Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 October 16

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = October 16 =

WP:COI: Fang

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TeddyFang
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Independent
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Fang
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsianWeek
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_Handy_Guide
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider discuss this at WP:COIN. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Same arguments at similar AFDs.
Hello help desk! I made the mistake earlier in nominating too many comic-related articles for deletion, but I've noticed that almost all of the keeps for these discussions seemed to all have the exact same reasoning saying "Keep or merge with (article name here) in the sprit of WP:PRESERVE". I didn't want to accuse any of the editors as they seemed WAY more experienced than me, but keep in mind these articles have existed for over a decade without any secondary sources. Just wondered if I should be suspicious of anything. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * When you nominate multiple articles, and when multiple articles of the same topic area get nominated, you have to expect the same people to show up. When you nominate an article and a participant thinks you're wrong to have done so, they're likely to look at your recent editing history and if they find other articles were also nominated for the same reasons, they're likely to participate in those AFDs as well. Similarly, when you nominate articles of the same topic area, they generate the same notifications to the same group of people, i.e. people interested in those topic areas, so you should expect the same people to show up. That would be the simple explanation, which though not guaranteed to be correct, should be the default assumption, absent any additional evidence. AFDs get pretty heated pretty fast. And being right is no guarantee that they will go your way. So, I would advise against too much emotional investment. Look at it this way, if there are articles that have survived for over a decade, there must have been a reason, and you're likely to stumble into it when you try to delete them. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , when an editor makes a series of similar AfD nominations with similar rationales, then nobody should be surprised that editors who disagree would respond with similar language. Anything different would be quite surprising, wouldn't it? I suggest that you focus on something new. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I have indeed become a little too invested in these AfDs. However, I suppose I should rephrase. The users are not using similar arguments, they are all saying the exact same thing word for word. No arguments with more citations. All pointing to a policy (WP:PRESERVE) which they don't seem to understand. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Industrial Insect, I skimmed what I presume to be the full set of your recent comic book themed AfD noms, and what I found was two editors using a variant of the sentence you mention at three AfDs: Articles for deletion/Ox (comics), Articles for deletion/Burglar (character), and Articles for deletion/Gibbon (character).I don't think it's worth being suspicious about two editors copypasting their !votes to a few rapid-fire AfDs by the same nominator, and I see one of the two editors in question has engaged politely on your usertalk.AfDs take a lot more effort to counter effectively than they do to open without evidence of a thorough WP:BEFORE. Even a slam-dunk keep can take an hour or more to source adequately. Were the two editors making slightly pointy comments out of frustration? Probably, but a thorough check for sources should take at least twenty or thirty minutes, and the impression I got looking at your noms was that you weren't putting much work into them, so it's not unexpected to see that kind of engagement. Even one AfD nom a day is a pretty fast pace.As to people citing inapplicable guidance pages, see WP:UPPERCASE. It's a forever problem. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'all are right, the noms were lazy, and I've become too invested in these AfDs and started to view them as WP:BATTLEGROUNDS. Time for a break... Industrial Insect (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So this is curious. FWIW, @Folly Mox @Usedtobecool and @Cullen328 basically covered it; triggering an AfD is easy and simple, posting a Keep argument that's properly researched effectively takes as long as creating an article, particularly for a niche area where a lot of reliable sources are offline (in the case of comic book characters things like The Comic Journal, Amazing Heroes and a lot of small-run books). Seeing as there was and is no sign of @Industrial Insect having done much more than an online search before mass-nominating a group of articles - a common problem with AfDs in the area - I see no reason why I should drop the projects I'm currently working on to effectively research 18 articles in a week on subjects I'm only peripherally interested in. But on a point of principle I try not to allow under-researched AfD nominations slide as I've seen far too many articles in desperate need of clean-up saved without the AfD process involved; the articles are just waiting for someone genuinely knowledgeable in the subject to find the time to bring them up to scratch or make a genuine, informed decision as to whether they're tenable. My cut-and-paste votes directly reflect the amount of effort the nominator put in to a) attempting to salvage the articles before nominating and b) researching the before.
 * Use my name next time. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Use my name next time. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Determining the "Primary topic"
We currently have two articles on two houses, both of which are called Monkton House. These are Monkton House, in Wiltshire, and Monkton House, West Dean, in West Sussex. How do we determine which is the primary topic? I suspect it should be the latter, due to its architectural history; its architect was Edwin Lutyens, and it was "the only complete Surrealist house ever created in Britain". I also suspect it will get many more internet search hits. Do we have a process through which this is decided? KJP1 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I am unfamiliar with the topic but your general line of reasoning is strong and intuitive. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for more details. Certainly, in the case of a building, the architectural history and significance are among the most important factors. The number of page views and followers may be a factor, if widely divergent. If one of the topics is the subject of extensive published academic research, and the other gets little more than local news and brief tour guide coverage, than that is another important indicator. This is how I go about assessing such issues. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - many thanks, most helpful. I may start a discussion with the main editor of the other page, along the lines you suggest. In one sense it doesn’t matter overmuch, but I do think it likely that a general reader, searching Wikipedia for “Monkton House”, will more likely be looking for the one in Sussex, rather than the one in Wiltshire. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have now read both articles and I agree with your assessment. In the case of the first article, we learn that the house exists, and then pretty much nothing of interest happened for 350 years. The second article is about a house of a unique architectural style designed by a highly notable architect, and then reworked by a notable patron, employing two notable architectural design professionals, plus Salvador Dali poking his mustache in. In my opinion, the Sussex house is the primary topic, although both articles should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

, You may be asking the wrong question. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "Is there a primary topic?", there doesn't have to be one. The alternative is to move Monkton House -> Monkton House, Broughton Gifford and use Monkton House as the disambiguation page. , you could argue that a building with parts dating back to the 12C and with civil War connections is more interesting that a modern 20C pile. Just depends upon your viewpoint, and that is the nub of the question. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , - I take the point Martin, and the disparity in the listings is certainly a factor to consider. However, there are in excess of 20,000 Grade II* buildings in England, whereas I know of only one building by Lutyens, subsequently jazzed up by Dalí, with a twist of Nicholson and Casson, the only Surrealist house in England, and which once contained about the finest collection of Surrealist art in the world. I would be interested in the number of internet searches/hits, but I’m pretty confident they would show a significant preponderance in favour of the Sussex house. Anyways, I really appreciate the discussion, and shall approach the main author of the Wiltshire article to see if they have a view. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * [I] shall approach the main author of the Wiltshire article to see if they have a view I caution you against violating the canvassing rules (specifically, the section about selective notification of people one might presume to have a particular viewpoint).
 * In your shoes, I would open a discussion of the talk page of either article and leave a notification pointing to it at the other. If you want to notify individual editors, I recommend you notify all significant contributors of both articles. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , TBF, if the main author of a page doesn't think that that page shouldn't be the primary, then my *guess* is that not many other people will. It almost feels opposite of what WP:CANVASS is trying to prevent. I agree with your advice though.Naraht (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - I'm not entirely sure I needed a canvass warning either, but there you go. Anyways, I fear the point's likely moot, as the main editor of Monkton House hasn't edited in over three years. I may therefore follow your suggestion re. the Talkpages of both articles. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Broken link to a PDF
Hi, I hope I have reached the correct department. I was interested in reading an article about the New Guinea Air Warning Wireless group which operated during WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea_Air_Warning_Wireless

However, within that article, the following link appears to be broken.

http://www.thespotters.org/Shared%20Documents/NGAWW%20History%20by%20Lt.%20White%20-%20In%20the%20Field%20-%20August%201944.PDF

I was wondering if this could be rectified. Thankyou, Maurie White 2001:8003:E18B:F800:C169:2C35:C9BE:D74B (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, Maurie. If you can rectify it, you're most welcome to do so. If you know of a working link but don't know how to edit, you can make an edit request in the article's talk page (i.e. page for talking about the article), Talk:New Guinea Air Warning Wireless. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see an archive for that page at the Wayback Machine or archive.today, so I tagged it as a dead link. GoingBatty (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Doubt Regarding Afd
Greetings to anyone reading this, I recently nominated an article for deletion, (Shivalik Public School, Mohali), can anyone tell me what is the expected time it can be either denominated or deleted.

Regards

Yamantakks (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 7 days, typically. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The article Shivalik Public School, Mohali is not so poor that it would qualify for speedy deletion, but it needs reliable secondary sources to be added or it is very likely going to get deleted.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Providing information
I have a certificate and tie from completing the Manchester rag week bogle stroll in 1973. 50 years ago. All I want to do is supply a photo of the tie and certificate and a personal account including a correction to your record. Steve crane Stevethewolvesfan (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which article you are talking about, but in general, personal accounts (of anything) are never acceptable in Wikipedia articles unless they have already been published in a reliable source, and I am dubious that a photo of a tie or a certificate would serve any encyclopaedic purpose. Please clarify why you want to do this, and to which article. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm guessing this is about Bogle Stroll. I have doubts as to whether this meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability in the first place (the two sources which are supposedly accessible online are both dead, though they may have been archived, and I suspect that they do not have significant coverage of the event, though I may be wrong.
 * I've recovered those two links from the Internet archive (though confusingly, the Middleton News one redirects to Manchester Evening News on a later date), but I don't think they add up to significant coverage for notability, and I have tagged the article accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit for 2023 Israel-Hamas page, 5th Canadian died. There is also a CBC News article on this.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/21-year-old-identified-as-5th-canadian-who-died-in-israel-hamas-war-1.6602981 2001:56A:75D8:9D00:D9FE:8F1:20F6:990 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to make a change to an article, please make an edit request on the article's talk page. Please be specific about what text you want to insert, remove, or change. ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

copyright
I am on the CEPA advcoacy committee and was asked of the current president to try to get us on Wikipedia, which was what I was trying to do by adding our website to people could access us and determine what and who we are and how to get involved with this organization. 147.226.47.6 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BOSS and have the president read it too. In short, that's not what Wikipedia is for. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Help please
When i was little i created a wikipedia page from another account, i want it to be deleted how can this be done? MkIsOk (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It would help to know the title of the article. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pages can only be deleted by administrators. Others can request it but the method depends on where the page is and for some pages, why you want it deleted. I'm an administrator but without the page name or account name, I can only refer you to the complicated Deletion policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you mean you want the account to be deleted then it's not possible. See Courtesy vanishing. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the page name is “Mkboss yt W.SK” i would be really thankfull if you deleted it because there is my full name there and i really dont want that. Thank you MkIsOk (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @MkIsOk, do you mean the page on sk.wikipedia? There seems to be no such page on en.wikipedia. 57.140.16.12 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)