Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Index of this page and its archives This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I saw that you contested the PROD. I created the article a long long time ago. I had a WP:COI in that I worked for the company for a period of time in 2009-2010, though I was not asked or paid to create the article. It was deleted at AFD, then I recreated it with new references. Said references are largely dead links now. The company seems to be defunct since it was acquired - I am not in contact with anyone I knew at the company and I believe they all since moved on. I can't confirm it's defunct though, it may still exist in some form. If the community wants to keep the article I'm totally OK with that. Andrevan@ 23:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: In general, notability is not temporary, so either the article was a valid topic once (and thus is still a valid topic), or else it shouldn't have been recreated in the first place – even if the company is now defunct, it's still possible to write a historical article about it. I don't have strong feelings about whether the article should be kept or not, because it's outside my main area of expertise, but think that it probably at least needs a couple more people looking at it before it gets deleted (which is one of the reasons why I removed the {{prod}} tag).

The other reason I deprodded the article is that there had been a previous AfD on it; the normal reasoning is that if an article is nominated for deletion, gets deleted, and later gets recreated, this is evidence that the deletion isn't uncontroversial and thus the proposed deletion tag is inappropriate. (The {{prod}} template noticed this and was asking for help, which is how I found the article in the first place.) That reasoning doesn't 100% apply in this case, because the recreator and proposed-deleter were the same person, but the situation is complicated enough that I don't think a WP:IAR proposed deletion would have much chance of succeeding (there would be a need to ignore the letter of the proposed deletion rules, and it's complicated to work out whether the spirit of the rules applies or not in this case). In general, ignoring rules to proposed-delete articles is unnecessary because there are alternative deletion processes available. --ais523 23:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the dePROD and the AFD. I'm just giving you the information. If the community would rather keep the article I'm absolutely OK with that. It was recreated for valid reasons since there were new references that established notability. This was over 10 years ago and there are a number of processes and policies that were different or less clear back then. For example, it was common back then to delete an article at AFD that lacked references, then recreate it when new references were found. I'm not sure if this is a common practice anymore, I'm guessing not. I was a former admin for many years, back in the day I think we did a lot more spirit-interpretation of policy than is accepted today. Let me know if you have any questions. Andrevan@ 00:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I'm also an "admin of old", and get the sense that much of the spirit-interpretation of policy eventually got codified and is now part of the letter, but much the same processes still hold. For example, if an article gets deleted at AfD for a WP:GNG failure, as far as I can tell there's no rule against recreating it with full referencing in place (WP:CSD#G4 explicitly says that it doesn't apply if the reason for the deletion no longer applies). Additionally, modern AfDs have become very highly focused on whether sourcing exists; if there's meaningful participation, it's likely to solve the sourcing issue one way or the other (and the reason for deletion wouldn't apply if the AfD participants failed to find sources but the recreating editor did), and if there isn't meaningful participation, the AfD might well be closed using WP:SOFTDELETE. The main change in culture seems to be that XfDs get relisted much more often than they used to be.

I suspect spirit-interpretation of policy is just as valid as it used to be, but the number of situations in which it's useful/required has gone down, because if repeated bending of the letter of the rules becomes accepted, that's a very good reason to change the letter of the rules to better match the spirit behind them. --ais523 00:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound alright to me. Well, we can let the AFD run its course and decide what to do, unless it looks like it's a Speedy Keep or SNOW close to keep. Andrevan@ 01:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue, but scripts like User:Ais523/votesymbols.js should have a sortkey of votesymbols. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:AfD debates (Web or Internet) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think the page in question doesn't meet the speedy deletion criterion because it's a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. It is pretty strange to have an AfD topic area with no articles currently being discussed for deletion, though – if the situation does persist for the required seven days, it might be worth a discussion about its future, but I think it'd make more sense as a CfD than a speedy. I'd suspect the category might get repopulated at some time in the next week, though. --ais523 21:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dated nosourcedel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DB1729^talk 22:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]