User talk:RoySmith/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:RoySmith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Can you educate me please? Do I actually need a DRV to propose a draft for AfC for this article. Where exactly am I right now with this. I contacted the deleting admin as a courtesy. And he forced me to go to DRV (which I stated I was unsure was required). And I believe no one actually read my draft and you closed the review without forcing the issue. Wouldn't it have been better to get people to state clearly that the draft was also not acceptable.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm afraid our processes didn't work very well this time. I agree with you that people seem to have concentrated on the original AfD and didn't pay much attention to your new draft. I see you've already added the AFC submission template to your draft, which was the right thing to do. I'm not sure why you weren't advised to do this in the first place, but please excuse our sometimes creaky beaurocracy. What should happen at this point is your draft is in a queue to be reviewed by an independent reviewer, who may or may not agree that it should be moved into the main article space. It looks like the queue is rather long, so I'm afraid at this point you'll just have to be patient while the reviewers work through the backlog. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- This was my plan from the beginning. I was just being acquiescent and extra empathetic because of my COI. Which is why I did not argue with the deleting admin's request or make my case loudly. I have learned to be very patient after a few pitfalls. Who cares even if it takes months. Thanks for your time!!!—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith. Thank you for writing a detailed closing statement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14#Michael Cole (public relations). You closed the DRV as "Overturn G4, list at Afd". Does the "Overturn G4" part of your close mean that the page should be restored to mainspace for an AfD discussion? Did you leave the page in draftspace on purpose?
That the page is at MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Michael Cole (public relations) may lead to confusion about what the community is being asked. Are editors being asked whether the draft should be retained in draftspace? Are editors being asked whether the draft should be moved to mainspace? An MfD participant thinks it is the former ("I fear that if a BLP is deleted, it is generally not likely to survive as a draft either") but my reading of your close is that it is neither. I think the question the community is being asked is: "Should this biographical article be retained?"
If editors are being asked whether the draft should be moved to mainspace, then MfD is not the proper forum for that. DRV was.
Another confusing point at the MfD is: What happens if the MfD is closed as "no consensus"? Is the article kept in draftspace or moved to mainspace? If the article were already in mainspace, that would be "no consensus, default to keep" (or "no consensus, default to delete"). But it is unclear what the procedure is at MfD.
I recommend closing the MfD, moving the draft to mainspace, and then opening an AfD so it is clear that editors know what they are being asked to decide. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your note, and I agree that these are legitimate points. It was accidental that this ended up at MfD instead of AfD, but at this point I'll just let the discussion run its course where it is. It's not ideal, but I think the benefits of moving it would not justify the disruption. Whoever comes along can figure out what to do. You might want to raise these points right in the MfD discussion so other discussants can provide more focused comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I should clarify that further. Yes, I was aware this was a draft, and made a conscious decision to leave it in draft space. My logic there was if we ended up accepting the WP:BLPDELETE, leaving it in draft space now would cause less harm than restoring it in mainspace. And if we ended up rejecting that, then it would be easy enough to move into mainspace later. What I didn't realize is that when I ran the XfD tool, the discussion it generated would get listed under MfD. I was expecting it to be listed under AfD. So, yes, an accident that it's in MfD. But, no, not an accident that it's still a draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is utterly ridiculous. An overturn at DRV leaves no grounds for keeping the article in the Draft namespace. You are apparently "supervoting" to override the consensus you yourself have identified at DRV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I should clarify that further. Yes, I was aware this was a draft, and made a conscious decision to leave it in draft space. My logic there was if we ended up accepting the WP:BLPDELETE, leaving it in draft space now would cause less harm than restoring it in mainspace. And if we ended up rejecting that, then it would be easy enough to move into mainspace later. What I didn't realize is that when I ran the XfD tool, the discussion it generated would get listed under MfD. I was expecting it to be listed under AfD. So, yes, an accident that it's in MfD. But, no, not an accident that it's still a draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review of Timeline of Amazon.com
You closed this discussion prematurely, without any regard to the complaint as frivolous or such. The other editor who commented did not do so- they rather found the issue questionable as well. Please explain your behaviour in detail or revert the close(or both).Burning Pillar (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Burning Pillar: You really need to address the fact that you're obviously not a brand-new editor, it's going to taint pretty much everything you do on Wikipedia otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am not a brand-new editor. I have edited under IP, and I have obviously read alot of guidelines and policies because you need that if you are interested in deletion discussions. Creating an account is not forbidden, and this account is not a sockpuppet, it's the account I want to use. I will probably do edits outside of deletion infrequently if I want, but I am more interested in partipiciating in deletion discussions, to prevent inappropiate material from being kept and to prevent deletion of articles that are wrongly nominated. More partipiciants interested in policy will cause less bad results. The reason I asked for a deletion review here was that I think that the closure itself looks like it ignored WP:Closing discussions, which is a valid complaint, and not forumshopping.Burning Pillar (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- I am unable to locate the discussion. Could you provide a direct link to it? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Andscacs
Why did you delete the article Andscacs? It is a no consensus, so the article should stay! IQ125 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I explained my reasoning in the AfD closing statement. I recognize that the decision didn't go the way you wanted, but I don't see any way this could have been closed as keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- It should have been closed as "no consensus", which means the article is not deleted. Are you new to your admin job? IQ125 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
There are strong, policy-based "delete" !votes here. As has been shown repeatedly, none of the "keep" !votes goes beyond WP:ILIKEIT. I would appreciate if you could re-visit your closure. Also, given the still ongoing discussion, a relist would not have been out of its place, either, I think. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. Looking over the discussion again, I'm satisfied my close is reasonable. The AfD had been open for a full week originally, and another three days after the DRV. It attracted comments from (if I counted correctly) eight people. That doesn't sound like something that needs relisting. Given the number of people who contributed to the discussion, and the quality of the arguments (on both sides), the only other possible close I could see is No Consensus, which comes down to the same result. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take it to WP:DRV then. The keep side has no arguments save WP:ILIKEIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are certainly entitled to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote. Just counting votes is not how an AfD is supposed to be closed. !Votes that are not policy based should be ignored. In your close you claim that the contents of the article can be verified. Well, they can, but only if you accept sources provided by the journal itself. Given your close, I guess we now should keep every article on journals published by OMICS Publishing Group, too. After all, their existence can be verified by looking at their websites, which claim that they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. As an aside, I have many years of experience with academic journals and so does Headbomb. I find your characterization of us us as "people whose arguments to delete consist largely of finding the correct chapter and verse of wiki-policy to cite" to be mildly insulting at best. --Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are certainly entitled to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take it to WP:DRV then. The keep side has no arguments save WP:ILIKEIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't felt personally insulted by a close in a long time. I can't fathom why you thought it was appropriate to write that. I too have many years of experience with academic journals, not that it should matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
IP user repeatedly posting unsourced info on List of Oh My Goddess characters article
I've taken the liberty of removing the IP user's unsourced info three times, but it would seem that they have no intention of actually abiding by the rules (WP:RS). Apparently, they have also been doing the same thing with the Ojarumaru character list. I kindly request that you take action regarding the matter. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sk8erPrince: my apologies for not noticing your request earlier. I took a quick look and the good news is that neither of these articles show any further problems since the date of your request. Please feel free to ping me if the problem comes up again. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: It would seem that said IP user has been causing trouble again with the article above. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Could you please intervene? This IP user has been causing more trouble. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the page for 6 months. Hopefully that will solve the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Thank you! By the way, the same problem has been occurring on the Ojarumaru character list as well, and it has also been suffering from persistent vandalism as of late. Could you protect that page too? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I've semi-protected that page too. Protecting a page really should be a last resort. It doesn't look like the problem is so bad there, so I was a little hesitant to pull out the big guns so soon. I gave this one 3 months. Let's see what happens before implementing something more drastic. -- RoySmith (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Thank you! By the way, the same problem has been occurring on the Ojarumaru character list as well, and it has also been suffering from persistent vandalism as of late. Could you protect that page too? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the page for 6 months. Hopefully that will solve the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Could you please intervene? This IP user has been causing more trouble. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: It would seem that said IP user has been causing trouble again with the article above. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Flickr Pro question on talk page
Hi Roy, I responded to your note on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flickr#Pro_accounts_no_longer_offered.3F I may try to find some more citations to dated material in the article. Ok if I post to the talk page there and ping you? I work at Flickr, so don't want to edit the article directly.
thanks, Almonroth 20:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017
I think you mis-analysed the debate, the argument is that the list is notable because being a #1 Gaon song makes things notable (by causing them to be discussed in RS's). See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists "If this person/thing/etc., wasn't a #1 hit in Korea, would it reduce their fame or significance?" Well yes of course it would, and now we have sources that show that. So at least please let it be taken back to WP:AFD. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- My role in a DRV is to distill what other people said, and I just don't see the strength of argument needed to overturn the AfD close. So, I'm afraid this will have to stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- No further appeal is available, correct? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to tell you. DRV is usually pretty much where things end. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- So if your analysis is incorrect, nothing can be done. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to tell you. DRV is usually pretty much where things end. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- No further appeal is available, correct? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Deletions of User- and Draft-space articles
Hi, there, RoySmith. It seems that you have read my ANI here, and I quite agree with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's resolution that I should go through WP:CVUA before participating in any more XfD discussions. I have already stopped participating in all related discussions, including the Deletion Review I initiated. If I ever become involved in those again, it will only be once I am much better-informed.
But WP:NOTHERE also clearly does not apply to me. I have almost 500 unreverted userspace edits, and the "confrontations" you're talking about have only occurred in the last couple of days, which was a dipping my toes into MfD after a period of lurking there. I understand that I have to go back to lurking, but a good faith conviction that Legacypac was inappropriately nominating for CSD, as he has done in the past, as well as submitting articles to AfD in order to have them rejected to promote their deletion, is not at all a disruptive attitude but quite the opposite. From my perspective, WP:CONSENSUS on Draft and Userspace deletion expressed in WP:STALE is a good thing, and overzealous "spam warriors" trying to roll back the clock on last year's discussions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721038836> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721040983> are endangering that productive consensus.
I understand that in intervening based on this perspective I have appeared argumentative, and that I need to step out of it either indefinitely or until I am much better informed and acculturated to Wikipedia culture. My wife will also appreciate my staying away from MfD etc. ;) But I really don't see how the behaviour Legacypac, DGG, and Nyttend are displaying with userspace drafts and the discussion thereof contributes to WP:HERE. From my angle it looks like all WP:BITE, pretty much. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Since you were the one to delete it after two votes do you think the problem with the article was too much information, especially from the site's own history, or lack of sources, or just the tone wasn't neutral enough, or what? A book has been written discussing this company, several students have written academic papers including one guy's thesis, quite a few news articles have been written about the companies history, literally thousands of reviews have been written about them on all sorts of reviewing sites so it seems to me to have reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic and seem to be in agreement about what the facts are. Also the sources I mentioned above (at least) are completely independent and seem to be reliable to me. I know that the number of sources doesn't have to total a certain amount, but there is definitely enough information to include an article about this company. I'm afraid that the reason the article wasn't good enough is because this is the first major contribution I've made to wikipedia so I am definitely a newbie, and I'm sure I made an obvious newbie mistake. Reading through all of the "creating your first article" documentation again I think the problem was with my tone mainly and the article came across as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Also, if the article should be rewritten I definitely wouldn't use all the news articles from the company's own website. I personally found my interviews with the founder fairly interesting and since I didn't know what I was doing I assumed that the news articles and links he gave me could count as citations in my wikipedia page. I've always had a problem being concise in my writing, but it seemed to be in the same style as the thousands of wikipedia articles I've read so I'm afraid I assumed that too much information was better than just keeping it short. I wanted to get a few opinions on whether the article should be rewritten at all. Thanks for your input. Krydos (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- My role in closing the deletion discussion was not to evaluate the article per-se, but the summarize the comments of the editors who contributed to the AfD. I think the most significant comment there was from @DGG: who said, It's a nice research proejct on a small enterprise, but it doesn't belong in ((wikipedia)). It might help for you to read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to get a better feel for what we're looking for. There might be other wiki projects which are better suited for your article. Perhaps wikia (although, I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with wikia, so I can't guarantee that's a good place either. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! You're one of the only people who have actually responded to me on wikipedia. It seems to be a rather unfriendly place :-/ Krydos (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this was a delete, rather than a relist, given controversy, and that no one has refuted the source I found the other day (though User:Deathlibrarian did vote delete afterwards, but I'm not sure what he thought was wrong with that source I referenced on the FIFA website - and no one else has edited since I brought that source to light). Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Re-reading the AfD, I see an overwhelming consensus to delete, with a large number of people participating in the debate. And, I'm not just counting noses. Many of the delete arguments directly refute the (few) arguments put forth to keep, and cite basic principles such as WP:V. I'm afraid I can't see any reason this should have been relisted. 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not one refutes the source I provided, towards the end of the debate. The only person to comment afterwards, said they hadn't noticed that reference. I don't see what's gained by closing instead of relisting. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Make things simple for me. What, exactly, was this souce? It's not obvious from looking at the AfD what in particular you feel was missed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- The one I added in my final edit to the AFD. Here is the link for that French article - however after you closed the AFD, I found a copy in English. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's a 40-page document. I'm willing to consider your request, but please don't make me play 20 questions. Is there something specific in there which is apropos to this AfD? A search for "nauru" finds only a single mention, in the box on page 28, The low point came in 1994, when they lost to non-FIFA members Nauru. Is that it? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - much of the discussion centred about whether there was a good source for that game, with unsourced comments about it being an unofficial game with migrant workers. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's not going to convince me, not by a long shot. Sorry. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are other sources too, that have been in the articles for years. And I haven't seen these sources that allegedly say that game wasn't as described. However, it's your decision. Can you though please though provide a more detailed closing statement, given the very unusual circumstance (article has been around a very long time, also exists in 15 (I think) foreign-language Wikis, some with better sourcing. Kept at previous AFD, etc. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, you're being silly. I don't see any controversy, other than your continued insistence on pushing this issue. The AfD was about as clear as it gets, and there's nothing new that you present here. If you truly think I made a mistake here, you'll need to take this to WP:DRV, but honestly, I think that would be a waste of everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't think such rudeness is appropriate. No, there isn't enough to take it to DRV. Nor do I plan to take it to DRV. It needs more research - I'd have hoped we'd have had discussion about that after I posted that new source I'd found, but you shut down the AFD before anyone else had seen it. But at this juncture, DRV isn't a feasible route. The case needs to be more clear. And who knows when I'll have time to do that - work has been a nightmare lately. I'm simply asking you to write a bit more detailed closing statement, so if at a later date, more information comes to light, that the closing statement can be used as a guidance, on where exactly the issue lies. This might make it easier to deal with, using a Refund process, or to appeal a sympathetic mod (assuming you are not around, which would be the first choice), rather than creating an unnecessary DRV. I don't think this is either an unreasonable, or silly, request; rather just routine housekeeping. In the meantime, can you copy to my workspace? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have provided a more detailed closing statement, as you requested. Given that it appears this team never even existed, I'm at a loss what purpose would be served by undeleting the existing article into userspace, so I'm going to decline to do that. You may, of course, find another admin who is willing. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. There are numerous references indicating that the team existed, from that FIFA one that I found, to the rec.sports.soccer references, some of the references in the 15 other Wikipedia articles, and contemporary media reports. What's missing is a cohesive properly sourced article, and a defence against the oddly unsourced argument that it was just some labourers. And perhaps this should have been done in the AFD; personally I've been working 60-70 hours weeks recently and neglecting my children, so I simply thought tossing out a couple of new references (which I did) would be enough to at least extend the debate - if not conclude it. At this point, DRV doesn't make sense, and the only real solution (if it is indeed notable) is to rewrite the article, with more references and detail. (which is not going to happen anytime soon). BTW, I don't massively disagree with your closure decision; it wasn't a keep. I simply thought further debate could be constructive. In particular I wanted to flesh out the "labourer" comments and references for that. Thanks for your time; I can probably rebuild the article from the other 15 Wikipedia articles, and cached information. (Edit - just read the statement - the final reference I added was not refuted, or even read by anyone at the time afaik, in the discussion - though I appreciate the detailed closure statement - thanks again) Nfitz (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have provided a more detailed closing statement, as you requested. Given that it appears this team never even existed, I'm at a loss what purpose would be served by undeleting the existing article into userspace, so I'm going to decline to do that. You may, of course, find another admin who is willing. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't think such rudeness is appropriate. No, there isn't enough to take it to DRV. Nor do I plan to take it to DRV. It needs more research - I'd have hoped we'd have had discussion about that after I posted that new source I'd found, but you shut down the AFD before anyone else had seen it. But at this juncture, DRV isn't a feasible route. The case needs to be more clear. And who knows when I'll have time to do that - work has been a nightmare lately. I'm simply asking you to write a bit more detailed closing statement, so if at a later date, more information comes to light, that the closing statement can be used as a guidance, on where exactly the issue lies. This might make it easier to deal with, using a Refund process, or to appeal a sympathetic mod (assuming you are not around, which would be the first choice), rather than creating an unnecessary DRV. I don't think this is either an unreasonable, or silly, request; rather just routine housekeeping. In the meantime, can you copy to my workspace? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, you're being silly. I don't see any controversy, other than your continued insistence on pushing this issue. The AfD was about as clear as it gets, and there's nothing new that you present here. If you truly think I made a mistake here, you'll need to take this to WP:DRV, but honestly, I think that would be a waste of everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- There are other sources too, that have been in the articles for years. And I haven't seen these sources that allegedly say that game wasn't as described. However, it's your decision. Can you though please though provide a more detailed closing statement, given the very unusual circumstance (article has been around a very long time, also exists in 15 (I think) foreign-language Wikis, some with better sourcing. Kept at previous AFD, etc. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's not going to convince me, not by a long shot. Sorry. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - much of the discussion centred about whether there was a good source for that game, with unsourced comments about it being an unofficial game with migrant workers. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's a 40-page document. I'm willing to consider your request, but please don't make me play 20 questions. Is there something specific in there which is apropos to this AfD? A search for "nauru" finds only a single mention, in the box on page 28, The low point came in 1994, when they lost to non-FIFA members Nauru. Is that it? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- The one I added in my final edit to the AFD. Here is the link for that French article - however after you closed the AFD, I found a copy in English. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Make things simple for me. What, exactly, was this souce? It's not obvious from looking at the AfD what in particular you feel was missed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not one refutes the source I provided, towards the end of the debate. The only person to comment afterwards, said they hadn't noticed that reference. I don't see what's gained by closing instead of relisting. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really want to beat the dead horse here, but two things:
- I don't really need the article undeleted into user space. I just want the final text as a starting point for research, and a possible rewrite (because there's no point without first doing the research). I can't find a cached version under 18-months old. Can I just a copy of the wikitext somehow? Mail, sandbox, userspace, whatever?
- I just noticed that someone has restored the article as a redirect. I didn't opine on this in the AFD because it makes interwiki linking difficult, etc. But it's not the worst solution - particularly as I see the redirected article doesn't have any foreign versions. Redirect was relatively-well supported in the AFD, but you appear to have rejected it. Before I try and work within that framework, I wanted to check to see where you stood on that, whether that will be deleted. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team. I also noticed the redirect. It seems to me that it's contrary to consensus. I didn't take any action, partly because it's not my job to play wiki-enforcer, and partly because WP:ATD argues that its a reasonable thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. It might be contrary to consensus, but not as much as keep. I don't think anyone actually argued against redirect, and I think had the discussion continued, consensus might have moved toward redirect - I certainly might have endorsed it, given time - and I didn't. Thanks again, if you are okay with it staying, then there's a couple of things I can do in that framework, that reduce my concerns about eliminating the article - and it's certainly a reasonable search term. Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team. I also noticed the redirect. It seems to me that it's contrary to consensus. I didn't take any action, partly because it's not my job to play wiki-enforcer, and partly because WP:ATD argues that its a reasonable thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Dated at TfD
Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer, but my knowledge in that area is limited, so I'll leave the discussion to the Subject-matter experts. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Foon
Please do not blank pages, as you did to Foon, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't blank it. I redirected it to a better target. I'm curious why you redirected it back to Spork. Do you have any WP:RS for the use of Foon as a synonym for Spork? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you're talking about: this edit. My intent was to redirect Foon -> ICAO code FOON. I don't know what happened there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ug, let's try this again. It should point to M'Vengue El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba International Airport, which has the ICAO code FOON. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you're talking about: this edit. My intent was to redirect Foon -> ICAO code FOON. I don't know what happened there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Duck?
Hi Roy. I have read your apparently reply to me a few times, and I don't understand. Are you replying to me? Are you saying that that Jax is a sockpuppeteer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was replying to the thread in general. No, I wasn't thinking socks, just somebody who seems to be more interested in creating drama than in writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello!
|
Hello! |
| Hello, I just saw that you deleted the page "Poker Probability (Texas Hold'em)" on 13th June. For me that article was very helpful and informative, so I'm asking you if it'd be possible to get a copy of it. Thanks! SelfishGhost (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC) |
- Hi. I think you're talking about Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Texas hold 'em). We generally don't provide copies of deleted articles, except to editors who have plans to use the deleted text as the start of a new article which addresses the reasons it was deleted. There are, however, a number of other sites which mirror deleted wikipedia articles. I imagine a few minutes searching will find what you're looking for on one of them. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You might want to amend your close in light of [1], which resulted in this change to the DRV instructions. G11 or other speedy deletions are not endorsed by no consensus, unlike XfDs, which remain unchanged. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was unaware of that discussion, thank you for bringing it to my attention. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lely (Company) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thinking of taking your close to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump
I was thinking to taking it to deletion review based on; 1. It is clearly WP:N, 2. WP:TOOSOON is no longer a convincing argument. Thoughts? Casprings (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Overall, I don't see any reason to think consensus (or notability) would have changed in the past couple of weeks, but if you really want to take it to DRV, I have no issue with your doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism on Oliver Wyman
Requesting immediate protection as the page has been vandalized at least two times with the bombardment of unsourced info. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it six months semi-protection. Although, I see we've gone that route already, but let's see what happens. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism on Goku (popular page)
I've checked the revision log, and it would seem that the page is VERY susceptible to vandalism. Goku is a very popular anime character, and just way too many fans DON'T understand that their fav character's Wiki page ISN'T a place for their personal opinions. Hence, I am requesting that the page be protected. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it six months semi-protection. If that's not enough, we can revisit it later. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism on Sailor Moon
The Sailor Moon page has received quite a bit of vandalized damage as well, as there's multiple IP users that keep persisting in pasting irrelevant tags. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a bit confused by the way in which The Wise Way AfD was closed. You seem to have taken down the page for Zarb-e-Sukhan as well, though this has it's own, seperate WP:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan AfD entry which has not yet finished. I'm actually fine with the result, but just wanted to query the process behind this? Thanks. Landscape repton (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I've responded on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Kamil Ekim Alptekin
Just wondering what the rationale was (discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Ekim Alptekin). There certainly wasn't a consensus in favor of delete (by my count, it was 5 in favor of Keep and 3 in favor of Delete), and I believe the Keep side made some pretty decent arguments about worthiness for inclusion. And some of the Delete votes were made before the article was significantly expanded. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Cheers. PvOberstein (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Did you read my closing statement? Closes are not about vote counting. They're about evaluating the arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, missed that. Though I still think his history with Eclipse Aerospace, the Leviathan gas field, and Michael T. Flynn would tip the other way. PvOberstein (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- You mentioned those things in the AfD, but didn't seem to convince other people. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister
Thanks for your comments over at DRV. I sometimes think that I'm crazy because I can't make heads or tails of SwisterTwister's contributions at AfD -- the one on display at DRV right now is entirely typical. There's almost an "emperor's new clothes" effect with him, where his contributions are treated as perfectly acceptable by the vast majority of AfD participants. Engagement is impossible: he blanks talk page messages without responding. I brought up his behavior at ANI last year and got nowhere with it. I think he's a net negative to AfD but I have no idea what to do about it. A Traintalk 16:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI
Per your comments at DRV you might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have split the difference at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NaagaKannike and moved the article to Draft:NaagaKannike, where it can be improved and submitted for restoration to mainspace in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Deletion review for Fróði Fríðason Jensen
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fróði Fríðason Jensen. 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. .--Snaevar (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
just a little userfication request
Would you mind giving me a copy of Talk:House of Finwë? I remember I wrote an old comment there giving a bit of sourced (directly to Tolkien) trivia on his use of Old English names for them; I'd like to have it recorded somewhere in my userspace. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of userfying deleted articles, unless there's some specific plan to work on them and return them to mainspace. See Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content. But, you may be able to find another admin who's willing to do this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do plan to put it in List of Middle-earth Elves (these deleted pages listed subsets of this extant list) to make its sourcing a little less terrible when I do get it all back; hopefully that counts as a plan. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have slightly modified your close note to make more clear what the result of the close was. A 'Redirect' close usually implies that the article is blanked and redirected to a different existing article. In this case your close notes, and the actions you performed indicate that the result was 'keep' with a move to Al-Dhira' (with a redirect left behind). I hope that this action of mine was ok, I certainly don't want to step on your toes at all but i thought it was worth making the result of the close a bit more clear for those reviewing the AfD in the future (and also to fix it in the AfD Stats tool). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I'm OK with the clarification, but it's really not cool to edit something that somebody else wrote and signed. That makes it look like I wrote it. In this case, your change is reasonable, but you really should have asked me first. Especially when the page starts off with Please do not modify it in red letters. At the very least, do it as a note, not above my signature, so it's clear who wrote what. But, really, it would have been better if you just asked me first.. Also, It really helps me if people include a link to the AfD or whatever. I close a lot of AfDs. I had to go rummaging through your edit history to find the link to this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of Steffen Krautschneider
On 4 August, you were responsible for the deletion of Steffen Krautschneider. In the meanwhile, a corresponding bluelink has been created in combination with the 2017-18 DFB-Pokal first round. I would like to motivate you to create a redirect of Steffen Krautschneider to 1._FC_Schweinfurt_05#Current_squad. Thank you!--Sekundogenitur (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, like I said in my closing statement, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. Feel free to create it on your own, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
City National Arena
Can you userfiy it for me so i can work on it as i want to fix it up that was why i added it to deletion review i did not know that i could not do that so i have sources i want to use for it but i cannot recreate article but it would be easier if it was on my userpage or on a draft namespace
- Moved to User:Flow234/City National Arena. Please note, this would have been easier if you followed the big red Attention editors instructions and included a link. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Murray-Nadal rivalry
Hi there,
Would you mind emailing a copy of Murray-Nadal rivalry to me? Just noticed the AfD. I typically do some research to ensure my past students' articles are notable first, but it's been a long time. Granted, my knowledge of tennis was and is very, very limited so I may have just been wrong, but I'd like to take a look. Participants of the discussion primarily talked about how it's not "inherently notable" but I don't really see any evaluation of sources... (though obviously there were policy-based reasons given -- I'm not contesting the close). Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Restored to User:Rhododendrites:Murray–Nadal rivalry -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Great. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you mean for this to stand as a precedent? Would you look at the edit history of Gina Rippon for me? I would be interested in you comments. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- @The Vintage Feminist and Randykitty: Hmm, not sure what to tell you there. I can see how one might infer from my closing statement that there was a general statement being made about the length and depth of bibliographies. That would be beyond the scope of what I had intended. That being said, please don't interpret my statement here as passing judgement one way or another on any particular edits made subsequently by other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- The choice of five articles (which has been reduced to three in the edit summary for Rippon), seems just arbitrary to me. Also, I don't actually see the problem with Wikipedia becoming an alternative resource for students for academics bibliography. When I was a student I didn't always find the resources that were available all that intuitive. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Barbara Brenner close
As per WP:Administrator, admins "must never use [tools] to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved."
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Brenner (politician) your close states, "the coverage was from local media which report on local politicians as an obligatory function, and thus this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG." The claim that "this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG" does not allow verification in WP:GNG, although I am aware of your previous interest to pull in the essay WP:Independent sources, which is linked in WP:GNG.
As stated to you at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19,
Comment Here are the first two sentences of the essay WP:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You returned to your "all [references] in a local paper" argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd nomination), where it was stated to you,
If you think there is consensus that local sources shouldn't count toward the GNG, start an RfC. But I don't believe there is anything near consensus on that point, yet you are arguing we are all clearly in the wrong here. OK, ignoring that, could you explain why deleting this is good for the encyclopedia? I've not seen anyone address that, and if it's not, we really shouldn't be doing it. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The closing of the 2nd Sumter AfD stated, "Hobit's argument regarding local sources appeared to me to be better based on the text of GNG."
The 2nd Sumter AfD closed on 12 June 2014, and 31 July 2014 was the date you blocked [2] the editor who re-created the Sumter mall article after the DRV. The block cited edit warring even though the article in question had been stable for a week, and you did not issue a warning before the block.
Returning to WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Continuing discussion from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May_2.
Not only is Gaon the official chart of South Korea, it is also used to help give awards for the annual Gaon Chart Music Awards. [1] Keeping this list of number ones is a good idea, rather than deleting it, because Gaon's website doesn't give a list of only weekly number ones all on a single page the way this article does and the way previous annual articles do. Lists of number one singles are not simple mirrors of content on Gaon's site, as they are more strict in the content they present. For these reasons, I move that the page be reinstated, and that all further discussions of deleting Gaon number ones pages, such as this one, be ended. If the page is reinstated, it will also help new users by removing the possibility that someone will begin recreating the same page, which already exists in someone's user pages. Logically, looking for the number one singles page for 2017 and only finding prior years, does not indicate that the prior years' pages should be deleted; rather, it only appears to a new user that the 2017 page has yet to be created. As it stands, it is a difficult and lengthy process to find the current user page, which would be used for the final article. If more users begin to edit Wikipedia with K-pop pages, only to find that they have already been created, it could discourage new users from contributing. If 2017 is not reinstated, then all other Gaon Chart pages should be removed. Please kindly consider my opinion. Satou4 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, like the closing statement said, if somebody can write a new article which addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, they are free to do so. But, keep in mind that you'll need to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, and meet all our other requirements such as WP:N and the guidelines it references. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, until the other annual lists finish their deletion debates, it isn't pertinent to consider improving them. Satou4 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why is this page a featured list candidate? To my eyes, it is a simple mirror just like the rest of them. Satou4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I went ahead and marked several pages for deletion on the Billboard and ARIA top singles lists. They are also mirrors of their respective sites, and have no place on Wikipedia. Of course, those deletion discussions will be swift. Satou4 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you'd like to help, you can start by marking all of the pages in Category:2010 record charts and the other years. Maybe it would actually be best to start with 2017. Satou4 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Satou4: Please don't do things like this out of spite. Just because your article was deleted, does not mean you have to try and go after other users' articles/similar lists. One list's deletion does not mean others will succeed. The Billboard 200 is the albums chart of the biggest music market in the world, and those articles linked to are not easily accessible on any kind of list. ARIA's website does not contain an archive, and several links are to other websites. I disagree with the Korean list being deleted, as I tried to find it the other week and saw it had been deleted, but this is not a right or justified reaction. Other things exist is not a good argument. Ss112 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've contested every prod by Satou4 on the Gaon-related articles. For the 2010 article specifically, I restored that page in May after it was originally deleted via prod in April to build it and make it a featured list (which is going along nicely). I did so in order to make a case to prove that this chart has been notable since its infancy, when it didn't receive regular coverage and wasn't so widespread like it is today. Once the 2010 article is promoted, it would be pretty much impossible to argue 2017 isn't notable, and of course improvements will be introduced to further prove that. These lists are not a problem and do not violate WP:NOTMIRROR as Satou4 claims, Category:FL-Class Record Charts articles is proof of this. It is simply a matter of systematic bias against non-English subjects, a problem I have been actively trying to combat. ℯxplicit 23:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you @Ss112 (and @Explicit), for responding. I was not aware Billboard was very different. I tried looking at some of the ARIA sources and I was brought to a page which appears quite similar to the Gaon-style listings. As you can see on the category page (bolded, above) there are many such list pages on Wiki from all around the world, and I wanted to bring some attention to that. Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about that last claim @Explicit: as I think many editors here feel just the same about English-speaking nations' number-one chart lists, but thanks for restoring that list and making it a FLC, and working on the Gaon articles. I wholeheartedly disagree with the 2017 list being deleted (or any number-ones list being deleted, for that matter). Ss112 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I feel the same, as you can tell by my reaction. Perhaps there will be further discussion about the 2017 page. As I understand it, the List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2010 is a featured list candidate because it meets every Featured list criteria. It meets the criteria of 1) prose, which is covered by the lead's style of professional writing, 2) lead, because it has a lead which could be copied to other years, 3) comprehensiveness, which a list would have trouble not meeting, 4) structure, which is covered by the easy-to-read tables, and 5) style, because it has images with relevant captions.
Should I assume that the 2017 article does not meet these standards simply because it does not have an engaging lead? Sure, the captions could be more succinct, which would be a point against 2017's style, but if that was fixed, and a lead added similar to the one found on the 2010 page, then 2017 would meet all of its missing featured list criteria, would it not? I understand that the 2010 page has some links to news articles which are not directly linked to the Gaon chart, but they are only used as references. Most of the information used in the lead could still have been found from the chart itself. Confusing.
I quite like that there are people who agree with my view that the 2017 page should not have been deleted. I'm not sure how to go about opening the debate so that it can be reinstated. So, I will stop marking other pages for deletion and keep the marked marked, for now, at least until some official discussion can be had on the matter. Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I feel the same, as you can tell by my reaction. Perhaps there will be further discussion about the 2017 page. As I understand it, the List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2010 is a featured list candidate because it meets every Featured list criteria. It meets the criteria of 1) prose, which is covered by the lead's style of professional writing, 2) lead, because it has a lead which could be copied to other years, 3) comprehensiveness, which a list would have trouble not meeting, 4) structure, which is covered by the easy-to-read tables, and 5) style, because it has images with relevant captions.
- I agree it does not violate WP:NOTMIRROR; but it was used as one reason for deletion and was claimed by others. I would personally like to see the lists remain on the site; I'm just trying to understand what exactly makes the 2017 page so different from the others. Thank you for your input (and for the archived pages of 2010 Gaon lists!!). Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know about that last claim @Explicit: as I think many editors here feel just the same about English-speaking nations' number-one chart lists, but thanks for restoring that list and making it a FLC, and working on the Gaon articles. I wholeheartedly disagree with the 2017 list being deleted (or any number-ones list being deleted, for that matter). Ss112 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Satou4: Please don't do things like this out of spite. Just because your article was deleted, does not mean you have to try and go after other users' articles/similar lists. One list's deletion does not mean others will succeed. The Billboard 200 is the albums chart of the biggest music market in the world, and those articles linked to are not easily accessible on any kind of list. ARIA's website does not contain an archive, and several links are to other websites. I disagree with the Korean list being deleted, as I tried to find it the other week and saw it had been deleted, but this is not a right or justified reaction. Other things exist is not a good argument. Ss112 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Revert
Could you revert User:Annonymous4's edit, where he redirected his talk page to the article namespace? Thanks. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 13:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Chandigarh stalking case I know you couldn't do anything different from what you did for the above. However may I take the liberty to share my feelings here that majority may not be always right for a country, humanity or even Wikipedia. User: Arunbandana
Life West Chiropractic College
Hi Roy, was just directed here via a conversation I had with User:Yamla on her talk page. I was wondering if you would grant permission for me to restart the page Life West Chiropractic College, or for it to become undeleted so that I may edit it appropriately. Any other information is found on Yamla's talk page linked above. The AfD is linked here: [3] Thanks for your assistance! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've responded on User talk:Yamla -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Civility
You might like to know I have issued a civility warning, in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility warnings, at User talk:Jytdog. Roberttherambler (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring of views at DRV
I noticed you ignored my views and closed the discussion at DRV under WP:STALE. Link:[4] I explained this was my first time and apologize for the insertions and re-edits, and repetition and text. I was learning as I went. I easily proved that all arguments for deletion were untrue and without merit. Consensus is not determined by voting and is based on the merit of arguments which you ignored. I have restored my sandbox under WP:IAR and ask that you restore the deleted material on your own. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have replied at User talk:Johnvr4. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I responded. The entire community consensus was that the WP:STALE policy did not apply to the Draft. However, you closed it for that reason while ignoring my Super Valid reasoning (however disorganized).
- "Johnvr4's userspace pages – Endorse. Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these state user drafts. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)" Johnvr4 (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Direct Link:[5] Johnvr4 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Endorsement of deletion decision for article on Stewart Levenson
Hi, Roy, I am contacting you regarding your September 8th endorsement of the deletion decision for the article on Stewart Levenson. I am considering recreating the article on different terms and putting it through the full articles-for-creation process. To the best of my understanding, there are no prohibitions against my doing this, but I am concerned that there may some policy or other of which I am not yet aware that forbids this or requires extra steps of me beyond straightforward submission of the article to AfC and a full paid editing disclosure (which I have retained on my user page despite the article's removal). Please let me know if you know of any. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni, S Marshall, Starblind, SmokeyJoe, and Winged Blades of Godric: Hmmmmm. Not sure what to tell you. The AfD and DRV were both unanimous. While I don't know of any policy which would forbid you from creating a new version and trying to get it past WP:AfC, I suspect you will have an uphill battle convincing people that a new version from you addresses the concerns of the AfD. It's not my place to give or deny you permission to try; this is just my personal opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history?
So, my question is: is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history or how it stood as? I forgot to save the Power Shortage in Japan 2012 article as it is, for something to be added from there to Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and now it's too late from my end. I was supposed save it to wait our the result of the AfD and then utilize some of the content at the mentioned existing article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Restored to User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/Power Shortage in Japan 2012 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most of the text wasn't useful, but I remembered there being something of value and that there was: the mention of Setsuden. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Quick note on a user you blocked recently
Just as info [6]. -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi
CRMNEXT has a Company website: https://www.crmnext.com/ It was recently cited in leading financial paper in india http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms
However, I believe that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted and I am contacting you, the administrator who closed the discussion, user RoySmith.
Moreover, In the page delete discussion I saw a comment, Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Plenty of "awards", but none are notable. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Below link is of Gartner which should qualify as reliable https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/sales-force-automation/vendor/crmnext
So why was the page deleted?
- First, why did you not read and obey the big red Attention editors notice and provide me a link to the discussion? It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. But, the nominating statement at WP:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT (2nd nomination) is pretty clear; nobody could find the WP:RS needed to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I also note this has been deleted about five times. Once at the AfD we're talking about here. Another time at a previous AfD (which, to be fair, didn't see any significant discussion), and also three different times via WP:CSD under the title Crmnext. Your Gartner link is essentially a blog post, so doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. Sorry, I don't see this getting restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
[22-Sep-2017] First of all sorry for not spotting the notice and thanks for the reply. But it is not still clear why the page is deleted. If there was any objectionable content you could delete that part or if references were missing put up that the article is unverified. I mentioned that the company has been cited in multiple news articles e.g. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms Below are the offical links to gartner: https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-3ZQSL68&ct=170508&st=sb https://www.gartner.com/doc/3760163/magic-quadrant-sales-force-automation https://www.gartner.com/doc/3787766/magic-quadrant-crm-lead-management
Can you state what is needed to un-delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik-Hill (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- The reason it was deleted was because it did not meet WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Please go read those pages to understand what we're looking for. Gartner reports are generally not considered to be WP:RS, at least as far as establishing notability. See, for example, this discussion. The IndiaTimes article you mention above is a routine funding announcement; these don't count for much either. To be more clear, the answer to your question, what is needed to un-delete the page?, is that the company has to do something which makes it notable. Based on what I've seen, that hasn't happened yet, and until it does, this page is not going to get restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- The below articles should enough notability to CRMNEXT, no?
First Indian Cloud based CRM solution http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html largest provider of CRM in financial services globally https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017 largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/ Nik-Hill (talk) 23 September 2017