Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 18 April 2017

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Workpop Deletion

Hello. I recently found that you had deleted the page for workpop. I went through multiple revisions and submissions to get that approved previously and would be happy to make any necessary edits to the page so that it is allowed. I noticed one of the reasons that it was disapproved was for using multiple articles about the same event. Previously I was told that I should have as many credible articles as possible. Happy to remove any that may feel like "duplicates" and repost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdogsoccer8 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please first address the concerns raised in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Workpop. You may do so by first obtaining the requisite sources. --Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Anca Pop

Any chance you can recover the content from the deleted article and moving it to Draft:Anca Pop? I need only the section Career. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Love on the Brain:  Done. Please note that the previous existing draft was deleted because it contained copyrighted material lifted from an external website in the Early Life section. Do NOT reinclude that material in the draft. --Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Outbreak Presents

Dear Kurykh, I recently edited the page Outbreak Presents, which was flagged for deletion due to questionable notability and perceived publicity material. I tried cleaning up the article to make it sound more encyclopedic and included more neutral media contributions as references. However, I recently noticed the page was deleted. Over the last couple weeks, I've stumbled across various articles that highlight Outbreak Presents. Furthermore, its involvement with South by Southwest has helped etch its name into media. Based on what I've gleaned from Misplaced Pages:Notability, I think there may be a better chance of it meeting Misplaced Pages standards with the inclusion of these references. Would you possibly consider restoring the page to allow for some tonal grooming and improved citations?--Abe7494 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (PST)

I have restored the article to Draft:Outbreak Presents. Please make the necessary changes to conform with notability requirements and submit to WP:AFC for review. --Kurykh (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Avon Inflatables

Hi Kuryhk. Thanks for relisting this one but you can actually close it out. I put a notice that I would like to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For closing AFD discussions regularly and without elements of any minimal drama!Cheers! Winged Blades 10:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song)

I relisted it then you closed it minutes later (it happened a week ago). The question I'm asking is: what shall we do with it? J947 01:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@J947: I would do nothing at this point. While your relist should have happened (and I could have undid the closure if this was brought up earlier), I think the no consensus closure can still be defended given where the discussion stood. --Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

G6 deletion

I saw you deleted Baroness Young (disambiguation) as WP:G6. I've restored this (along with other changes to the arrangement of pages) because only DABs which disambiguate one page or no pages is eligible under that criterion, and the deleted page had three individual articles listed. In the future, please either decline these G6 cases, or PROD, or AFD them. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 04:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-publish deleted page

Page "Nathan Floyd" deleted before I inserted constructive edits. DEL request was disputed. Concerned not in good faith, because the following edits happened with no explanation given: (1) deleted image (2) deleted parts of info section & removed formatting (3) deleted 19 references. Please explain or discuss, before editing. Asking for permission to republish with constructive edits. Strategy 007 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerns raised in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nathan Floyd must be addressed before any further action will be contemplated. --Kurykh (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Panetta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hello. I responded to editors who asked to delete James J. Leonard Jr. and no one responded to my questions. I will be requesting deletion review based on no real discussion. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_J._Leonard_Jr. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Were you the IP that commented? Then John Pack Lambert had already responded to your question, not to mention that Captain Raju presumably saw your comment and still !voted delete. --Kurykh (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I disagree with the stated reasons because from the way that I see it notability was fulfilled.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you please take a look at the article/topic and tell me how exactly it fails notability? Because I looked over notability standards every time the delete editors and yourself claimed it and I just do not see where that applies. The article fit notability or at least the topic of the article fits notability. If we cannot resolve this please let me know so that I can submit it for deletion review. Thank you.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

My job is only to evaluate the status of the discussion and close based on that. If you're looking for a place to start, try WP:GNG and its requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have nominated the article for undeletion. Can you please temporary undelete so that other admins can see the article while it is in deletion review? Also. If result is to keep it deleted, I would like to keep the page in my sandbox or somewhere else because I anticipate more future activity from this subject including being on TV again this summer and I'd like a copy of the article for future resubmission/submission.?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for James J. Leonard Jr.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James J. Leonard Jr.. 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. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Eurock article deletion

I see that the Wiki on Eurock has been deleted, its talk page had been closed, and all the references closed. This is very disappointing. There was no - zero - discussion on the discussion page, except for the nomination for deletion from user Boleyn. I don't know why Boleyn had a grudge against Eurock, possibly some personal history of which I'm not aware. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem like good policy to let one user with an agenda to go around deleting well-researched and well-referenced articles with MULTIPLE links in and out. Just sayin'. Rcarlberg (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eurock indicates that she wasn't alone in her assessment. --Kurykh (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

opinion

I see you are in AFD sometimes. I do not have AFD experience. For my own education, do think think Sarah Oppenheimer does not meet WP:ARTIST? The references seem to be brief mentions. Any university professor would have more mentions, even local doctors. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have any doubts regarding notability, then AfD would be the way to test that out, right? Alternately, the talk page and WP:PROD are good routes to take if you don't want to send it to AfD. --Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

005

Will you draftify what resided at 005 prior to the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/005 to Draft:005? Thanks, — Godsy_CONT) 08:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks & Resorts featured list

Greetings. I am attempting to get the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article upgraded to featured list status here: Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1, and given that you were involved with the featured list status upgrade process for the List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines article, which is an article with similar traits, your input will be valuable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Humour

Please undelete Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Humour as a plausible search term. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

To Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comedy? --Kurykh (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jody Banim

Given my comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jody Banim about not having had the time yet to research this properly, and being concerned about all that I'm seeing with some quick searches, I'd have assumed that the decision would have been a relist. Can you do that so I can have a chance to review properly? Sorry, I was out of town for a few weeks, and am swamped dealing with real world work backlog ... I was hoping to dig in during the upcoming Ēostre feasting. Nfitz (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

One must provide actual sources to assert notability rather than simply say that it might be out there. This is especially true when the consensus is going against you. Bluntly put, I can't simply take you at your word; you have to show your work. I stand by my closure.

If you want to resurrect the article, please provide sources that qualify under WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. This can be done without the article, as notability is unrelated to the state of the article. You can just list them here or take it to WP:DRV if you so wish. --Kurykh (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, need to show sources and do the work. Need time to do the work though, and when I'm burning both ends of the candle at the office trying to catch up, need a weekend to have a chance to do work. Hence the request for the relist, rather than a keep. It could be done without the article, but the information in the article is crucial to researching properly - I don't even have a list of teams he played for any more. (though in this case, it was around long enough, there's probably various copies floating around the fringes of the web ...). Still, seems like a decent enough request, given WP:TIND. Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

As a more suitable alternative, I have restored the article at Draft:Jody Banim. After making the necessary edits, please submit it to WP:AFC for approval before moving it back to mainspace. --Kurykh (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect the result will me be just asking for deletion, unless I can find something interesting. But now I can search easier. Hopefully my library card still works ... Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Too-terse AFD closures

I commented strongly here, not long ago, about your closure without explanation at AFD on Tehran House of Volleyball, and I appreciate that you did revert your closure, and explain here (since archived). Thank you for that.

But I now see your closure "the result was delete" at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zamboanga Golf and Country Club (2nd nomination) and I think there have been others. You might well see how User:Sandstein just closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America. It went against my !vote, as Sandstein's closures often do, but I appreciate that the decision was explained. You and Sandstein may be very similar in philosophy on the inclusionist-to-exclusionist scale; i am further to the inclusionist direction. I ping them and hope they might comment, too.

It hurts the community, IMHO, for there to be unilateral decisions taken on community matters, on an arbitrary or likely-perceived-to-be-arbitrary basis. It hurts the general AFD processes, for there to be no explanation given, undermining others' right/interest to understand and learn, or perhaps to dispute. I'm not saying that it is the case, but it can appear you are trying unfairly to fend off reviews of your decisions by giving no purchase to disagreement, no evidence of what your true reasoning is.

I am not checking now, but I think guidelines for AFD closure do suggest that you should explain your reasoning.

In exceptional cases, a terse statement might be generally understood to be an understatement, like a polite way to implement a "snow" close without rudely spelling out the obvious, already expressed by multiple participants. That would be conveyed partly by a closer's own reputation for providing good decisions, with good explanations, and the terseness conveying that what they don't want to spell out is truly obvious. In your closures that I have seen, I do not see the AFD outcomes as obvious at all, and it is rubbing me the wrong way that you are acting as if your reputation and your wisdom warrant your not explaining. --doncram 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bud in here unasked, but I can't resist (okay, I'm not really sorry either - but people seem to prefer that one says that even if they don't mean it). On one hand User:doncram I agree with you. Too many complex divided AFD discussions get closed without an explanation. On the other hand - a terse statement seems fine if there's no other alternative than the decision. In this case, after 2 weeks there's 3 people saying it's not notable, and they can't find anything that would establish notability. And you provide a single blog entry - which is quickly dismissed as not suitable to esablish notability. No one challenged that position, so it seems quite reasonable that 2 days later, the only possible result is delete (or another relist I suppose ... but 16 days already). (also everyone has ignored, that you generally need more than 1 significant reliable source to establish notability). It's not like there's anything in the discussion that's possibly subject to debate. Even by an inclusionista like me. Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, thank you for commenting. About the Zamboanga golf club, I happened to think that source (which i think was published, then later reproduced in the blog) was of very substantial merit that was incorrectly dismissed. It would have been nice at least to see some comment about that source by the closer. And in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tehran House of Volleyball, while my "Keep" vote was the sole one vs. three "delete" or "weak delete" votes (counting the nomination itself), I happened to think it was by far the stronger argument and that the AFD could/should only then be closed "Keep" or "no consensus", when Kurykh closed it first. I could be over-estimating the value of my own opinion. However now I am not too happy to observe that Kurykh re-imposed the delete decision there later, after one more "delete" vote, with mere "the result was delete", failing to acknowledge that it was not obvious to all. Is that a message?

I am biased towards seeing my own views as reasonable, and I did not provide any examples not involving myself where Kurykh has seemed to disregard legitimate views of others. I acknowledge that two ambiguous examples don't "prove" anything. This is not a systematic review; this is my trying to give some feedback about perceptions which, at the moment, I feel is justified, and which I hope that Kurykh will consider. --doncram 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The role of the closing admin is to evaluate whether there is consensus. It is emphatically not to opine on the validity or invalidity of commenters' arguments (unless they are clearly out of line with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines), which is what you are pretty much asking me to do. The role of supporting or rebutting arguments, especially on notability issues, lies with AfD participants, not the closing admin. It is entirely possible to have two competing arguments that are correct, but the community demonstrably sides with one. Arguments with such support need no embellishment from the closing admin. One does not need to see "per consensus" after every single closure. Comments should be added in more ambiguous circumstances, but the examples of my closures are not it.

As pointed out by Nfitz, your examples are comparing apples and oranges. The one closed by Sandstein is a complicated AfD; if I was closing it, even I would add a comment. However, the one closed by me was far more straightforward. Your one keep comment does not and should not run roughshod over those who commented delete unless it was completely revelatory (it was not). You may think your argument is strong; others did not. As a closing admin, I have no right to disregard the views of commenters advocating deletion, just like I have a right to disregard your view. You were simply outnumbered by equally valid arguments. Perhaps instead of wondering why you keep getting stiffed by my AfD closures, try considering why people disagreed with your arguments in both the Teheran House of Volleyball and the Zamboanga Golf AfDs. --Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You and Nfitz have answered perfectly well, and I agree my view/experience can just be an outlier based on non-representative cases. I'm perfectly comfortable with my participation in AFDs, too; those two cases where I happened to say what I thought based on what I found at the time, are not necessarily representative for me, either. We all have different experiences that inform our outlooks, and what may resonate for each of us will naturally differ. Anyhow, okay, thanks for responding fully. --doncram 03:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Alejandra Campoverdi

Hi there! I noticed you requested to have Alejandra Campoverdi deleted and I wanted to know the reason for your request. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz08 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alejandra Campoverdi. --Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Article Deletion

Hello. I noticed you had many of my articles deleted. Well a recent development happened and I wish a request to have it undeleted to add this recent source in (http://www.formulascout.com/noah-watt-to-race-in-danish-f4-with-jan-magnussens-team/37011)

I also feel that you appear to be suffering from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion