Singularity42

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (34/1/1); Scheduled to end 19:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Singularity42 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to nominate Singularity42 for adminship. This user has been around since 2007, but they took a long wikibreak in 2010-2011. Since their return they have demonstrated the same great qualities as they did before, cluefullness with maintenance tasks and a solid understanding of core polices tempered by the assumption of good faith. They are unfailingly civil and helpful in their interactions with other users, especially new users. Over 13,000 edits (including deleted). Their active participation in admin-related areas such as speedy deletion and the reporting of vandals and problematic usernames make it clear they are ready to stop asking others to take administrative actions and can be trusted to just do them instead, and their article work makes it clear they understand content creation as well. Only block was a one-mintue block made in error in 2011. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thanks, Beeblebrox! Been here long enough that it is time for me to step up to the plate, so yes, I do accept the nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Ultimately, I envision my role as an administrator being more as a "maintainer" administrator (at least until I become more comfortable with the admin tools). That is, instead of pointing out to admins maintenance work that requires admin tools, I will now be able to take care of those tasks directly. To that end, I am very comfortable with deletion policy, especially in the area of speedy deletion, and I believe I can do a lot of good work there (both in dealing with any backlogs as well as recognizing when an article does not meet the CSD criteria and carefully explaining that to the tagger). Ultimately, I would like to use my role as an administrator to assist in making Wikipedia more comfortable for new editors. In addition, as Beeblebrox pointed out, I have been very good at recognizing problematic usernames, and I would like to assist in that area (both in blocking clear username violations, as well as discussing the situation with borderline case or blocked accounts that are willing to hear out suggestions). I also feel comfortable in using my admin role to deal with copyright issues (an area that, strangely enough, was one of my highest marks in law school, but not an area I actually practice outside of Wikipedia). Outside of those areas, I plan to go through some off the suggestions at Wikipedia:New admin school, and see which areas I feel comfortable. Basically, I plan to continue working in the areas I have always worked in, while slowly but surely increasing my admin skills in other areas; that is, a slow and methodical approach to becoming a strong administrator for this project. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've always been very happy about creating Criminal sentencing in Canada. Unfortunately, like most niche Canadian legal articles, it's never going to be a great article - there's just not enough secondary sources. But it was one of my very first, non-stub articles, so I will always have fond memories. Ultimately, I have been very happy about expanding Canadian legal articles as well as developing articles regarding the Supreme Court of Canada cases (a major project I plan to continue working on over 2013 and 2014), notwithstanding they will probably never rise above being niche articles. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: May be hard to imagine, but I've never been stressed by other users on Wikipedia. I've been annoyed before (an earlier, but funny example is the whole mess surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday). I still believe there is an outstanding request from one of the SPAs for me to provide sources in order: "to prove that he is ... not a cyborg". Classic!) But when I get into editing disputes, and I am not dealing with an obvious vandal, disruptive editor, etc., I always try to discuss it with the editor. If it is a new editor, I try to help that start the discussion - even if it is so that I can explain why I disagree and give them a chance to respond. There's been a few occasions where there is ultimately a consensus against the edit(s) I want to do. For small issues, I let it go. For larger issues where I feel I will have difficulty editing the article based on my disagreement with the consensus, I have always moved on to something unrelated and left the article in another editor's capable hands. Singularity42 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from I JethroBT

4. Please describe the criteria you use to determine whether an inappropriate article is better handled with a proposed deletion as opposed to a speedy deletion nomination.

A: Hi, JethroBT! Thanks for the questions. This often comes up in an A7 situation (although I could see less common scenarios dealing with other CSD criteria, such as G11). A7 has a pretty clear, restrictive list of what subjects A7 applies to. A common one that less experienced patrollers think meets A7 are products, etc. Also, A7 is probably the most subjective of all the CSD criteria (followed, probably by G11) - although all CSD critera should really be as objective as possible - so if the claim is credible, it should go to PROD. Finally, I've come across a few scenarios as a patroller where I personally thinks A7 applies, but I think there might be potential (such as the liklihood of there being reference I cannot find). A PROD can help alert people that this article is going to be deleted unless the PROD's concern can be met (although this scenario should not be interpreted as using a PROD to promote discussion/improvements - there are better ways to do that). Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. What criteria listed at WP:BEFORE do you feel apply to editors making speedy deletion nominations? Do these also apply to admins reviewing speedy deletion candidates?

A:I think WP:BEFORE has a slightly different application to speedy deletions. That's because CSD critera are based on fairly obvious scenarios where there is unlikely to be any objections amongst editors familiar with deletion policies. Also, CSD deals a lot with scenarios BEFORE is not designed to address (think G12 copyvios or G10 attack pages or G3 vandalism). So really, BEFORE is most applicable to A7. To that extent, it depends on how obvious the article meets A7. An article saying "Jane is a cool high school student" can be quickly tagged and deleted (maybe with a friendly message to the aritcle's creator about why it was deleted). An article that says "This rock band has recently started touring locally and is well known for their recently released single", I'll probably Google to see what comes up, which will inform me of whether this is A7, PROD/AfD, or an article that meets (or potentially meets) WP:BAND and should remain. That being said, if the article really only said that one sentence, I am not going to fault an editor for tagging A7. So BEFORE is far from a requirement for CSD tagging, but I would want an editor to at least run the subject through Google for less obvious cases. I hope that answers your question. Please let me know if there is something I can clarify. Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Trevj

6. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (May 2012) was merge to SciPlore MindMapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This consensus decision was not correctly actioned, with the destination article instead being redirected (despite the edit summary stating the content was being merged) into the AfD'd one (July 2012). In your opinion, what are reasonable options for editors to consider in remedying this situation? -- Trevj (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: That's an interesting scenario. The added twist is that it was only two months after the AfD that a relatively inexperienced editor removed the AfD merge tag from the nominated article and redirected the destination article to the nominated article, but then due to low traffic to both articles, they've been that way for over a year. What I would do is the following: a) revert the redirect, as it was clearly contrary to consensus (which I've just done); b) restore the original AfD merge tag if there has been no changes that address the AfD concerns since the nomination (which I've done in this case). Other reasonable options include: 1) if the conerns that led to the original decision have been dealt with in the intervening period, then leave the article as is, and start a section on the talk page (this is akin to recreating a page that was deleted at AfD, but in such a way as not triggering G4); 2) if there are concerns that consensus may have changed, and an editor still believes there are valid reasons for deletion, an AfD should be started; 3) if there are concerns that consensus may have changed, and an editor still believes there are valid reasons for the merger but not deletion, start a merge discussion on the talk page. In all situations, the editor should notify the closing admin from the original AfD. Finally, it is generally a good idea to contact the editor who made the mistake and let them know about the situation (i.e. what the mistake was, how to avoid it in the future, and if applicable, where the relevant discussion is).

And, of course, in the first scenario (where there nothing has happened in the interim that addresses the concerns raised in the AfD), and editor can still perform the merge. Singularity42 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Dennis Brown

7. Please explain our current civility policy as you see it, including sharing your personal opinion of how it is currently being enforced, and/or how it could be clarified.

A: I guess I could just quote from WP:CIVIL, but I assume more is wanted. Let me start by saying that I could probably put together a whole essay just on our civility policy, but that would be too much for an answer to an RFA question. It is one of our five pillars. It is fundamtentally necessary for a collaborative project such as ours - especially in an online environment where we are communicating at a distance through text. The policy page is supposed to help us identify why we need to be civil, how to identify incivil behaviour, how to address incivil behaviour, and what steps can be taken with problematic editors regarding incivility. And yet, we still constantly struggle with this in our project, both in terms of how we address repetitive incivil behaviour and what steps should be taken to enforce this policy. I think we do better when we specifically identify the incivil behaviour: is it a personal attack, a legal threat, a threat of violence, a battleground mentality, general insultive behaviour, or something else? When we get to the specifics, I think we are able to address it better. I think WP:CIVIL could be improved (either directly, or by additional behavioural guidelines). For example, the policy page groups together rudeness, racial slurs, accusations of impropriety, and so on. However, we are often going to address these very differently. It also seems to me the policy can reflect that the community tries to balance a number of factors: the severity and repetiveness of the breach, the level of disruption that is caused, the liklihood of various sanctions solving any problem, and the level of contributions by the editor. A rude but extremely constructive editor may be treated differently than an editor who constantly accuses everyone who disagrees with them as racist despite repeated attempts to explain otherwise. I will add this: I come from a profession that even 15 years ago considered incivility almost a professional necessity. Now, my generation has found that incivility is unacceptable and unnecessary, and have been willing to sanction our members as a result (see, for example, Doré v. Barreau du Québec#Background). While I am in no way advocating that we treat Wikipedia editors the same as a regulated profession, I don't think the opposite view (just ignore the situation, or claim two wrongs make a right) is an appropriate response either. Dennis, I'm not sure if this fully answered your question, so please let me know if there is anything else I can add or clarify. Singularity42 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the recent ArbCom decision is an interesting example of how to balance the different factors, and might be useful guidance in the future. Singularity42 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

8. Do you use the new notifications – do you like/dislike them and why?

A: It has definitely grown on me. I really like being told if I have been reverted, and the pros generally outweigh the cons on the pinging process. While I at first was very upset to see our beloved WP:Orange bar of doom disappear, I now think the new system looks more professional. I also have started to take advantage of the ability to thank other editors for their edits, which I think comes across as more professional than placing a picture of a kitten on a person's talk page. I was privately concerned about whether brand new editors would still check their talk pages for new messages, but I have not seen anything that has caused that my earlier concern to become a reality. Singularity42 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from John Cline

9. If a new user creates a page titled Adams County Christian School (Natchez, MS), and for reasons unknown, it was created without content; should an experienced user, with administrative aspirations, opt for deletion; initiating a regiment of boiler consequences like messages, bot reverts, and loss of attributions—while it is known as a sure way of "running off new users", or should the experienced editor extend wp:agf, and show preferential understanding of our inclusion criteria which includes redirects, disambiguation pages, and if no mention of the subject exists, adding the content (effectively merging) into an existing article where it is otherwise appropriate? Please describe if, when, and how one approach may be better than the other and how each might relate to our core mission of building an encyclopedia.

A: John, Keegan's redirect was better than my A3 tag. I'm not going to dispute that one. You've given great reasons in your question - especially in this case given WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In my defence, I had waited some time, saw no activity from the editor who created the page, the article remained content-less, and so I saw the A3 tag as a general "clean-up" task. In hindsight, though, your redirect solution was better, especially given the unintended possible biting of the new editor. I think, though, you will see from my contributions that I generally try to redirect before I tag a new article for deletion, but for some reason never applied that philosphy to A3 situations. Your example above has shown me that I should equally apply that philosphy to A3 situations where possible. I intend to apply your example to my future work on new articles. Singularity42 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, though, John. And perhaps we can clarify this elsewhere. In a true A3 situation (such as this one) - where there is absolutely no content, and no history - what is the attribution issue? If it is 100% content-less with no history, then by defnition, there can be no attribution loss? (Everything else I agree with.) Singularity42 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you provided an excellent answer to the question, and my confidence is greatly improved as a result. I understand the clarification you are seeking and I intend to open a thread on the talk page to provide that clarification. It seems better to me than to continue it here, on your RfA, I don't want to distract from the main purpose of the page, or infer of a lingering concern. I hope you understand, and perhaps agree. :) John Cline (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for Singularity42: Singularity42 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Singularity42 can be found here.
• Talk page created with editing statistics per this request by John Cline - Begoon ^talk 03:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, upon reviewing contributions, I see very good judgment in admin-related areas, including an excellent record on CSD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Singularity has unambiguously stated that they want to work in deletion-related areas, and their work in CSD and AFD is respectable. I went through many of Singularity's CSD noms and I was unable to find any that had been incorrectly nominated. Singularity's nomination statements in recent AFDs are well-stated and policy-based (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GitLab; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phillip_Nelson). I suspect some will point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwanese_Wave, arguing concerns that Singularity nominates articles incorrectly, but I disagree. That particular AfD was clearly a case where Singularity did not have access to sources that other editors did, and that the term was difficult to search as the concept had been referred to under other terms. I also think it ought to be highlighted that Singularity's # of articles nominated is impressive, and all the moreso because the vast majority of them were deleted via consensus. That Singularity has nominated many articles for deletion is not, IMO, an indication of being heavy-handed on deletion, but that Singularity is adept at and devotes time to recognizing and dealing with inappropriate articles. Having done much work in deletion myself, and satisfied with Singularity's understanding of WP:BEFORE and speedy deletion, where I believe the most potential for abuse can be done, I fully support Singularity's nomination. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Capable candidate (very good answers to questions), trustworthy nominator. Miniapolis 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Looks like an excellent candidate. Shows an unusually thorough knowledge of deletion criteria - very helpful in an admin and especially one who intends to work in that area. Recent contributions also show a lot of good nominations of problem usernames, another important area. I agree with JethroBT that it's not the number of deletion nominations that matters - it's whether they were appropriate nominations, which certainly seems to be the case. Cleanup is important here; there's a reason why it's called the mop. Appears to be even-tempered and even to have a sense of humor - what more could one ask? --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Appears to be an even-tempered candidate with good experience in areas that the editor expects to work in. I, JethroBT and MelanieN have expressed good reasons to support and I will cite them rather than repeat similar extended comments. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, highly unlikely to break the wiki, an should be helpful with the tools.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support --cyrfaw (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Not much to add to the above. I've never seen any problems. I would worry more about the stats if they were 100% in agreement with the outcomes. There'd be someone objecting then about following the crowd... Peridon (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Appears that this candidate would be a welcome addition to the admin team. I have no qualms and see nothing that makes me wanna run screaming from the room. Thanks for stepping forward! Best regards, Cindy(talk) 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support and all the best towards your passing. Jianhui67 Talk 11:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support CSD knowledge one of the best I've seen. Good Luck! buffbills7701 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Good relevant knowledge in deletion and other admin areas, contributions look good, and common sense and a sense of humour seem apparent - both important in an admin. The contributions I reviewed show an editor keen to help the project, who would put the tools to good use. I support, per nom, and as a net positive with the sysop bit. Begoon ^talk 12:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Demonstrates impressive knowledge in admin-related areas, especially CSD. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 12:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support A very competent-looking editor with a good objective demeanour. (Note: In your reply to Q6 you didn't mention that the "relatively inexperienced editor" who redirected in the wrong direction was in fact a COI editor who declared in the AfD: "I am one of the developers of Docear". However, I think your action today was the right way to set about straightening things out.) --Stfg (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support – Very impressed by the candidate's answers to the questions above. Nothing in his recent edit history suggests they would be anything besides a service with the tools. Deadbeef 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support on quick review and in spite of Collect's oppose. --John (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - nothing of concern, will not abuse the tools. GiantSnowman 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - I see nothing in this users history to make me think they can't be trusted. Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per WP:DEAL, Tazerdadog, Begoon and others. I've not found anything of concern. -- Trevj (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per nomination and that I see no evidence the tools or position will be misused.--MONGO 16:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 21:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Everything looks good to me. The answers to the questions are all satisfactory, and he has good contributions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support — No reason not to. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good candidate. No problems here, StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 23:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - I don't see any concerns. I am One of Many (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support confidence Dlohcierekim 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Admirable contributions to articles; impressive answers to the questions here; evident maturity, intelligence, competence and clue. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30. Suppport - Per everyone else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - trustworthy editor. I agree with Someguy1221 about the oppose. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - I saw his work and i see a mentor in him.--Mike 11:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.davies1 (talk • contribs)
33. Support. Excellent answers. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 13:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support I've seen Singularity around for a long time and always thought well of them. The only question was his view on civility, which I hadn't seen before. The key isn't whether or not he agrees with my ideas, it was whether he understands that "civility" isn't a binary thing and is one of the most difficult policy considerations we deal with. If an individual has to err on one side or another when it comes to civility, I prefer the side of tolerance, and I don't think Singularity will be quick on the trigger to start blocking people for one off comments, so it is easy enough to support. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I note you wish to work on "speedy deletions" and that at AfD you vote "keep" less than 5% of the time (in fact, you seem to only nominate articles for deletion and only about 20% of the time do you !vote on articles nominated by others). To me this suggests a reasonable chance that you regard "delete" almost as a default position on a vast range of topics which I find unsettling, especially with your stated desire to work specifically on deletions. I would be far more comfortable if he found at least 7% of the AfDs to warrant a "keep" !vote. Collect (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I would just like to point out that article's I've nominated for deletion are usually (but not always) obvious cases. The reason I cross a vast range of subjects is because of some of the work I've done dealing with new articles. You will also see that I've tried to improve articles where I can, especially if I feel comfortable with the subject. I should stress that I definitely do not think that deletion is a default position, and I'm not sure where I've given that opinion. No consensus means the article remains, and articles should only be deleted if they meet our clearly definied deletion policies. In fact, if you review some of the work I've done, you will see I have gone out of my way to assist new editors in making sure their keep !votes are voiced on AfDs that I have nominated. Please let me know if you would like any examples. Singularity42 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing some of the examples you described above. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few I could pick from, but I think one of the more notable incidents was the deletion surrounding Eskimo Buddhism. The AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskimo Buddhism, as well as discussions on my archived talk page and ANI. Long story short, back in 2009 I had PROD'd an article, but then the creator was temporarily blocked beyond the seven days (due to my earlier SPI report), so I changed it to an AfD and tried to find ways so that the blocked editor could still contribute to the AfD from their talk page. It led to the first barnstar I wanted to keep on my userpage (funny enough, from my current nominator) and the first suggestion I should consider an RFA (four years before I finally went ahead with it...). Singularity42 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time I almost always !voted delete at AFD, not because I love deleting everything, but because I felt no need to vote at all on the obvious keeps, which tended to snowball pretty quickly. I consider this and other possible explanations for why Singularity would have such a discrepancy in his numbers. Regardless, offering an oppose based on an accusation backed by statistics alone rings hollow. Unless you can show that some of those 95%+ deletes are for articles that should have been kept, the numbers are meaningless. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read my post -- I find it unusual that a person seems preponderantly to vote "delete" to such a strong extent - and did not comment on how many times the consensus agrees or disagrees with that position. By the way, the preponderance of AfD discussions are closed as "delete" and it is rare that one finds a person with more than 50% "keep" !votes - nor would I expect any likely candidate to fall in that category. My point is that stating an interest in "speedy deletions" by an admin candidate coupled with that voting record raises some doubts in my mind. Cheers - and remember to assume good faith. My AfD record is as easy to find as anyone's. Collect (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get how anything you just said invalidates anything I just said. You simply clarified that your opposition to this RFA is based on a suspicion with no actual evidence. You are of course free to have your suspicions, and free to vote based on mere suspicions, and I am free to point out why I don't like your vote. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I did before nominating was to use the AFD analysis tool that is linked in the toolbox above. Look for yourself, and I think you will see that Singularity42's positions were on the side of the eventual consensus in a high percentage of AFDs in which they participated. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I did look at the AfD statistics and find myself unable to support at this time. The candidate seems to favor deletion to the exclusion of all other means. 8.9% of the !vote/nomination did not match the outcome. This is too high for me, especially when deletion is the stated interest of the candidate. I cringe at the thought of one out of every eleven articles being wrongfully deleted. Also I noticed three schools nominated for CSD from 4 or 5 days ago. Schools are not eligible under normal CSD like a-7 for example. Perhaps it was a hoax, or a copyvio, or some other aggravating factor that warranted the tag but for now I am too uncomfortable to support this candidate. :) John Cline (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking at the school speedy delete nominations, which sound serious this is what I find: Adams County Christian School (Natchez, MS) has no content at all - (so fair enough), El Camino Trill Charter High School nominated as a copyright violation ... however it was a copy of .... an earlier Wikipedia page. However it actually was a hoax and then deleted as such. (careless but did not harm Wikipedia, just wasted two more editor's time) Canadian/British International Schools nominated as A1 but deleted A3, (fair enough). Holy Family Regional Class of 2012 nominated A7 (fair enough not a whole school). Columbia University Club of New York a copyright violation (good) Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital copyvio, N.C. Autonomous College copyvio, Dhenkanal Autonomous College copvio Manaret Al Farouk Islamic Language School copyvio, (all good) Arera convent school advert (this was pure promotion) Top and best private engineering colleges of east india proded (fair enough) MCL College of Information Technology copyvio (good) Indian Ocean University copyvio (good) User:CAPE CIOAST INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL G11 (as an article this could have been rescued by deleting 50% of content, but as user page it would have gone at an MFD anyway, so mixed opinion on how good this nomination was). Overall in the last two years school delete nominations are OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you very much for that information. I'll park here for now but if nothing else comes up I can see myself moving to support. :) John Cline (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]