Jump to content

User talk:CaroleHenson/Admin-in-training/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


March 9, 2017

[edit]
removed the copy-pasted and non-encyclopedic content, removed the CSD tag, merged to California State University. The merged content was removed, though, because "Misrepresents the initiative. CTC offered a grant to fund new programs, but most campuses already have multiple integrated teacher preparation programs already. Should fully describe, or leave out." So, I removed the merged-to and merged-from templates fro the talk pages. What is left, then, is a redirect to the CSU article - and the section that discusses the teaching program.
I thought the cited summary information that I merged to the CSU article might be informational, but perhaps it would have been better to have just let this run it's course
  • Sturiks - A11 (twice) - agree with the CSD. Left message on talk page and user page about the problems with the article. This was about a hybrid of an apple and pear that noone has written about.
Endorse CSD - complete blank searching for sources Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carolyn A. Maher - G12 - cleaned up. Made edits, removed unnecessary quotes, added a news source, removed CSD once no longer applicable.
Good work - G12 is only applicable when every diff of the entire text is a complete copyvio. The original article was borderline G11 as well in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Winning an order with a Wikipedia article is definitely not an A7 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sampa Das - A7 - disagree with tag: removed tag, cleaned up article. Fellow of Indian National Science Academy and National Academy of Sciences India and appears to have performed important research. If someone questions notability, it seems AfD would be the way to go.
Yes, there is a claim towards WP:PROF, some of the article suggests a run-of-the-mill research scientist but an in-depth analysis would be required and that's a job for AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

[edit]
  • Engage3 - G11 - There are definite problems, the only source is a primary source, the author of the article was User:Marketeng3 - so it was created to be promotional, and finding reliable sources in the news is slim pickings. But, I don't see a significant POV issue in the content of the article, nor does it seem like it needs a major rewrite. So, I am not sure that this is a valid G11. Your input, Ritchie333 would be helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted this per G11. Company articles are a hard sell on Wikipedia, and they really need to explain what they do to the average man in the street, which this one doesn't. Nobody cares about who runs the company or what the products are, unless they have been subjects of dedicated news and magazine pieces themselves. Direct Ferries (AfD - result "no consensus") is pretty much the base level for what I would accept. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! And, thanks for all of the comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The rationale for G11 is a little weak, but the odds of a neutral and uninvolved editor being able to do something with this are pretty remote so I think it's an acceptable deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

[edit]
  • Eduardo Leveck - A7 - I am not sure that this is a valid A7, although there does not appear to be sufficient notability for the article. I didn't remove the tag, though, based on the criteria on User:SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes#People for musicians. The only one that might prove significance is "received airplay on larger radio stations". There is an uncited claim that he hit the Brasil Hot 100 Airplay. AfD seems to be the way to go.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. I've turned down the A7; usually I assume somebody else will do the AfD unless I am particularly unimpressed at the article Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Someone else nominated it for AfD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've A7ed and salted the article - the key here is "credible claim of significance". According to the article, the subject is about 16 years old. A 16 year old notable film director - yeah right. If the article creator screamed merry hell on my talk page about what a nasty abusive asshole admin I was for deleting the article, I might undelete and send to AfD just to "teach 'em a lesson". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All fine to me - the ones you agreed as being A7 have been deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

[edit]
I'm skeptical that a truly notable article can be spun out of this, but I think A7 was cleared and userfying is acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

[edit]

March 14

[edit]

March 15

[edit]

March 16

[edit]

March 17

[edit]

March 18

[edit]

March 19

[edit]
Tag removed here as N/A.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The page has been moved to Draft:EverThere and the page was deleted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

[edit]

March 21

[edit]

March 22

[edit]

March 23

[edit]

March 24

[edit]
If there's an article on another WP, that's usually a reason to hold off on AfD; it might mean notability can be met, but only through non-English sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I have been watching - there's a vote to keep that is compelling and a speedy keep not as compelling. It looks like it will be best to withdraw this one. I was waiting for one more vote - and perhaps you're it. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a speedy keep as you made the nom in good faith, but you can speedy keep by withdrawing. (Isn't quoting policy fun?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes! Anyway, I have finished the withdrawal process.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaroleHenson, for your info, i have moved the afd close note to the very top of the Persson afd so its all light blue, and included a link to the afd at the "page=" of the notice on Persson's talkpage. kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coolabahapple - Excellent, thanks. I saw that. Cool name, by the way!–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no probs:)Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

[edit]

March 26

[edit]

March 27 and 28

[edit]

Have been focusing on a major influx of images by a new user that in some cases overloaded the article, were of poor quality, and the reverted additions were reverted as well. This resulted in an ANI and I'm trying to work through the contributions in User:CaroleHenson/sandbox2.

So, not working on AfDs or NewPagesFeed today.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I've been on a major mission to get Mayfair to WP:GAN (now done) so I haven't been on top of admin stuff myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Congratulations! I haven't done a GA review in awhile. If it wouldn't be inappropriate, I'd be happy to do it for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well you haven't (AFAIK) contributed to the article, so I don't see why you can't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Ok, I'd be happy to do it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

[edit]
This last one gave me a shock - I've explained why in an email Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

[edit]

CSD A7 queue items

CSD G11 queue items

April 1

[edit]

Items worked or reviewed during NewPagesFeed work:

The Prod tag was removed, but nothing was added to establish notability. Nominated for an Afd.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article was redirected, no further action is needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to Prism Mates - she's a current member.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded - was already nominated and deprodded once.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged article for notability, reliable sources, and refimprove as potential opportunities to save the article and identify something not in the article that establishes notability.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

[edit]
Author removed the tag. Left a message about this on the article talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After more searching, several discussions with the author - there's just not enough turning up - is TOOSOON. Applied an AfD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson Yes, I think that warrants an AfD discussion, assuming the subject is actually in the paper. The article as deleted is a borderline G11 in as much as if I was rescuing it, I would probably rewrite it from scratch. I would have probably PRODded and then AfDed if challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

[edit]

CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

[edit]
CSD queue review
Update: Tag removed - "G4 no longer applies: there's additional notability as President of a Medical College. Might meet WP:PROF. Still very promotional , but that can be fixed"–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NewPagesFeed review

April 5-7

[edit]

Have dealt with some disruptive editing (filed a sockpuppet inv which resulted in the sockpuppets getting blocked) and worked copyright violations, which has involved paraphrasing content and requesting hiding versions with copyright violations.

In one case I applied a COI template in the Functional neurological symptom disorder article and posted it on the COI noticeboard, but that process takes awhile. I wouldn't do that again. Would either fix and request revdel or nominate for speedy deletion if bad enough.

Also, worked some articles from NewPagesFeed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

[edit]

Copyright violation work and requests to delete earlier versions:

CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afd votes:

April 9

[edit]
CSDs
The A10s were removed in a histmerge - Applied R3 - implausible
Copyvio items

April 11

[edit]

From NewPagesFeed review