleted, and why similar such lists may also be deleted. Though, as always, each AfD is unique because people bring forward different arguments and different interpretations of policy - which is what makes them interesting. SilkTork (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for T. Silva
An editor has asked for a deletion review of T. Silva. 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. Störm  (talk)  23:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lanston Monotype Company
Hi there SilkTork, you recently closed this discussion as a merge. I'm curious how you reached that conclusion? Of the four people involved in the discussion, one said the article should be kept, one (me) said it seemed notable, one said it should be merged, and one (the nominator) said only that the company was a "Possible non-notable" one, and that merging or deletion "may be needed". Given that consensus does not appear to have bent in one direction or the other, I would have thought the article would be relisted, or, barring that, closed as "no consensus." Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Usernameunique. Though not suggested or mentioned in the article, I note that we already have an article on the company - Monotype Imaging. I suggest boldly merging Lanston Monotype Company into Monotype Imaging as they are talking about the same company! SilkTork (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch, SilkTork; that does indeed look like two articles on the same thing. I've moved over all the unique information from Lanston Monotype Company to Monotype Imaging. The latter article sure could use a lot of improvement, but that's a job for another day. I'm not sure whether to simply blank the former article and turn it into a redirect, or if there is a more official way or marking the merger. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do that for you Usernameunique. When material is merged from one Wikipedia article to another, we have to mention it on both articles to comply with copyright laws, per WP:MERGETEXT, so I'll do that as well, and then everything is neat and tidy. SilkTork (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)