User talk:Mazca/Archive 2013

Regarding the unbirth topic:

I have only recently joined Wikipedia. While searching for topics that I consider myself an expert on to watch, I realized that the unbirth and unbirthing pages had been deleted. Yours was the signature under the deletion notice. I would like to discuss bringing back the page so that I may maintain it. I am sorry if I did not need your permission to do this, but I have been told by the help pages that it is a common courtesy to discuss things such as this. I believe unbirthing should redirect to unbirth as the first step. Thank you for your time, I look forward to giving wikipedia a respectable unbirth page.Master of Waterfowl (talk) 23:00, 1 Jan 2013 (UTC) Sorry I can't do this signature correctly and my user page says that it doesn't exist. Please just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_of_Waterfowl sorry about this.

No problem. You're very welcome to create an article there - it was deleted because the previous article was just an unhelpful redirect to Vorarephilia. If you've got useful information to add then please do re-create the page; just make sure you include some references to show your page meets our notability guidelines - this is particularly important for articles on more obscure topics like this one. Best wishes. ~ mazca ^talk 17:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Banshee Aircrew (non) Deletion

For reference, can you say which of the WP:BAND criteria it was decided that SBA fulfil for notability and which they do not? There seem to be several article on relatively minor bands out there and I'm interested in where the bar's been set. Paul S (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the participation at the discussion were arguing around criterion 1 (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) and/or criterion 7 (one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city), and there's a fair argument in both cases. In closing the discussion I was really just trying to obtain a rough consensus of the participants, giving appropriate weight (ie not much) to the obvious and, in places, quite uncivil new users that had clearly been brought there from somewhere else. Even doing that, I don't think there's any way I could have determined there was any kind of consensus to delete the article.

I personally think WP:BAND is a pretty awful guideline because the majority of its 12 criteria are each totally open to interpretation. What's significant coverage? What's a notable style? How do you determine who's most prominent? It goes on and on, but I think a reasonable editor can argue that Screaming Banshee Aircrew fulfil #1 and #7.

Don't let the adverse result (and some of the unwarranted attacks you received from people in that discussion) stop you taking other band articles of suspect notability to AfD. You'll find that there's a real grey area when it comes to bands being deleted on Wikipedia, sometimes it will go in the way you want, sometimes it won't. We just have to rely on what arguments are made on a case by case basis. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 11:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NACs

Hi there. I spotted an AFD that has been relisted twice (and this would be the third time) without any comments apart from the nominator. Should it be closed as no consensus (and can a non-admin do that?). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Tom Morris (talk · contribs) got there first.

I'd generally suggest you avoid no-consensus NACs. I don't personally have an issue with it on obvious nothingy closes like that one, but I definitely recall times in the past when it's been controversial. It's the kind of thing that's just not worth the potential drama!

On that note, though, what's currently stopping you trying another RfA? It's been a good while since your previous one and it continues to look like you'd find the tools useful. ~ mazca ^talk 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about getting shot down for lack of substantial recent content contributions. It's not really my strong point. I feel my experience with dispute resolution makes up for that in terms of knowledge, and I do have some content (2 GAs and 3 DYKs) but if I run again and fail, then it's pretty much my last shot gone. Truth is, I don't know what the community would decide if I RFAed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I appreciate that the standards at RfA are rather high as well as somewhat unpredictable. I think I lucked out a bit on my own RfA in that the "must have lots of content contributions" brigade didn't seem too bothered at the time - I have a lot less than you do! Best of luck as and when you feel it's time to try again. ~ mazca ^talk 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerofawesome

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avestagenome Project

Project sponsored and managed by Avesthagen Limited to help with cancer research by taking genetic samples of an inbred community called the Parsis and using their genetic to isolate certain markers.

This article should not be deleted as it is not an advertisement, but information regarding cutting edge research in the field of population genetics and should, therefore, be promoted.

There is enough articles and scientific papers out there.

The original article was a stub. Currently I am in communication with the company and have requested them to release more details regarding this project. --Deathtap (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to recreate the article (I can provide the text of the deleted version if you need) if you can reference to significant coverage in [[WP::RS|reliable sources]] that are independent of the subject. Press releases and info released by the company themselves really aren't the material we want to form a neutral encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^talk 11:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Sallan

I am still not clear on why this wikipedia page was deleted. I feel frustrated as I kept trying to add the necessary information but at it was added no one would review the page again to see if notability was shown. I feel there is more than enough reason to show notability. Please advise what I can do now. BwilsonCVA (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mazca. I'm sorry this spilled over into your talk space. If it's alright, I'll offer a response for this post. If it's not, just revert me, no hard feelings.

The article was deleted because its subject was not encyclopedic. Sallan is not encyclopedically notable by Wikipedia standards. Please rest assured that it's not your fault: if the acceptable coverage isn't out there, no editor's efforts, albeit very diligent, will cure that lacking. Your edits are available for administrator review, but the deleting administrator's talk page isn't the best forum. If you think the article should be revived, please have a look at deletion review. As to DRV, I'd like to point out that your single-purpose account status and blanking of concerns regarding your affiliation and links to the subject are distinct disadvantages to your position in the face of overwhelming consensus among those editors who have demonstrated an understanding of biographical notability, and that substantial coverage by reliable third parties is what might be required to overturn. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JFHJr - I was off wiki for a few days and hadn't had a chance to look at this, but what you've said here is exactly correct. Bwilson, I hope you understand the rationale here. Thanks ~ mazca ^talk 11:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi

I believe this close was incorrect as there is no consensus that Ambassadors are inherantly notable and in the absence of reliable secondary sources the policy for a BLP is that we should delete. Bu giving weight to the inherantly notable crowd you were not giving due weight to the views that reflect the actual policy. I realise this is arguably an obtruse point. Do you have any objection to my raising a DRV to seek clarification? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the policy as it stands WP:DIPLOMAT clearly stipulates that secondary sources are necessary so the inherently notable argument was clearly not policy grounded and should have been given less weight than the delete votes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all if you'd like to raise a DRV about it. It was a seriously borderline close on a seriously borderline article - I was absolutely not comfortable discarding half the participants in a substantial discussion like that on the basis of my own reading of WP:DIPLOMAT. I'm not a fan of that guideline as a useful tool for weighing arguments, it's a single sentence about which nearly every aspect is subjective (how do you gauge significant participation? how do you gauge an event of significant importance?) and as a result I really don't think there was any kind of consensus to be drawn from the debate. The guideline also doesn't require secondary sources that actually focus on the subject, rather just enough to verify participation.

I was not willing to invoke WP:BLP and default to delete, because the article contains no unverified facts, just a slight risk of the subject not being important enough. What little is there is sourced to what appear to be legitimate sources. In any case, feel free to take it to DRV - I've got no stake in this and if DRV thinks there was a consensus to delete it I certainly won't miss the article. ~ mazca ^talk 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is now at DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_8#Miyoko_Akashi. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of FalconAzeri

Hello. I noticed that you added a block notice to the user talk page of FalconAzeri, but something seems to have gone wrong somewhere, because according to the block log the user account hasn't been blocked. Thomas.W (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure went wrong there, must have misclicked on the block page - thanks for noticing, now fixed! ~ mazca ^talk 14:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mazca. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, but your oppose basically comes across as a long list of accusations without evidence. If you can point to some discussions and diffs where he's really behaving as badly as you say he is, I'd love to see them, but right now I'm unlikely to change my vote based on what's effectively your unsourced personal opinion! ~ mazca ^talk 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mazca. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]