Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

Thanks for being patient with me on this. I was reading through the speedy deletion criteria but clearly I failed to catch some important nuance. Looks like 2 out of the 6 stuck though. I'm reading through your essay on speedy deletion right now. Best, TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TaxAct2018: Yes, speedy deletion is one of the most complex areas of the project, which is why I was kind of surprised that you drove in headfirst. Especially A7 is much stricter than people think and for good reasons (see [1] [2] [3] for examples why). If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just to say thanks for taking action on my CSD and letting me know. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg: You are welcome. If you are interested in working with speedy deletion, I compiled a handy and hopefully helpful list of essays at User:SoWhy/SDA. Regards SoWhy 09:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I spotted your link above and will have a look. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SoWhy.

I hope that you are well :)

Around 6 months ago, the Wiki page which I published was deleted (after being live for 16 months), with the reason being lack of Notability for the business it was about. However, as a multi-million-pound company which has been trading for over 18 years, and with more notable sources being found online over the last 12 months, I believe that the page could be reactivated and updated.

New notable sources include:

PayPal https://www.paypal.com/stories/uk/60-seconds-withgardensite

DigitalJournal http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3477899

HortWeek https://www.hortweek.com/gardensitecouk-celebrates-18th-birthday/retail/article/1443907

This was the Deletion discussion thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GardenSite

I would really appreciate if you could take a look, and pass on any comments that you may have that would help to get the article re-published. I have re-wrote an updated version of the wiki with the new sources but will wait to hear your thoughts.

Many thanks for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, David Coton (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Coton: Unfortunately, neither press releases nor articles based on such releases are sufficient to establish notability. What you need are independent sources, newspaper articles or books written without input by the company itself. If you like, I can restore the article as a draft for you to try and work on it but without new sources that fit these requirements, you will not be able to have it restored. Regards SoWhy 15:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this page in July 2017. The reason seems to be that the level of citations of my work was insufficient but the only evidence seems to be that someone looked at GS and found only up to 366 citations for the any article / book. Well I just looked and the first one on the list has been cited more that 500 times and the next 2 more than 500 between them. If you actually count all the citations to my work it comes to many thousand - I got bored doing this so I gave up. There are extensive references in other sources. I accept that it is a problem as there are several D Crowther's publishing but with 50 books and 400 articles published there are bound to be plenty of citations! And there are plenty of references to me in newspapers etc around the world.

So I think this deletion was hasty and ask for it to be reconsidered.

Signed 82.3.145.86 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for deletion was that notability couldn't be established because there were not enough reliable sources to verify the content in the article. If you can provide me some links to such sources that cover the subject in detail, I'm happy to consider your request. Regards SoWhy 15:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore his home page. He is definitely notable. I am atmospheric scientist and oceanographer from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and his work has clearly an impact on these fields. There are now reference in scientific literature (including very prestigious ones such as "Science") which reference his work. Many weather outlets and newspapers are suing his displayes. It initiated several spin-off such as windytv or vendusky. Once you restore it, I will add more material and references. Puncinus (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus: I'd like to help but since the deletion was a community decision, I cannot overturn it unless you can provide me with a reason why the decision was incorrect. I can, however, restore the page as a draft for you to work on but unless you submit it for review before restoring it to the main article space, it will likely be re-deleted per WP:G4. Do you wish to have the page as a draft? Regards SOWHY 17:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very weak "community" decision based on one vote. I have already provided you my reasoning: his work has clear impact in atmospheric and oceanography fields. There are now reference in scientific literature (including very prestigious ones such as "Science" magazine) which reference his work. Many weather outlets and newspapers are using his project. It initiated several spin-off such as windytv or vendusky. I would even go as far as to state that his is a model case of a person who, working outside, developed a very useful project which energized field of scientific visualization. You can restore the page as a draft and I will see how to make it stronger. Puncinus (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus: The number of participants is irrelevant. If three people agree and no one disagrees then that's enough. However, that does not mean it can't be restored if you can prove that the reasons for deletion were incorrect. As such, I have restored it to User:Puncinus/Cameron Beccario for you to work on. I suggest you tag the article with {{submit}} once you are done to request review by an experienced editor. Regards SOWHY 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for defending the article M.O.G Beatz. I just want to throw some light on this article I created. M.O.G Beatz is a renowned music producer in Ghana who of late done so many hits in Ghana. He is qualified for an article on Wikipedia.

I am much grateful for your help and once more, thank you for defending this article. I understand the Policies of Wikipedia, though am just 9 months and few days here, i love creating and editing more articles relating to Music (especially African Music)

I am here to learn new stuffs on here. Please share some new ideas with me here.

Have a nice day,

Blooms.

@Bloomshouse: I didn't "defend" it, I merely declined to speedy delete it. If you wish the article to survive, you should provide more reliable sources significantly covering the subject (not just passing mentions). Otherwise, it might be deleted using a deletion discussion. PS: Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one by using ~~~~. Regards SOWHY 11:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After you added the anchor to Jimmy Palmer's section within the List of NCIS characters-article, another editor (AussieLegend) changed Jimmy Palmer's section's name within said article again (see here). So at the time of this writing, links that worked before (such as List of NCIS characters#Dr. James "Jimmy" Palmer) does not (at the time of this writing) link to the relevant section of the List of NCIS characters-article (at least for me). Given your message on my talk-page earlier today, I would like to know what you think should be done about that. You asked me earlier to stop changing the links manually, and I don't want to "dig myself deeper".Heart of Destruction (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heart of Destruction: Just add the former section name to the {{anchor}} template at the beginning of the section, after a |. That way you can create HTML anchors for any of those links. Regards SOWHY 18:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I tagged it as a CSD, the article was deemed deletable per- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spitshine_Records but never removed.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoponpop69: Per WP:SOFTDELETE, a "soft delete" outcome equals a WP:PROD outcome. If the page is restored (as it was here), it equals a contested PROD. Such articles are no longer eligible for speedy deletion because then admins can no longer assume that deletion will be uncontroversial (which is required for most speedy criteria, especially A7). My decline was of course merely based on the subject not meeting the stricter criteria of WP:A7 but that would have been another reason not to speedy delete. Feel free to renominate it for AFD but before you do, see if you can't get your hands on the source first (maybe through WP:REX (excerpts can be found at GBooks)) and/or other sources. Regards SOWHY 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I responded to your question. I'd prefer to believe that yours is an honest question about my position. I'm frustrated because the sentence after my statement about inclusionism was specific to the abuse of GNG and I gave examples. The fact that you asked your question regardless troubles me because it raises the concern that your question was really a ill-thought effort to publicly discredit my opinion, as harassment of opposers at RfA is both common and tolerated. I generally don't AGF because I hate all of humanity and therefore would never think the best of people, which is why I'm struggling with your question. I don't have any animus against you and I hope you don't have any animus against me. Lourdes deserves a fair up-or-down vote and it doesn't help if the audience gets into fist fights in the comment section; I don't want to be a part of that and neither do you. Perhaps my response has therefore settled the matter. If you disagree with my expectation that nearly all AfDs should end in deletion, then we have a difference of opinion which does not require discussion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I never try and "harass" people. I think I can say that when I ask a question, I do so because I'm interested in the answer. You posted three examples where you saw an "abuse of GNG", which itself is a problematic phrasing because it implies that the user you disagree with acted maliciously which Lourdes certainly did not. The more problematic part of your comment though (and which is why I asked the question) is your conclusion that because this user has !voted "abusively" in these three instances, they are "too inclusionist". It is problematic because, as you concede, it seems to be based on the fact that you believe that an AFD should usually be a death sentence for an article and not based on Lourdes' actual contributions. Even the examples you picked are problematic.

The first one (which I closed, so I am probably not objective about it) contained not a single policy- or guideline-based argument to delete. Lourdes opined to keep and provided ten sources, at least half a dozen of which are reliably and independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of the subject. One might disagree whether that was enough to meet GNG but it was certainly a valid opinion to have.

The second one includes a civil and clueful discussion between to editors on the nuances of WP:SIGCOV which highlighted interpretations that are held by many editors.

As for the third one, I really don't understand how providing significant coverage in multiple RS is "abuse". You might disagree with whether that was enough but it certainly was not abusive.

But that's not why I asked. I asked because looking through her delete !votes, she often (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7) argued for deletion based on GNG not being met, even explaining to others why the sources are not sufficient to establish notability, which is not the way I would expect a "too inclusionist" editor who "abuses GNG" to behave.

What I was trying to say (and I probably failed to do in my short comment, apologies) is that I was confused by your conclusion that three AFDs where she !voted to keep were sufficient to lead you to conclude that she was "too inclusionist", when in fact she significantly more often argues for deletion than to keep. And based on her match rate of ~95%, she has demonstrated that she is in line with community consensus almost all of the time, so it's hard to assume this will change if and when she gets to close AFDs for real (btw, based on her NACs, she closed less than 65% of AFDs as keep despite the fact that as a non-admin, closing as delete is not possible).

(TL;DR)  While I'm neither assuming that I can change your opinion nor trying to, I was and am confused by your !vote because it does not seem to take into account the many many times she has argued to delete based on GNG. As such, I'd be happy if you could provide me with a more detailed explanation why you believe that she is "abusing" GNG to the point that you do not trust her to handle the mop. Thanks in advance! Regards SoWhy 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you a well-thought answer, but that's going to take more time then I have at present. I'll try to provide a better explanation of my rationale within a day. I apologize for jumping to conclusions; an explanation of my opposition isn't too much to ask. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Since I don't intend or plan to convince you, take all the time you need. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Me Flows What You Call Time. Lourdes claims WP:NBOOK but that guideline specifically does not "apply to not-yet-published books", which the subject is. I take no issue with the list of references; I would balk at using reportage of this stunt. In a century it's possible the manuscript is forgotten or disregarded. This is also an issue of WP:RECENTISM, as the hope that the manuscript would be published on trees chopped down 90-some years from now. DGG, Unscintillating, and Rms125a@hotmail.com were right. Lourdes just sees sources and loses her mind. Your misguided close shows that you expect !voters to unambiguously give you the letter-salad of guidelines, policies, and essays. They provided policy-based rationales you didn't even recognize.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIOps Lourdes provides of citations including Gartner, Deloitte, and The Register. I'm not seeing GNG there with trade publications. The other citations are dataconomy.com and Trivone, each claiming to be a "media company". If you take a look at where that content got merged to I think you could agree that it definitely should not be a standalone article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTwoTV An article about YouTubers; Again, Lourdes provides a bunch of links with no apparent thought to the reliability of sources. The Entertainment Tonight Canada citation, despicable celeb coverage that it is, is the best of them. Cites ionmagazine.ca, darpanmagazine.com, bramptonist.com, bramptonguardian.com, novellamag.com are all Toronto-based outfits of questionable parentage. Both the novellamag and occhimagazine.com pieces are interviews, which really takes away any sort of independence; I doubt they confer any notability. If you thnk each of those are RS, I'm sure I can find a bridge to sell you.

I don't think GNG is that low of a bar. Lourdes's NACs look ok and she does !vote delete more often than keep, but these three examples are why I oppose her adminship. She is too much of an inclusionist, even if she is largely in-step with the rest of Wikipedia, she is not what I want to see in an admin. Mentioning a "match rate" assumes that agreeing with everyone else is a good thing. Maybe the crowd is wrong, either in their interpretation of formal guidance or their opinions about what the facts are. I hope I've answered your question. These three examples aren't a comprehensive look at her as an editor but I also don't believe in NETPOSITIVE. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, hi and hope you're well. You know that I respect your comments and appreciate the work you do out here quite a lot. I actually didn't expect your oppose...honestly – given that I would have expected you to just come up to me on my talk page, given me advice or even a shouting off for the AfDs where you think I was not !voting well. When you write that "Mentioning a "match rate" assumes that agreeing with everyone else is a good thing.", I wanted to write that in most AfDs, I've been the first !voter – and have not been matching my agreements with anyone. But that doesn't matter actually – you're the last person I would say no to or reject any kind of correction you would suggest. I value the points you've provided. I've taken in the issues you've raised and will surely keep them in mind in the future. Let's close this discussion here. With the warmest wishes as always, Lourdes 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have another from this master...see here CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Great injustice" is usually code for "Damn, you caught me". Thanks for the heads up. =) Regards SoWhy 20:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]