Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamLinker (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 16 July 2017 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Partnership brokering

Hi SoWhy, I hope you will be able to help with this request please. The article on partnership brokering was taken down a few days ago, and I would like to a) enquire about the grounds for deletion b) find out what needs to improve for the next iteration and c) get a copy of the article + article talk page + discussion + discussion talk page, that was live before it got deleted. Looking forward to hearing from you. PBA18 (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there PBA18. The article was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Partnership brokering. Main concern was a lack of notability, which needs to be addressed for any future article. If you like, I can restore it to draft space for you to further work on but you have to understand that reinstating the content to the article space without addressing the concerns at the deletion discussion will lead to speedy deletion of the draft. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, Thanks for your response and the suggestion to re-instate the content to a draft space. Once restored, we will work to improve notability by sourcing and adding further references. PBA18 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done You can find it at Draft:Partnership brokering. Btw, please do remember that accounts are not allowed to be shared. Regards SoWhy 13:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion...

Very surprised to hear that WP:TNT is a non-policy argument at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David G Smith.What led you to this idea?Winged Blades 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Maybe because that page has a disclaimer on it that says "This page is an essay on the deletion policy. Essays are not Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. " (emphasis added)? I know TNT is often cited but it's but one standpoint. There are several good reasons why it's wrong (cf. WP:TNTTNT) but the main point is this: There simply is no policy that says surmountable problems - which includes TNT-eligible pages - should be handled by deletion; in fact, both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE emphasize fixing over deletion. As such, I don't think arguments that basically say "subject is notable but the current article is ugly" are based in policy. If the subject is indeed notable but the current content problematic, then WP:STUBIFY already offers a solution that is based on a editing guideline. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Asher Crispe

Hi -- re your close of the AfD on this one -- I'm puzzled by no-consensus, given that there were two delete contributions after resisting. Would you perhaps reconsider on that basis? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: The amount of !votes after relisting is not really relevant, they only brought one new argument, linking to an essay (WP:TOOSOON). Further discussion on the sources and their quality has not really happened and thus there was if anything less consensus than before the relist. I could probably have relisted it again but WP:RELIST clearly says that "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Regards SoWhy 07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Godsbane

Hi, would you mind sharing the reasoning behind the merge close? I counted four Delete votes, vs one Keep or Merge, and another Merge. The article did not cite any independent sources, so it's unclear to me what content was suitable for merging: Godsbane. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding that primary or non-independent sources can be used as citations in otherwise notable articles, but they don't count for notability. Thus, lack of independent RS coverage is a reason to merge an article with a merge target, but not a reason to delete something that can go elsewhere. Likewise, only one vote, mine, cited the most applicable policy, WP:ATD-M. While the final vote cited WP:FANCRUFT, it also opined that a merge was reasonable, and so you have policy on the side of merge, and not one single !vote correctly articulated how a merge would be against policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As you know, AFD closing is not !vote counting. If it were, we wouldn't need admins to do it, a bot could do it. Let's look at those delete !votes, shall we? We have one WP:PERNOM (which carries less weight), one WP:JNN (the nomination), one that argues for deletion based on lack of independent third-party coverage which - as Jclemens has pointed out to you - is a reason for deletion as a stand-alone article but does not prevent mention in another article and one that cites an essay and claims OR (which this isn't) but agrees that it can be merged. But if there is only consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE (both policies) tell us to merge content if possible. Regards SoWhy 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

DJ Flash

Dear SoWhy,

I am here on behalf of the author whose page you just deleted. I can assure you that the author in question is legitimate, and that the information on the page is accurate. Would you kindly undo this deed so that people can learn something about the early days of West Coast hip hop from the author's perspective? Thank you.

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Westcoast1978: Neither the legitimacy of the author (?) nor the accuracy of the information was questioned. The reason for deletion (cf. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Flash) was the lack of notability. If you can provide reliable sources that confirm they are a notable musician (see WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG for more information), I'd be happy to restore the page.

Btw, there is no place for "from the author's perspective" in Misplaced Pages. If an article exists, no one owns it. Regards SoWhy 11:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA candidate Poll

Thanks for stopping by and giving your comments. I will definitely take them under advisement. I clearly need to be less sloppy with my CSD tagging. Thanks again. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask for feedback any time. Regards SoWhy 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on your decision and biased closing

• you closed this Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination) : No Consensus? How, You did not see any of the discussion or ignored it and counted only equal votes?
• you kept it Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SmartPLS : The result was keep. After sources were provided, consensus changed in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. The Delete vote is clearly significant with their points.

• • Do you seriously ignore Delete vote discussion or its not visible to you at all? you ignored major consensus on Delete. These are only two incident I am citing, You are an Admin I guess. You are only Keeping these articles with baseless notability and no authentic media is present for them except the Online blog people write on daily basis.

• • Or you must be Keep admins here. Nothing against it, but just going through your decision and find it little biased. You are an admin and know better than me. Just my observations. Thanks! Light2021 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Light2021, please clarify: Are you actually interested in hearing why I decided how I did or did you already decide that I made mistakes and no amount of explaining will suffice? The wording of your comment indicates the latter (including calling me, who has deleted more than 10,000 pages, an "biased" "Keep admin") but then, I might be wrong, so if you actually want to hear my reasoning, please ask for it, preferably without prejudging my motives. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry if my words went wrong, I have no intention to question you or your status or work here. I just would like to know from you and how you make decisions. I have not made my mind on anything or on you. Apologies if it went wrong. Light2021 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't want to spend time explaining my decisions to someone who already made up their mind, which is why I asked. As for the AFDs you mentioned: I handled approx. 200 such discussions within the last week, so I won't rule out that I made a mistake or two but I don't think I did here:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination): At the time of the first relist, the !votes were three in favor of deletion and three in favor of keeping, so I understand where the assumption of vote-counting came from. However, looking at the substance, neither your nomination rationale nor K.e.coffman's !vote actually explain why the perceived "promotionalism" cannot be fixed by editing (per WP:PRESERVE). When challenged, neither of you responded, especially after HighKing actually did the cleanup and multiple editors agreed WP:GNG was met. There was one more delete !vote but their claims that the sources (which ones?) were all primary sources in disguise was challenged by Northamerica1000 without further response. There was one relist but no further discussion emerged. I did not see the date of the second relist correctly (which explains the rationale (I now fixed)) when closing though, that I admit. Still, I would have closed it the same way regardless. Neither side made a convincing enough argument, so "no consensus" it was. I don't think any admin would have closed this discussion as delete but I can imagine a keep-close quite well (considering the fact that two out of three delete !votes were based on fixable problems that were actually fixed).
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SmartPLS: Nominator says the sources they found are not useful to demonstrate notability and they cannot find any more. First delete !vote mentions there is a source. After a lot of SPA comments (which usually are weighed lower) and one generic "cannot find sources"-comment, we have your "100% corporate spam" comment which is a weak argument for deletion for the same WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy mentioned above (also less valid since not all versions of the page had the same tone and if deletion is based on the content, it needs to exist in all revisions As Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out when relisting, COI problems are not a reason for deletion.
  Then Pavlor mentioned substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources which Cunard corroborated with links. The last three !votes were a "merge" (which counts against deletion since merging can be discussed even after a keep outcome), one of the WP:JNN variety (claiming lack of notability without addressing why the sources are insufficient to establish notability) and one that agrees with Cunard, pointing out the fact that problematic parts can be removed. There was not, however, despite another two weeks of discussion, any substantial explanation why the newly provided sources - which those who !voted before presumably didn't know about (and did mostly not comment on even after pinged) - are not sufficient to establish notability. Speaking of which: I'm sorry to say so but your only comments regarding those sources seem to stem from a misunderstanding of the word "journal" in this context and after Pavlor pointed out to you that academic journals are considered good sources (WP:AEIS) you did not comment further on this.

In general: Whatever I personally think about those articles is irrelevant; in fact, if I had an opinion, WP:INVOLVED would prevent me from closing those discussions. My job is solely to assess consensus as it exists, no matter if I like it or not. That does not mean you can't ask me or any other editor for further explanation if you disagree with something but maybe abstain from calling other editors biased (cf. WP:AGF) when doing so. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/InvisibleKitchen

Would you by any chance re-weigh the consensus at this AfD and the level of attention given to the sources pre-offered? SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Sorry for that. With all the AFDs I handled in the last weeks, might have mistakenly closed this as no consensus when I wanted to relist. I restored the AFD and relisted it to generate more discussion. I don't think there was consensus when I judged it but closing it was a mistake when relisting was a viable option. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street

Hi SoWhy. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khayyam Street you declared the result as a Keep. It was relisted by Winged Blades of Godric on 14 July but then closed by you. There was a discussion continuing about whether it should be kept or merged and it would have been useful to decide an outcome here itself. In you closing result, you suggested that merging can be discussed on the talk. But I have tried posting message to many articles earlier and no one responds to these messages on the talk page. How do I proceed now?--DreamLinker (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@DreamLinker: Yeah, I closed this because WBoG, helpful as he might be, as a tendency to relist discussions which have already achieved consensus. Per WP:RELIST, relisting does not mean the discussion has to run another seven days. In this case, it was clear that no one supported deletion. As for merging, check WP:Merging#Proposing a merger for more instructions but basically the gist of it is: Propose it and if no one objects within a month, do it. Sometimes that will result in the wanted merger, sometimes it will start discussion per WP:BRD, but in any case something will happen. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for answering my query. One editor objected to the merging in the AfD, so I would have liked to have a bit more discussion and opinions. If I start a talk page discussion, how do I get more editors to provide their opinions? In AfD there is a nice list of discussions according to subjects. Is there any such forum or list for merge discussions?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is, Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers (which is why AFD is the wrong venue); but the steps I pointed out above (WP:Merging#Proposing a merger) should be followed first. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to follow the instructions and see how it goes.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)