Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 9 October 2012

Question:Rada Manufacturing

I was hoping you could help me by explaining Rada Manufacturing was taken down? As it was stated the sources were not reliable the article did not need sources because it was explaining the company. I would disagree with the sources not being reliable. The ABC news coverage is a credible reporting company. I did post the picture of the company to readers can get an idea with what the company looks like. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Knightia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightia13 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

I do hope you can tell I wasn't being serious. I was quoting children's TV shows and dead politicians, after all. Besides: The people who leave those kinds of messages (Shouted Demands, as I think of them) never come back to discuss the issue. There's no way the person who left the message I replied to ever would have seen it.—chbarts (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the pages I marked in my user space. I appreciate it. Will Maltby (talk  ⁄  contributions) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi WilyD. Thank you for reading through the contentious MfD Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) and closing it. Your closing statement was:

The result of the discussion was Weak keep - large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not, and thus the appeals to WP:NOT fail as a reason to delete the entire page. WilyD 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the assessment of the consensus in full: that "large chunks of content are problematic, but large chunks are not". However, I believe that that assessment leads to a different result than "weak keep".

Robofish (talk · contribs) wrote, "Remove the soapboxing content." He was explicitly joined by Beyond My Ken and myself who revised our positions from "delete" to "remove the soapboxing content" and implicitly by the editors who considered the "large chunks of content problematic" per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG.

There is a long-standing precedent that MfD is the proper venue for reviewing pages that have both problematic and unproblematic content. See for example Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag in August 2011.

In July 2010, there was a discussion about the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. More recently, the issue was discussed at the RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of userpages? (July 2012). Taking into account the discussions in July 2010 and July 2012 and MfD precedent, the closer wrote:

I am closing this discussion with the outcome: There is clearly no consensus to adopt the proposed language. A misleading announcement may have distorted discussion somewhat, but most of the editors commenting are experienced and must be presumed to have read the proposal they are commenting on. This will not stop MfD discussions of pages based only on parts of the page content -- a page containing inappropriate content for user space is not automatically off-limits to MfD simply because other content on the page is appropriate. DES 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider revising your close to "The result of the discussion was remove the large chunks of problematic content and keep the large chunks of unproblematic content"?

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Deleted

If my personal page has been deleted before, can I create it again and keep it blank? DarkFireYoshi 02:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Xray Crystallography

WilyD, are you going to finish the move of Portal:Xray Crystallography? The deletion tag is still in place and at least one subpage has not been moved. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Miju language

Hi,

Could you revert (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored) ? It looks like those were changes in the redirect, and so don't belong in the article history.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong edits. It now looks as though the article was repeatedly deleted and restored. That never happened, and so is a false history. Look at the last edit: you only moved the article, but the diff shows you creating it. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll ask elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Corvus energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Foss and AMPS

Doctor Browning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WAG

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Continual recreation

Hello, Kannan29 (talk · contribs) continues to recreate an article, Vinothkannan, which you deleted less than an hour ago. Could you possibly salt the article and give him a firm warning to stop? Appears to be an autobiography as well. Cheers, Matthew Thompson 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask him nicely to stop recreating it, but it just appeared he was ignoring the warnings. Matthew Thompson 07:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

NM, you did it. Although it still does appear to be an autobiography, so I'll drop a nice note under what you said. Doesn't matter, we'll see what happens. Matthew Thompson 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Places in Manchester

The places I requested for deletion have the tag "Greater Manchester" which is a metropolitan county but the boroughs within that county are main government areas. The category Category:Districts of Greater Manchester has one subcategory which deals with Manchester city itself but I think there is room for subcategories covering at least some of the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester. I realise that Category:Geography of Rochdale is also a subcategory but I don't think it would be wrong to have a Category:Places in Rochdale category instead. I am still looking through to see which places could fit where before I create subcategories, because it is plausible that some boroughs might not have enough articles to warrant a separate subcategory. I felt some of the names should reflect the boroughs rather than a metrpolitan county which is only used for ceremonial purposes and some sharing of inter-authority services. Green Giant (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I used Twinkle for the request, which might be the source of the problem. As it happens I've lived in Oldham, Leeds and Bradford so I know the kind of stick-in-the-mud type of folks you mean. That said, if you feel unable to complete the request it is no problem. I can live with it. Green Giant (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your close on "List of Zoey 101 characters"

Hi, can you consider amending your closing rationale in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Zoey 101 characters ?

First, I think the consensus does actually lean toward merge in the discussion. In addition to Shooterwalker's comment and mine,user Postdlf's 2nd comment makes it quite clear he doesn't support unconditional "keep" and rather agrees a merge is appropriate. Even if Postdlf did not change his bolded recommendation, AfDs are based more on discussion than on strict voting and I think this comment hasn't been taken into account in your evaluation as it should have. Beside, Jclemens' and DGG's comments blatantly contradict every single piece of guideline we have on lists, that is, WP:LISTN, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:WAF#Summary style approach. Could you elaborate on what strength you found in these comments that made them prevail over the 3 supporting a merge per actual guidelines ?

Second, with your reference to Misplaced Pages:Article size and the article being over 60kb, you seem to be overlooking the fact that a large portion of these 60kb is unsuitable (as shown in the discussion) and likely to be removed whether the article is kept or not. Thus I don't think Misplaced Pages:Article size is relevant here and it probably shouldn't appear in your rationale.

Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. However I still disagree that keep is numerically stronger, as I have said, Postdlf's argument is in favor of merge, AfDs not being based on votes but on arguments and discussion. I also disagree that that keep would be stronger policy-wise, for 2 reasons:

1) Misplaced Pages:Article size is an editing guideline, and as such, only deals with questions of size, not content. As the nomination made it clear, the AfD was based on content and notability issues, not on size. The only relevant guidelines are thus WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. The list is not notable according to WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and the latter explicitely recommends a course of action (merging) in case of absence of notability, not merely suggesting the list "isn't ideal", contrary to your claim (and if a guideline says the article "isn't ideal", why then don't you mention that in your rationale ?). WP:LENGTH, because it doesn't state that any article would become notable when reaching 60kb, is not relevant enough here to have any bearing on AfD outcome.

2) I have not seen any keep supporter advancing the argument of WP:LENGTH. You're the only one mentionning it, and your interpretation of the editing guideline doesn't seem consensual considering the obvious contradiction with content guidelines that are more relevant in this case. As such, you can't claim that you're merely upholding policy against merge arguments that would clearly go against policy (because that isn't the case, policy actually recommends merge and not keep). Is that a case of supervoting ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok so at first you say ""Keep" is policy-wise stronger (Article size says you probably need to split it" and then "Article length also really isn't much of a consideration in my close". Your two statements are contradictory, and so I'm still not seeing why you would say keep is policy-wise strong if the policy it involves isn't much of a consideration in your close. You're still not clear as to why WP:LENGTH would take precedence over WP:LISTN and WP:AVOIDSPLIT anyway, or why you apparently ignored Postdlf's 2nd comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're still refusing to answer my two simple question, thus I will request DRV.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your close on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese

Hi WilyD. I was wondering if you'd be willing to rephrase or reconsider your close on this AfD? The current wording of your close makes it appear that you believe that the sources presented by NorthAmerica1000 and Milowent are notable, and thus you discounted comments pointing out their lack of applicability - in other words, it looks like you're placing a supervote based on your interpretation of the sources, rather than interpreting the consensus on the AfD. Commenting that people who supported a merge option were somehow misunderstanding the discussion and that thus you also discounted them also seems fairly non-neutral. I'm assuming these things are more artifacts of the way you phrased your close than of you actually having placed a supervote close, but it would be really helpful if you could expand your close to address the basis for your decision beyond "the delete voters misunderstand, and also didn't they see the sources the ARS presented?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It was fine close. Most people said keep, and that the sources were fine. Consensus was obviously keep. Do you see where it says "Comment – More sources:" and then list things labeled "significant coverage"? Anyone who spent time reading through them would see it gave significant coverage, and the fact some people didn't understand that justifies the closing administrators comment about their comments "appear to be more guesses as to what one expects than an analysis of the article and situation." Dream Focus 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Dream Focus. Half the people voted Keep and half voted Merge. Therefore, it should have been closed as "no consensus" or relisted pbp 19:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD isn't a count. Its based on the strength of arguments. Dream Focus 23:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you change your tune fast . IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If there was a merge discussion on the talk page, and you couldn't even get half the people to agree it should be merged, then the article would not be merged. Saying "merge" in these cases, just means to delete the article, since you know the information merged over will be very little and most likely none. There was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Dream Focus 00:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying vote counting is ok? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pizza cheese

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pizza cheese. 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.

I view the decision to essentially ignore the roughly 40% of people who voted merge as improper. The proper close would have been "merge", "no consensus", or relist pbp 19:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Choseng Trungpa

Hi WilyD, Concerning the article deletion. I discovered that the article was lined up for deletion by clicking on the 'What links here' in the toolbox of Choseng's article. There you will find this link: User:Cyde/List_of_candidates_for_speedy_deletion not a bot page, but a individual's page where they use an imperfect 'tool' to find deletion candidates. Following the protocol I have added the banner to prevent this article being deleted. As soon as Cyde has removed the candidacy the banner can be removed. If you can help to see that this is carried through that'd be great. Thanks.

Thanks for your attention and concern WilyD. I will leave the Admin User User:Cyde a message to mention that the banner is no longer there. I think his bot would have removed it soon anyway. Best wishes, Fountain Posters (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SD of "Sleep Rape"

link

I marked this page as a CSD for the fact that it was vandalism. My justification for this, which I feel compelled to provide, is that it meets a few criteria:

1. Duplicated an existing topic (AGF, so didn't mark it solely for that)
2. Used very biased points of view (again, AGF)
3. Had absolutely no sources
4. Was a very short article
5. Seems a lot like original research (sign from "Slut Walk", consent cannot be provided by someone who is asleep)

For these reasons, I decided that the page was vandalism. At the very least, I believe it should have been SD'd as a duplication of an existing topic. I do see your viewpoint that it wasn't vandalism, but I would appreciate it if you could go back and take a second, thorough look at it. I welcome your feedback, and thanks for reading this little short note!

Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion??

Hi WilyD! I had created an article on J.H.Tarapore School yesterday and found out today that it has been deleted. When I researched a bit I found that the reason was for 'promotion' or 'advertising'. Let me tell you that this page was about a School in India and it was certainly NOT USED FOR PROMOTION OF THE SCHOOL. So let me request you that please do the needful. Thanks. --ΩΨ Soham Banerjee ΨΩ 04:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Zoological conspiracy theories AfD

Must say I am disappointed to see another close of yours not adequately addressing the reasons opposing a keep vote. You completely ignored the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS reasons provided in my nomination of the article and my argument about the subject supposedly evidenced in the sources really being one of a general tendency in the Arab and Muslim community to believe misinformation about Israel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he explained his reasoning quite well in his closing. Misplaced Pages articles are based on what the reliable sources say, not what you believe is real or not. There is ample coverage of these conspiracy theories against Israel which are covered in mainstream sources in nations outside the middle east. This includes Discover Magazine, which he even cited as an example in his closing. Its not indiscriminate since there are specific requirements to be listed. And its not just a single news event, this is something that keeps getting coverage over the years, and they mention past events as well at times. Dream Focus 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE refers to Misplaced Pages not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information exists does not mean it belongs here. In this case we have a bunch of non-notable news events cobbled together on the basis that a handful of sources briefly mention one or more of the events in connection with another one of the events. Wily erred baddly when noting Discover Magazine in the closing decision as it only mentioned the shark attack conspiracy theory, but there is already an article on the shark attacks that mentions said conspiracy theory so it is not an argument for keeping the "zoological" article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you perhaps consider relisting the discussion for another week?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Would it make any possible difference at all? Dream Focus 00:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm seeing legitimate complaints about three different AfD closures you've made in the past week or two. If I see a fourth anytime soon, I'm going to have to start a request for de-adminship on the basis that you have been supervoting and not interpreting consensus correcting pbp 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm watching the DRV(s), of course, and I'll see what they say. Closing contentious discussions is always going to attract flak, no matter what you do. There's probably some indication in the DRV that I'm a little reluctant to close as no consensus (although it looks pretty marginal - it's not clear to me that if I was quicker to decide no consensus, there still wouldn't be a substantial number of editors who disagreed with that, too). WilyD 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - gwickwire

gwickwire | Leave a message 21:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7

Tckma (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

extreme auto customs

Hi WillyD,

I must admit - that text is not my own personal writing, but the text that the new Page Curation Tool automatically puts on the page creator's talkpage when listing a Speedy. So - I can't take the credit for it, but it's heartening to know that the WMF's attempts to massage some more human-sounding template warnings etc. seems to be paying off. By the way, if you've not already tried/were aware of the aforementioned tool - give it a go. 'Tis excellent - this is the first time I've actually WANTED to do NPP for ages! Wittylama 07:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I just noticed you gave me a barnstar too! Thank you very much but, considering the explanation I just gave, I don't think I can honestly accept this one. Would you mind if instead of putting that award on my userpage (as I would otherwise do with a barnstar) that I move it instead to the Page Curation Tool's feedback page and "re-gift" it to the team that wrote the tool and the associated messages? Wittylama 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw your change to the barnstar - fair enough! I'll copy it across to the page curation talkpage with an explanatory comment right away. Thanks very much :-) Wittylama

Done. Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation#Barnstar. Wittylama 07:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Leroux

Hi. I notice you recently closed the AFD on Marcel Leroux. There is a copy of the article from fairly recently at User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux; I dunno if that needs to go or not. I don't much care; I'm just letting you know. I only noticed it because its the #7 google hit for Leroux :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's comment "I dunno if that needs to go or not. I don't much care" suggests that the fate of an article is suspended to his good will, i.e. if he'd cared that the article should "go" it will. Is that a fair representation of Misplaced Pages deletion policies or bragging? ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Now its being actively maintained , so I'd say it should be deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Should this page be deleted, you indeed made a mockery of the Misplaced Pages deletion policies by showing your whims are in fact, orders.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And now STA has re-created Talk:Marcel Leroux for his POV pushing. Oh joy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying William M. Connolley that your first intervention on the deletion of Marcel Leroux page was "• delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers"? How about your own POV?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the conversation seemed to be interrupted here. However, the conversation was continued away from this page... on William M. Connolley's talk page as can be seen here ... Quoting WilyD about a sandbox page that seem to annoy William M. Connolley: "You're probably right, but I don't think it'd be appropriate to delete a userspace version of an article about a subject deleted for failing WP:N, where it's believable it could pass WP:N. Too soon -". So notability was just the excuse, and a poor one according to the page's delete administrator!ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Find sources that show the subject meets the requirements of WP:N, and it can be restored. Until then, it can't. I could believe that such sources exist - but none have been presented, none have been found, after a discussion, so the presumption is that they don't exist. WilyD 19:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the soap boxing that is taking place Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux, it might be prudent to SALT the article pending consensus at a discussion to recreate it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• • It's on my watchlist, and presumably several other people's. Barring serious concerns about living subjects, I'm not sure there's a need to SALT a page. If there's a couple recreations that don't address the AfD closure, then yes. WilyD 05:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • You mean because of this: "Motion: The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Misplaced Pages policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so." Explains the "Damnatio memoriae" he so diligently pursues now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not William Connolley so I'm not sure why I should care. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prudent? Are you concerned your actions are inappropriate? What's next? Delete the deletion archive page?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Please help me ban Kwotkuku (talk) as well. I do believe this person and Kwort are the same person. Kwotkuku sent me personal threats and wrote abuse on my talk page (see talk) right after you blocked Kwort.

Thanks!!

~ Acsian88 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange Marcel Leroux decision

You appear to have missed all the citations and the leadership of a major French climate center and a nationwide award. You would have had to look through a lot of the discussion. Here I pull out the posts on the google scholar citations. For your ease of accumulation, the number of citations are 30, 124, 61, 74, and then as I kept finding more articles I stopped tabulating. The original search at google scholar was either dishonest or incompetent. Upon further reading your closing comment, this appears to be an intellectually dishonest lie "even its advocates don't seem to really believe it" It was the opposition, which only accumulated two votes that was half hearted, botched the google scholar search or perhaps they knew the forgone conclusion? Has nothing changed here a wikipedia? --Africangenesis (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I could find over 30 citations of his 1998 text in books and journal articles. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More works in which he is the primary author:

"Analyse météorologique des pluies torrentielles des 12 et 13 novembre 1999 dans le Languedoc-Roussillon./Meteorological analysis of the torrential rains of …"M LEROUX - Géocarrefour, 2000 - persee.fr

"Les climats subtropicaux dits" méditerranéens" et les climats de la Méditerranée (2e partie)" M Leroux - L'Information géographique, 2002 - armand-colin.com

" La dynamique des situations météorologiques des 21-22 et 26-27 septembre 1992 dans le sud du couloir rhodanien / The dynamics of the meteorological patterns of 21-22 and 26-27 September 1992 in the southern Rhône corridor" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1993 lien Volume 68 lien Issue 68-2 lien pp. 139-152

"Paléométéorologie de la région de Taoudenni" M Leroux - 1991 - cat.inist.fr

"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France: autopsie des agglutinations anticycloniques des hivers de 1988 à 1992" M Leroux, S Aubert, J Comby, V Mollica… - Science et changements

"Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France : autopsie de la situation anticyclonique du 19 décembre 1989 au 25 janvier 1990 / The winter rainfall deficiency in France : autopsy of the anticyclonic situation from the 19 December 1989 to the 25 January 1990" Marcel Leroux lien Revue de géographie de Lyon lien Year 1991 lien Volume 66 lien Issue 66-3 lien pp. 197-206

Works in which he is not the primary author, I will keep adding them here:

"Are There Solar Signals in the African Monsoon and Rainfall?" H Faure, M Leroux - Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions …, 1990

"Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the Last Glacial Maximum" AM Lezine, JP Tastet, M Leroux - Quaternary Research, 1994 - Elsevier

"Relationships Between Polar Highs Activity and Air Temperature Anomalies in the North Pacific Region" A Favre, M Leroux, A Gershunov - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2003

"POSTER: Relationships between the Features Variationsof Highs and Lows in the North Atlantic Region and North Atlantic Oscillationfrom 1950 to 2000" A Pommier, M Leroux - 1st International CLIVAR Science Conference, 2004

--Africangenesis (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. --Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD is over, time to move on. As has already been pointed out, his citation counts are not particularly high. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

9 new references in major newspapers

I've added 9 new references from France's newspaper equivalences of the NY Times, the Le Figaro and Le Monde to the sandboxed version of the article. It was strange that a scientist of Marcel Leroux' obvious stature, was not being written about and quoted in major newspapers in France. His stature was apparent from the articles he was writing. He was the scientist solicited to write articles on any unusual weather patterns affecting France and N. Africa. It turns out the major newspapers are paywalled and don't allow google searches.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page: COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art

Hi WilyD. I wanted to inquire about the deletion of the COLLAB Philadelphia Museum of Art page. I understand that it was due to copyright infringement from the Philadelphia Museum of Art's Web site. COLLAB is a non-profit, volunteer driven affiliate of the Museum, and the Museum staff actually wrote the Misplaced Pages copy when COLLAB requested that we have our own page.

Given our affiliation, the museum's approval of us having our own entry, and the fact that they supplied the copy, is there a means to have the page reinstated?

Thank you!

Jedd Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeddnyc (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal request to reverse your decision on Marcel Leroux as recommended before requesting deletion review

• The questioning of Marcel Leroux's notability was not done in good faith, as those proposing it and voting for it, did not make an effort to determine if Leroux was notable themselves. IRWolfie mischaracterized google scholar results, and WMC voted before there had been much presentation of evidence. The reasons for the request for deletion were not to improve wikipedia but to serve some agenda.

• Number of citations is not the only measure of notability. Being the head of an important research center is enough for notability on its own. Hmmm, just a chair would be enough, much less head of a lab. From WP:ACADEMIC "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)."

• Many newspaper article references have been found since the deletion, and the reason they were hard for internet search users and non-French speakers to find is clear. This confirms his notability. His position and accomplishments considered notable in France, because they are mentioned when citing his results and opinions, by writers finding his opinions worthy of serious consideration. Un-notable positions and accomplishments might have been a reason not to give his opinions such consideration.

• You are still supposed to consider the consensus, even though the consensus is to be "on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." The consensus of the votes was that notability evidence had been brought forward. The arguments against were lawyering suggestions that awards of titles could have been faked, or unreferenced assertions that the title wasn't important. You were not supposed to just ignore the assessments of those who voted and rely upon your own assessment entirely. There was plenty of policy based argument for the voters to legitimately reach their conclusion, and the vote was 5 to 2, not counting you as a vote, since you are required to be neutral.

• I found a way to get google scholar to do the tally. Leroux has 67 pubs, and 617 citations. His H-index is 9 and his I10-index is 8.

--Africangenesis (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently Marcel Leroux is far above average. The citation threshold for being in the top 1% of scientists is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. It seems what people thought they knew about what is "average" is wrong. --Africangenesis (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently it isn't enough to show you that you were wrong on every point you cited to decide to delete when closing. You are going to insist on wikilawyering delays to the end. Your responsibility is to do what is right for wikipedia whether I KYA or not. I've given wikipedia enough information to make the correct decision according to its standards. It is wikipedia's job to replace admins that don't meet the standard.--Africangenesis (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC) "New Sources"? What was your old source for this statement:

• "Merely being a cited scientist isn't sufficient to meet WP:N - the point is, even if you're a moderately well cited scientist, those citations are mostly what N refers to as passing mentions; you don't learn anything about the person from them, so you can't use them to write an article."

From WP:Academic:

• "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."

I have supplied what you need above. What more do you need? Do you have contrary evidence? You deleted on your own. You can restore on your own. Is the recommendation to take it up first with the closing admin really supposed to be a waste of time, like you are implying? The new citation on citations are relevant to application of the standards, not to the article. We don't need a discussion on WP:Academic. It already adopts this kind of analysis. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• If this helps any, I checked the name through my highbeam account. A rather long article that mentions Leroux quite often through it, they talking about his views and his book. So that counts as one significant coverage in a reliable source. Fox News quotes two sentences of his, but that's it. He seems notable enough to be quoted all over the place though. Dream Focus 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Foxnews quotes two sentence and you think that somehow satisfies WP:GNG or is even usable as a source? If you had read the AfD you would have also seen that the Bulletin was already discussed at the AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Being in the top 1% of his field in citations should be enough to avoid the "average professor" dismissal.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I can't figure out what it means by "scientists" - Someone in the top 1% of professors cite wise would probably be quite notable for that, someone in the top 1% of the mish-mash of professors, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates that get their names onto papers might well not be. It may be there, or not - but either way, that's a subjective judgement I shouldn't be making as closing admin. WilyD 11:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That only makes his achievement all the more remarkable, since he was the primary author in every single publication counted in his 617 citations. There are other publications where he is just a co-author. What you describe could only inflate the numbers of others if you are comparing to them. He is already in the top 1%. --Africangenesis (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What? No - having more citations than undergraduates or graduate students doesn't make a professor look more impressive; they're supposed to be doing that. WilyD 11:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • BTW, it is far less subjective than the judgement you did make as closing admin, which is kinda the point.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there something subjective about Leroux being director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment vis'a'vis criterion 5 of WP:Academic?--Africangenesis (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I know nothing about the lab or whether being the director of it may meet WP:ACADEMIC - it wasn't discussed in any depth during the AfD, nor it is obvious without doing substantive research on the subject - I could plausibly believe either that it's sufficient, or that it's not. WilyD 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It wasn't discussed because it wasn't disputed. But you know it now. And those who put the article up for deletion for notability reasons, should have known researched the notability standards and considered whether they were applicable before trying to get the article deleted. --Africangenesis (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not disputed that it's true, so far as I can see. Whether it's sufficient to meet criterion 5 of ACADEMIC isn't discussed, and it's not clear to me whether it's true or not. I certainly see no particular reason to believe either that it is, or it isn't. If you continue to insist on attacking the other people involved it'll only convince me that a) you're resorting to ad hominem arguments because there aren't any legitimate ones, and b) that you're unco-operative editor who isn't worth discussing things with. If you're keen to see the article restored, fix it so it clearly meets WP:N (or whatever), then run it by DRV. If you're not, then what are you doing here? WilyD 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
            • WilyD, independent delete admin. writes:"If you continue to insist on attacking the other people involved it'll only convince me that a) you're resorting to ad hominem arguments because there aren't any legitimate ones, and b) that you're unco-operative editor who isn't worth discussing things with." Uncooperative? This editor just gave you tons of references and he is rewarded with threats! Priceless.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WilyD, you acknowledge the correctness of my ad hominem characterizations, by admitting that a restored updated article would just be put up for AfD again. Sorry, it is possible to have both legitimate arguments and ad hominem arguments, and you can't claim not to have seen the legitimate ones. --Africangenesis (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You were told where to go. Go there. This isn't AfD2, the AfD is closed. You're trying to argue that he should re-open a closed AfD with arguments that you didn't even mention at the time; that's just not going to be considered. He can't consider it because it would be pretty close to a supervote after the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you are as unfamiliar with deletion review as you were with WP:Academic. I was referred here. Read up.--Africangenesis (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For you IRWolfie: "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?." and two of things listed #1 and #3 seem pertinent.

1) if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly,

2) if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article,

Maybe that is a supervote. If he can't reverse his closing, the instructions wouldn't refer one here first. If he can reverse on #1, why not on #3? Perhaps he can just do it, and see if he can get away with it. What would you do if he did, and what would your justification be? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you found something really unambiguous - a biography, say, or that he'd won an obviously significant prize (IDK, Nobel, say), then I could reasonably overturn the old discussion. Since you've found a lot of ambiguous material, it's not appropriate for me to just overturn. Hence my "Well, maybe - fix it up and have a discussion." Such a discussion might plausibly go either way. WilyD 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've won the nobel prize. What Marcel Leroux has done is far more notable than that.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just a heads up, Africangenesis is removing your user sandbox template: . IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. I removed IRWolfie's sandbox template. It did not seem proper ettiquette for him to be reverting in someone elses User: hierarchy. If that template has some authority as an administrator function, let a disinterested administrator do it. If this is such an administrator concern, why isn't there a bot checking and adding templates in the user hierarchies? IRWolfie seems to think other people will confuse this with a real article despite the User: and that he has WP:OWN on the issue. BTW, IRWolfie, if you now realize the Marcel Leroux meets the notability requirements (I count 3, when any 1 is supposed to be sufficient) please let WilyD know. --Africangenesis (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW, WMC can WP:BATTLE and commit vandalism too! I'm impressed. BTW, Lucy thanked me for my additions. Of course the whole AfD was vandalism of a sort. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	A very difficult situation that you made look easy. Good on you for your GibraltarpediA MFD close. Achowat (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel

Made it into a table, just for you.

Does that clear up any confusion over if the article has been copied from elsewhere? Ironholds (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am User:Okeyes (WMF) ;p. Accidentally tagged something while using my staff account *slaps his hand*. Ironholds (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)