User talk:SoWhy/Archive 25

CCSI RfC
Replying here so as to not overwhelm conversation on a different RfC: I'd be very happy to help on trying to get an RfC on this together. I think there is an appetite to settle the ambiguity in the A7 wording now. Re: CCSI as compared to the SNGs: the current NSPORTs discussion I think shows how there are many in the community that are frustrated with SNGs. Not enough to get a consensus to do GNG alone, but I think getting an equivalent of that through on CSDs would be difficult. I think it is a very good supplemental essay and it has caused my CSD tagging to change a lot personally, but personally think upgrading WP:SIGNIFICANCE now and then treating CCSI as something like OUTCOMES might be able to get more people behind it. You are of course much more familiar with me than this, but putting in my 2¢ as a relative newcomer who wants to see clarification on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say this, but I think WP:CCSI would stand a much better chance of becoming a guideline if the statement goes. No offence to you or, but my latest "I have A7 completely wrong" episode as well as this show that that statement is way outside consensus, despite WP:INVALIDBIO's wording. Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that view should be mentioned in the essay, since it is a perfectly valid view to hold on what should stop A7, and the essay documents what different people on Wikipedia think should stop A7. It would be the main reason I oppose promoting the essay to guideline, though, because I think automatic redirection without conversation on BLPs is a bad way to handle things. The other main reason I think you would get opposes is that the terms used for many of the claims of significance are pretty vague. That's fine in an essay being used to inform practice, but if you are going to have a 50+ item guideline, the items should be more clearly defined. The most important thing with overuse of A7 is emphasizing that if there is a reason someone might want to bring up another option at AfD, it should go to AfD. Full stop. Once I started viewing the criteria that way, I have been using it a lot less, and as I have expressed in the past, I do thank all the users who have been pinged/are a part of a conversation for that emphasis. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Jason Unruhe
Hi,

The PROD removed here was a BLPPROD. It was removed due to the addition of sources. It's not quite the same as contesting a normal PROD as BLPPROD is strictly about the article's sourcing, not the subject's notability or anything else. Just thought I'd point this out to you as you seemed to imply you thought the editor contested a normal PROD? Adam9007 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I probably should have worded that better. My point was: A7 is for uncontroversial cases. If an established editor takes the time to de-(BLP)PROD an article, the presumption of it being an uncontroversial case is usually refuted, thus the article should not be deleted without discussion, seeing as might contest such a deletion if they thought the article can be de-PRODed. Regards  So  Why  06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
-barrelroll.dev (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Does that match...
Just wondering whether the version deleted at Articles for deletion/Rao Farman Ali Malik matches with Rao Farman Ali Malik.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 12:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It did for the most part. The minor changes did not address the reasons for deletion. I have deleted it as G4. In the future, you can oftentimes tag such articles for G4 deletion since you are not able to see the deleted version. Just make sure to check whether the page can be the same. A 2015 AfD for an article that contains 2017 sources won't work for example. Regards  So Why  12:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 14:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett
Hi. I haven't actually published a new book by Terry since 1986 so there's no commercial conflict. As Terry's agent, I hope I can find published sources to add to the entry, but as there were a number of refs to my website, I've been doing my best to put in further details. Footnotes were removed only where they referred back to fn.26 and in each case I think I have added factual information to replace the wording which merely referred to my website, such as publication dates and the marriage date (I have a copy of the marriage Certificate). fn26 refers to 'About Terry', and that source is now to be found at http://colinsmythe.co.uk/terry-pratchett/ and is called 'Terry Pratchett and His Work'. I see the link is up-to-date. I also deleted a reference to a Bucks Free Press initiative for the High Wycombe Library setting up a site to reprint all the children's stories. As this was not a BFP site, under UK copyright law they had no right to approve this, and I as Terry's agent demanded it be stopped as a breach of Terry's copyright. Only a few stories had been put online and the project stopped immediately. This took place years ago. Had the BFP set it up as their initiative on their site, this would have been legal as the paper would have been republishing work it had itself already published. I therefore removed a sentence and the accompanying footnote on that occasion. I do not know how I would justify that removal to a reader, as it was never reported: all I can say is that it took place.

If you have individual concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me which worry you.

Very best wishes

Colin Smythe 2 May 2017--ColinSmythe (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . As I said, I don't think a commercial conflict of interest is the problem but rather a personal one, as you have information available to you from your own experience (such as the copy of the marriage certificate you mention) that ordinary viewers have not. Thus I might trust you that the date is correct for example but how can another reader be certain if there is no source cited where they can confirm it? There was the link to the page authored by your company but that has been removed, thus readers can't verify the information. That is the point I was trying to make.
 * As for removing content, it's not forbidden to do so if you have good reasons. But you should use edit summaries to explain them. Regards  So Why  19:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My unblock decision
It just occurred to me that I spent several hours of my life today (which I will never get back) reading about Vipul and friends. Why am I mentioning this? Because I hadn't originally read it when it unfolded and only stumbled across it by starting with the decision by Andrevan to unblock  Riceissa  without consulting the blocking admin. Minutes ago I just unblocked an editor without consulting the blocking admin, you. I think the case is a very distinguishable but given how many times I said to myself "how on earth could you perform the unblock without checking further", at the very least I want to get you in the loop. In short, you blocked user:Tamikothiel as having the same name is a famous person. That editor reached out to me at OTRS, and provided sufficient evidence, so I think this is straightforward but again I certainly owe it to you to let you know. If there are extenuating circumstances I should've asked about please let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . Thanks for the heads-up and no worries about that. While I appreciate being kept in the loop, I think such blocks are by nature overturnable by any admin once the reason for the block no longer exists, i.e. in this case the user has proven their identity. After all, the block was only to prevent impersonation. Regards  So Why  06:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the VSCO (VSCO Cam) page
Hello, I was researching (as a Wikipedia user) image-sharing websites, and noticed an interesting and, I thought, rather popular website/app was missing from the [|list] : VSCo. I was wondering why, and figured the reasons might be that it was not suggested to begin with, but then I couldn't even suggest it myself because it doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, which [|is necessary] for a website to be listed there. It did have a page, but it was deleted twice, last time by you.

I am a very scarce contributor to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if what I'm doing is wasting your time or annoying in any way. But since you deleted the page for being promotional (and not just you, the previous user did it for the same reason among others), I was wondering if its content could be altered to make it neutral and Wikipedia-compliant, or would it be too much work? I'd be happy to re-work it of course. I am not used to creating a wiki page from scratch, so I'm sure I would make a lot of really silly mistakes if I tried to do this, besides it wouldn't make much sense. But cleaning the deleted page from promotional content, that I can do.

It's just I think this website/app is pretty popular, at least popular enough for me to use it (and rather prefer it to certain others). So it's a pity it isn't featured in Wikipedia, isn't it?

Please let me know, and have a good day :)

--Thetys36 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Thetys36


 * I assume you are referring to the page formerly at VSCO (VSCO Cam)? I could restore it to your userspace but if it had been salvageable, I would have fixed it myself when encountering it. Unfortunately, the whole page was one giant ad for this app, describing in superlatives how great it is and so on. It would probably be a waste of time to try and fix that since you would basically have to write the whole page from scratch anyway.
 * Thus I suggest you try to create a new page yourself. Trust me, it's really not that hard and hey, we all have to learn some day, right? Just head over to Your first article which explains the basics and then you can use the article wizard to guide you through the steps. And if you have any questions, you can always come back here and ask, I'm happy to help. Regards  So  Why  19:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nas Daily
I apologise for incorrectly tagging the article. It seems that I had my WP:AfD hat on when tagging for WP:CSD. User:Chrissymad is infact doing what you suggested on my talkpage. Thanks again for your time in this instance and in general. All the best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  20:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Little confused
How is He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him., Regarded as on one of the top social media influencers promoting peace between Arab and Israelis. Write about stuff that will make people as him for talks, interviews, etc., Stuff about how awesome the website is. We need to promote the website so we can eventually either cut a partnership deal with Facebook, or move people over to our own platform., Talk about what Ense is. What Nas puts on it. Etc. This is to help out Iqram and the Ense team, Yassin's path to a new lifestyle began with the realization that he was a third of the way through his life expectancy, and he was spending most of that time in an office. Yassin calculated that he was 32% done with life based on the average male life expectancy in the United States of 76 years old. etc... not promotional? Or rather, how is that remotely encyclopedic? CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here, take this first:


 * That's for ignoring the inuse template and forcing me to resolve an edit conflict.
 * Then: Please do remember what G11 actually says. The page contained a lot of spammy bits but once you removed them - as you did while I was actively doing the same (see above) - a valid non-promotional stub about a subject that has been covered in multiple RS remained (see the sources I added, I don't speak Hebrew so I probably missed some). Regards  So Why  20:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The editor literally wrote "He inspires people to travel. Include some fact backed bullshit that will make travel and airline companies want to sponsor him." I'm sorry for "forcing" you to resolve an EC but garbage like that is totally unacceptable on an encyclopedia and we've deleted other articles for a lot less. This was a clear attempt at promoting an artist (and nothing more) and gaining something out of it and not contributing to an encyclopedia as per all the examples I've given you. This was a bad call on your part. You can have your trout back, I don't like fish. :) CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, keep the trout. Editing despite an inuse template is something you should know better than to do, no matter how much you feel the need to act.
 * Then: I will concede that this was a borderline case and that I wouldn't have faulted any admin for deleting the article as G11 (and might even have done so myself on a bad day). You and I also clearly agree that this article was created to promote the subject. I have explained to the article's creator - additionally to leaving them a COI template - that they were extremely lucky that I was willing to look past the promotion at the possibly notable subject behind it.
 * Here's my thought process in detail:
 * When I reviewed the article, I noticed two things: 1) The lede was written quite neutrally and contained a reliable source covering the subject in detail. 2) The body of the text was a mess of promotional text.
 * I considered A7 deletion and decided against it because of the reliable source and the claims of significance.
 * I then considered G11 deletion. Even though I am quite versed at speedy work, I re-read G11's definition to be sure and it says that it only applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten" (emphasis added). Was it exclusively promotional? Arguably but I decided no, since the lede was not. Was a fundamental rewrite necessary? Again, arguably but I think not because removing spammy bits to leave a valid stub is not technically a "rewrite". After all, the lead section of WP:CSD says "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." (emphasis added)
 * When deciding whether to speedy delete the page, I also remembered the basic principle of the deletion policy, i.e. "will removing a page about this subject in the project's best interest?" After checking GNews to confirm that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I thought not, despite the motives of the creator. After all, readers looking for information about a subject don't really care why a page was created, just that it provides them with verifiable NPOV information about the subject.
 * I then heeded WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM (a core policy) and reduced the page to a valid stub with multiple sources.
 * Hopefully you can understand why I acted this way (without necessarily agreeing with me of course). Feel free to ask me any time if you need further explanation of one of my actions.
 * PS: I know from past experience that you favor a more liberal application of the speedy deletion criteria while I believe a strict application of the policy is required, so I understand that we probably won't see eye-to-eye in such borderline cases. Unfortunately so because I think you are a good editor whose heart is in the right place and who would make a fine admin one day if you moderated your approach to speedy deletion (I just had to decline another A7 tagging of yours for a subject with multiple claims of significance (and a score of GNews hits). Regards  So Why  07:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I know from past experience that you favor a more liberal application of the speedy deletion criteria while I believe a strict application of the policy is required, so I understand that we probably won't see eye-to-eye in such borderline cases. Unfortunately so because I think you are a good editor whose heart is in the right place and who would make a fine admin one day if you moderated your approach to speedy deletion (I just had to decline another A7 tagging of yours for a subject with multiple claims of significance (and a score of GNews hits). Regards  So Why  07:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas Aquinas House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Aquinas House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thomas Aquinas House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. India1277 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas House
hi thanks for considering speedy deletion.. but take a note why i nominated it and then decide if still want that article on wiki ok do u think these are notable achivement i spent lot time on this article to consider it delete nomination... but now i pass this to you... if u think it should remain on wiki no prob ... and if we think the tag was right ... please nominate again... thank you India1277 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC) p.s. the same editor created St. Thomas Aquinas House (Covington Latin School) which was deleted earlier on same issue thank you India1277 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) it is part of school house system--- if that so imp for school u can merge it with schools wiki page... its not that notable
 * 2) article don't have any citation... i even visited school website they dont have any mention of it
 * 3) a. Dominating in the 2015 End-of-Year CLS Picnic b. Winning the 2016 house video contest
 * 1) St. Thomas Aquinas was chosen as it's namesake don't confuse this with http://www.traditionalcanons.org/who-we-are/ which is big notable religions house
 * 2) Aquinas House has been located in room 301


 * For A7 speedy deletion, notability is not an issue. If it's part of a notable entity but not notable itself, you (and any other editor) are encouraged to fix the problem by redirecting or merging as outlined at WP:ATD. My decision was only based on whether the page meets the narrow requirements for A7 speedy deletion, which it does not. I invite you to be bold and just follow the alternatives to deletion I linked to before. Regards  So Why  09:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

hi... i thought of merging first... but after looking at there school wiki page decided not to... i mean its just school house why to merge them into imp school article.. and there are no ref which can i refer to rewrite article as per encyclopedic... who knows maybe its a hoax India1277 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Katfyr
Hello and many thanks for your review of the page I started for the artist Katfyr. At this point, with the new 6 references, do you think the page will be in good standing to avoid deletion? Really hoping so, but I'm willing to add more if needed. pbigio (talk) 04:46, 05 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there and thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question definitively. As you have gathered, for an article to be kept, it needs to demonstrate that the subject is notable. That means the subject has to either meet the requirements stated at the specialized notability guideline for musicians (abbreviated WP:MUSICBIO) or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).
 * In this case, I see no claims that the subject qualifies for any of the criteria #2 to #12 of WP:MUSICBIO, so the only one is WP:MUSICBIO #1. And regarding that I cannot tell you whether the sources are enough because I am not at all familiar with EDM and thus have no clue whatsoever if the pages you are citing are reliable sources or just fringe fan blogs. You can also try to add sources that verify that the subject meets any of the other 11 criteria.
 * As for #1, I suggest you check out WikiProject Electronic music, a group of editors who are interested in such subjects. The article is already listed in their article alerts page (i.e. the list of articles to check out) but possibly one of its active members can help you more than I can (you can check a user's contribution with the link in the list or the "User contributions" link on the left side when on someone's page to determine if they are still actively editing.
 * Hope that helps. If you have more questions, feel free to ask. PS: Please remember to add new posts at the bottom of a talk page (you can and should use the "new section" link for that). Regards  So Why  18:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy Mag
Hey, Thanks for letting me know about the A7 deletion criteria. I still believe that the article fails WP:NMEDIA. As you are far more experienced editor then me and have reviewed the article, I wanted to check with you before nominating the article for deletion.  Razer Text me 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume you are correct, seeing as the same editor once created Draft:Happy (blog) (AFC submission declined for failing to demonstrate notability) and this seems to be about the magazine that this blog produces. Feel free to nominate the article if you have tried the steps at WP:BEFORE without avail. Regards  So Why  12:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Page deleted -Bing Nv- ask for the page back please
Dear SoWhy

You deleted the page i started recently under SpeedyDeletion criteria A7 I am sorry about that, and need to inform you that i don't agree with this deletion. Yes, it's a real person, but it's a very important emerging photographer in the asian background. It's one of the youngest photographer working in this artistic field. This photographer has already been shortlisted in several contest, exhibiting in recognize institutions and has, at this day, three books published.

I totally agree the following : You close the page before the sources were listed and the article ended. You didn't knew the facts above, (whatever the reason, maybe you're not interested by art/photography/asia...). You didn't made any other research to find WHY someone open a case, or find it hard because of the chinese translations. You admit by closing this page that the person was not important, this is an abusive/fast judgement and it's the main reason to ask for the page back.

I hope for revision. Best regards

le carré bleu coupé (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) May 10th 2017


 * First of all, please avoid personal attacks - following policy is not "abusive" behavior and you will rarely find an admin who is stricter than I am when it comes to applying A7. I understand your frustration but unfortunately far too many people use Wikipedia to self-promote so that we had to enact a policy to quickly deal with such articles.
 * Of course no editor knows all details of every area but we can all agree (I hope) that an article that basically consisted of "She is a young photographer who has self-published two books" contains no reason for anyone to assume that this person is significant or important.
 * That said, I'm happy to restore the page for you to continue working on it. To avoid further problems, I have done so and moved it to Draft-space. You can now find it here: Draft:Bing Nv. Feel free to take your time working on it and adding reliable sources to prove her notability. Once you are done, I suggest you add the code  at the top of the page so an experienced editor will review your article before it's published.
 * If you need more help, feel free to ask me or use the help me template on your talk page. Regards  So Why  06:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you need more help, feel free to ask me or use the help me template on your talk page. Regards  So Why  06:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding speedy deletion of Boulder Group
Hello, user:SoWhyThanks for the message. Since the firm in question is not notable, what would have been the proper speedy deletion? I used the correct tag: Db-inc for a company. Would you be so kind to assist me in what I did wrong? Was I even close? Help walk me through? I would like to learn this procedure. Thanks! Geejayen (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . Yours was one of the most common mistakes, in that notability is not a relevant criterion for speedy deletion. It's sufficient that there is a claim of significance or importance, which is a lower bar than notability (see WP:A7). As luck would have it, I decided to write a page containing a number of helpful links, which you can find at User:SoWhy/SDA. I suggest you read some of the essays I linked to, they should help you understand the process. If you then have any more questions, feel free to ask. PS: Please remember that new messages at a talk page should be places at the bottom Regards  So  Why  07:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

‎Miguel Ángel Álvarez Tomé
I'm hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the create protection of this article. While it may have only been created twice, it was created twice in a relatively short time frame by a particularly prolific and persistent sockpuppeteer. User:10alatham has been socking continuously since 2010. Simply put, I have every reason to believe the article will just pop up again in a few days time if it's not salted. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If it does, no harm in requesting SALTing then. But since the subject might well be a notable football coach, it's not a stretch to assume some good-faith user will want to recreate the article instead. But I'll put the page on my (admittedly quite full) Watchlist for now; if it's recreated by a sock, I should see it. Regards  So Why  15:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for National liberalism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of National liberalism. 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. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Brittz [Quetions]
Hi. I recently created a page for [Retief Burger]. I got a message that it is deleted. I don't understand it at all. {The message is on my talk page.} I did read that above-mentioned link you gave. The code that is given in A7 I want to know what qualifies as a legitimate reason to keep a page. The person who I want to create the page of (Retief Burger), is quiet a well-know South African singer. He has recorded 5 CD's already, and he often sings in big venues in South Africa. Now, I don't necessarily want you to put the page back up, but I would like to know how to create pages, etc. [I am rather new to this aspect of Wikipedia] Please advise me on this. Thank you Freddie2016 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you wish to learn more about the process we call "speedy deletion" in general, I have collected a number of helpful guides at User:SoWhy/SDA.
 * As for your question about Retief Burger: Our speedy deletion criterion A7 allows us to delete articles about people that do "not indicate why its subject is important or significant". To put it in simpler terms: To survive speedy deletion, the article needs to contain credible claims that - if verifiable - would lead a reasonable person unfamiliar with the subject to assume that they should be included in an encyclopedia in some form or other. Saying "he is a singer, who sings rock songs in English" applies to a lot of people who are unremarkable, so that's not enough. Saying "he is a singer who has released five albums on a notable label" would be enough on the other hand.
 * However, to survive at all, the subject does not only have to pass the lower bar of significance or importance, it has to be notable. Notability means the subject has been covered significantly in multiple reliable sources (newspapers, books etc.) for a period of time. There are a lot of guidelines for notability for certain subjects; in this case, the applicable guideline would be the one about musicians. Only then should the subject be included in Wikipedia.
 * My advice would thus be: Read Your first article, which includes a lot of helpful tips. Then, use the Article Wizard to create your next page. That way, it will be placed in a special namespace called "Draft:" and is exempt from A7 speedy deletion until an experienced editor has reviewed your article and deemed it inclusion-worthy.
 * If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  12:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  12:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, you've done it now. I'm taking you up on the offer of asking questions. I have a lot.
 * I do read the articles, such as Your first article and the like, but in all those articles, there are points that it become somewhat Greek to me... and I studied the actual ancient Greek language...
 * I will read all those articles again, and if I struggle to understand something, I will make a note and ask you about those specifics.
 * About the Retief Burger article that I want to start.
 * What does "notable label" mean? Is it a worldwide label? Or could it be, i.e. one of the top 3 Christian labels in South Africa? (Because Retief Burger is a Christian artist in South Africa).
 * Could I use sources like CUM Books website? They are the number one seller of Christian items in South Africa. Also, I used www.luidkeels.co.za - the website that is dedicated to Retief and his music. Would I have to use other websites, rather than that one as a source, or could it be one of the main sources and then I should use different sources as well?
 * If I am going to use WP:Article Wizard, should I tag you somewhere so you can come and have a look, or will it be on the radar of editors?
 * Again, thank you for the help. Freddie2016 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * All information you add about a subject, especially about living people, has to be verifiable by providing sources. You can find an explanation which are good sources and which are not at Identifying reliable sources. Generally speaking, most sources should be reliable secondary sources, i.e. written by people with an assumption of fact-checking (journalists etc.) who are independent of the subject. Fan sites or personal sites fail this standard. Same usually goes for retailers, although a biography page on their page might be used together with other sources. So look for newspaper articles, books that cover him etc.
 * If you use the article wizard's instructions, it tells you to add  to the page after you are done. It will place the page in the articles for creation review queue and experienced editors will review it. You are welcome to notify me instead if you like. Regards  So  Why  15:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Thank you for explaining it is such simple terms... I will be back with more questions in time... Freddie2016 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Thank you for explaining it is such simple terms... I will be back with more questions in time... Freddie2016 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank You for the barnstar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFD (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are welcome and thanks again for finding that source :-) Regards  So Why  20:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ungir Piratar
Hi,

You declined A7 here but according to the deletion log, it was later A7d anyway by. Is it the same as what you declined? Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it was declined. I had that open looking at the A7 claim, forgot about it for a bit, and returned to delete it. Probably should have refreshed before pulling the trigger. Whoops. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have deleted it regardless of my decision though. As a youth organization of a notable political party, it clearly contained a significant enough claim to pass A7, since even if it were not notable by itself, it could have been merged/redirected to the party's article per WP:ATD. You might want to re-read the RfC consensus linked at from WP:CCSI and consider ATD next time you review a speedy tagging. Regards  So Why  06:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Brasserie Ellezelloise
Dear SoWhy, Could you please userfy the article Brasserie Ellezelloise that you recently deleted Many thanks. ? MHAN2016 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅, you can find it at User:MHAN2016/Brasserie Ellezelloise. Happy editing. Regards  So Why  18:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Could you take a look at User:Arnaud.bloquiau/Brasserie Ellezelloise and let me know whether you would have deleted it in its current state? MHAN2016 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since I usually assume good faith that cited offline sources are indeed covering the subject. I suggest you familiarize yourself with citation templates though and use them instead of the bare-text references. If you don't want to use the template code, you can enable the VisualEditor in your preferences and use it to easily create such templated citations (I myself use it for such purposes). Also, if you can find some of the books on Google Books, it would be great to link them in the references so others can easily check them. Regards  So Why  20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added Google Books links to most of the sources. I've also had a quick look at the citation templates you linked to. That page says "the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged" – so I'm wondering why you suggest using them rather than not, since at first glance they do seem to complicate things rather. MHAN2016 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation templates are a useful way to generate references that contain everything important in a pre-defined way, allowing for a more uniform looking references section. Of course it's a matter of preference but using them allows others, especially using the VisualEditor I mentioned above, to easily tweak them without having to edit the source. Regards  So Why  06:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
I may have been around for a (long) while, but I try to avoid this sort of nonsense, so I'm not familiar with the process. Thanks for your help :-) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My talk page
Hi – thanks for noticing that I wasn't the one that tagged that article for speedy deletion as quickly as you did. Just leaving a friendly note here to say that your list of declined speedies still incorrectly implicates me as the tagger. Thanks —72 talk / contribs 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct of course. The script I use unfortunately can't always tell if the tagger was first or second. Fixed now, thanks for the heads-up :-) Regards  So Why  20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries – thanks for changing it . —72 talk / contribs 20:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington DeMolay listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Washington DeMolay. Since you had some involvement with the Washington DeMolay redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Washington DeMolay
From my reading of this discussion, it seems like consensus was against redirecting. Could you please take another look? -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . Here's my detailed reasoning: If one just counts the !votes, only 4 or 5 out of 10 (depending how one interprets Power~enwiki's !vote) support redirecting but only three editors objected to redirecting. Since editors arguing for deletion usually do not mind redirects being created after deletion, the discussion contained on the one hand 11 out of 11 people arguing for removal in one form or another but 5 out of 8 (since the other three did not postulate any preference, I didn't count them as either pro or contra redirecting) in favor of redirecting or merging. I then considered the strength of the pros and cons by checking WP:R and WP:R, i.e. would the redirect have to be deleted if it were created independently. Only R#DELETE #10 might have applied but the requirement for deletion is that the article could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject (emphasis added). That the first part is not the case is evident by the AfD outcome, so this reason does not apply. Also, R#KEEP #5 is the case here because when multiple editors support redirecting it's safe to assume that people find the redirect useful. So imho the policy-based reasons are (slightly) in favor of keeping such a redirect. Since the topic itself is notable, maybe a list of DeMolay-organizations could be created to redirect this to instead? That would probably be the best solution. Regards  So Why  15:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the delete !votes rather than "redirect" are inherently an opposition of redirecting, otherwise they would have said redirect. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, your assertion that only three editors objected to redirecting is silly because there is not a required number of participants and it's the weight of the arguments combined with some level of consensus. If the other participants thought it should be redirected wouldn't they have said so? You're assuming an awful lot by saying Since editors arguing for deletion usually do not mind... when there was clear evidence of the opposite in that discussion. Creating redirects where there is no information about the subject being redirected is unhelpful and likely to be confusing for casual readers. There is a big difference between something that just isn't fit as a standalone article and something that has no actual sourcing for anything more than a single sentence, if that.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider alternatives to deletion before commenting. I've seen dozens of AfDs where people later wrote "oh, redirecting works too". If one argues for deletion because of a lack of individual notability of a sub-organization of a notable organization, there is no reason to assume that they would also object to a redirect to the notable topic. Closing an AfD as "delete and redirect" is more tantamount to closing it as delete and then creating a redirect shortly afterwards per WP:R #5 because multiple people thought it useful to have.
 * As for the numbers argument, I explicitly stated that I did not jsut count the !votes but rather considered the redirect-policy.
 * Regards  So Why  15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, since it's just the redirect that is being contested, I'm thinking of taking the matter to RfD instead of DRV. Would that be fair? -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the correct choice based on the reasoning that the redirect was technically created after deletion Go for it, I'm under no assumption of infallibility after all. Regards  So  Why  15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is why I argue so strongly against ridiculous redirects like this. The majority of Wikipedia's viewers are casual readers. I'd say it's probably likely they don't know what redirects are and not to throw TopCipher under the bus, but this !vote is precisely the reason this is problematic: Redirect to DeMolay International - Wow! Is it just me or do others too see that 'No results found for "Washington DeMolay"' under the Google News section!? In any case, while DeMolay is notable, this particular chapter doesn't seem to be and neither are any reliable references available to verify if any.. A redirects purpose is to be helpful, yes? What use is a redirect if nothing can be written, based on RS, in the target article? It becomes one of two things: an implausible redirect or confusing for casual readers. If a reader is looking for information on Z and is automatically redirected to A with no mention of Z, it is more or less useless. Or a real life example: my high school had an ITS chapter. You could probably google it and show it exists, should that have a redirect?
 * Also, Ideally, yes, but unfortunately many !voters don't consider alternatives to deletion before commenting., please. It's insulting to suggest that people who disagree with you couldn't possibly have considered other options.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * We can of course agree to disagree, no shame in that. I personally think if a reader looks for "Everyville Z" and is redirected to "Z", they are better served by the redirect than by no redirect because maybe they were interested in Z in general but just knew the name "Everyville Z". So it's not like "Z" redirecting to "A" which of course would be useless (cf. WP:R #5). Or to take your example: If I am looking for "Smallville High International Thespian Society" and am redirected to "International Thespian Society" I might have been looking for the specific chapter but as likely than not I didn't know that this is just a chapter of a larger organization and find it helpful to at least have information on the main organization. And that's how I assessed the consensus to be at that AfD as well.
 * As for the latter part, I know we don't see eye to eye on a couple of things (sadly) but I had hoped that by now you knew me well enough that I don't insult (and I don't think I ever have). My comment was not insulting, it was merely an observation based on my observations during my tenure as an editor and admin of this project. Unlike yourself and Tavix for example (and of course many others), there is - unfortunately - a significant number of editors who treat deletion in general and AfD in particular as a binary choice: Delete or Keep. Saying that this is the case of course does not mean that everyone who !votes delete didn't consider alternatives and I never meant to imply that it did. Regards  So Why  18:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Golbin
Socking? I've got an SPI ready to go but as far as I can tell is the only other creator right? CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The new page (which I just deleted) was created by . Text was different this time around, I suspect meat-puppetry, i.e. that he got one of his friends to create the page but it's not clearly DUCKy. HTH. Regards  So Why  12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Options
Which of the two processes do you recommend: a) contacting you "very nicely", or b) going via the Wikipedia deletion review? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . I'm happy to discuss any deletion I made (within reason of course). If you think I made a mistake, please tell me which article it concerns and why you think the decision was a mistake and I will take another look. Regards  So Why  17:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the response, it is a deletion to Joesph-Dubois where a few wikipedia mates have ganged up to force a deletion justified by a policy that is on it's own justifiable, but on balance not enough to delete this entry - all things considered. But the truth is this: crack on pal. I am going to delete my account on wikipedia (understand my edits will persist), because this has been a terrible waste of time already. The article was AFD'd, then no one objected, so they got their mates to REPOST IT for deletion to drum up support for deletion. Poor show, but that's how folk behave on here. Snobby, self-sure, deeming comments along the way. That's what i experienced here. Not a single comment on the content. Only comments on the football policy, no comments on how the player had achieved reconizable status The guy who AFD'd the article knows who the player is, even without an article on wikipedia. So they engaged in bully-boy behaviour. I'm done. Wikipedia can continue without my edits or donations. Enough.

Censorship Inquiry
Hi there "SoWhy", I am writing to inquire as to why an article that was written recently was deleted (censored) by you. You sighted A7 as the reason for censorship, however, thousands, or more likely hundreds of thousands of people out there that have read Aaron's work and would disagree with you as to the "significance", or rather lack of, that you stated as being the reason for the censoring of the article.

Not that it matters too much, but I used to contribute money every year to Wiki because I respected the open platform and access to information that it provided. However, now the site seems to be "patrolled" by people who delete articles regardless if the content in said articles is true or false, which in effect has turned Wiki into the very type of platform that it once boasted as being against.

The article that you deleted (an article on Aaron La Lux), was 100% factual, there was no false statements in it. As far as free speech and open platforms go, why would information be purposely censored for any other reason other than said information being false. Therefore I do not understand why you decided to delete it. Even after reading the explanation of what A7 means, I still do not see the grounds for which it was deleted to be fair.

I am not here to specifically request the said article to be reinstated (although that would be great). I am simply here to ask that you carefully examine your actions and beg of you to please not become the very force that the original Wikipedia was created to counteract. Censorship is never good, and it goes against the fundamental tenants of not just Wikipedia, but the internet as a whole.

You are likely much more experienced and knowledgeable in the "internet world", so I am not here to try and argue with you, complain, or tell you how to act. I am only asking that you take an honest look at yourself and your actions, and then decide if you are assisting or hindering the freedom of speech and the spread of information. I'm sure you feel like you are acting on behalf of the powers of the "greater good", but please remember, almost every oppressor and oppressive regime in the history of civilization thought he/she were acting on behalf of the "greater good". We all cold benefit from a bit more self reflection, honestly.

Anyways, I hope this inquiry is not taken offensively in any way. The internet is a very useful tool for open communications, and I am in no way trying to be offensive, I am simply trying to communicate in a way that will assist in shedding light on not only the article that was deleted, but the one that deleted is as well :-) It's all Love & Respect here. Honestly.

Thank you SO much for taking the time to read this inquiry, and feel free to respond in whatever way you desire. AaronLA (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there AaronLA and welcome to Wikipedia!
 * First of all, please do not use the word "censorship" when referring to deletion. Its negative connotations risk poisoning any conversation, no matter how valid the complaint itself is because it implies the person responsible is following some kind of nefarious agenda. Deletion on the other hand just serves the purpose of the project.
 * Without talking about the article in question, unfortunately many people wish to misuse Wikipedia's popularity to promote themselves. This is the reason why we have certain rules (called policies and guidelines) that govern what can and cannot be added. A common misconception is that articles are measured by "truth". They are not. Not only is our policy "verifiability, not truth", the factual accuracy of an article's content is irrelevant for determining inclusion. That's what we have notability guidelines for (in this case the one about authors applies). While A7 speedy deletion uses a lower standard than that, the article still needs to contain sufficient credible claims that set the subject apart from all the other subjects.
 * If this author is really as popular as you describe, it's safe to assume that reliable sources have written about him, such as newspapers etc., is it not? Yet I cannot find any evidence that this is the case. As such, even if I restored the article at this time, I would be obligated to immediately propose its deletion again due to our biographies of living persons policy that requires all articles about living persons to contain at least one such source. That would be a waste of time, don't you agree? And even if a single source could be found, for an article to be included the subject needs to have been substantially covered in multiple such sources per the above notability guidelines.
 * I'm happy to restore the article if you can show me that the subject has been covered by reliable sources. Feel free to ask me for help if you need it.
 * Regards  So Why  09:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well, I suppose we both have our perspectives. I am not going to argue, however, what I will say is that many times that censorship has been, and still is, exercised, the ones doing the censoring do not do so with nefarious intent, they do so because they honestly think they are doing the correct thing. I am not saying that that is the case with you, I am simply saying we need to be careful not to become the very thing that we are attempting to liberate ourselves and others from, in this case, the oppression of Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Information. Again, I do not mean this in any sort of negative way towards you, I honestly believe that you are doing a great service and have nothing but the best of intentions in the services that you provide. I just think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one ;-) And thank you for at least engaging in a constructive conversation on the matter, you have been both respectful and informative in your communications and that is truly appreciated. Much Love & Respect AaronLA (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lerumo
FYI ADA is not a label - it is a distributor/merchandising company and artists do not get signed to it. The label of the artist in question is supposedly Moore Muzik, which is not partnered with the distributor and is definitely not notable or significant. Would you mind reassessing your a7 decline? Thanks. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You appear to be correct, I must have misread the article about ADA. Sorry for that. However, after your message, more content was added, including a couple of links to pages that might qualify as reliable sources, so I don't think it meets A7 now regardless of said mistake. Regards  So Why  06:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple detags
I would appreciate you taking a look at Ciguli and Danny Levan, which I pulled CSD tags off of. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ‎


 * Ciguli: The detag was correct, there is clearly context to identify the subject. You are of course allowed to turn it into a PROD if you believe the article should be deleted for other reasons but "no context" is not one of the reasons, so when you change something to PROD, use your own reasoning why the page should be deleted.
 * Danny Levan: Clearly not an A7 with claims to be signed to UMG but why convert it to PROD? Do you think the subject lacks notability? As with Ciguli above, you should only PROD something if you believe there is a policy-based reason to delete the article.
 * Regards  So Why  13:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes CSD tagged should be turned into Prod tags based on the nominator's good-faith belief in deletion, but possibly these are not appropriate cases. Thanks for the input. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes CSD tagged should be turned into Prod tags based on the nominator's good-faith belief in deletion, but possibly these are not appropriate cases. Thanks for the input. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory
Imagine my surprise that the first result on Google for Midget Handjob was not porn...that was a risky click. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's one reason why SafeSearch exists, no? Regards  So  Why  13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and I bet he's not even a fan of punk jazz supergroups in the first place... ;) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What the f*** is safesearch, Google decided to remove the feature anyway leaving tons of porny stuff when searching lol. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

deleting main page
why did you nominate the main page for deletion? The garmine  (talk)  14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * To see if I could Nah, just joking. I was using an old script to nominate articles for deletion and the script didn't parse the title correctly, leaving it blank. Since "" is the hardcoded redirect for the Main Page, the script placed the AfD tag there. You can read all about it - including well-deserved trouting - at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 24. Regards  So  Why  15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. thanks!
 * also, the article Gardy tribe needs deletion but I don't know what tag I should use. The garmine   (talk)  15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does it need deletion? Seems like a good candidate for WP:ATD-R, just redirect it to Kurdish tribes. Regards  So Why  15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry. I thought that someone just made it up. The garmine   (talk)  15:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC) (and mention my name for a faster response)
 * Well, it has been listed in the latter article for some time now but you might still be right. It's not sufficiently obvious to warrant G3 deletion and A7 can't apply to articles that are about subtribes of notable people, so if you think so and cannot find any sources, take it to AFD. I can only find this source so it might be real (with a different spelling). Regards  So Why  15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: College of Divine Wisdom
Does it qualify as a college?? Coderzombie (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It claims to award degrees, such as Bachelor of Elementary Education which meets the definition of college and thus is sufficient to qualify it as a educational institution for the purpose of A7. Regards  So Why  08:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

User Jonncornerr
What do you think about this user (here his contributions) that seems that only reason of his life is Articles for deletion/Italian Fencing Federation :D --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Either someone who has a single agenda or someone whose efforts to help are seriously misguided. Either way, unless you can find some evidence of sock-puppetry, let's let the AfD do its job. Regards  So Why  09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
 * Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
 * An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news
 * Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Belated thanks
Just a quick note to thank you for pointing to Help:Shortened footnotes when you did the DYK review for Papal conclave, March 1605. This early modern conclave series of articles I am working on are the first that have extensively used offline sources that have multiple pages. Just got around to changing the citations over on that one and Papal conclave, 1724. Looks much cleaner, and a nudge in the right direction is always appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Changing a page name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_sports - is there any way to capitalize 'Sports" in Chat Sports? The lower case s on the second word is not an accurate representation of the company's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzialvarez (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Pages can be renamed using a process called moving. See that link for instructions. Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~ . Regards  So Why  19:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Thatcherist Party
Please can you undelete my article so I may improve it to fit Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Editor362 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. You can find it at User:Editor362/Thatcherist Party. Please remember to read and follow the policies and guidelines to avoid further deletions. So you made a userspace draft includes a useful summary. Regards  So Why  08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrator review
Template:Administrator review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheriolett
Can you help me start a wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheriolett (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm always happy to help but you need to be more specific. If you want to know about how to create an article, you can read Your first article and then use the article wizard to create it. However, if you want the article to be about yourself, you definitely should read our conflict of interest guideline first. In general, I strongly advise against doing so, since you most likely will be disappointed when the article is inevitably deleted. If you are really a notable musician, someone else will sooner or later create an article about you. Regards  So Why  06:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alaska P. Davidson
Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Grilled Charlie
Would you care to explain your reasoning a bit more fully? The numerical split was 3-3 for merge/redirect vs. delete. Absent a clear numerical consensus, your reasoning for deletion vs. relisting or no consensus close is both relevant and inscrutable. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . You are correct of course and I apologize for not providing a rationale at the time. I added one now. Basically, as I saw it, there was consensus to remove this article (in one way or another) but no consensus whether the content of the article warrant mention at another place (and if so, where) with even those not opposed to merging being wary whether this is really the right course of action. Personally, I am a fan of retaining as much material as possible but when judging AfDs, I cannot choose to ignore when consensus simply does not support such a course of action. But just because the AfD ended in that result does not mean there can't be consensus to add the information to another article or creating a new article and then redirect to it. PS: I kinda missed that you requested desysopping so if you need a copy of the article, I'll be happy to restore it to your userspace. Regards  So  Why  06:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a long story behind that, but it amounts to that I was outed by wikipediocracy, who posted my work details, during an arbitration case in 2013, putting my job at risk. You can search there for details if you want.  I've since moved on in every possible way, but "resigning under duress" is not an exception to "Under a cloud", and I had made too many enemies on that ArbCom to ever get a fair hearing.  I'd never pass RfA today, so I just work as a curationist, including butting into AfD/DRV again, and work on vital article GA reviews. But thank for mentioning it.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that. I was quite inactive from 2011 to 2015 so I missed all that stuff (probably better that way). Too bad about your tools. Feel free to request anything you need (within reason ) from me. Regards  So Why  08:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Katfyr deleted
Hey there! Just a quick follow up that the article on Katfyr was eventually deleted. I'm just here to raise the point for your records, as I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. Basically, I provided proof that WP:MUSICBIO #1, #5, #7 and #10 were addressed, and in over 3 weeks (relisted 3 times), no one was able to specifically answer as to why those points were invalid. I made the same comment to the person who deleted the article, but the user was unreasonable to argue these points as well, and accepted somehow that the "consensus" as baseless as it was, provided enough reason for deletion. Something appears to be off in this process, appears slightly unethical, and at the same time, it seems that the AFD process is still far from what it should be. Anyways, just like a said, just for the record, and surely, I understand it is a community process, open to flaws like this. Pbigio (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I told you on my user page, you are welcome to bring up the concern at WP:DRV. Complaining to multiple people is not the right process. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Joe is correct of course. Since I acted as an admin before, I am recusing myself from this topic anyway. Regards  So Why  08:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking for Mentor
Dear SoWhy,

I'm a second-year accounting student interested in becoming more involved with Wikipedia. I saw that you're accepting protégé. I'm looking to become a better writer and editor and would appreciate guidance on where to start.

Sincerely, Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Moos (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (not SoWhy but a talk page stalker) I suggest to go to the WP:community portal and start checking references on the pages they suggested. Then ask then what the procedure is to tell them you've checked a reference (hint: there isn't one) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . The best way to start for all new editors is probably checking out WP:WELCOME (that link is btw one of the maaaany shortcuts you will encounter as an active editor). I also left you a template with further links on your talk page.
 * Wikipedia has many different ways for users to contribute, depending on their skills and interests, such as writing or expanding articles, helping to defend existing articles against vandalism or working behind the scenes. Judging from your contributions, I see you already started making some edits to existing articles, fixing language and grammar. Keep that up. When you feel ready to create your own article, I suggest using the article wizard, a helpful process that assists you with your first article.
 * Whenever you have any questions, feel free to come here and ask me. I'll also be happy to review your first article if you like.
 * PS: Remember to sign your messages on talk pages such as this one with  which creates a signature with your name and date.
 * Regards  So Why  08:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear ,


 * Thank you for taking the time to help me become an effective contributor. The template has been fantastic for increasing my comprehension of Wikipedia culture and systems. In order to get the most from Wikipedia, I'm hoping to fill roles that involve learning new material (e.g. reading articles to make revisions), and in the future, perhaps I'll find other ways to do that.


 * I would be grateful if you could review my first article. My hope is to produce something that is relevant to the community, and, doesn't end up a sad orphan. =c


 * We'll be in touch,
 * Mitchell Moos (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First question, what is the general rule of linking "Example Link" content? In some articles, each instance of an important concept is linked. In others, only the first one is. Thoughts?
 * Mitchell Moos (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fortunately(?) for you, we have a lot of style guides when it comes to such questions. The one applicable here is Manual of Style/Linking. According to it, links should only be used once in the article with a few exceptions (see MOS:DUPLINK section for details). Regards  So Why  06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

College plan of sitora ‎
Why did you convert my A7 speedy to a prod (the A11 was not mine)? And not even a sticky prod? Regardless of what the title is, this is a completely unsourced bio which makes makes no credible claim of notability. You might want to look at the editor's talk page. First he claimed to be a 92-year-old dead person writing his or her own obituary, and now a young university student. So, now this is likely going to waste time going to AFD (unless the user doesn't bother to remove your prod). Very strange. Meters (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . On reflection, you are correct. When I reviewed it, I thought it to be a WP:NOTWEBHOST biolation but outside A7's scope. But reading it again I agree that it fits A7. I rectified the decision and deleted the article. Thanks for the message. Regards  So Why  07:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No probs. Thanks for looking again. I thought maybe I had missed something, but I couldn't see it. Meters (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

How about closing these aviation AFDs
WP:Articles for deletion/2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash and WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31. They both seem clear deletes and they have been open for more than 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you mean WP:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 31 (2nd nomination)? Unfortunately the discussion about whether to redirect has still not taken place completely, so I'm willing to wait another day (relist is from last Wednesday). I closed the other one. I usually go though AfDs listed at Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs and that list is generated from overdue ones the day after the relist-date + 7 days. Regards  So Why  10:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How May One Tackle This
Hello SoWhy, Please i need your help

1. Theoretically speaking, how may one handle a WP editor who is very advanced and conversant with every policy and guideline but somehow has began to act in very bad faith, he/she all of a sudden is a vandal/Disruptive editor who rather than follow polices established chooses to act in their own way using WP:IAR as an excuse to continue their vandalism. This is all theoretical of course as i am not at the moment facing this problem.

2. How may i handle an experienxed editor who is acting out of WP:REVENGE ?? for example, i nominate an article for deletion because i deem it of no encylopedic value, (unfortunately the article is "his own") when the article eventually is deleted he goes on rage and start to nominate articles i created which clearly are of encylopedic value and qualify primary notability guidelines for deletion. How may i tackle this as well? where do i go to report such unacceptable behavior? Please i beg of you to enlighten me. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Any problems with behavior of other editors, no matter how experienced they are, should be resolved by trying to discuss the problem with the user in question. If they continue, the problem should be raised at one of the noticeboards. If no specific noticeboard exists, WP:ANI is usually the right venue. If you are raising an issue at a noticeboard, remember to be a neutrally as possible and to provide links or diffs of the problematic edits. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for more information. Regards  So Why  13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice.Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Binh.nguyen.231/sandbox
FYI. Take care, &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Always happy to help but there a specific reason why you told me about this page? Regards  So Why  18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, curiously, I thought you were currently online. But, looking at the times, you hadn't editied since 12ish. I think maybe I hadn't refreshed the page; sorry sbout that. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries. Btw, there is a userscript for that I like to use called "Status Check" (see User:Ale jrb/Scripts). It displays a small box based on last edit/log action. Regards  So Why  10:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll give that a whirl, cheers. I need to go to VPT about scripts, funnily enough, thanks for the reminder. Des it just go on the .js page? &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, either common.js or .js works since it does not require a certain skin. Regards  So Why  17:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I need experienced advice
Hello i need advice on an issue, having failed to obtain this information from most policies or guidelines i thought it wise to ask from an editor, Here is my question; At what point do i start to issue out a level 1 warning to an editor who behaves as a vandal/disruptive editor & at what point also do i begin to issue out a level 2 & so on. I dont usually issue out warnings because i am not satisfied with the knowledge i have on that aspect. Please enlighten me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can find extensive guidelines to user warnings at WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout and a pretty complete list at Template messages/User talk namespace. Basically, the difference between level 1 and level 2 is the assumption of good faith / bad faith. Level 1 assumes good faith, level 2 is neutral, level 3 and 4 assume bad faith. Unless you have reason not to assume good faith, you should start with level 1 warnings. On that subject, remember that using such templates on regular editors is often considered rude.
 * PS: No need to use ping when posting to someone's talk page, changes to the talk page automatically send out a ping.
 * Regards  So Why  20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i really appreciate this.Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i really appreciate this.Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Administrator review
Template:Administrator review has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Brian Litman Afd
Dear Administrator SoWhy:

I has come to my attention that an Article written about me is being questioned for its accuracy or sources. I write you because, I see that the article has been on your administrative "radar".

Sometime last year an interested writer contacted and interviewed me. We had more than one discussion. The original focus for this discussion was my involvement in digital audio technologies. But as the conversation deepened I recall that the reason why I had organized my AMP technology team in Croatia was because my co-founders were there. Further I told him that I was very comfortable operating in Eastern Europe because I had considerable familiarity with Russia, having resided there in the early 1990's.

This led to his inquiry as to my work activities there. He found my recounting of this "likely hard for the public to believe" and he asked for proof of my unusual relationships. I decided to avail the writer of links to some of my personal photographic and document archives (with permission to publish). The writer thought these archives were necessary to "prove" that I had relations with prior members of the Russian intelligence community and high officials such as Soviet Premier Ryzhkov. The rather extensive results of his interest are evident in Wikipedia's article. As I now understand it, such "primary sources" are discouraged, but, under extenuating circumstances, are permissible under Wikipedia rules. But, I am the only one in possession of these items and I have them archived in my private cloud which is neither indexed or overtly "published". Otherwise, the author sourced many links, (still visible even from the early 90's) related to my business dealings with KGB.

Perhaps these should be provided to the Wikimedia "Commons"??

Whether or not I am "Notable" is a matter for others to decide. .....................................................................................................

What is immediately concerning me an unattributed entry made on 209.160.120.146 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC). This suggested suggesting submitting "FOIA Requests" from American intelligence agencies concerning my activities in another life.

I am writing you to ask if Wikipedia could possibly remove that particular "suggestion".

Here are my reasons:

1. These requests take months to process and would not be able to impact the outcome of the discussion in any case.

2. There are unwritten, internal limits placed such on FOIA requests. An increased number of requests could place additional scrutiny on me by U.S. intelligence (and ... I have already had plenty of that.)

3. Such an "influx" of random requests may also interefere with future needs I will have in a book I am very slowly writing/compiling - referenced near the end of the article.

4. I could be harmed by information any information released. U.S. intelligence may release materials which compromise my privacy by failing to carefully redact materials related to my business and personal life. There are precedents for this. Government employees are "only human".

5. Nobody will get anything from the U.S. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) anyway. They recently clamped down on all such requests for active subjects of interest. See I therefore would like to "officially" request the deletion and "expunging" of that single "Keep" vote. This is "support" that I honestly don't need and it won't be helpful in determining the merits of the article. It will only serve to provide ideas that could prove invasive to privacy.

Would you kindly look into this matter internally and see if an "Administrator Override" might be accorded to me on this single comment? Obviously, I would also ask that this very request also be deleted (or redacted as you see appropriate) concerning the specific request, since this correspondence would only serve to reiterate my fundamental concerns on the same public forum.

May I also suggest that perhaps another week of commentary may be appropriate. This, because there seems to be a rather limited number of responses. I think you'd agree that more commentary, more "data" would likely result in a richer pot of information to facilitate the formation of the eventual consensus.

Thank you for your time and any assistance you or your colleagues at Wikipedia may be able to provide.

Kind regards,

Brian D. Litman litman_bd (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . I removed the comment following a discussion with fellow editors at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As for the other part of your message, I'm sorry, but primary sources are only permissible to augment secondary sources, not to base entire sections of an article on them without secondary sources (see Biographies of living persons for further details). And they are only sources when accessible by others. So you can upload them to Commons: but without any secondary sources at all adding the content will probably be met with opposition. Regards  So Why  17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Murphy (priest) relist
I'm curious as to why you relisted this. The conversation has been stale for five days and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that he does not meet the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Numerically, yes, but I don't see it. However, while the last three !votes are pretty weak, one claims it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, which is something not previously discussed. Hence I thought it wise to relist it again to see whether someone will engage in that discussion. Regards  So Why  18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The page creator already had the chance to address to two of the new !votes after they were cast, and the last !vote saw the response and disagreed. There isn't really much left to respond to that hasn't been addressed already by the page creator. If you think the article should be kept, that is fine, but to me this looks like the relist equivalent of a super-vote, which despite our disagreements on some things is not something that I would have expected. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really like priests, Catholic or otherwise, so you can trust me if I tell you that super-!voting the discussion to "keep" was the last thing I thought of when doing that relist. As I said above, I merely thought further discussion might be useful to generate a clearer consensus. Nothing more and nothing less. Regards  So Why  18:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, I still disagree, but I can respect a different opinion. Apologies if my raising the spectre of super-voting offended, I do respect you quite a lot, but I couldn't see the rationale so I thought I should address it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I can understand when a participant of a discussion wonders why it's not yet closed but I think erring on the side of caution is usually a good approach to deletion (AFD or otherwise). Regards  So Why  18:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

IN RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Litman_bd PROTOCOL??
Administrator User:SoWhy:

The opening box says: "All input is welcome".

Yet User:Power~enwiki admonished me for a long post and reverted (see history) of

The revert included a simple explanation to a comment he made I only wanted to clarify.

I am confused.

I imagined no other alternative venue than my own Talk page.

Was I wrong to post a such a defense? I saw no limitation and ... one risks being cast into the dustbin of digital history!

I perceive some kind of ... well... hostility in all of this. And, I would be most keen to get your view of my defense at my Talk page. I intend to offend no one nor breach protocols not defined on the pages in question.

Thank you for your patience, sir.

Best regards, -- Brian litman_bd (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with Power~enwiki, please use their talk page to raise the concern and discuss the matter. I'm sure they are willing to explain themselves to you. Regards  So Why  06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Zdenčina
Hey curious how Zdenčina is a notable team? The article that the talk page links to is on Hungarian Wiki and was created very recently by presumably the same user. It's also a seemingly non-notable youth team. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * On the talk page there was a claim he played for FK Spartak Vrable and NK Lučko which is why I declined it. Regards  So Why  16:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page - DriveWorks
Hi SoWhy,

I noticed you'd deleted the 'DriveWorks' page so I just wanted to chat with you about having it undeleted/restored. The article was flagged for deletion after I'd edited it as it lacked notability and had some marketing speak in it.

I'm a new editor to wiki and I wanted to add more information to the page to properly describe what DriveWorks does, so I copied a paragraph from our website which flagged it as marketing speak. When I recieved the message from admin Velella I immediately removed the part I'd copied over and restored it to how it was before - my mistake, I just wanted to add informative information.

This then flagged up the page as lacking notability / conflict of interest so it needed cleaning up. Before I tried to clean it up and add references, I went away and started reading through wiki's guidelines of what is classed as a primary and secondary source, so I could gather a list of apprpriate sources. I also re-read the guidelines on how to edit a page and the type of language to use.

Whilst I was doing this research, the page has been removed but as it's been up since 2008 I really do want to get it back and fix it to meet wiki's guidelines.

I've been reading the posts about requesting undeletion and it says to message the admin who deleted it first to discuss before requesting undeletion.

Could you please tell me what I can do from here to get the page back? I'm still gathering sources so I can add notability to the page so I don't have a list to show you yet, but if it's best to do that I can come back to you with a list of sources?

Thanks and sorry for the long message!

Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can have thousands of references and still not have nobility, as far as conflict of interest, please see What is conflict of interest?. Cheers,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi , Thanks for your reply, I've read the COI page and I noticed it says to propose edits so they can be peer reviewed before being actioned, but I guess I can't do this now as the page has been deleted? Just looking for the best way to get the original page undeleted / suggest edits and add references. New to this so thanks for your help :) Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith here, I restored the page to draft-space, which is a special area for unfinished articles. You can find it at Draft:DriveWorks. Please remember to declare your conflict of interest per Paid-contribution disclosure. Once you are done, you can place the submit template on the draft to get other people to review it. Regards  So  Why  14:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for restoring it to the draft space :) I will edit the page tomorrow and I will make sure I declare the COI, properly reference the article and then add the template for it to be reviewed. Thanks again for your help & guidance. Danielle DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm now ready to submit the DriveWorks page for review, but I can't figure out which template to use from the Submit template page. Could you please give me a bit of guidance on how to submit for review? Thank you :) DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I have figured it out :) DanielleDriveWorks (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at the draft. I wouldn't submit it for review yet.  There are some good sources used, but it will be declined as an advertisement.  As I read it, the article says "here is this product, here are the great things it does, and here are the awards it has won."  This is a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article.  What is the cultural relevance?  How has it impacted the industry?  Articles about commercial products are difficult to write about in an encyclopedic manner, and particularly difficult when you have a COI.  I hope that is helpful.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

NBA Youngboy
Hi SoWhy, you declined an A7 speedy on NBA Youngboy because he worked with a famous artist. Fair enough, but on reading this article you perhaps should have noticed that this unsourced BLP claimed " was accused of first-degree murder." (right before the claim that he worked with that rapper), and further on "He was sent to prison of first degree murder after a concert in Austin, Texas. He also went to court for a robbery after dropping out of high school. " and "was in jail from November 28, 2016 to March 30, 2017". We don't get many more obvious G10 speedies than this :-) Fram (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I did probably miss that, however, couldn't that part have been removed without having to delete the whole article? Regards  So Why  14:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We then would have had to delete all revisions until then, and we would still end up with an unsourced BLP of dubious notability (even if declining A7 may have been right). Much better to simply delete it. Fram (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily agreeing with your last sentence there but I won't fight about it, since the BLPPROD would have had the same outcome most likely, seeing as I could find no sources. Thanks for spotting the BLP violation I missed though. Regards  So Why  14:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Correcting Joseph F. McCormick page
re correcting Joseph F. McCormick page:

Hi SoWhy... Since I now understand that this page may not be removed, I am seeking to resolve the issues that have caused the warning banners to be placed on it recently.

1. The first banner says: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (June 2017) If I do not meet the notability requirements can you remove the page? If I do, can you remove this banner?

2. The second banner says: This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (June 2017) Yes I have a conflict of interest but there seems to be no other way but for me to make edits to help ensure clarity. How can this issue be resolved?

The section in question -- that caused the banners to be attached a week or so ago -- seems to be the paragraph headed Transpartisan Research. Ideally this is the language I would like use:

"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]

These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.

In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level."

3. The third banner says: Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2017). Since the conferences convened between 2004 and 2007 were off the record due to the sensitivity of prominent participants concerns about being publicly acknowledged for spending extensive time privately getting to know people they or their organizations were in conflict with, there are now a decade later only a couple reference links available. I believe these are the only questionable citations as according to your reliable sources policy:

Citation [9] "Rogue Valley WC experiment ::". wisedemocracy.org. Retrieved 2017-05-17. There were no media reports of this documentary trip in May/June 2003 which only included myself and a small video crew. The only archive of it is the 20 minute mini-doc hosted on the Center for Wise Democracy website. Citation [12] advmediasolutions (2006-12-31), Reuniting America-Short Edit, retrieved 2017-05-24. This is the ONLY archive as a 5 min. video of one of the most successful off the record events that brought Al Gore into relationship with many of his leading conservative critics, co-facilitated by Harvard Profeoor and Getting to Yes co-author Bill Ury.

Thank you for your help resolving these issues.

Joseph McCormick


 * Maintenance templates can be added by any user and do not necessarily reflect consensus. Administrators are not allowed to remove potentially notable subject's articles without prior discussion. I'm pinging here who back in 2011 asserted the notability on the talk page. Maybe they can help regarding this question and potentially handle the AFD in case notability really has changed.
 * Unsure what you wish to be changed here. Pinging who has just edited the article and made some changes, maybe they can help you as well.
 * Regards  So Why  17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The maintenance templates were added by 99 (2601:188:180:11f0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63). I restored them since McCormick removed them without explanation (obvious COI). My other edits were to removed unsourced information from a BLP and remove inline external links, which are not permitted. McCormick should not be editing his own article; he should be requesting edits on the talk page using . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The maintenance templates were added by 99 (2601:188:180:11f0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63). I restored them since McCormick removed them without explanation (obvious COI). My other edits were to removed unsourced information from a BLP and remove inline external links, which are not permitted. McCormick should not be editing his own article; he should be requesting edits on the talk page using . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I would like to second the nomination this page written about me be deleted. If this is not possible, I request the Section entitled Transpartisan Research be edited to read:

"After his defeat in the 1998 congressional campaign, McCormick served as an alternate-delegate in the 2000 Republican convention. He then dropped out of active political involvement, citing disillusionment with partisanship.[8] In 2003 he retraced portions of the 1831 route of Alexis de Tocqueville to interview rank and file citizens and political leaders of varying ideologies about the state of four universally held American values: unity, equality, freedom and self-governance. Among the dozens of people interviewed included H. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Dave Keene, and the President of the ACLU Nadine Strossen. McCormick produced a 20 minute documentary about this trip and a subsequent transpartisan experiment called the Rogue Valley Wisdom Council.[9]

These experiences motivated McCormick to begin organizing meetings among key national leaders from different perspectives.[8][10] Between 2004 and 2007 as co-founder of the Reuniting America Project[11] he and a steering committee organized seven such private, facilitated transpartisan retreats, designed to build relationships and cooperation between over 145 national leaders from widely diverse points of view.[12] Among the more notable participants included in these four day, off the record dialogues were Vice President Al Gore, conservative activist Grover Norquist, co-founders of MoveOn.org Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, former Congressman Bob Barr, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Fred Smith, Congresswoman and former Common Cause president Shelly Pingree, President of the Christian Coalition of America Roberta Combs, and co-author of Getting to Yes, Harvard Professor William Ury. [13] From the new atmosphere of trust and respect created emerged numerous cross-spectrum initiatives including the Save the Internet Coalition[8], the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition[14], the Bridge Alliance, the Transpartisan Center, extensive political bridge-building research from members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, including Living Room Conversations, as well as several books and articles about the theory, practice, and potential of transpartisan politics.

In February 2009, McCormick organized the first American Citizen's Summit in Denver, Colorado on the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth with the theme "A house divided against itself cannot stand".[15] Out of this gathering emerged prototypes of a Transpartisan Alliance of grassroots groups representing millions of people and an associated policy council of leaders from major and minor parties called the Sunshine Cabinet. In 2011, he co-authored the e-book Reuniting America: A Toolkit for Changing the Political Game, an effort to summarize the lessons learned in the previous eight years of field research into practical means of reconciling polarities in America at the national and grassroots level." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, SoWhy. I got your ping (sorry for the delay - very busy here).  I created the article about Mr. McCormick, and I've no doubt the subject more than meets all of the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article.  (The unsuccessful runs for political office aren't the only, or even the most notable, qualifications for Wikipedia-compliant notability.  His work and activism in the area of "transpartisan politics" is even more substantial.)  The present minimal state of the article and references should convey that an appropriate level of coverage in reliable sources exists to warrant an article.  That being said, I am personally rather sympathetic to pleas from living people to not having biographies published about them when their notability is on the lower-end of the encyclopedic scale, so I will not stand in the way of efforts to have the biography removed.  I think, however, it would be an unfortunate loss of some interesting information and history in the field of transpartisan politics.
 * I'm going to leave a comment at the article Talk page, which is where I think the rest of this discussion should progress. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

September 2013 Hudson Bay plane crash
There was noone in favor of a redirect for this AFD and I can point to a long list of aviation crash AFDs that had similar consensus and were deleted. Please reconsider your ruling. I will go to DRV but why should time be wasted there. You imposed your own view that had no support in the AFD and there is no precedent for....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I explained, I read the consensus as "merge", not "redirect". No delete !votes contain any policy-based reasoning why merging the content to the airline's article (per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE, both policies) should not happen, do they? In fact, some explicitly allow for merging. However, YSSYguy had already added the content to the target article shortly before closing the article, so there was nothing left to merge. After a merge, the correct next step is to redirect the now merged article to the target (cf. WP:FMERGE #4 / WP:SMERGE #5). When the merge occurred before the debate is closed, only redirecting is still to do, which is which I closed the AFD this way. I have, however, clarified the result to clarify that merging was the outcome. Regards  So Why  14:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrew de Groot
I'm sorry about that. In your edit summary, you said that "Subject might be important/significant", so I looked for some evidence of this and could not find anything. As far as I could see, there was not even any claim of notability. From my point of view, I wasn't "reverting" you (you might ask :Adam9007 why he removed your proposed deletion notice, describing it as "invalid"). I guess you're aware of the creator's activities and that there's a honking great big COI here? Deb (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You should know better than expecting claims of notability, which A7 does not require. In general, it is clear consensus that A7 speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial cases. If, like here, multiple editors disagreed with the tagging, speedy deletion is no longer valid, even if the article meets the criterion in question. And last I checked, having a COI is not a reason for speedy deletion, is it? I know that some editors feel like it should be but as long as it isn't, admins should follow the policy as it stands.
 * Also, I'm sorry to say that I noticed a pattern of sloppy speedy deletion work in your logs, from A7 deleting a clearly not eligible subject to A3 deleting an article with an infobox (which WP:A3 explicitly forbids). While I know first hand how difficult deletion work is, I would ask that you be more careful in future and choose to approach the area with more of a "if in doubt, don't delete" mentality (maybe remembering that we are still expected to lead by example) . Regards  So Why  09:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I should have said "credible claim of significance" rather than "notability". I still see no such claim here. I also must have missed the "multiple editors disagreeing with the tagging"; where was that? That said, I've apologised to you and I think that's adequate. If you noticed "So Good" [sic], you also noticed the conversations I've already had about it with others; speedy rules do change over the years and I've been doing this a long, long time, maybe too long. We didn't even have infoboxes when I started doing deletions. You'll also have noticed that I have declined speedy requests myself, very recently, and that I've also spent a lot of time "repairing" poorly-written articles. You are always free to restore articles that you think I've incorrectly deleted, and to tell me why, preferably in a friendly way as many others do. Deb (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rules do change, that's true, although I don't think there was ever a time that video games were covered under A7. But that's okay, I don't expect infallibility from others and I don't hope they expect it from me. I sincerely apologize if you perceived my message as anything but a friendly question or comment. While not an excuse, as a non-native speaker I cannot rule out that my messages might sound less friendly than intended to native speakers, so I apologize if this has been the case. Feel free to call me out anytime you believe I have been even slightly unfriendly. Regards  So  Why  12:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm sorry that I did not realise you were not a native speaker - which of course is a compliment! :-) Deb (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I appear to have been mentioned, I had to decline BLPPROD because there was already a source present in the article. BLPPROD is only for completely unsourced BLPs (yes, even an IMDb link, or a link to their personal website or Facebook, Twitter etc renders it BLPPROD-ineligible, and yes, BLPPROD does require the addition of a reliable source, when properly placed), but it's a very common mistake even amongst admins. I even wrote an essay (yes, it was somewhat inspired by your (SoWhy's) A7 essay ) about it as I was getting a lot of you-know-what over it. I also notice you said . What about Full Moon (video game)? It's in your decline log but it was deleted A7 anyway. As for significance vs notability, I've encountered people who (seemingly) neither know or care that they are not the same thing. Adam9007 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You were correct to do so, I had missed the imdb source. As for Full Moon, that was another close call. deleting it as web content under A7 was not wrong within the letter of the policy since it was apparently a browser game, not a normal video game (and thus technically web content). Regards  So  Why  11:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Restoring page Ting Tai Fook
Hi, good day. I want to find out what is wrong with this article? Please let me know. 08:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:e68:6bc3:3700:946e:b10:7546:bde3 (talk • contribs)


 * As was discussed, the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. If you can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary, by providing independent reliable sources covering them in detail, you are invited to create a draft for a new article with those sources. Regards  So Why  09:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I already included references from main stream newspaper and political party . Is It counted as Independent Reliable Sources?

1) He is currently attach in Finance Ministry. This is a valid online source from Malaysian's government portal. http://www.treasury.gov.my/index.php/en/contact-us/staff-directory.html/ 2) He is a living person and also MCA Perak State Youth Chairman. You can see his name from MALAYSIAN Chinese Association Portal. http://mcaperak.org.my/关于霹雳州马华-about-perak-mca/组织结构-2/马青霹雳州团-youth-committee/#nogo 3) You can locate his Community Service office in Sitiawan through this address. I understand he lost his election in 2013. It does not means the end of a political career. Google search with his Chinese native name 陳大富 or English name Ting Tai Fook will return some results. 4) He was a Candidate for MCA for Perak Sitiawan State N50. Full Election Result through this main stream ENGLISH paper. http://elections.thestar.com.my/results/results_state.aspx?state=perak 2001:E68:6BC1:7600:E4B1:86A6:F436:5C67 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)]]


 * Hi there again. Official websites are potentially reliable but what we need are secondary sources, i. e. sources that talk about the subject in detail. Newspaper articles and books are secondary sources, however, consensus at the deletion discussion was that the sources already in the article were not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Regards  So Why  11:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft: John O'Hara (musician)
Hello SoWhy

Thank you for moving this article to draft status. I have edited it with citations for reference. If it mets with your approval can it be moved to the main space? I don't believe I have that facility as a new editor. As he seems to have notoriety in regard to composing music, I wonder if a title change would be appropriate, e.g. John O'Hara (musician/composer). I appreciated your assistance. --LucyLou2002 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are done, you can use the submit template on the draft to alert experienced editors from the articles for creation project to review your article. You could also ask some editor from the related WikiProjects (see WikiProject Rock music/Members and WikiProject Musicians) to assess the article for you. If one of my talk page stalkers could help, that would be great too *hint* *hint* Regards  So Why  17:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dusty Collins
When a person's article is deleted, please remove their entry from a name list, not just the link. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, correct. Sorry if I forgot when handling three dozen AFDs. Regards  So Why  07:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So[that's]Why. You are absolved. Go forth and sin no more. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Passing Time
You removed a csd from tis article, helpfully reminding me that fro a speedy to be appropriate there should be no article on the band and no claim of notability. So, why did yoy remove a speedy from an article about a recording where the band have no article and there is no claim of notability? TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's no claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Here we have a release through Krod Records, a potentially notable label as well as three potentially reliable sources covering the album (Kerrang! is certainly one). As usual, this does not mean that notability exists, just that more discussion is warranted. Regards  So Why  11:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Stories of the Year (EP)
Krod Records a major label? do you know what major means????TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Please show me were I claimed they were a "major" label. Regards  So Why  11:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary removing a sppedy from the above mentioned recording.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the summary given. I wrote "notable", not "major". As I mentioned above, A7 and A9 have a lower standard of inclusion than notability. Being released by a notable label is usually sufficient indication that the musical recording might be worthy of inclusion, which is all that is needed. You might also be interested in my conversation with the tagger of this article. Regards  So Why  11:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields
Thank you for your closing rationale here. May I ask you to reconsider relisting? Your main reason for a no consensus close seems to be that you think that AfD is an inappropriate place for a conversation on PAID, and that NOTSPAM does not exclude things that do not have promotional language. While I can see that point of view, NOT is explicitly stated as being part of N just as much as GNG is and people were engaging in a conversation as to whether simply intending to promote violates it with someone raising the point of similar paid articles in newspapers. No one who had not already participated in the discussion had engaged that point, and it was in my opinion one of the stronger arguments for that position (to the point I wish I had made it myself.) I think adding more discussion on that is worthwhile, as could be more discussion as to if it meets the GNG. Thanks for considering. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your argument but I still don't think relisting would have been helpful. The discussion had already drifted towards one about PAID violations in general and as long as this question is not resolved, there is a strong risk that many !voters will allow this question to influence their !vote (not necessarily consciously!). Hence any further discussion would have been "tainted" by these questions. I thought about what to do with this AFD for a while but in the end I could not see any potential outcome even after one or more relists. A "keep" result would have disillusioned those who believed their !votes were drowned out by off-topic discussion about PAID in general and a "delete" result would probably have lead to accusations that off-topic reasons were used to justify deleting an article about a notable person. But if another outcome is unlikely, there is no point in prolonging a discussion that will keep on being off-topic. By closing the discussion now and urging those in favor of changing PAID to open an RFC instead, the relevant questions can be addressed without unnecessary delay, which serves the project's interests much better I think. Regards  So Why  13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I certainly understand your predicament, it was not an enviable one. I think we probably have different views re: an RfC as I view PAID vs PROMO as distinct but connected topics and think AfD is much better to judge the latter on a case-by-case basis rather than the inevitable no consensus RfC on a local PAID policy. I'm not sure if I plan to seek a relist at DRV yet, I plan on thinking about it for a while, but will let you know if I do. Always a pleasure to interact, even when we disagree :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries. Maybe you can start the RfC anyway? Maybe it will end "no consensus, judge individually at AFD" and we would again be wiser than we are now. Plus, waiting a few weeks until the RFC is over won't really be problematic in the grand scheme of things. Regards  So  Why  14:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think What Wikipedia is not is a valid deletion rationale. It has been used before and will be again. 😜 Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. However, it includes sections on content as well as sections on style and while WP:NOTNEWS for example says "delete stuff that should be in a newspaper", WP:NOTPROMO does not say "delete stuff created by COI editors regardless of its quality" Regards  So  Why  18:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, but it does say Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so and WP:N incorporates WP:NOT as an equal to GNG. The arguments between the tension to cover something that might be GNG and to exclude something that is excluded under NOT is something that inherently needs to be decided on an individual basis, which makes AfD a better forum for it than an RfC. We obviously differ on this, but I do still think letting the AfD run another week could have brought about a consensus either for keeping or deleting, and I'm not quite sure its worth the hassle of a DRV since I don't disagree that there was no consensus at this time, just that closing it rather than relisting was the best way to handle it. Likely what we're looking at is just another AfD in a few months. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Immidiate deletion of Julian Feifel
Hello SoWhy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.82.76 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know why you deleted my article of Julian Feifel so fast. It was still in discussion and there where also other user that wanted to keep the article. Several users where already adding and improving the article, so it was in a working process. Is there a way to bring that article back? Let me know what you think is to improved, thanks.Martinfissler (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . I'm unsure what you mean by "still in discussion". There was no real discussion at Articles for deletion/Julian Feifel after 8 June (only one new comment since then and that was one advocating deletion. There were also no further edits of substance to the article after 6 June. So I don't know what you mean by "so fast", the article's fate was under discussion for 23 days and while you mentioned some awards, you did not demonstrate that any substantial in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. As such, the consensus at the discussion (which is not the same as counting the number of comments but based on their strength) was that this artist is not notable enough for inclusion. You are welcome to demonstrate that sufficient coverage exists (i.e. newspaper or book sources covering him in-depth and detailed). Regards  So Why  17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm not sure what you mean with "no real discussion". I think these deletion discussions are especially for a smaller group of wikipedia people and I’m not sure how much of interest is an article that is in discussion for deletion for people that are not involved in the writing of that article. However there are user talking about it. There have been also several edits of the article to improve it, frequently. But all that is not telling too much about the relevance for wikipedia of an article about a person, I think. And I think there are a lot of articles on wikipedia from similar music producers/writers with much less success than Julian Feifel.
 * It was a lot of work to collect all the infos for that article and I didn’t thought that it would be deleted that fast so I couldn't even save these edits. Is there a way to restore it and give it another chance also for other user to improve it? As I wrote before I think Julian Feifel is a notable music producer/writer and musician and it would be very interesting for many people in the music business or people that are interested in music generally to read something on wikipedia about creative people behind the stars like Julian Feifel. I’m not sure if you were reading my previews comments on the deletion page:
 * Please have also a look at Sofia Reyes Interview mentioning Julian Feifel as an amazing producer. Sofias song "Conmigo", a co-write with Julian Feifel, reached over 16 million views on youtube until now, and went #31 on the billboard Latin Pop charts. Or please look at the german official database for gold and platinum awards it verifies the 7x gold awards for the album "Elle'ments" where Julian Feifel wrote the song "Faith can move a mountain". Regards Martinfissler (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean that for three weeks, no real discussion took place and for a week no discussion took place at all. Considering that discussions usually take 7 days, this article was under discussion for thrice that time anyway. Do try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments btw.
 * I'm happy to restore the article as a draft for you to work on but you need to understand that better sources need to be added. A short mention in one interview does not constitute significant coverage and neither does a credit in a generic list of such credits. Ask yourself this: If he is such a great producer, where are the newspaper articles covering his work? Where are the books written about his accomplishments? Find those and the article will likely be kept next time around. Regards  So Why  07:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick answer. Still my question, why are there many other articles about producers with probably less success than Julian Feifel even with no, or few, book/newspaper appearance and sources like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achim_K%C3%B6hler, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henno_Althoff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_Chagall. These articles are just a few random examples and they were not deleted. Here is the thing, in the entertainment business the people/press are always talking and writing about the stars in the spotlight. I think it would be interesting to read more about the creative people in the background. What you think? Martinfissler (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're arguing (persuasively) for other things to be deleted, not for your thing to be saved. Re "I think it would be interesting to read more about the creative people in the background", Wikipedia is WP:NOTABLOG. There are plenty of website that will allow you to blog about whatever topic you like. Encyclopedias should include content that is "notable" - we define that word, in the context of people, through WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

<-And here's what you get from OTHERSTUFF arguments: Articles for deletion/Achim Köhler --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you could restore my article of Julian Feifel as draft, like you said. I´ll work on it and try to find additional sources. Where can I find the draft? didn't read about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before. Martinfissler (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith here and have restored the article to Draft:Julian Feifel. Please remember that moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues discussed will most likely lead to the article being speedy deleted per WP:G4. PS: No need to use replyto on the talk page of the person you are replying to, they already get a notification. Regards  So Why  06:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Happyme22 • Dragons flight
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Zad68

Guideline and policy news
 * The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news
 * Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
 * A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous
 * A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
 * A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
 * Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for KSL Capital Partners
User:Jtbobwaysf has asked for a deletion review of KSL Capital Partners. 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. —Cryptic 10:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RFA
Hi there. Saw your note on the AN. Honestly, I’ve thought about the idea of doing RFA, on and off, for some time, but the main problem I see (apart from the incident from 2008, which I’d be obliged to disclose) is I have been periodically inactive, and most of my work (content writing, dispute resolution reform and so on) is from some time ago. And this NAC blew up in my face. I’m not sure what RFA standards are like nowadays, but I would appreciated it, if you have some time, to maybe provide an assessment in your opinion on where I’m lacking? I’ve always preferred working behind the scenes - I can write content but it’s not necessarily where I excel. And with the last RFA being so painful I am reluctant to go through it again. Steven  Crossin  18:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I won't lie to you. Ignoring the -exception, your current activity level, not your lack of clue, are most likely to sink any RfA at this point. Luckily, activity is something that can be changed. RFA standards have shifted a bit (and became stricter like always); a non-negligible number of users nowadays expect candidates - for whatever reasons - to create featured or at least good content. However, most are still satisfied if at least some ability to create content is demonstrated, which means you should be fine with your two GAs. I understand why you are wary to run again and I wouldn't suggest you do it now but if you started to edit more again and demonstrated that your lack of contributions does not mean you forgot all the stuff you learned for years, you will probably be fine by Xmas. DR sounds like a good area to work behind the scenes and while the MEDCAB no longer exists, WP:DRN still does and it always needs people willing to volunteer.
 * I wouldn't worry about the 2008 incident though, by the time you will likely run it will have been 9-10 years ago - a lifetime in WP years. And the NAC you mention was a mistake, of course, but as you can see, most people didn't actually fault the close but rather the fact that you did it. Add to that the fact that you requested input and most people will probably chalk it up to you being a bit too bold - unless you keep doing such closes.
 * So feel free to come back in a few months and I'll be happy to give you some updated feedback. And of course all RfA-experienced talk page stalkers are welcome to chime in. Regards  So Why  20:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do appreciate your feedback and will take it on board. I think I will go back to DRN, it's my baby that I've neglected for too long, I think. Thanks again. Steven   Crossin  01:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just come off the back of a successful RfA in which SoWhy was one of the other co-nominators, so I'll say my piece. In my view, the bar for adminship is about right, thought it does vary from one nomination to another depending on who turns up. WP:Advice for RfA candidates and User:Kudpung/RfA criteria are basic standards to adhere to, and if you can cover that lot, you stand a good chance of passing. In particularly, I look for good communication, some content work, accuracy in our deletion procedures and no major recent appearances at ANI.
 * The biggest question is - what do you need the tools for? The more obvious it is that there's a significance niche in the project that you can fill, the more likely you are to gather support. Unfortunately, the baggage you have is going to be a problem for some people (at the start of an RfA it's standard procedure to list any and all accounts you've ever edited under, so your earlier RfA will get spotted) which is unfair, and the only way to counteract is to accentuate the positives so you get sufficient support to cancel any shenanigans out. Sometimes people just oppose over controversial stuff that happened years ago, especially sharing accounts, and I've seen a few RfAs tank because of it. (On an unrelated note, my kids aren't interested in Wikipedia, but that may not last forever, and the last thing I want is to be desysopped and blocked because of a "sockpuppet" being disruptive as only a 14-year old on the internet who shares my IP address would be) Thankfully this sort of thing isn't very common anymore. I agree than in the meantime, DR sounds like a good alternative venue, and your work will be appreciated. You might also want to check out the Teahouse, if politely fielding new user questions is your thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion...
Very surprised to hear that WP:TNT is a non-policy argument at Articles for deletion/David G Smith.What led you to this idea? Winged Blades Godric 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe because that page has a disclaimer on it that says "This page is an essay on the deletion policy. [...] Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. [...]" (emphasis added)? I know TNT is often cited but it's but one standpoint. There are several good reasons why it's wrong (cf. WP:TNTTNT) but the main point is this: There simply is no policy that says surmountable problems - which includes TNT-eligible pages - should be handled by deletion; in fact, both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE emphasize fixing over deletion. As such, I don't think arguments that basically say "subject is notable but the current article is ugly" are based in policy. If the subject is indeed notable but the current content problematic, then WP:STUBIFY already offers a solution that is based on a editing guideline. Regards  So Why  10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Partnership brokering
Hi SoWhy, I hope you will be able to help with this request please. The article on partnership brokering was taken down a few days ago, and I would like to a) enquire about the grounds for deletion b) find out what needs to improve for the next iteration and c) get a copy of the article + article talk page + discussion + discussion talk page, that was live before it got deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you. PBA18 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there . The article was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Articles for deletion/Partnership brokering. Main concern was a lack of notability, which needs to be addressed for any future article. If you like, I can restore it to draft space for you to further work on but you have to understand that reinstating the content to the article space without addressing the concerns at the deletion discussion will lead to speedy deletion of the draft. Regards  So Why  18:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, Thanks for your response and the suggestion to re-instate the content to a draft space. Once restored, we will work to improve notability by sourcing and adding further references. PBA18 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ You can find it at Draft:Partnership brokering. Btw, please do remember that accounts are not allowed to be shared. Regards  So Why  13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Godsbane
Hi, would you mind sharing the reasoning behind the merge close? I counted four Delete votes, vs one Keep or Merge, and another Merge. The article did not cite any independent sources, so it's unclear to me what content was suitable for merging: Godsbane. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep misunderstanding that primary or non-independent sources can be used as citations in otherwise notable articles, but they don't count for notability. Thus, lack of independent RS coverage is a reason to merge an article with a merge target, but not a reason to delete something that can go elsewhere. Likewise, only one vote, mine, cited the most applicable policy, WP:ATD-M.  While the final vote cited WP:FANCRUFT, it also opined that a merge was reasonable, and so you have policy on the side of merge, and not one single !vote correctly articulated how a merge would be against policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As you know, AFD closing is not !vote counting. If it were, we wouldn't need admins to do it, a bot could do it. Let's look at those delete !votes, shall we? We have one WP:PERNOM (which carries less weight), one WP:JNN (the nomination), one that argues for deletion based on lack of independent third-party coverage which - as Jclemens has pointed out to you - is a reason for deletion as a stand-alone article but does not prevent mention in another article and one that cites an essay and claims OR (which this isn't) but agrees that it can be merged. But if there is only consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE (both policies) tell us to merge content if possible. Regards  So Why  07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Asher Crispe
Hi -- re your close of the AfD on this one -- I'm puzzled by no-consensus, given that there were two delete contributions after resisting. Would you perhaps reconsider on that basis? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The amount of !votes after relisting is not really relevant, they only brought one new argument, linking to an essay (WP:TOOSOON). Further discussion on the sources and their quality has not really happened and thus there was if anything less consensus than before the relist. I could probably have relisted it again but WP:RELIST clearly says that "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Regards  So Why  07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DJ Flash
Dear SoWhy,

I am here on behalf of the author whose page you just deleted. I can assure you that the author in question is legitimate, and that the information on the page is accurate. Would you kindly undo this deed so that people can learn something about the early days of West Coast hip hop from the author's perspective? Thank you.

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither the legitimacy of the author (?) nor the accuracy of the information was questioned. The reason for deletion (cf. Articles for deletion/DJ Flash) was the lack of notability. If you can provide reliable sources that confirm they are a notable musician (see WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG for more information), I'd be happy to restore the page.
 * Btw, there is no place for "from the author's perspective" in Wikipedia. If an article exists, no one owns it. Regards  So Why  11:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA candidate Poll
Thanks for stopping by and giving your comments. I will definitely take them under advisement. I clearly need to be less sloppy with my CSD tagging. Thanks again. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. Feel free to ask for feedback any time. Regards  So Why  14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/InvisibleKitchen
Would you by any chance re-weigh the consensus at this AfD and the level of attention given to the sources pre-offered? SwisterTwister  talk  21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that. With all the AFDs I handled in the last weeks, might have mistakenly closed this as no consensus when I wanted to relist. I restored the AFD and relisted it to generate more discussion. I don't think there was consensus when I judged it but closing it was a mistake when relisting was a viable option. Regards  So Why  15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street
Hi SoWhy. In Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street you declared the result as a Keep. It was relisted by on 14 July but then closed by you. There was a discussion continuing about whether it should be kept or merged and it would have been useful to decide an outcome here itself. In you closing result, you suggested that merging can be discussed on the talk. But I have tried posting message to many articles earlier and no one responds to these messages on the talk page. How do I proceed now?--DreamLinker (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I closed this because WBoG, helpful as he might be, as a tendency to relist discussions which have already achieved consensus. Per WP:RELIST, relisting does not mean the discussion has to run another seven days. In this case, it was clear that no one supported deletion. As for merging, check WP:Merging for more instructions but basically the gist of it is: Propose it and if no one objects within a month, do it. Sometimes that will result in the wanted merger, sometimes it will start discussion per WP:BRD, but in any case something will happen. Regards  So Why  15:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for answering my query. One editor objected to the merging in the AfD, so I would have liked to have a bit more discussion and opinions. If I start a talk page discussion, how do I get more editors to provide their opinions? In AfD there is a nice list of discussions according to subjects. Is there any such forum or list for merge discussions?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is, Proposed mergers (which is why AFD is the wrong venue); but the steps I pointed out above (WP:Merging) should be followed first. Regards  So Why  15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will try to follow the instructions and see how it goes.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on your decision and biased closing

 * you closed this Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) : No Consensus? How, You did not see any of the discussion or ignored it and counted only equal votes?
 * you kept it Articles for deletion/SmartPLS : The result was keep. After sources were provided, consensus changed in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. The Delete vote is clearly significant with their points.


 * Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.


 * Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks! Light2021 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear, please clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing why I decided how I did or did you already decide that I made mistakes and no amount of explaining will suffice? The wording of your comment indicates the latter (including calling me, who has deleted more than 10,000 pages, an "biased" "Keep admin") but then, I might be wrong, so if you actually want to hear my reasoning, please ask for it, preferably without prejudging my motives. Regards  So Why  18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if my words went wrong, I have no intention to question you or your status or work here. I just would like to know from you and how you make decisions. I have not made my mind on anything or on you. Apologies if it went wrong. Light2021 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. I just didn't want to spend time explaining my decisions to someone who already made up their mind, which is why I asked. As for the AFDs you mentioned: I handled approx. 200 such discussions within the last week, so I won't rule out that I made a mistake or two but I don't think I did here:
 * Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination): At the time of the first relist, the !votes were three in favor of deletion and three in favor of keeping, so I understand where the assumption of vote-counting came from. However, looking at the substance, neither your nomination rationale nor K.e.coffman's !vote actually explain why the perceived "promotionalism" cannot be fixed by editing (per WP:PRESERVE). When challenged, neither of you responded, especially after HighKing actually did the cleanup and multiple editors agreed WP:GNG was met. There was one more delete !vote but their claims that the sources (which ones?) were all primary sources in disguise was challenged by Northamerica1000 without further response. There was one relist but no further discussion emerged. I did not see the date of the second relist correctly (which explains the rationale (I now fixed)) when closing though, that I admit. Still, I would have closed it the same way regardless. Neither side made a convincing enough argument, so "no consensus" it was. I don't think any admin would have closed this discussion as delete but I can imagine a keep-close quite well (considering the fact that two out of three delete !votes were based on fixable problems that were actually fixed).
 * Articles for deletion/SmartPLS: Nominator says the sources they found are not useful to demonstrate notability and they cannot find any more. First delete !vote mentions there is a source. After a lot of SPA comments (which usually are weighed lower) and one generic "cannot find sources"-comment, we have your "100% corporate spam" comment which is a weak argument for deletion for the same WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy mentioned above (also less valid since not all versions of the page had the same tone and if deletion is based on the content, it needs to exist in all revisions As Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out when relisting, COI problems are not a reason for deletion.Then Pavlor mentioned substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources which Cunard corroborated with links. The last three !votes were a "merge" (which counts against deletion since merging can be discussed even after a keep outcome), one of the WP:JNN variety (claiming lack of notability without addressing why the sources are insufficient to establish notability) and one that agrees with Cunard, pointing out the fact that problematic parts can be removed. There was not, however, despite another two weeks of discussion, any substantial explanation why the newly provided sources - which those who !voted before presumably didn't know about (and did mostly not comment on even after pinged) - are not sufficient to establish notability. Speaking of which: I'm sorry to say so but your only comments regarding those sources seem to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "journal" in this context and after Pavlor pointed out to you that academic journals are considered good sources (WP:AEIS) you did not comment further on this.
 * In general: Whatever I personally think about those articles is irrelevant; in fact, if I had an opinion, WP:INVOLVED would prevent me from closing those discussions. My job is solely to assess consensus as it exists, no matter if I like it or not. That does not mean you can't ask me or any other editor for further explanation if you disagree with something but maybe abstain from calling other editors biased (cf. WP:AGF) when doing so. Regards  So Why  20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've participated in a lot of deletion discussions and I do admit that your closes sometimes leave me perplexed. For example, above you describe my !vote at Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) as "[not] actually explain[ing] why the perceived 'promotionalism' cannot be fixed by editing (per WP:PRESERVE)". My full statement in this case was "promotionalism and trivia, as in: "Crowdspring maintains a blog which was launched in mid-2008.[16]" etc. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here". That's not just about promotionalism, but also about the article being full of trivia and none of the content being encyclopedically relevant.

In another example (Articles for deletion/Pista House), you described by !vote as follows: "the only later !vote does not really discuss those sources but mainly argues based on WP:UGLY". My !vote was "if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping"; this shows that I did look at the sources.

The promotionalism deletion rationale is part of WP:NOT and is not the same as UGLY. The closes do come across as trying to find any possible way of preserving the article and dismissing "delete" votes, which is not the approach I've previously encountered. Hope you take this feedback as constructive criticism; as you can appreciate, I did not like to see my good faith !votes dismissed as trivial complaints under UGLY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed your contributions, including the fact that you overwhelmingly advocate deletion, so I understand if you are sometimes surprised when consensus is different. Finding "any possible way of preserving the article" is what both the deletion policy and the editing policy tell us to do when it comes to inclusion-worthy subjects, so it's actually correct to weigh !votes that advocate deletion because of surmountable problems lower than those who mention problems that can't be fixed by editing. Citing WP:NOTPROMO as a reason for deletion has come into vogue but WP:NOT does not actually say "delete such articles", it says (under WP:WHATISTOBEDONE) that deletion is but one potential way to handle them, the others being editing or redirecting.
 * As for your comments: 1) Sorry for abridging your comment in a confusing manner. However, "promotionalism" is, as I pointed out above, not a deletion rationale if the content can be fixed by editing. Whatever motives a page creator had for creating the page, the current policy does not say "delete anything on sight that was created to promote the subject", it says "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." 2) Your comment shows you looked at the sources but it does not actually say "I don't think notability is established". Whether it's suppliyng or having 200 restaurants is a question of content, not notability and why the sources cover the subject - for supplying or for having restaurants - is not relevant per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Geoff did show there were multiple sources covering the subject while you did not actually dispute that the coverage is substantial enough to establish notability. As for the latter part, "too promotional to be worth keeping" is - as I pointed out above - only a reason for deletion if editing cannot fix it (and remember, with notable subjects, that editing can include WP:STUBIFYing per WP:ATD).
 * That said, I'm always grateful for constructive criticism, so please feel free to come here any time to share. I will try to be more specific in my comments in future. Regards  So Why  07:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ronald Phillips (murderer)
I edit conflicted with you, I was going to close the AfD as "no consensus" ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I see has done so now. So that was a waste of time, no?  Regards  So  Why  17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping- I do apologise- Not sure for what though! :p  "What've I Done Wrong Now"?? &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well at least popping two "keep" !votes at the bottom does make your non-admin close rather less likely to be challenged. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You Gotta Not (Little Mix song)
Since you delete and redirect the article per that discussion, someone has restored that page without consensus and I had requested speedy deletion per WP:G4, should it be deleted or be redirected back to album? Rarity dash ( talk ) 04:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it looks like the user "Anthony Appleyard" did the same thing as you did. Rarity dash  ( talk ) 08:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for G4 deletion though, just revert to the redirect to enforce the consensus at AFD. If the other user persists, request protection at WP:RFPP. Regards  So Why  14:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI
Dear SoWhy, This is regarding the page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI which was recently deleted by you This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

Deletion message: 09:02, 17 July 2017 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI (XFDcloser))

I would like to know the reasons why and also how could I possibly re-create a page on the subject, as it was page I had created in 2014 and was running for the last 3 years, before it was mistakenly deleted by me (using db-author) on/merge the 9th of July, 2017, while trying to edit/merge some information. The page was supported by 111 credible/verifiable references, including national and international news links.

Regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * All you did in 2014 was to recreate a page already deleted by consensus at Articles for deletion/Mushtaq Pahalgami. The page was always in danger of re-deletion per WP:G4 anyway. In both discussions consensus was that this person is not-notable (vg. WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPERSON etc.) and that the sources you kept mentioning are not sufficient to prove otherwise. That's what I closed the discussion as I did. That a page survived for a long time is no reason to keep it. If you can provide actual in-depth coverage about him by reliable sources (i.e. not one of the sources that were in the article), I could maybe be persuaded to restore the article as a draft. Regards  So Why  10:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear SoWhy, thanks for the response. Please consider the following two links, one published in a leading newspaper called Kashmir reader (http://kashmirreader.com/kashmir-floods-are-we-asking-the-right-questions-22449), the other an article on him, published in a daily called precious kashmir, which has now been closed down due to political reasons, something not very un-common in Kashmir. The article can however be found at archive.is (http://archive.is/vevUc) Samar khurshid (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The first link contains no article. The second might be suitable but not alone. Regards  So Why  10:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the archived link, thanks http://archive.li/TPbiR Samar khurshid (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link but it appears to be an op-ed written by him, not about him, so it does not count as a reliable source. Regards  So Why  11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it clearly mentions him as a social/environmental activist. Here's another one anyway, it's an interview by a JKNNI correspondent, and the JK news network is one of the most trusted media agencies/syndicates in J&K

https://web.archive.org/web/20170718113356/http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/ Regards Samar khurshid (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As pointed out before, interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. Regards  So Why  11:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This link about Mushtaq Pahalgami was published by the Press Trust of Kashmir today. Hope this helps, thanks

http://presstrustofkashmir.com/creating-awareness-about-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-to-save-the-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You certainly are persistent. I'm not sure this source is reliable so I raised the question at WP:RSN so more people can give feedback. Regards  So Why  11:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear SoWhy, the thing is, that this activist is locally very prominent and has been regularly covered by a large number of local newspapers and online news portals over the last 3 years. There's a huge body of news coverage about him and his organization since the inception of his organization, in 2008, but that was mostly in Urdu language. When I created his Wiki page in 2014, it was deleted for the lack of English language references. They subsequently started calling English-language media people to HWO's events and that's how I was able to re-create the page a month later with a significant number of supporting references. I am however, a university professor, not a professional Wikipedian, without thorough technical knowledge of how things operate here and the page got accidentally deleted by me, while trying to transfer content form this page to another, and not for the lack of references supporting notability, which is something I repeatedly mentioned in the deletion debate too, but sadly, no heed was paid. The point is, it is only a matter of time, before we are able to get more references about the subject, like we have got over the last 3 years, which is why I have been requesting you to restore the page, may be even in draft article space, so we could have a more open discussion about it. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's another link for the article mentioned above. This one appeared in a publication called Kashmir patriot

http://kashmirpatriot.com/2017/07/20/creating-awareness-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-save-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If the same article appears in two sources verbatim, that does actually make it look as if both sources are failing WP:SPIP. Regards  So Why  13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The PTK is not a publication, but a news syndicate, which means they share information and news articles with other news agencies and publications, who, in turn are free to carry the same verbatim, without copy right issues. That's how PTK, even the Press trust of India works. The stories however, are verified by the publications that carry them, which is why I requested you to confirm the authenticity of the story with the editorial team of Kashmir Patriot, which shared PTK's story. In any case the Kashmir Patriot is a very well followed/circulated publication and that can be independently verified too. The subject Mushtaq Pahalgami also has a very huge following on social media, I know that doesn't count for notability in Wikipedia, but if you check that, you'll at least get some idea that news about him, is not promotional. His organization has come a long way since 2008, particularly after 2014, running conservation campaigns and organizing environment related events almost every month, which is why the local media (even reputed national portals like Millenium post/Down to Earth) readily carry news about him and his organization, and you are more than welcome to verify that with each one of the more than 25 different publications that have carried news about him since 2014. Regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, here's another one carried by the KNS today, http://www.knskashmir.com/Sewage-treatment-plants-in-Pahalgam-lacking-18426 Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ehsan Sehgal
Hi there. Firstly, thank you for closing the Sehgal AfD, it must have been a messy one to wade through.

For what it's worth, I think your overall decision of keep was right, as it seemed like there was basically no consensus and defaulting to the status quo was the correct decision. I just wanted to register, in case it comes up again in the future, that some of the specific rationale seemed off to me. None of the sources linked to were 'new', they were all already there to be seen in the article, they were just linked to in the AfD for rhetorical purposes later as well. I'm one 'delete' vote, at least, that was delete having looked at those sources and judged them not to be sufficient to constitute notability. I note that a few of the other votes also talked about the insufficiency of at least some of the sources, so I guess others were weighing them all too.

Also, you mentioned the 'WP:Offline' issue in your closing, but that was a red-herring. I don't think anybody ever raised the sources not being online as a reason to discount them. I did make the case that there were some sources that failed WP:Publish, in that they're not available either on- or off-line for public consultation.

But anyway, these are just minor quibbles. Thanks again. Landscape repton (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm just posting this because you invited questions in your edit summary, but I didn't know where to given the closure. Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape repton (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , no, that wasn't the case at all. Before scans/archive links were provided at the AfD, references looked like this. As you can see, all of the reliable sources were either dead links or weren't present online. Just see the article's taggings, which were actually added by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was unclear. I meant that the list of sources were already there, there's nothing new in the AfD that wasn't already on that list, not that they were already linked to online copies of them. I really appreciate your work in locating those scanned clippings and archive copies. Landscape repton (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that sources were "provided" in the sense NitinMlk mentions above. As for WP:OFFLINE, your comment "we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify" seems to imply just that. But thanks for the feedback, I will try to be more clear in the future. Regards  So Why  09:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. When I said "we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify I meant exactly that, that nobody could access them, not just that they couldn't be accessed online.  It was a summary of my talk-page entry about trying to find publicly accessible offline library archives that might cover the old newspaper sources. Landscape repton (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

can I see a deleted page?
I see that you deleted a page called "Get Croissant" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Croissant

I am curious if there is any way I can see the original text of this page?

The Google serach returned the first sentence if that helps... "Get Croissant or (Croissant Coworking) is an American online marketplace software technology coworking company that provides on demand access to shared ... "

Thanks! Axcelis555 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can view deleted pages as a result of this AFD failing WP:CORPDEPTH. If you wish to try again, use the article wizard. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you'd like to see the text? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)