User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Zinaida Greceanîi

Hi, what was wrong with my edit or at least what was the reason for removing it?--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kotys ek Beos: There needs to be a better, more reliable source for the claim than an hour long Youtube video in a foreign language Snickers2686 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I've seen many youtube videos as sources on Wikipedia pages. I don't get what's the issue with foreign language, it's impossible to get any footage of her speaking in English. The editors who are interested in that page will surely understand it and after all it was nothing controversial...--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kotys ek Beos: Just because a Youtube video is used doesn't mean it's being used properly. And unless they can point a secondary reliable source or verify that they the video they used doesn't cause a copyright violation, then it should and will likely be removed.

Per WP:VIDEOREF: "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder."

Secondly, regarding your claim that "The editors who are interested in that page will surely understand it", you have to appeal to a broader audience within any article. Whether you talk as an editor or as a reader, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform others, so you have to assume that those who may be reading it may very well not know anything about said topic so to cite a video that can't be verified through the normal processes makes it extremely difficult to maintain the validity of the claim. See WP:POPE and WP:NOTBLUE. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• The sources is reliable: Zinaida Greceanîi is the one in the interview given as source.
• There is no copyright issues. The video was posted on youtube by TV8 (a tv channel from Moldova) and the interview is given to TV8.
• And about the "people don't understand the language" claim, like 90% of the sources on topics related to Moldova are either in Romanian or Russian. The English media rarely reports on it and there's nothing we can do about it. The readers on such topics are probably mostly people who speak Romanian or Russian too. There wasn't even something controversial.

I think the removal was unjustified, but honestly it's not worth the effort.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kotys ek Beos: You asked for an explanation as to why your edit was reverted and I'm giving you an explanation based on Wikipedia policy, so please don't be dismissive. I'm not saying there can't be foreign sources, what I'm saying is the LANGUAGE has to be cited if it is a foreign source. And in order for it to be verified as a reliable source it has to be easily relatable to a broad audience. When working on the English Wikipedia, as all of the article is in English, it's understood that most sources should be in English or at least translated into English. Citing an hour long video as a source with no definitive time marks is not considered reliable. If you can find another source for the same claim beyond just a Youtube video, then I'm sure it'll be more widely accepted. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: United States Attorneys appointed by Joe Biden has been accepted

United States Attorneys appointed by Joe Biden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Anne Witkowsky moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Anne Witkowsky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional biography

Hello,

Is there any reason why you are removing additional biography information from judicial nominees I have inserted? I have included references on all of them. One example is on Jennifer Sung's page. Dequanhargrove (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove: Because the references you're using are from sources that are user-generated content and under WP:UGC that's generally unacceptable. Plus, it looks like the majority of it is lifted word for word which is a copyright violation and against WP:COPYVIO and general practice is to remove such violations without question. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The references come from The Vetting Room website. I do not believe that should be considered as user generated contact nor social media. It is researched with numerous references at the bottom of each article. Also I wrote it in my own words however in order to include the information there will be similar wording. However I referenced the article so it should not be in any violation of policy.

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove:: It is researched with numerous references at the bottom of each article. See? Right there, by your own admission, it's researched by somebody else; therefore it's not original content. Now if you were to use the references vettingroom uses and pull the same information they use, then that's acceptable, but to do a blanket <ref>vettingroom.org</ref> as you do, that's not considered a reliable source and does violate WP:UGC because it's using references from user generated content created by others on a different site. And if you're going to cite cases that she's worked on or represented, then each of those need their own source, not a blanket source for all. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess I am confused because I see the same thing done on numerous other judicial nominees pages & when it’s done by other users I do not see the research deleted.

For example, on the page for Ketanji Brown Jackson the very first reference is from the same Vetting Room page that I reference. So I am trying to understand why it is allowed for some users but not for myself?

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove: No one is singling you out. The difference is that citation is referencing her exact page on that site, not just the site in general. And there are numerous other citations throughout her Wikipedia article that source her DOB, not just vettingroom. No editor on this platform is going to catch every reference to vettingroom, maybe sometimes it's used correctly, maybe sometimes it's not; it doesn't signify any preferential treatment just because sometimes it's left alone and other times not, maybe it just hasn't been caught or crosschecked by an editor. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not state I was being singled out. I stated I am confused as to how so many other articles seem to use the same pages I use & seem to not have their work deleted while my work is deleted. I am trying to understand what the difference is so going forward I can enter the references correctly.

If your saying their errors just haven’t been cross checked while mine seems to always get cross checked then I guess that’s just the luck of the draw on my part. I will try to use more detailed references going forward.

Dequanhargrove (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dequanhargrove:: It all depends on what a user has on their watchlist. In my case, since I created the page Jennifer Sung, I get e-mailed of any changes made to that page as long as I keep that page on my watchlist, so that's how I know. In regards to Vettingroom, you can use it as a general reference for a citation, but in the future, when you're on the website, click on a nominee's specific page, so that way if you do cite that page, it's a little more succinct than just the general <ref>vettingroom.org</ref> but just be careful how you use it and remember to follow the policies I linked for you, cause otherwise you're edits could likely be reverted again. Happy editing! Snickers2686 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful. I will make sure of that in the future. Dequanhargrove (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Snickers2686,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOB / WP:BLP

You've been around way to long to be thinking stuff like this is any way compliant with WP:DOB / WP:BLP. Then you go and add [1]?. Did you read that template you added? Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddst1: So did you remove it from all the foreign language Wikipedias linked in that article as well since they all use the same unsourced date of birth? I mean to be consistent and all... Snickers2686 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Feel free to do so. WP:OSE or WP:AON is no excuse for your nonsense and attempting to use either shows inability to accept responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Future judicial vacancies

Hi there. I see you've reverted my edit again without engaging at the talk page. This is incorrect and rather rude. I think 32/14/18 is the correct position but happy to discuss it. Just reverting without actually checking the sources isn't helping. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewdpcotton:, it's not rude if the information you're relying on is incorrect: Judges taking senior status are:

Court of appeals: 14

• O. Thompson (1st Cir.)
• Floyd (4th Cir)
• O'Malley (Fed. Cir)
• Graber (9th Cir.)
• Berzon (9th Cir.)
• Paez (9th Cir.)
• Fletcher (9th Cir.)
• Tatel (D.C. Cir.)
• Dennis (5th Cir.)
• Donald (6th Cir.)
• McKee (3rd Cir.)
• King (4th Cir.)
• Pooler (2nd Cir.)
• Cabranes (2nd Cir.)

District Courts: 17

• Holmes (W.D. Ark)
• Mosman (D. Ore)
• Nelson (D. Minn)
• Besosa (D.P.R.)
• Vazquez (D.N.M.)
• Gilmore (S.D. Tex)
• Robinson (D. Kan)
• Foote (W.D. La.)
• Phillips (C.D. Cal.)
• Jarvey (S.D. Iowa)
• Nuffer (D. Utah)
• Mendez (E.D. Cal.)
• Freudenthal (D. Wyo.)
• Arguello (D. Colo.)
• Hollander (D. Md.)
• Young (S.D. Ind.)
• Koh (N.D. Cal.)

And Tydingco-Gatewood's term expired in 2006, but that's a territorial (Article IV) court. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. I see it was Bernice Donald you were counting in the 14. Was a little difficult to tell as neither Donald nor Pooler / Cabranes had any sourcing on that page only on the relevant circuit pages.

Your 17 district court vacancies does not include Raymond Alvin Jackson from ED Virginia who is listed as taking senior status on 11/23/2021 on the US Courts future vacancies page so I suspect that is the discrepancy. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewdpcotton:: That's true, I forgot about Jackson – Thanks! Donald's announcement reportedly came in May, but it has yet to be counted at uscourts.gov so I'm not sure what the hold up is. uscourts is a reliable source, but they've been known to misreport things too....in October they reported that Stephen S. Schwartz was retiring in November and it was part of the future vacancy count, the court had to put out a press release saying any news of his retirement was erroneous. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Been checking around in case the Jackson senior status is a discrepancy but it seems to be confirmed by Senator Kaine here: https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/10/06/2021/warner-and-kaine-now-accepting-applications-for-us-district-judge-eastern-district-of-virginia Thanks for updating it to 32/14/18. Not trying to cause a fight, just trying to help get the right numbers. The Donald thing does look odd but her UC Boulder talk 3 weeks ago does seem to confirm she is taking senior status so not sure why its not showing on US Courts yet.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

About Jose Perez (judge)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jose Perez (judge) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jose P. Perez. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird..

I think it’s crazy how, according to your (GVT officials that have been arrested) page or whatever you like to call inadvertently says that not on democrat that works in an important position in the GVT has been convicted of a crime. I looked up gvt officials who have been arrested in the recent years, and how you have 2017-2021 (Trumps presidency) or however you worded it like Obama wasn’t in office in 2017 as well. Take your political opinion out of things your gonna put up as “informational” on the internet. 38.124.248.52 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@38.124.248.52: What are you even talking about? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KidAd • SPEAK 23:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd: Read the consensus at: Talk:List of United States attorneys appointed by Joe Biden that's what I'm bringing them into compliance with. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Snickers2686, I only see two sections there. Neither seem to be about your interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLE. KidAd • SPEAK 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd: Read under the proposed move of the list. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit warring has to stop. KidAd • SPEAK 23:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd: That's rich, you're complaining I'm edit warring? Then you need to go by the consensus that was reached, period. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Beware of WP:3RR. But I guess you can make your own decisions. And the discussion you cited doesn't match your changes. Despite your oppose vote, the main page was moved from "Attorney" to "attorney" per MOS:JOBTITLE. KidAd • SPEAK 23:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd: It was decided that the plural version was to be lower case, not the singular version. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Snickers2686, all I gather from that discussion is that the consensus was to move the page. It seems like you're extrapolating here. I can also see that you've also violated WP:3RR on Brandon B. Brown and Trini E. Ross. If you want to continue this discussion civilly, I suggest that you self-revert. KidAd • SPEAK 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@KidAd: Continue this civilly? I've been nothing but civil. Maybe you're talking about yourself. We're done here. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A few more judges for your vacancy sandbox article:

Two other territorial judges' terms have expired. Table formatting is hiddden in my comment.

You could also move the page to the wikiproject, but of course you don't have to.

Star Garnet (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Star Garnet: Hey, thanks for that. I totally forgot about those two and their terms. It's an ever growing list that's expanding rapidly, for sure. I think I'll keep it in my namespace for now, but I appreciate the advice. Snickers2686 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

Ketanji Brown Jackson

I don't understand how this minutia can be worth mentioning in the article, let alone worth edit warring about. Why don't you take it to the talkpage and explain how the three-day delay is of interest or significance? Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2017–2018

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2017–2018 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies

The article Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What "controversies" are this page discussing? How is this needed when we have List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There is precedent set from other articles, an old AfD has already established that these pages are valid. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that there's an AfD from 2017 that did not present the best deletion rationale. IMO, these pages are redundant and violate NPOV by stating there are "controversies". On the Biden page, I see none. I think I will take all of these "POTUS judicial appointment controversies" articles to AfD later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Good luck I guess. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. These lists contain substantial content not reflected in the lists of nominations by President, which is why they should all be kept. BD2412 T 18:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Reflecting on the above conversation, we probably should have a supertopic article on United States federal judicial appointment controversies, explaining what constitutes a controversy and how they tend to arise and resolve. BD2412 T 03:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: So would all articles be merged into said article or would it a list of lists? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say neither. The articles would remain freestanding articles; the new article would be a parent article describing the phenomenon in general terms, and providing links to the current articles (and to Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). It might list them, but it wouldn't be merely a list of lists. I suppose it could start as one, but that's not what I have in mind as the final product. BD2412 T 03:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Second cabinet of Katrín Jakobsdóttir

Hi, can you please let me know why you reverted my edit of the page? I simply rearranged the ministers in the order that is listed in the official government website. I even cited it and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirSX3 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SirSX3: It doesn't have to be arranged any certain why, so what was wrong with the initial arrangement? Snickers2686 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does; cabinets have an official order. In most countries, it's PM, deputy PM, etc; or President, Vice-President, etc. The issue with the initial arrangement is it did not follow the order; the Finance Minister and the Infrastructure Minister as leaders of their political parties should be the #2 and #3 Minister in the Cabinet, and they are listed this way in the official government website and in the coalition announcement press release. I ask you back the same question: what was wrong with my official arrangement? Is there a need to revert my contributions? If you have something to add, can't you just edit over it? I did not provide inaccurate information, nor did I vandalise the page. SirSX3 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SirSX3: Show me the Wikipedia policy that states there's an official order. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Go see the other cabinets, the good ones are in the official order. This doesn't warrant you deleting my contributions; there isn't a Wikipedia policy that states that it can't be in the official order too. I don't understand why you are so difficult about this; you don't own the page, Wikipedia is not your personal blog, I have just as much right to edit this page as you do. As long as I did not break any Wikipedia rules, my contributions should be allowed to stay up. I provided accurate information directly from the primary source. SirSX3 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@SirSX3: "the good ones are in the official order" So....what, if it's not in "order" then it's wrong? The term "good" is subjective. The information is still there and accurate is it not? Then why does the order matter? It doesn't. I never said you couldn't edit the page or claimed it as my own, I didn't even create the page so your faux outrage is unwarranted. If you have an issue with how the cabinet departments were listed, then take it up with the original creator of the page, that's not me. Snickers2686 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that we are in agreement that I can edit the page. That's good. I'm just trying to improve the quality and accuracy of the page. Some of the names of the ministries are outdated too, so not everything is accurate; I've updated them. If the order doesn't bother you, then the new order shouldn't bother you either. Wikipedia is about collaboration, let's work with each other on this. SirSX3 (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Gregory B. Williams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregory B. Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory B. Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hatchens (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Ana C. Reyes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ana C. Reyes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana C. Reyes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)