User talk:RoySmith/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Deletion reasons

Hi Roy. I'm not going to dispute your close, if that's how you read the consensus, then that's fine - thanks for taking the time to do so. You did mention though that you found the statement I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia puzzling. Well, that's fairly simple. I do not see how this topic can possibly be written from a neutral point of view, every part of it from the title to the structure is built to create a bias. Every part of the uprising may be notable, but to focus on one part in isolation will cause an irreparable POV fork. I'm surprised as someone who's experienced on Wikipedia, you don't see that as a plausible deletion reason. There are others clear deletion reasons which are aside from notability, from copyright violations to BLP violations - admittedly this doesn't fall under those, but notability is definitely not the be all and end all, just the most common reason for deletion. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain. I've struck that comment; it really wasn't necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, should have mentioned that! I hope you are less puzzled by the comment in any case. Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm YourAuntEggma. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of The Sword of Truth characters, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. YourAuntEggma (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply to message regarding review

It was an automated edit sent because I unreviewed your page. The Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol allows users to patrol pages for errors. After reviewing a page, the page is marked as reviewed so that others patrolling don't re-review it. However, I had to leave and didn't get the time to review the page and thus marked it as unreviewed. It's nothing bad, I just ran out of time. (The New Page Patrol is meant to patrol new pages, and I didn't realise until now that your page was not new. I accidentally clicked "oldest" on Special:New Pages.) (YourAuntEggma (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC))

Taylor Lianne Chandler DRV

Taylor Lianne Chandler needs to be re-deleted to complete your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Taylor Lianne Chandler (closed). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the civil, non-accusatory close regarding list of Clinton controversies. I thought that the WP:LISTN argument was very strong in view of the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources, but evidently that view did not prevail.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Further praise for the thoughtful and well-written close on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_controversies
Yellowdesk (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the encouraging words. I've always found closing list AfDs more difficult than for articles. For articles, the inclusion criteria seem much more bright-line (either we have sources or we don't). For lists, it's more of a judgement call on the part of the AfD participants, which means it's more difficult for me to assess which arguments should carry the most weight. Glad I did OK in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Unprotect and then Stop Vandalizing My Talk Page

I was going to politely ask you to stop vandalizing my talk page, but it appears to be protected. As my page 1) formed a record of why I left Wikipedia, 2) formed a record of an overt violation of Wikipedia's spirit and procedures, and 3) preserved said railroading in an attempt to illegitimately squelch a minority viewpoint, it meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in a talk page and meets no relevant criteria for removal. Please explain yourself.

I'd really rather not have to appeal this matter to adjudication. And I really didn't think I'd have to start taking this to the media. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I protected your user page only to the extent that IP editors can't edit it, because some IP editor put back the material I deleted. I am assuming in good faith that you were not that IP editor. Any logged-in editor (including yourself) should still be able to edit it. But, as I said in my AfD close, using your user page to keep copies of articles from mainspace is a violation of wikipedia policies, including WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE. Our goal is neither to endorse or squelch minority viewpoints. We are an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. I would suggest you read WP:HERE. If you believe I have acted incorrectly, by all means, please ask for a review of my actions. Oh, I see you already have. I will respond further on that page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That was me on my phone. I apologize for misunderstanding what you did. It locked me out of reverting the last two points of vandalism, so I thought your lockout was broader. I retained the article simply as part of a broader narrative of what I felt was - hopefully just through groupthink - the overt suppression of a minority viewpoint sourced reputably (and well). I want people to make up their own minds on that. I don't think the original article is great and I never cared as much about the info personally as about opening up that space on wikipedia. My understanding (from Wiki's page on User Pages) is that's actually a core purpose of user pages.

While "Userspace is also not a substitute for project space" - as I've noted... this isn't a project space, it's a record of an attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint... Additionally, user pages are expressly allowed as proto-collaborative pages that - if it "becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, [might be] consider[ed] [for a] mov[e] [] into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there." I accepted that the article would be deleted. Could you possibly articulate simply the legitimate reasons - in league with Wiki's policies for inclusion and deletion of an article - that allowed you to do so? I'm not challenging you, I've just never gotten a reasonable articulation of why the original section was excluded, why the page was targeted immediately, and now why it's been deleted. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Help... My User Page has been Vandalized and Protected by an Overzealous Editor". Thank you.. Since the topic started did not notify you I am per the requirements. --Majora (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was also going to post this link. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Pimenova

You choice of words in closing that discussion were helpful and succinct. Good job. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No way. The delete-sayers refused to explain their point of view and you, RoySmith, didn't either. I think some people are just jealous of her popularity. Lyrda (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

HI, Lydra. As the person who closed the discussion, I don't actually have a point of view. My job is to summarize comments made by other people. I think I explained why I I closed the discussion the way I did, but if there's anything you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain it to you. In the case of your comments, I did mention that you are a WP:SPA, which means a single-purpose account, i.e. a new account which appears to have been created with a specific purpose in mind. You've only been on the site for a couple of weeks, and all of your edits have been related to this article. Your comments are still welcome, and I considered them when writing my close, but there is generally an assumption that new users, especially those who have limited their activities to a single article, do not have as good an understanding of our policies as people who have been around longer. Thus, it is common to give their arguments less weight in these discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So you deleted her article because I am new? That is weird. You should look at the arguments, and the delete-sayers didn't have any. Lyrda (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment, Lyrda (talk I couldn't help notice your comment directly above mine, don't take it personally you would be surprised how few useres on here call the shots I spoke to one person who knew just about all the users that were helping ppl on the chat room. Best thing is to be persistent keep asking questions be nice and its hard but eventually one user will tell you exactly what you need to do to acoplish your talk as has happened with me. Cheers! (Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC))

Terry Lim make draft

I noticed the discussion for deletion turned into a Pack mentality... Please Make draft as this article's subject is indeed notable, one of the most famous martial artists in Australia he is over 70 years old with 3000 student under him. More sources will be found from print editions over the past 30 years https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_Lim (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC))

Done. The page is now at Draft:Terry Lim, where you can continue to improve it. But, please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, and our policies on what makes a reliable source. Arguing why he is notable by quoting statistics isn't going to get you very far. What will convince people is adding good sources to the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I know what I need to do now to establish the credibility of The Latin Australia Times national print edition newspaper thank to a person in the chatroom (Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC))

Userfying template

Hi so I'm finally back to retrieve Template:Pro gamer achievements, which was deleted through and afd and had a DrV here--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies for not responding sooner. I'm OK with restoring the template, but as I mentioned in the DRV, I'm not up on all the technical details of how templates work. I'll see if I can find somebody better equipped to do this right. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made a request on ANI on your behalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Power Rangers AN/I

Hi Roy! As you suggested (and probably expected), the user you speedy closed at WP:DRV has now raised the issue at WP:ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Power Rangers Ninja Steel. KaisaL (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the note. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Smiley Company

Roy,

Hello. I'm interested in learning more about the rationale behind the deletion of The Smiley Company pages as well as the page of Nicholas Loufrani. I'm a fan of Smiley and it was unfortunate for me to see that their page was deleted. Perhaps I can help you curate a page so the Smiley Company has a presence on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Corey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgsailor94 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corey, I'm not following you. I don't see that we ever had an article called The Smiley Company. And, while we don't have an article on Nicolas Loufrani, we do have Franklin Loufrani. Do you have some reason to believe those other articles existed at one time? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed there was an article called The Smiley Company, which was shut down. Can we discuss more why Nicolas Loufrani doesn't have his own page? In conjunction with the Smiley Company along with Franklin Loufrani, I believe Nicolas also deserves his own page as the company CEO:

Nicolas Loufrani is a notable person and worthy of a Wikipedia page in his own right. In 1997 Nicolas was responsible for digitalising Smileys and played a role in the creation of emojis and emoticons as we know them today. Loufrani recognized the growth in use of ascii emoticons within mobile technology and he started experimenting with animated Smiley faces, with the intention of creating colourful icons that corresponded to the pre-existing ascii emoticons made of plain punctuation marks, to enhance them for a more interactive use in digital. From this Loufrani compiled an online Emoticon Dictionary and these designs were first registered in 1997 at The United States Copyright Office and then these icons were posted as .gif files on the Web in 1998, becoming the first ever graphical emoticons used in technology.‪

In 2000 the Emoticon Directory created by Loufrani was made available for users to download for cellular phones on the internet through smileydictionary.com which compiled over 1000 smiley graphic emoticons and their ascii versions. This same directory was then published in 2002 in a book by Marabout called Dico Smileys.‪

In 2001 the Smiley company Smiley Company started licensing the rights for graphic emoticons to be used for cellular phone emoticon downloads by a variety of different telecommunication companies including Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, SFR (vodaphone) and Sky Telemedia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd1hOtxEIVs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgsailor94 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I'm not sure what I was looking at before, but now that I look again, I see that we did indeed once have an entry for The Smiley Company, which just redirected to Nicolas Loufrani. That article, in turn, was deleted about six months ago as a result of a discussion which I see I closed. I see that this was actually the second time it was deleted; there was another deletion about five years ago. My take on the later discussion is that it might be possible to write a good article about The Smiley Company, but you would have to address the concerns raised in the two AfD's I've cited above. If you want to try to write such an article, my recommendation is to start at Draft:The Smiley Company, and if you have any questions, ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Some good policy pages to read first would be WP:NPOV, WP:CORP, and WP:RS, to get an idea of what we're looking for in a new article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FREAKAZOiD DRV

Hi Roy, could you clarify how that one was a snow endorse? I'd say it was down the middle at the moment. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was a total accident, thanks for catching it. I think what happened was I closed Enactus, but somehow the automation script got confused and closed both of them at the same time. I've backed that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd figured it was something like that. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture

Hi - you closed this AfD as delete but didn't delete the page. Just a heads up. Cheers, ansh666 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed. There's an automation script which is supposed to do that for you. I did notice when I closed the AfD that an error message came up, but it only said "http", so I had no clue what it was. I guess now I know :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Patrik Macej

Hello, Please can you undelete please article about Czech footballer Patrik Macej, He made his professional debut yesterday, against AS Trenčín. source: [1], thanks in advance IQual(talk) 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 17 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Tracie McBride

As a result of the DRV I wrote a draft article here: User:WhisperToMe/Murder of Tracie McBride . In response to the objection that there were no significant sources published after 2003 I found that there was a 2006 article from a Minnesota newspaper comparing the McBride case to the Dru Sjodin case.

Anyhow should all participants from the DRV be notified, or only those who objected to the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the DRV close I wrote on the subject, I'd say just be WP:Bold, move the article to mainspace, and see what happens. I took a quick look at your userspace draft. I don't want to make any promises, but my initial impression is that it seems like a reasonable article with appropriate sources. In wikipedia, as in life, there's no hard and fast rules, but pinging all the DRV participants seems like a good thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok! I went ahead and moved it into the mainspace and pinged everyone here Talk:Murder of Tracie McBride WhisperToMe (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting restoration of fighting game community

It has been written about in several books. Also, if I were to restore it immediately, would it get WP:G4 speedied?--Prisencolin (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is to ping the participants in the original AfD and see what they think of your sources.

Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh

Hi, I would be happy if you would draftify this one in my space. I will add my other book citations and resubmit it at some later date. And thanks for that extra kindness in your close statement as the sword fell. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this to Draft:Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh (indulge me, I'm not a fan of user space for things like this). Please understand that this is not a promise that it'll get moved back to mainspace at some point. To get that to happen, you will need to find sufficient sources to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding FREAKAZOiD and Fighting game community

Roy, I actually came across the article FREAKAZOiD because of Evo Championship Series. The person is clearly notable, sources have been provided and were overlooked in the last discussions. I am a bit disappointed at how you handled the DRV in process, accusing me of wasting time. Do you see any guideline violating issues with the article? Did you review the sources I provided? We had a long history you should know that I use discretion. Please do let me know if you see any issues with restoring the contents of this page to mainspace. Based on my knowledge of this encyclopedia I think it is undisputed that this person is notable and the article acceptable in its current state.

Also as per WP:AGF, it should reasonable for any editor in good standing to request userfication, the fighting game community is a notable cohesive group often referred to as "FGC". I do not see any reason to not userfy it for Pris since you are the deleting administrator. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you are disappointed. Two DRVs in two weeks is clearly wasting time. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the outcome is incorrect, and I've highlighted sources which support my argument (that it is notable and should not be deleted) how is that wasting time? Also please userfy "Fighting game community". Here are the sources Destructiod, Paste Magazine, Red Bull and another Red Bull article. These sources reference the FGC as a cohesive whole. I understand that based on the discussion deletion was the only option, but going forward I am confident that with widespread participation both topics will pass AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Roy userfy the page please. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please find somebody else to do it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As the deleting admin you must provide me a reason since I provided you sources demonstrating notability. As per WP:AGF you must provide an editor in good standing with a userfied copy since you are the deleting administration unless you have good reason to deny the request. I've been around long enough please be respectful. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If you believe I'm acting improperly, please take it to WP:ANI -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Any reason why you'd prefer ANI over a simple userfication? You once told me you believed adminship as a mop and don't feel strongly about procedure, what caused the change? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Manipal Racing

I came across a speedy for this from the creator but that seems to be in conflict with your close. I'm just going to decline the speedy and redirect it for now, but figured I'd let you know if you wish to update your close and/or enforce the merge. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzanne S. Welsh

... is baaack! :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what the heck. And since when to non-admins get to decline G4? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I will attempt to revert, and we'll see what happens. Along the same lines, Frank S. Welsh (son) may also need attention, as the same editor is working on both articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

.@Lemongirl942: ... and I was immediately reverted. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I just reverted once now and left a note in the edit summary asking an admin to decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sigh. @Zpeopleheart: When I moved this to draft space, I explicitly said, you will need to find sufficient sources to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh. That has not happened. There was some text added, and a single source, to an obscure biographical encyclopedia of local scope. That's not even close to addressing the AfD complaints. I'm going out on a limb here by moving this back to draft space again (as opposed to just letting the WP:CSD request be executed). Before making an attempt to put this back into mainspace, please go back and re-read the AfD, so you understand the issues. Also, read WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:GNG to understand what we're looking for. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lower Slobovia

I try to reserve the over-used abbreviation LOL for instances when I genuinely laugh out loud. Your close here is such an instance. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, RoySmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: Such conversations are best handled on-wiki, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello RoySmith, can you send the email back to me? I will copy+paste the content here to avoid any confusion. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikiverse

By wikiverse I mean either to merge within English Wikipedia, or to transwiki into Wiktionary. Point is moot. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DRV

I saw the discussion on reddit about it and created an account to ask for restoration. Isn't the actual issue relevant?

My apologies if I sound hard-nosed about this, but reviews of userspace drafts have a long history at DRV, and the XfD in question here was really open-and-shut. Not to mention that, I came here to start a DRV because I read about it on reddit, just isn't a valid reason to drag people through a week-long battle about something that's been discussed ad-nauseum already. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Why have you deleted the article Filip Bandžak because the discussion has not finished? I know that the articles can be restored and I want to expand it with the requested secondary sources (reviews and recordings. What is the procedure to restore an article?Borgatya (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filip Bandžak had been open for 25 days. That's about three times longer than these discussions usually take. I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Filip Bandžak. You can work on it there. But, please, read the AfD carefully so you understand the objections people raised. The sources you add will need to address those concerns before it can be moved back into mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete We... Our War's page?

They were happy with it. So, please bring it back. OK? -VinMannie

The AfD was unanimous. I'm not sure there's anything I can do here. Also, I'm wondering who you mean by "They were happy with it"? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean the band was happy with it. And, my tablet died, so I couldn't edit it. -VinMannie

That's what I suspected. Since you appear to have some connection with the band, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user previously informally stated [2] that he or she is a paid editor on this article, and was asked to read and follow WP:PAID on 13 August, and again today. Meters (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of Carrie Morgridge

It's pretty clear to me that the other four "contributors" who chose Delete on this subject didn't do any work whatsoever -- rather, they probably looked at the latest version (which was in sorry shape with shoddy references as often happens), decided after a quick perusal that they didn't like this person, and presto -- voted delete. None of their comments suggested that they had done any real investigating. When I checked, I found plenty of sources. One contributor who looked over my sources decided they weren't "substantial" or "trivial" without making much of an argument about why. On this basis, you deleted the article. Isn't the job of a closing admin to evaluate the quality of the arguments? Do you really think you made the right decision here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say here. This didn't seem like a complicated discussion to close, and you're essentially arguing that everybody else is wrong. @K.e.coffman: @SwisterTwister: @Kierzek: @Johnpacklambert: @DGG: pinging the participants in the AfD, who may have some other suggestions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that the nominator and the four 'delete' votes did not seem to do any real work here in terms of investigating. If I am wrong with my keep vote, please say why. And how about pinging Moonriddengirl and E.M.Gregory and postdlf and Jaaron95 who voted Keep on the previous AfD discussion? To me, it's a no-brainer that Carrie Morgridge belongs in Wikipedia because of a plethora of solid sources, so when a subject like this gets deleted, maybe rules like the WP:GNG no longer apply.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: @E.M.Gregory: @Postdlf: @Jaaron95: pinging additional people, per request, but to be honest, you haven't given me anything to go on beyond asserting that you were right and everybody else was wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer. Just as we make the rules, we can interpret them however the consensus wishes, and we can on a case-by-case basis make whatever exception to any rule for which there is consensus.-- see WP:COI This applies even to most policy, but GNG is not even policy: it is one part of WP:N, and WP:N is only a guideline. The actual policy standing behind it is WP:NOT--and we can even make excepts even to things specifically mentioned there.

And even the statement of GNG says specifically that passing it does not guarantee an article. More specifically, the provision in the GNG requiring substantial sources has some key words, "substantial", "reliable" "independent", all of which need interpretation, and most AfDs are disputes about those interpretations. The only effective meaning of them in any given case is what the consensus thinks it is. The WP decision making process is very far from ensuring consistency. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• reopen Note that this article was closed as keep in an AFD that ran just a year ago. And that Nom failed to mention that it was keep when bringing it back to AFD, Not only is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but bringing an article back to AFD that fast ought to have taken some pretty strong reason to overturn the previous keep. Last year, I preferred, redirect, but I can see that in the intervening year major new sources have appeared. Moreover, this very brief discussion does not appear to have been listed in any topicical lists of AFDs. And then there is the problem that the discussion lasted only a week included editors (SwisterTwister) who are notorious for aggressively careless iVoting. This really does need to be reopened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment -- my suggestion to the OP would be to try to establish whether Morgridge Family Foundation is a notable entity. All the coverage that I saw of Ms Morgridge was related to the foundation; and she did not appear to me to have individual notability. If the foundation is determined to be notable, then Ms Morgridge and her work could be discussed there. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman, that is an opinion, not a policy-based standard. The standard is the existence of substantive, secondary sources. My opinion that Todd Palin lacks "individual notability" is irrelevant; he has the coverage, so he gets an article. Just as Carrie Morgridge does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me Carrie Morgridge is a subject in her own right when she writes her own book, gets a lion's share of the attention in this Denver Post article. Her philanthropic work is generous, focused and smart, and has a HUGE positive impact. How many other people give away tens of millions of $$$ to worthwhile causes? Here the NY Times posts Carrie's photo, interviews her not her husband, not a foundation spokesperson. In this article, she's (not John) receives an award for her philanthropy. Wikipedia has an article on the Morgridge College of Education. Here's a major article in the NY Times focused on Carrie Morgridge. Another in-depth article here -- she's a biggie in the world of philanthropy -- so for me this deletion makes little sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• OK, thanks everybody for your input. There's enough here to make me think this needs more discussion, and my talk page isn't the best place for that :-) So, I'm going to back out my AfD close and relist it for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I admire open-minded people. I'll accept however this turns out and not write anything more, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for this collegial courtesy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of Natalie Claro

• user: metaphorical analysis I'm not sure if this is the correct action for me. I'm here to ask why was the article Natalie Claro was deleted. It was my understanding that the determination would be based on facts and WP:GNG and not an actual argument, or where the argument comes from. Yes, it is my first article. Not easy to find a subject when Wikipedia is already flooded with articles. I chose a subject that met the criteria. I understand Notability, but I'm confused by the guidelines because I don't see where it indicates a person should be international or national. I also referenced other article similar to the subject I chose and those articles seem to be in place with no issues, so I would never believe my article would be deleted. I'm not taking this personally rather I am just trying to understand the process. Why can some Articles remain with nearly no valid citations, and this one be deleted? I would like to request the article to be reopened with the opportunity for more research and findings to support the article.Metaphorical analysis (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you beyond what people wrote in the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please help me to understand. I followed the guidelines for the article. From what I have read the article met the guidelines. How is this determined by an AFD if the comments made were somewhat based on opinions and assumptions? Not only were the guidelines met, but the number of views the article received each day were quite high for someone they are saying is not notable. I'm just searching for the definite reasoning on your part for deletion based on your own decision and not the comments of others. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't validate the guidelines met. Article was based on two independent sources- Tampa Bay Times (independent story on the subject), Jamsphere International Publication (independent story ok subject) and two mentions. One in a section of the Tampa Bay Times, and another mention in Creative Loafing Newspaper. And notability is proven just by the hits alone received on the page see: Natalie Claro Pageviews Metaphorical analysis (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Our notability rules are all about sources. Pageviews don't even begin to come into it. In fact, after all the years I've been here, I don't even know where to go to find page view statistics; it's just that unimportant. Like I said in the AfD, once I filtered out the comments from people who had obvious WP:COI issues, or were clearly WP:CANVASSed to come here in an effort to sway the outcome, there was not a single person left who was making a credible argument, based on our policies, to keep the article. If you still believe I acted improperly here, your next step would be to ask for a deletion review. You are welcome to do that, but to be honest, I don't think you're going to have any success there. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't think you acted improperly. I just don't understand that the article has proper resources, and I don't see how the discussion took note to that. it leads me to believe much is just based on opinion of the guidelines. Thank you for your time in responding Metaphorical analysis (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mariposa Trust

You closed the del rev on this on the 22nd but the article is still present behind my temp restore. As it was originally my afd that was challenged I do not want to be the one to re-delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore Software Deletion Review

I know this is a controversial matter, but I just find it very unfortunate that so many people seem to be messing with the page. The page has been up on the main space since 2011, so surely there has to be a previous version that it can be restored to rather than deleting this notable company despite COI or SPA's. It was considered notable back in 2011 and now, 2016 there are so many more references about the company including 2 Forbes articles and multiple NY Times articles. I also noticed that the AFc reviewer that initially declined the draft in place has been brought before Administrators Noticeboard WP:AIN. Any way to restore a previous draft in place with a protection? I don't see anyone really working on the draft, everyone just seemed to have a main goal of getting the article deleted. Just wanted to get your thoughts/opinion on next steps. Greatly appreciated. 2601:58B:100:4B0B:54C0:AD46:B84D:BA68 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DataCore Software (Part II: Resurrection). Apparently there is some undisclosed paid editing going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Building consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 1#Semil Shah

This DRV was open for all of five hours, and it is common for editors to wait until toward the end of the seven days to comment.  I see no analysis of strength of argument.  Is vote counting an acceptable process to decide AfDs?  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SNOW for your answer. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no snow here.  As for one of the questions I asked, vote counting is not an acceptable process to decide AfDs.  You have a choice to hat the comment from Drmies and !vote to relist.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take door number three. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA

Hi Roy, I know you already endured a lot, and I appreciate it. But did you read the article? I had to review an awful lot of wikistuff - it was written typically of software programs, and it is fine, references verifiable and so on. Objections are non-sequitur to the article... my favorite being "it is a unexceptional risk approach;" a typical risk approach is a PRA 5x5 risk matrix, nothing like RiskAoA, which required introduction of completely new technology, so this is an incredible statement. Frankly, this all went to pot when it was posted as an alternative in Decision-making, and biogeogaphist went to war. I've otherwise accepted your deletion, but feel free to reconsider. Thanks. GESICC (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, no, I didn't read the article. When closing an AfD, my job is to distill what other people said. Sometimes I read the article in question, sometimes I don't. I only do when it seems like it would help me understand the AfD discussion. In this case, the outcome was clear just from the discussion. BTW, it really helps me when people link to the discussion they're asking about. For my own future reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RiskAoA -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry RiskAoA, but the article was fine on it's own. It is written like other similar articles (like Microsoft Excel or Paxata, not gobblygook, it was reviewed by two technical review boards, etc.. It seems to me, the folks writing their reviews didn't read it. Could you look at the article itself, in light of the objections? Even its references are up to wikistandards. Verifiable and good sources. GESICC (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, like I said above, my role here is not to evaluate the article per-se, but to summarize the discussion. But, for what it's worth, I just took a quick look at the (deleted) article. I found it to be poorly written, and about a topic which is most likely not notable in the sense we use the word. I understand you do not agree with the outcome of this AfD, but I'm afraid at this point I've put as much time in this as I am willing to invest. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. GESICC (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Lloyd Greif

Good grief! Why did you close this when User:Coolabahapple just notified WikiProject Finance? Also, why not even move it to userspace? Is it all GONE forever? Way to go to discourage me from editing.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding the discussion being closed following the notification of WikiProject Finance, see my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Greif. Graham (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me, Graham.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your long-time habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of harassment. As Roy wrote at the end of his closing statement, "And please don't confuse editorial review with harassment." Graham (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop watching my contributions and replying to every single message I write on Wikipedia. You have been doing this since you found me on a Hillary Clinton-related talkpage. Please stop. This is RoySmith's talkpage, not yours. Please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the original question, I closed it because it had been open for more than two weeks, had received plenty of comments, and was on the list of AfDs that needed closing. As for the rest, if you two guys want to fight with each other, could you please do it somewhere else? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have zero interest in talking to Graham and I wonder if his comments at the AFD convinced you to close it and delete the article? He has been watching my contributions and replying to every single message I write on Wikipedia ever since he found me on a Hillary Clinton-related article. That explains my "combative style" by the way; I felt harassed. I currently don't feel welcome or valued for my work on Wikipedia, as you can see on my userpage. Are you able to un-close the AFD to let editors from WikiProject Finance look at it please? It seems bizarre that you closed it only two hours after User:Coolabahapple had asked them to look at it. Apparently, User:Edwardx also wanted to add more on his support for Keep.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Reading your argument for closing it, I should note that it's not about how much money Greif has personally, but about the volume of his mergers (from hundreds of millions to a whole billion!). I also fear that User:Isaidnoway's recent comment did not get a real listen.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been around a long time. I'm sure by now you understand that notability arguments are won and lost not by citing the things people do, but by citing the secondary sources which are writing about them. If you really believe I made an error, I encourage you to request a deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have to. But isn't there an easier way to deal with this? You are turning Wikipedia into a very unpleasant experience. I don't understand why you were so radical when the consensus oscillated between "Close as no consensus" or "move to user space". Also why you totally ignored User:Coolabahapple.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.". Please let me know first.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do appreciate that you contacted me first. I'm not sure, however, what I can clarify beyond what I've already said. You asked me why I closed this two hours after this was posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople. I answered that above, and Graham11 also explained that quite well here. At this point, I've explained everything that can be explained. I understand your concerns, but I stand by my close. If you are unwilling to accept that, there's nothing more I can do here and you really should take it to WP:DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you friends with Graham off Wikipedia? I guess I should've mentioned on the AFD page that he was following me from a Hillary Clinton-related article.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will request a move to userspace, as there were five keeps and three userfys. Then I will wait until we come up with SNG guidelines for businesspeople, and I will give WP Finance editors a chance to look at it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is how a deletion review gets done. Sorry the rules are unclear. Since you are an administrator and you are putting me through this, can you please do it? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't quite get the details right, but I fixed it up for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. This may be an opportunity to rephrase the guidelines. I can't be the only one who doesn't get it. Although admittedly, I am emotional because of this horrible mess right now.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the instructions for opening a DRV are complicated and confusing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not showing up there? Do we have to wait?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it takes a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for moving it to userspace. Did you see that Piotrus nominated Harvey Silbert for AFD just after I'd asked him to leave me alone, and I had to move it to userspace, too? Just to be safe, I moved Louis M. Rabinowitz to userspace, too. However, it is not my goal to only create articles in userspace. I don't want to be in userspace "jail" for the crime of creating referenced articles about prominent Jews.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Side to Side (song)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Side to Side (song). 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. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to wikify New York City FC Academy to userspace

Hi Roy. I noticed that you deleted New York City FC Academy today. I personally object to the deletion, but I am experienced enough here to know that when an article is on shaky grounds regarding notability then the deletionist agenda pretty much always wins, so I won't try to fight the decision as I know I won't succeed. (No offence intended in that remark, by the way - I am aware of how hard it is to read emotion over the internet. That is not a jibe at yourself, it's just my pessimism after seeing many articles I've been involved in deleted when I believed they should've remained).

However, I would like to ask if you could kindly wikify the old article onto a user subspace page of mine so that I can keep what existed and perhaps in future attempt to integrate bits of it into another article in order to preserve the effect, if not the independent article? Falastur2 ^Talk 22:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Page is at User:Falastur2/New York City FC Academy. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New York City FC Academy

As the closer of the AfD, do you have any objection to redirecting New York City FC Academy to the New York City FC main article? It's a plausible search term even if it's not notable and the Academy is mentioned there. Smartyllama (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't actually the consensus, but it seems reasonable. If you could ping all the other AfD participants and there's no objection to the redirect, I'll be happy to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of taking this AfD to deletion review. SanAnMan nominated the articles about seven MLS-affiliated development clubs for deletion, and five of them were kept. In every case, he misstated that the professional club in question was a "youth league", so the initial argument for all of his AfDs were incorrect. The two that were deleted are outliers and in the process of writing this note I've become more convinced that they ought to go to WP:DRV. Any objection, Roy? A Train^talk 07:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel is best. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I also feel this should go to DRV. If @A Train: decides not to do so, I'll do it myself, though as he proposed it, I'll give him a chance to do so if he wants to. There's absolutely no reason why five academies are notable and the other two aren't. The seven should have had the same ruling, whatever that is, and in my opinion that should have been keep. In any case, the nominator was clearly erroneous. Smartyllama (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that consistency is a good thing. But, I try to stay as neutral as possible when closing AfDs, so I don't think it's my place to inject that into the closing decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Review request

Hi there!

Could you please review Shehan Madushanka ? Will be highly obligded to you Bindubimala (talk) Bindubimala (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What is it that you'd like me to review about it? I don't really know much about Cricket. I kind of enjoy watching the game, but I can't actually say I understand most of what's going on :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Gall

Could you restore Mickey Gall at Draft:Mickey Gall for me to work on it? Thanks in advance. Feedback 17:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

As Micky Gall handily defeated CM Punk https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/CM_Punk I think it's a good idea to restore the page. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/UFC_203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddraig64 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Hey there,

Just a ping as the most recent deleting admin. Filthy Frank, deleted via AfD, has been recreated at George Miller (entertainer). I can't see the original, of course, but it looks like more or less the same thing. Got a few people removing the CSD. Will send back to AfD if necessary, but figured it might be a straightforward CSD. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I took a look at the deleted version. They are certainly about related topics, but they are not sufficiently identical to invoke WP:G4. So, AfD would seem to be your best bet. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I could've sworn the original deleted version was more like the current version than that one you linked, which was added after it was deleted. It's possible some additional sources were added, but they're the same ones that were available at the last AfD, almost entirely about the Harlem Shake (hence it being closed as a redirect there, where he's already mentioned). Given the notability claims, sourcing, etc. is all the same as it was when it was deleted, I'm not sure what the key difference is that moves it outside of G4 territory. I.e. if it's deleted via AfD again and another version is created at Joji (entertainer) or somesuch, reworded and with a couple more sources about the Harlem Shake, would we need to go to AfD a third time? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just dug a little deeper and got back to a version of 23:59, 21 July 2016, which was immediately prior to the last AfD deletion. Again, similar, but not so sufficiently identical that I would feel comfortable imposing WP:G4. I'm kind of a hard-liner when it comes to WP:CSD. You're welcome to look for another admin who may not have as strict an interpretation as I do. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the Subpopulation_Algorithm_based_on_Novelty

The page is https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Subpopulation_Algorithm_based_on_Novelty I would like to understand the reason of the deletion once the talk page was arguably justifying the inclusion (pointing out the importance as well as impact). However, it seems the page was deleted yesterday. As I mentioned in the talk page, the article is a brief overview of something published in the well established and widely recognized journal Evolutionary Computation MIT.

@Swarmcode: thanks for your note. The article was deleted because it didn't meet our notability requirements, which say that a topic needs to have attracted coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Please note that we use the word notable in a very specific way, which is somewhat different from the meaning of the term in common discourse. So, it's worth reading WP:N link above. That being said, this particular AfD discussion didn't attract much discussion, so when I closed it, I used the WP:SOFTDELETE mechanism. That basically means that if anybody objects, the deletion can be undone. Since you've objected, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'll undelete the article, and relist the discussion for another week. I would suggest you join that discussion and make your case there. But, please be aware that this is no guarantee that the results will be different. You still need to convince people that the article meets our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)