User talk:Missvain/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54

Deletion of 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack

Hello Missvain, may I ask why or on what reasoning you deleted the article "2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack"? Because I was under the assumption an admin would properly assess the validity of the votes and not base their decision off the actual number of votes. For example Wikipedia:Notability (events) states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"." For the 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack, it was not just a simple case of a "molotovs being thrown at a bus", which may I note that user SmartyPants22 pretty much hit and ran with that argument.

The comments seem to be pretty much ignorance and personal opinions more than actual valid arguments, this should have been clarification not to delete based off this. You also extended it twice, but got no further comments, I think the lack of valid arguments should have warranted not to be deleted, rather than being deleted. One argument was "Insignificant event. It didn't get in-depth coverage and it's not notable per" this is factually untrue, in Turkey there has been rallies and the topic brought to the Turkish parliament, the fact that the Turkish secret police is involved makes it interesting and also unusual like I mentioned above. So that very statement is grossly false and was misleading to say. As per the recommendations "bad faith" comments should have been ignored.

The arguments were not valid grounds and being out gunned should not be a valid reason to get something deleted. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads" Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus & also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_notable/Just_not_notable The users SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 grounds for deletion is supposedly notability which as per the reference above is not a valid reason to just simply delete the article, (if that was even their supposed reasoning).. So I really think you should reassess this please. TataofTata (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I understand how frustrating it can be to have an article deleted. It has happened to me! First, when you talk about another editor, please ping that editor. We try to be transparent on Wikipedia. So, I am going to tag User:SmartyPants22. I am also going to tag User:DoubleGrazing, User:Ahmetlii, and User:El_cid,_el_campeador. I know no one wants to "make assumptions," but, as someone who spends a portion of her day reviewing upcoming AFD closures and day of AfD closures, I can only assume that User:SmartyPants22 was basing this on WP:NOTNEWS combined with WP:GNG. The consensus was delete - only two people participated and for some cases, that is enough for me to garner consensus as an experienced, reviewing administrator of AfDs. I based my decision on the notability guidelines of WP:NEVENTS, specifically presented by User:Ahmetlii. Also, your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS did not convince me that the article needed to be kept. You also cannot argue that "it's still talked about" etc as reason for keep. I also do not see anyone making bad faith comments. It appears you are allowing yourself to be deeply emotionally connected to the subject and article, which could appear as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I suggest, since you are displeased with my decision, you take it to WP:DELETIONREVIEW. Have a good day. Missvain (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, Missvain. I'm only here to say that I've no horse in this race, but I do think that the AfD ran for a sufficient length of time, and was closed appropriately, so I've no issues with any of it (FWIW, coming from a non-expert like yours truly). Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Much thanks for weighing in DoubleGrazing! Missvain (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for notifying me. You are correct in stating that my nomination was based off of WP:NOTNEWS (my fault for making my nomination a bit vague). All I can say is that I nominated it based off of my perception off the article, and as is stated above, the nomination gained a consensus which is out of my hands. Best wishes − SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22! Missvain (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hungarian Testing Board

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hungarian Testing Board. 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. Sldn37 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramps

The article about Gramps has not been deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramps. I just want to say that I found this whole process very discouraging. This proposal to delete seems unnecessary and vindictive, and the subsequent renaming and redirecting seem intended to obscure the article. As noted in a Reddit post, it appears that Wikipedia is focused more on American celebrities, than on sober topics like genealogy. The Gramps (disambiguation) page seems to illustrate this attitude. And it is frustrating that users seeking to delete the Gramps article don't consider published academic papers as evidence of notability. But I am really offended that I was accused of sockpuppet posts in the AfD, when that is absolutely not the case. I don't know where to express my disappointment on this process, hence this post here as you appear to be managing the AfD process (and I'm not blaming you). Sorry for the rant, maybe I just need a break from Wikipedia. --Pakaraki (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakaraki It was kept. Feel free to renominate it if you feel like going through a deletion discussion again. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with Wikipedia. I do surely suggest a break if you feel like you're finding more frustration in editing, versus fun and pleasure. I have to do it pretty regularly. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ramzi Najjar

Hi. Can you please relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramzi Najjar. I want to dig more as there is a lot of coverage in Arabic-language media. Thanks. Störm (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Störm -  Done Missvain (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic

It took a while, but I have decided to attempt to implement a merge of this article, and I see that you very recently archived the existing discussion. I have a couple of technical questions I would like to ask about merging/redirecting. Should I do so here? Or, would it be better to bring back the existing discussion from the archive, so that I can ask my questions there? Sorry for my slow move to this stage. CWBoast (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CWBoast - Please ask any questions about mergers or redirecting at WP:TEAHOUSE or on the talk page at Wikipedia:Merging. You're likely to get a faster response at the Teahouse though. I don't care how long it take you to move the page. Frankly, I don't monitor those things and I basically forget about AfDs after I process them. Cheers. Missvain (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetCode (2nd nomination)

I have a question about your close as delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetCode (2nd nomination)

There were references on the article that seem to support notability IE: "The rest are fine for me. Forbes, NBC... Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)" I also looked at those references at Forbes and NBC and found that it looks to meet WP:GNG

The claim "No one has provided a single keep vote based on actual sources - nor have they provided sources or relevant policy that allows us to ignore WP:V. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)" is completely without merit.

If the article was originally spam and/or created by a sockpuppet, have no bearing on the notability of the subject.

Can you explain your rational for delete? Jeepday (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeepday - As a AfD reviewer, it's not my job to go and dig up the sourcing and no one presented any examples. I agree with the nominator, User:Praxidicae in that regard. Besides, when I look at the sources in the article, the Forbes piece is by a contributor and therefore is not a reliable secondary source; the Epitaph is a college newspaper related to the students involved in PetCode and therefore not a reliable secondary source; this is a small town newspaper puff piece and I'm not considering that reliable secondary source to count towards GNG; and this is a press release. Therefore, there are only two reliable secondary sources - again both puff pieces from local Bay Area (where I live, so I'm familiar with the reach) TV stations with associated with national affiliates. I would not call one, for example "NBC" - it is an affiliate of NBC and the footage was only presented in the local market and it's rather puffy. I count those towards WP:GNG, but they aren't enough. It's not my job to go and dig up the sources as a reviewer, so, if there are more appropriate reliable secondary sources, people are welcome to draft an article or request undeletion at WP:DR. But, sorry, what I saw presented in the AfD and in the article, as is, did not convince me that this subject merits its own Wikipedia article at this time. Missvain (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I am also copying User:Dr.KBAHT since you mentioned them above. I try to make sure everyone is tagged when they're being mentioned. (But, no conversations here are likely to make me overturn my decision.) Missvain (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Missvain: I would suggest in a case like this it may be better to leave an explanation on the close rather than simply "The result was delete", especially if this was reviewed after the article was deleted. It gave some impression it looked like a !supervote, and there is a possibility that simply !voting may have been more appropriate. That said, especially looking at the previous AfD, the article probably should have gone and there is a possibility it should have been salted if this version circumvented AfC or was placed into mainspace without referencing the previous AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the AfD summary I got the impression that it was nominated due to some bad / spammy reputation of the subject (not the user, but the subject), which I couldn't confirm. This explanation makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain the decision. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Your rational here makes sense, I concur with Djm-leighpark that a bit more detail in the closing comment might have been helpful. Jeepday (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations. 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. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate your close

here. That is not a keep, though your close is a supervote. I analyzed the sources and provided adequate reasoning why they are not sufficient so at best it's no consensus but I encourage you to check out User:Praxidicae/fntest which lists a slew of blackhat SEO sources, which these are. In fact that ones that aren't BHSEO are deprecated and listed as unreliable per WP:RSP and as we know interviews that have no editorial control also don't count, which is largely wahts linked. BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC) BEACHIDICAE🌊 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

BEACHIDICAE🌊 - I am keeping with my decision. The following sources are enough to qualify for WP:BASIC for me:
He also charted on #10 for three weeks on Billboard's Next Big Sound chart.
Nothing presented above shows as paid advertising. None of these are blacklisted or on the list you presented. If User:HumanxAnthro can improve the article using sources - including Canadian publications - then that would be great. You are welcome to re-nominate the article for AfD again if you feel it does not merit inclusion based on the improvements. Missvain (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll certainly renominate it. blackhat SEO doesn't identify paid adverts, which is why it's black hat. But it doesn't address your supervote close which is at best, again, no consensus and not a keep. BEACHIDICAE🌊 00:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk about getting beaten up ....

@Missvain. I merely observe that I suggested you give more comments when closing discussions. Since doing so you seem to be subject to hassle and I would like to apologize for that hassle that may have resulted. That about a no-win. Perhaps it will all settle in a few days. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD

With respect to [1], perhaps a good case for closing as "no consensus" instead? --JBL (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

JBL - Like I wrote...being bold and seeing if any other experienced editors want to weight in. Missvain (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Faruqi

Hello, I am just curious and want to learn more. I thought this is going to be relisted for more views but keep was unexpected. This page has zero independent, indepth sources, not considering awards. I am trying to think from your angle this is keep because the Afgan Girls page doesn't exist so sources can be used for Somaya Faruqi. Am I right?Sonofstar (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sonofstar - It was because of the case presented by User:Beccaynr. It is rare that reviewers relist a discussion for a third time. You're welcome to renominate the article for deletion if you desire. I'd let folks have a chance to further improve it. Just because the article itself is in poor shape right now, doesn't meant it can't be improved. I also wholeheartedly believe that interviews can contribute to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I am perfectly fine and User:Beccaynr thanks for writing this. It's eye opening. Sonofstar (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Sonofstar, I often appreciate AfD as an opportunity to discover compelling articles to work on, but I find it very challenging to revise them under the deadline of the AfD process. I also very much appreciate your patience - I have currently made some commitments to other articles and may be off-wiki for a bit in the near future, but this article is on my list for further work. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Beccaynr I would like to work with you on similar projects. Let me know if I can. I am sure I will learn few more new things. Sonofstar (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Sonofstar, I would be happy to, just write a note on my Talk page and I can let you know if and when it is something I can work on. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we talk?i need to ask you something ...

Hi im Deborah but you can call me Debbie,I want to create an article can you help me please... Deborah Jenkins (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Debbie. You can ask questions about how to create Wikipedia articles at WP:TEAHOUSE where a group of volunteers will help you. Have a good day! Missvain (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunanda Gandhi

I agree with your decision at AfD, and thanks for the effort you spent to get good consensus. But I want to check that article's references to her shared work with Arun Manilal Gandhi. For example, they won a peace award together, but until I changed it, his article described him as winning it alone. Would you please let me check those now-vanished references for missed overlap? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfChange. This is the only source provided in in the article that was deleted: https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/gandhi-the-husband/article29973371.ece - that is in addition to a primary source that was in the external links section - http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/AboutUs/Founders.cfm. Missvain (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this helpful information, I appreciate it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you note

Hi, Missvain. I just thanked you for this old edit, but I just wanted to drop a line as to why. I had never known about the {{Search for}} template, and it looks like a very useful tool. It definitely provides more capability than the standard {{Find sources}} Google links you typically see in AfD/Notability tag links, etc. I'll definitely try using it to find references on possibly more obscure topics. Thanks! 2pou (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Marek Kukula

Re your AfD close: "Please improve the article" is a bit vague - we're always ready to improve all articles. What did you have in mind here, given how many improvements have been made to the article during the AfD? :PamD 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:PamD - I have no specific suggestions. Perhaps consider reaching out to others involved in the conversation about the article, such as User:GRuban who wrote: "The Guardian piece is sufficiently indepth about him, we can write a biography from that." If you need me to look at the article and suggest further improvements then I'll have to wait to do that over the weekend, but, I trust the community to do what is best to ensure the article is maintained to ensure it meets WP:GNG at risk of being renominated. Missvain (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
User:GRuban says User:PamD actually did a good job expanding the article during the AfD, thank you! (Er ... thank her? writing in the third person is complex...)! I'd focus on massaging the existing text from the existing sources. Right now it's full of one sentence paragraphs, and doesn't really "flow" between one and the next, it's a bit jagged and choppy. That still won't make it a GA/FA, though that's all right, not every article will reach those heights, but I do agree with Missvain, that there is room to noticeably improve it. The AfD established that the basic facts to make it meet the GNG are there already, he got sufficient press before the unfortunate-incident-which-did-not-happen-damnatio-memoriae, but making it a more readable article will help discourage it from being renominated. Style counts. Best of luck. (Is per aspera ad astra appropriate for a difficult article about an astronomer?) --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I just found it a rather unhelpful remark - it reads as if perhaps you hadn't actually looked at the article. All articles, except perhaps recent FAs, have scope for improvement, so why say this with "no specific suggestions"? PamD 22:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your closure. I confess to now having grave misgivings about my part in helping to have this article retained as part of Wikipedia's vast and influential collection of academic biographies.

Had I known there would be universal support here for the idea that it is better for Wikipedia to put children in danger, than ever accept that in this case, their naked prejudice against the tabloid press might be in error, I probably would not have done what I did, and let other people continue in their obviously mistaken belief that in Wikipedia terms, this man was a nobody.

He wasn't a nobody, he was a somebody, he is just unfortunately a somebody who got convicted of a serious crime, that for whatever reason, the mainstream media sources that previously chose to profile him, did not consider the end of his career to be remotely newsworthy (pertinent to which is that they never actually wrote about him as News, only ever as Lifestyle/Culture). It is pertinent that Wikipedia is neither News, nor is is it Lifestyle/Culture, nor is it an autobiographer, or even the PR department of the Observatory.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, beholden in this case, to doing what a neutral biographer would do, which is to obviously include this highly pertinent information, on the basis there's no good reason to believe it could be false. Not even a 25% chance, as someone has suggested is their bar. Which is not to suggest in any way that Kukula himself actually wants this information hidden. Other than the 12 year delay between his crime and his conviction, we have no reason to believe he would be party to this attempted deception.

Would you therefore be open to reconsidering your decision, on the basis that had I (and perhaps others) known that there would be absolutely no prospect of this biography being updated to reflect what is so obviously true, we would have said that deleting it was the next preferable option.

There is, as I hope you can see, a non-trivial risk of this man being able to use this false biography to continue to offend, given that it currently portrays him as a man who is not a danger to children and has a cool sounding job. He could, for example, direct a child he meets online, to read it, and thus persuade them he is someone they should want to interact with. We already know from reliable sources, that engagement with children was one of his most cherished parts of his job. I am not trying to smear the man here, I am not suggesting these are likely outcomes, but I am mindful that when it comes to child safety, you have to take the approach that even a low risk, is a serious matter.

Is highly relevant information given his career, that in 2018 he was convicted of a serious crime pertinent to child safety, a crime he actually committed before he was appointed Public Astronomer. Thus Wikipedia definitely needs to put aside its prejudices against tabloids and allow the readers to at least know why it might be that they can no longer find this man's employee profile on the Observatory website, can no longer see him being referred to in reliable sources as the Public Astronomer of the Royal Observatory, or indeed find him being quoted anywhere as an astronomy expert.

If Wikipedia can't do that, for whatever dubious sounding reason they choose to apply, then it has a moral duty not to compete with with the sources that have taken the view that having prominent access to this information is in the public interest. I am actually pretty shocked to see Wikipedia editors genuinely seeming to feel no shame in allowing Wikipedia to be a party to lying by omission, over a matter as serious as this, especially when the counter case, preventing harm to Mukula, is clearly nil.

If literally anyone in the subsequent debates after your decision had been able to give a specific reason why these reports might be false, other than the entirely unconvincing argument that they are tabloids, I might have reconsidered. But all I have been given by way of justification, is complete and total nonsense.

The latest example is that the presence of Page Three content is somehow relevant to whether or not a report of this nature, in this context, could be false. Or that the fact the false Amanda Knox story was online for two minutes, an admitted mistake, caused by a misunderstanding that misled several newspapers, including presumably some that Wikipedia considers reliable, is somehow pertinent. This sort of utter utter garbage is offensive, reprehensible even, if it is being honestly presented as logical argument. Doubly so given I am the one being told it is I who is being disruptive for pushing back against it.

It has been nothing short of utterly ridiculous, witnessing what morally vacuous judgements and emotional viewpoints underpin people's sheer unwillingness to engage here on the actual facts of the matter. The context and circumstances, as the Wikipedia polices on Verification and Reliable Sources actually require to be considered. And deliberately so, in my view, such is the apparent prejudice here against these newspapers.

This definitely seems like a situation that could very much bring Wikipedia into disrepute, if you can't see your way to a reconsideration. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to request an undeletion of any article that undergoes the Articles for Deletion process via the Deletion Review process found at WP:DELETION REVIEW process. Have a good day. Missvain (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWHQ

Greetings. Question, you closed this as keep, and while the !votes do show that preponderance, all the keep !votes are based on WP:BCAST, which is part of WP:NMEDIA, and never address GNG. WP:SNG says "Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions" Can I ask your thoughts? The reason I'm curious is that other recent SNG's (e.g. NFOOTY, NCRIC) have recently started to be re-evaluated and to no longer trump GNG. Thoughts? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:onel5969 - I trust User:Superastig's take on this one, as stated on the closure. Wikipedia:Notability (media) is used as further guidance. I don't really have any intense thoughts about this. I use WP:NARTIST, for example, to garner inclusion regarding the significance of a subject in the arts. I'd perhaps discuss is on the talk page for Notability (media)? Or perhaps you can propose a redirect to Hypersonic Broadcasting Center#FM stations as presented by User:Mrschimpf? You can always renominate for AfD and provide further rationale for deletion, or, people will keep using WP:BCAST, most likely, as a rationale for keep. You can always present an arguement as to why WP:BCAST should not be used. But, as a reviewer it's not necessarily my job to do the due diligence in sourcing - people need to present the case to us reviewers, and the only case presented was one for redirect and people who regularly edit radio station articles supporting User:Superastig's proposal with !keeps. I'm also tagging User:SBKSPP, User:Tdl1060, and User:Neutralhomer - they were all involved in the AfD and are all active editors regarding radio stations. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation. Onel5969 TT me 00:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
After how the AfD devolved, I am not going to get much into this. But the AfD, which became about the notability of NMEDIA itself at the end, was a Keep. That "Keep" gave NMEDIA (or BCAST) renewed precedence-setting consensus, more than it already had. NMEDIA has never been used as a "trump" of GNG, but as a recommendation. We have also used BCASTOUTCOMES in conjuction with NMEDIA/BCAST. Both of these are used within N and GNG and in conjuction with.
I will repeat again, neither NMEDIA/BCAST nor BCASTOUTCOMES have ever been used to "trump" GNG. They are used as a recommendation for how N and GNG should be used and have been used for the past 15+ years. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted, One15969 is keeping logs for their CSDs, PRODs, and XfDs. This appears, to me at least, to be a numbers game to them. As in how many deletions they can get. Their contribs are just solid deletion requests and bugging editors when they don't get their way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Neutralhomer's statement is spot on. SNGs generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic and serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Therefore, SNGs can be (and still be) used as recommendations of GNG. Anyone can use either GNG or SNG as a rationale for any article to be kept. I honestly see nothing wrong with using a certain SNG, especially WP:BCAST/WP:BCASTOUTCOMES in this case. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess the reason I argue RD's with most of these Filipino radio articles is because most of them repeat Metro Manila networks and it's just easier to maintain it in a list, along with a lot of 'station fans' trying to one-up each other on those articles (I've tried to enforce a 'repeats of old shows don't belong here' policy in the 'years in Filipino television' articles', to little success). But as long as the relevant sources can be found, I generally find the stations individually meet N per BROADCAST, and I do respect the consensus otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

UY SCUTI Olamide Album

Hi — as the closer of the AfD on UY SCUTI Olamide Album (under its old, slightly different name), I thought you might want to know that the article has just been moved from drafts back into mainspace. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/39th Young Artist Awards

Hi, am considering a deletion review of this close. Can you please explain how WP:Indiscriminate as it is written relates to acting awards which are simple statistics that need no explanation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD Relists

Hi Missvain. I've been closing some AfDs today and, for whatever reason, I noticed that many of the AfDs I was closing had been relisted by you. In some cases, it seemed like the AfD discussion already had strong consensus when you relisted it (like this one or this one), or at least had substantial discussion from multiple editors at the time you relisted it (like this one or this one). My understanding of WP:RELIST is that is intended only for AfDs that have insufficient participation or insufficient policy-based arguments; and that if "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."

I don't think that these relists are particularly harmful (but I also don't think they're particularly helpful either), and I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to close AfDs, but I thought I'd drop you a message and let you know that I found it somewhat strange, and perhaps suggest that you take another read through WP:RELIST to ensure that you're applying that part of deletion policy appropriately.

Thanks for your help with closing AfDs. Cheers! —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Scott Ivie

Hello, Missvain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scott Ivie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and saw that this draft was created in 2015! You can restore it if you'd like to or I can should you want to return to it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hey, I moved back from draft to mainspace an article Max Polyakov who you aproved via AfC in May. Some suspicious (possible SPA account) moved it to draft with lame explanation. To be franks, it's the first time I see such an action. So, I decided to let you know --Asketbouncer (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK nomination of Quesabirria

Hello! Your submission of Quesabirria at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Missvain, you were pinged by the reviewer on this talk page back on May 28, but have yet to respond. If you wish to continue pursuing this nomination, you need to address or respond to the issues raised. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Marcia Pally

Missvain, You may wish to look at current discussion and editing war in regard to Pally's German Wikipedia entry. It may shed some light on the decision to delete her Englisch Wikipedia page -- particularly the comments and attempts to edit by Aaabbbyyyzzz who instigated the deletion on the English Page. I think respectfully that it may cast light on the deletion decision and cause reason to reconsider.Dreifoos (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Secretlab

Hi, notice that you were the closing admin for the Secretlab AfD. I have since recreated the page, after assessing that it was deleted for overt promo violations (I have no access to the deleted revs though), with no prejudice to a proper recreation (as I hope I've done), but a trigger-happy new page reviewer tagged it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was deleted before. I just want to make sure that I understand the AfD correctly because I'm 99%sure that the subject in itself is notable. Kinda annoys me when people just slap boilerplate speedy tags without looking twice (e.g. Claiming that the recreated article doesn't differ much from what was deleted!!!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A total misuse of G4 IMO. Guy should be trouted, I hope. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Missvain:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

This Month in GLAM: June 2021



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Arash Mardani

Dear User:Missvain, I want recreate Arash Mardani page that you previously deleted. Unfortunately I don't have access to see the reason for deletion. If you allow me, I'll rewrite this article because of the notability. Sincerely MMA Kid (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rumba Kings

Dear User:Missvain I have updated the page for The Rumba Kings and added another recent source of information. Please re-review and kindly approve if acceptable. This is notable group because it features co-founder Johnny Bacolas, who has been in 3 musical groups that appear on wikipedia. Thank you kindly.

Christian nanetti

Why did you delete that page. He is a footballer who played for Cork City, a top level football team, and thus meets the guidelines for inclusion as noteable.

Denial of Penn State Dance Marathon article

Regarding your denial of this article: User_talk:Hoyadonis#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Penn_State_Dance_Marathon_(December_11)

I have two questions:

1. How does Penn State's THON not merit its own article while Northwestern University Dance Marathon and Indiana University Dance Marathon have their own separate ones despite being significantly smaller and less notable events? (As seen in the the links on the article for dance marathon)

2. Does this not go against WP:Parallel histories? I'll defer to user:JJMC89's comment in this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth/2019_Sep_17#Penn_State_Dance_Marathon

(apologies for pasting URLs; I'm unsure of how to properly format them.)

Hoyadonis (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoyadonis - I don't really have much capacity to break all this down right now (as you can see by the header on my talk page, I have a lot of personal stuff going on and nothing on Wikipedia can compete with it ). But, I suggest just resubmitting it if you wish to have another editor review it. Also, please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Missvain. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Quesabirria.
Message added 11:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your hardworks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamarack Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cardinal Newman High School logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cardinal Newman High School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Beckwourth Complex Fire.

Thank you for your work on the Beckwourth Comex Fire article.

The naming system was correct, complex fires are referred to in the singular, with the word "fire" capitalized.

And should you decide to rename articles in the future, please use the move option, not a redirect.

Thank you. Crescent77 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Crescent77. I actually work in the wildfire field and confirmed the name of this specific complex through the United States Forest Service. You're welcome to discuss this on the talk page of Beckwourth Complex fires. It also aligns with the Wikipedia naming conventions for LNU Lightning Complex fires, SQF Lightning Complex fires, among others. Also, please do not revert a redirect by a fellow user without discussion like that. Not only did you revert it, you brought back the entire article that was at "Beckwourth Complex Fire" which now results in us having two articles. Again, please bring up concerns with naming conventions on the talk page. I am going to revert your changes, based on Wikipedia best practices. Thanks for your contributions. Missvain (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, please remember to use edit summaries. You failed to do so on your edits on the Beckwourth articles and that doesn't align with best practices and requires your fellow editors to review your edits one-by-one. You can read more about edit summaries here. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no.

You're way off base here. I also work in the "wildfire field". But that doesn't matter here, what does is the sourcing, which clearly indicates "Beckwourth Complex Fire" is the approproate naming convention. There's plenty of discussions out there about that, please take a look.

You were the one who started a second page, and then copypasted and added a redirect, all of which makes for an editing mess. That was not my doing, you need to go back and look at what you did.

TBH, your editing was rather erratic, and not to be rude, you might need to slow down and reconsider your work. There's some serious problems with what you did. 


Crescent77 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McFarland Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burns.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2021



Headlines
  • Albania report: Collaboration with the New Vision Organization in Tirana; Summer of Wikivoyage Campaign 2021
  • Australia report: Representation and erasure: opportunities and risks that Wikipedia presents for First Nations knowledges
  • Brazil report: A wikicontest to celebrate and make visible the state of Bahia
  • India report: Rabimas proofread contest ends on Bengali Wikisource
  • New Zealand report: New Zealand holds its second Wikimedia conference, and a performing arts Wikiproject gathers steam
  • Serbia report: New chances for GLAM success
  • Sweden report: Photos of Childrens theatre
  • UK report: A Thousand Images of Islam, British Library Updates
  • USA report: Smithsonian Wiki Focus: Black Women in Food History; San Diego 73; Black Lunch Table Black artists
  • WMF GLAM report: A conversation about depicts and Structured Data on Commons
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Deleted article

Hello, Missvain! A few months ago, I wrote an article about a journalist which was deleted by an RfC which you closed. Since then, I've noticed several more pieces of RS coverage which I think would push him over the threshold of notability. I have created an updated version of the article in my sandbox, which I think certainly meets the GNG. I don't want to just go ahead an recreate the page without checking in after it was deleted, but could I have permission to publish the content in my sandbox and bring the article back with its new sources? Thanks, Mover of molehills (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Mover of molehills. You're totally welcome to post whatever you want in your sandbox! If you think it passes general notability guidelines feel free to publish. Missvain (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

WHY WOULD U DELETE MY ARTICLE

???? why did u delete my yungeen ace article. Lbj23goat (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yungeen Ace. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker) Maybe yungeen ace can come back into Wikipedia when there are more sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain/Archive_54&oldid=1187161479"