Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Stelth Ulvang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Going for five years, but barely any coverage. Could be wrong. Nothing on Soundcloud, Spotify or Apple music.  scope_creep Talk  08:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a response for your "barely any coverage" comment, he has already been covered by -


 * All Music
 * Salt Lake City Weekly
 * Deccan Herald
 * Daily Herald
 * The Independent
 * Westword
 * Colorado Daily
 * People
 * Colorado Public Radio
 * OregonLive.com
 * The Greenville News
 * Boulder Weekly, etc.

All of which are one of the most reputed sources in USA and are present as citations in the article. And by the way, he is on Spotify as well as Soundcloud and Apple Music. I don't think you researched properly brother. I don't think that anything else is needed to say on this anymore because this is particularly vague. A man who has been covered by all the forementioned media outlets can not be, on earth, irrelevant. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. The subject of the article clearly fulfils criteria no. 1 amongst the criterion specified by WP:MUSICBIO. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi A lot of it seems to be affiliate and paid advertising and there is not a lot of coverage in Europe. As a western band, if successful, there would be plenty of coverage on both continents, as it is a core market. It seems to be common pattern with successful bands, but I don't see it here. I could be talking nonsense, but I've done reams of these bands on NPP now and that is what you generally see, and I don't see it here. They may be ultra successful in the US, but UK papers like the Times and the Telegraph would report on them and there would be coverage and there is not. As far as I can see, its a local or regional band, who are signed, with some limited success, which is the worst kind of notability to establish a article on here. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.  scope_creep Talk  08:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be using the Afd etiquette, when posting a note on here. scope_creep Talk  08:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just think you are being over-critical here. Paid advertising? Forget it. I'm not commenting on that. But he has been covered by a British Newspaper as i have stated above and as well as some African (because they once toured there) which you can find in the article. You have a good point here but I'm sure you will concede the fact that you don't need to be "ultra-successful" in a region to be notable or have questions raised about your notability because you have been majorly covered across only one country. In fact, the latter could sometimes could be wrong but only in cases regarding small countries; being covered across USA is more than enough. The guy knows how to play more than 20 instruments and is regarded highly for his prolific songwriting amongst those who know him and there are many of them since The Lumineers have huge fan following. And wait, Stelth Ulvang isn't a band. He is a solo artist who is also a member of The Lumineers. Nice talking to you Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, what matters is that if he fulfils at least one condition on WP:MUSICBIO; which he of course does so that's enough to take our focus from this to something more critical and fragile. Plus, the article is in pristine condition. Better than almost every article covering a subject of an equivalent stature. So rather than removing this article, we should first focus on the ones which are more probable to bring disrepute to Wikipedians. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pristine condition isn't a really a factor. WP:MUSICBIO although a policy, is also only a guideline. At the end of the day, all article needs to be notable. The Lumineers are certainly notable. Could be wrong on this, but I don't know, hence the discussion. See what happens.   scope_creep Talk  09:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Checking the first 3 sources in the list above for WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC points, Allmusic doesn't count (WP:RSP), SLCW looks ok on the face of it, clearly not a passing mention so it's one of the several needed, and not that Independent but South County Independent is an interview and not that helpful in this context (WP:Interviews). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, the People ref in the article doesn't seem to mention him at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * People's article might have been edited. As far as i remember, i used to it to cite some of the instruments he played. Further, the ones that i have cited, South County Independent and WPFK Independent, are well-established and equally reliable if not more. Just a reminder that i have only named some of the prominent ones and not all. Almost every citation in the article is reliable and its source has a good reputation. Otherwise, the references would've been removed or detected by automated filter. As i said, anyone who checks the article without prejudice can tell that it, in no condition shall be removed. Otherwise it will come in the category of substandard edit or vandalism. And we all know that the these two words are galaxies apart from it. Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And by your context of "helpful", i would like to suggest you these references of the article - 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 22, 23, 25. These are all  reliable and helpful for this article's case. Also, have a look at this . Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 3 may or may not be ok per WP:RSSM, I'm sceptical that 6 is a BLP-good source, 8 is probably ok . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So im signing out of this conversation now. If you want me to answer any questions regarding this, feel free to ask but please ping me. Because i barely get time to check this thing. Thank you for the polite conversation. Pesticide1110 (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got some more useful citations in the article. So i'd like to request my fellow editors that they have a look at the references of the article for their confirmation. In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be any doubt about notability at all when a publisher like Salt Lake City Weekly writes this about you - "Ulvang—originally from Fort Collins, Colo.—is an accomplished musician and singer-songwriter in his own right and a prominent figure in the Denver music scene". You can find this excerpt in the 2nd paragraph of citation no. 4 of the respective article. Thanks! Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got some more useful citations in the article. So i'd like to request my fellow editors that they have a look at the references of the article for their confirmation. In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be any doubt about notability at all when a publisher like Salt Lake City Weekly writes this about you - "Ulvang—originally from Fort Collins, Colo.—is an accomplished musician and singer-songwriter in his own right and a prominent figure in the Denver music scene". You can find this excerpt in the 2nd paragraph of citation no. 4 of the respective article. Thanks! Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * While I think there's a good chance this article will be kept, you seem to be ignoring words like multiple and several in the WP:N context, and, being even more cynical, what's so impressive about Salt Lake City Weekly? Sure, it counts as a WP:GNG point, but nothing about screams "no doubt about WP:N!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You got me a bit off the line gentleman. I didn't mean that just that it is Salt lake city weekly, there shouldn't be any doubt. I was trying to stress on their quote. If a musician is being described as "prominent" and "accomplished", which is the exact same thing all this fuss is about, by a trusted source then why should we keep waiting for more editors to comment. And also i'm not ignoring the word "multiple" in regards to WP:N. It is quite clear from the references that there ARE multiple sources for it that are non-trivial and not interviews. I just didn't feel the need of mentioning such a basic and easily observable info (have a look at the new citations i provided today). P.S. i'm not cynical about you all. We all are the building blocks of this vast and diverse community and i can never claim to be a part of any community unless i trust the fellow members. I have full-faith and i know that all your actions are for the sake of wikipedia. And so are mine. Best Pesticide1110 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Now do we need to ask personally to get you to explain how your point is valid? It, in fact, isn't. P.S. you commented on the topic but did not give your judgement so please do. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see you're referring to WP:MUSICBIO. As i have already said, it meets the criteria no. 1 because out of all the 32 references that are cited in the article (which satisfies "multiple"),


 * Almost all are "non-trivial"
 * None is "self published" (except for official website)
 * There are citations present in the form of "newspaper articles" (ex- Salt Lake City Weekly, Deccan Herald, Daily Herald etc.)
 * "Online versions of print media" are present (ex- Westword, Oregon Live etc.)
 * "Magazine articles" are present too (ex- Scene Magazine, 303 Magazine, The Bulletin etc.)
 * And as for "Television Documentary", this might work.


 * Thus it meets all the requirements stated in criteria 1. This thread was created because the editor had doubt about the notability of the subject which i have successfully addressed now. Hence, this article shall be kept because it has been proved to meet the inclusion criteria. have you got something in your defense?  and  shall also intervene. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , and  In my knowledge if an article is nominated for deletion and its corresponding thread remains inactive for more than 7 days without any comment in support of keeping the article, then it gets deleted automatically. This is just to let you know that if this article gets deleted this way, then i will make sure that all 4 of us end up in some arbitrary committee discussion and it won't only be about article. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We might get more input if there was less badgering of voters

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is my strongest argument in defense of the article so i'm going to repeat it here and put all of my strong points here so that editors can read it one go. As i have already said, it meets the criteria no. 1 specified in WP:MUSICBIO because out of all the 32 references that are cited in the article (which satisfies "multiple"),


 * Almost all are "non-trivial"
 * None is "self published" (except for official website)
 * There are citations present in the form of "newspaper articles" (ex- Salt Lake City Weekly, Deccan Herald, Daily Herald, The Morning Call etc.)
 * "Online versions of print media" are present (ex- Westword, Oregon Live etc.)
 * "Magazine articles" are present too (ex- Scene Magazine, 303 Magazine, The Bulletin etc.)
 * And as for "Television Documentary", this might work.

Thus it meets all the requirements stated in criteria 1. Also, TEDx had this to say about him.

P.S. There are many sources in the article which are well-reputed and have articles on wikipedia of their own:


 * The New York Times (Non-regional)
 * Rolling Stone (Non-regional)
 * All Music
 * Salt Lake City Weekly
 * TED conference (Invited as a speaker)
 * Deccan Herald (Non-regional)
 * Daily Herald
 * The Sydney Morning Herald (Non-regional)
 * Albuquerque Journal
 * South County Independent (Non-regional)
 * Westword
 * Colorado Daily
 * People
 * Colorado Public Radio
 * OregonLive.com
 * The Greenville News
 * Boulder Weekly, etc.

Further, Stelth Ulvang has 29387 monthly listeners on Spotify and he is also available on major music platforms like Soundcloud, TIDAL and Apple Music. Together with Lumineers, he has toured with U2 and opened for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers both of which are often cited as one of the greatest rock bands in the history. Salt lake city weekly described him as an "accomplished musician" and "a prominent figure in the Denver music scene". And thus i put all i had to create this article and somehow it felt something really close to perfection to me. At the end, i will like to apologize for any rude behaviour because this nomination came as a shock to me since Grabergs Graa Sang himself stated there was a "good chance that this article will be kept" on my talk page prior to the publish. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Non-trivial" coverage means there is a decently-sized amount (at minimum 1 lengthy paragraph) devoted to the person independently, not in the context of The Lumineers. Also, being available on the major music platforms or having nearly 30,000 Spotify listeners is not a notability criterion.  Username 6892 04:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And even from that perspective of a non-trivial coverage, Ulvang satisfies the criteria because majority of articles are entirely written about him and not in The Lumineers' context as you can see. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak redirect to The Lumineers. doesn't seem to meet WP:NPERSON or WP:MUSICBIO independently. The best coverage of him is a profile in Salt Lake City Weekly. However, almost all the coverage is in short profiles ahead of his performing (see for example Sound Hot Ticket: Nick Jaina, The Lumineers' Stelth Ulvang are coming to Provo and Packed house for Stelth Ulvang). Coverage of him is largely limited to local news sources, most of which describe him as "The Lumineers Stelth Ulvang" which tells me that his significance is largely dependent upon being a member of the band. To show independent notability we would expect in-depth articles in comparatively large news sources (not regional) covering his career outside of the lumineers, like reviews of his EP's, features about him, evidence his music has charted somewhere. I simply don't see that depth as the coverage stands. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And where is that stated in any guideline or rulebook of wikipedia? I hope you don't mind me but i made this article based on the guidelines stated by WP:MUSICBIO. And i think we should primarly focus on those criterion and not what an individual like you and me think. Further, i will like you to atleast explain how does it not meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO on his own. I explained, with proofs, that he does. But your's comment just states your opinion without any backing. Further, those are just two citations of the 33. There are many citations which address him as "Stelth Ulvang". P.S. I don't remember those guidelines stating anywhere that regional sources are a problem. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop aggressively badgering voter s. Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What did i say aggressive now? I think its just the different style of writing which is making you all believe that im aggressive while im totally calm about all this. Can you please tell me what line is aggressive so that i can make amends to it? Pesticide1110 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * just stop responding to every vote and let people chime in without pestering them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth letting the Afd proceed on its own merit. Wait until its finished.  scope_creep Talk  21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok fine. But atleast you can ask eddie and rest to prove their points with evidences just the way i did. They are just stating their opinions without backing it up. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The closer will review the comments. Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To respond, I am not convinced of a pass of MUSICBIO or GNG outside of the lumineers as the depth of coverage stands. You are correct that we don't have specific criteria saying that regional or local sources are inherently worse than bigger media. I'll direct you to WP:AUD which, while it applies only to corporations, lays out a good principal. If somebody isn't getting coverage outside of smaller publications, they likely aren't notable.
 * You seem to also be making two different arguments; first you argue for coverage that meets notability about him outside of The Lumineers, then you cite Rolling Stone magazine and The New York Times as a main reason he's notable, both of which only mention him in passing and as a member of the band. I don't have a personal stake in this, and probably won't be commenting further, but that's how I see things as they stand now. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to also be making two different arguments; first you argue for coverage that meets notability about him outside of The Lumineers, then you cite Rolling Stone magazine and The New York Times as a main reason he's notable, both of which only mention him in passing and as a member of the band. I don't have a personal stake in this, and probably won't be commenting further, but that's how I see things as they stand now. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The tedx entry is a profile amongst other profiles and doesn't really establish bona fides.  scope_creep Talk  16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Favor keep, but redirect to The Lumineers over deletion. I love the work you've done since the article was nominated,, and have more faith in this version than what was initially presented here. Eddie, however, brings an excellent point to the table. He might meet GNG, but I think he's "close but no cigar" on criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO, which you've been pushing. It might say "multiple", but you can't just have more than one and call it a day, either (not that that's quite what you're doing). What I'm more concerned about is if enough of his coverage fits the "non-trivial" bill presented in that criterion. If this is as deep as his profile goes, I'm uncertain if it's worth keeping on Wikipedia at this time - his only real occupation that got him relevance and notability in the first place is touring with the Lumineers, a notable band. (And only touring with, so he doesn't meet criterion 6 of MUSICBIO either.) So I'm torn - I'm happy with letting this stay, but if it's truly the right thing to do, maybe it'd be best we redirect him to the band's article.  danny music editor  oops 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Lumineers would be best for now until one can be easily convinced that WP:MUSICBIO has been satsified. NavjotSR (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Lumineers Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. Normally when I do a Google News search on people where there's a long debate about notability, I don't find hundreds of hits, with the subject's name in the headline! Many of these articles seem notable, easily meets GNG. (and I think goes without saying that it would never be deleted, but redirected). Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of the search listing that come with that search term, are the same references above, except the ones which are the Lumineers or related to them,or events listing or a single listing in which the Ulvang is doing a gig in a library. The search confirms his non-notability.   scope_creep Talk  08:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, in a way, states that if a person searched on google is the subject of enough no.s of "independent", "non-trivial" and "reliable" sources, then he IS notable. And that is what has tried to explain by those search links. Scope creep's job was to nominate the article and reason his point while my job was to give my evidences and leave. I did that upon being asked. So i request someone if they can ask scope creep to now become a spectator. I would happily leave this conversation if done so. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter User:scope_creep if most of the hundreds of references don't meet GNG. Some do - which is all you need. Heck, probably only need two one, two, three. And as Pesticide notes, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (WP:BASIC. Are you really claiming that there aren't enough reliable sources to write an article? Please follow policy! Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep: As per Nfitz. Although eddie puts a strong point, danny and Nfitz, in all likelihood, are correct. He clearly meets WP:GNG and, by the skin of a teeth, meets WP:MUSICBIO. Best ClumsyMind (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Why are we talking about this? It's clearly notable. I have no idea why some people are expecting an American band to be covered in European news sources. That's not required for notability lol. Stop wasting everyone's time please. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Another pair of editors that don't use policy. Curious why you think it is speedy keep, when the majority opinion thinks thinks it should be redirected. Looks like canvassing to me. Can you please tell me, why you think it is speedy keep?  scope_creep Talk  17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was also very nice of User:ClumsyMind to come out of retirement (to) just disregard policy. KidAd (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like both are following policy - there's hundreds of references, easily meeting the WP:BASIC guideline of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" is met. And there's a handful of truly significant GNG referenes to. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Post them up, so we can take a look at them. He may actually be notable.  scope_creep Talk  18:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * This is the simple search that was used:

Lets go through the first three pages, after that it just becomes junk.
 * 1) Facebook
 * 2) Instagram
 * 3) Wikipedia article
 * 4) Own page
 * 5) Twitter
 * 6) https://stelthulvang.bandcamp.com/ His page. Non-notable
 * 7) https://thereader.com/music/te Ten Questions with Stelth Ulvang The Ft. Collins singer/songwriter and traveling member of The Lumineers plays at The Slowdown April 20. Its on the Lumineers.
 * 8) A Message From Stelth Ulvang - The Lumineers - Lumineers  again.
 * 9) Youtube - Stelth Ulvang "Denim"| CME Sessions 1900 views. Non-notable.
 * 10) Youtube - 5 Questions w/ The Lumineers: Stelth Ulvang 12k views. Non-notable.
 * 11) https://www.westword.com/music/how-the-people-of-new-zealand-inspired-stelth-ulvangs-new-album-6302934 About quitting The Lumineers. 2011.
 * 12) first-avenue.com › performer › stelth-ulvang-lumineers. The The Lumineers
 * 13) https://do317.com/p/plugged-in-series-stelth-ulvang. Plugged in. An interview.
 * 14) https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2016/01/stelth_ulvang_lumineers_portland_tour.html The Lumineers.
 * 15) IMDB
 * 16) cpr.org Lumineers. Single small para.
 * 17) https://thebluegrasssituation.com/read/watch-stelth-ulvang-mornings/ Some music of his.
 * 18) https://knickmusic.com/events/2018/5/11/stelth-ulvang-of-the-lumineers-with-y-la-bamba-and-glenn-kendzia Lumineers event listing page.
 * 19) https://equipboard.com/pros/stelth-ulvang Profile page. Kit he uses. Non-notable.
 * 20) Tour date
 * 21) Tour date
 * 22) Amazon
 * 23) https://1883magazine.com/tag/stelth-ulvang/. profile page. Non-notable.
 * 24) https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/stelth-ulvang-13c9b1dd.html tour listing. Non-notable.
 * 25) https://soundbetter.com/s/stelth-ulvang  Folk who worked for the Lumineers.
 * 26) Event listing
 * 27) https://www.sofarsounds.com/artists/stelth-ulvang Profile page. Non-notable.

That is the three pages. Please show where he is notable, where there is three secondary sources, that are in-depth and reliable. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  20:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the SLCW counts, that's one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. https://www.dailycamera.com/2015/03/18/lumineers-stelth-ulvang-returns-to-his-roots/
 * 2. https://www.westword.com/music/how-the-people-of-new-zealand-inspired-stelth-ulvangs-new-album-6302934
 * 3. https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2016/01/stelth_ulvang_lumineers_portland_tour.html


 * There's three sources that took me all of five seconds to find. I marked this speedy keep because you are wasting everyone's time. And you think there is canvassing going on because people are pointing out the stupidity of this nomination? Bluedude588 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you lose the language and the badgering, before you end up getting blocked.

 scope_creep Talk  21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) This is an event listing and is non notable. Doesn't establish notability.
 * 2) This is first album after he left the Lumineers. That was five years ago, early Feb. 2015.
 * 3) This is an event listing for a gig. Doesn't establish notability.
 * What language? I'm not gonna get blocked for criticizing your nomination. Event listing in that much detail establish notability. And notability does not go away, so your mention of it being five years ago is irrelevant. You don't seem to understand what notability means. I'd suggest you go read up on Wikipedia's policies. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Second time looking at that, those two gig references are when he was still in the Lumineers, indicating a clear case of redirect.  scope_creep Talk  21:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He was still in the Lumineers at the point.  scope_creep Talk  22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes? It's still decent coverage of him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I was casting aspersions, when mentioned canvassing. Sorry.  scope_creep Talk  22:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down brother. Follow the advice you gave to me. You don't need to reply to every comment that goes against you. Just sit back with me and watch the conversation going on. Being accused of badgering isn't nice. And if you continue with these heaps of messages then you are going to be accused soon because you seem to be threatening Bluedude so that he yields to your counter-arguments. Also, your reply to a very experienced and respected editor like was also not very respectful. Calm down man. Let it be short so that the reviewer does not have to search for info. I hope you understand. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't come out of retirement on his own. I, mistakenly, emailed and requested him to take part in the discussion (for which i have apologized by email). I was emailing another user but my phone was not responding correctly and i somehow, instead of Missvain, emailed him. Btw just because his opinions differ doesn't mean that he is disregarding policies, he is disregarding this thought about deleting/redirecting the article based on his own conscience. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. I recanted my previous statement about disregarding policy. KidAd (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is WP:CANVAS, WP:STEALTH and potentially WP:VOTESTACKING then.  scope_creep Talk  07:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you lost control on yourself? First of all, i wasn't calling him out. I was calling Missvain, who is an admin and will never betray wikipedia policies. Second - i didn't call out anyone to come and SUPPORT the article. I called them out to come and do a COMMENT here because there was no comment for 48 consecutive hours. I tried to email her because i had already left a message on her talk page. She is considered very experienced so i was trying to convince her to comment her (which is not needed now since many editors have already commented). The fact that i added this discussion in colorado-related AFDs further strengthens this reasoning. And this was the only email i sent because i didn't feel motivated to do such a tedious work. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Won't you intervene now? When i was putting evidences here, you were quick to order me to stop it and stop badgering, but when is bombarding this thread with heaps of acontextual comments and badgering other editors while also accusing them baselessly then you are not here. Why is this? Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert. You don't restore to a previous version in Afd discussion.  scope_creep Talk  08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to create an edit war. But i hope you got my point. I concede that i should not have tried to email missvain once she neglected me on her talk page. But that was days ago and i tried to email her out of desperation because no one was here to comment. Now that the traffic is back, there is no need to call out editors personally and hence i havent done that. I only messaged 2 editors to come here which were chosen randomly. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.