User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joshua P. Kolar has been accepted

Joshua P. Kolar, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

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!

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua P. Kolar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua P. Kolar 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/Joshua P. Kolar 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 until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Re: Joshua P. Kolar)

I'm just trying to figure out the logic here. This article gets created as a draft in September (by myself, although I maintain that I have no implicit bias) and bounced around between draft and main. And then this month, gets nominated as an AfC and ultimately approved and reviewed/patrolled by a different editor. And then within three hours of being moved to main (again) today gets nominated for AfD? I need someone to explain to me the standard practice to follow if and when a draft gets moved and patrolled, but still apparently doesn't meet WP:GNG per the current AfD discussion. Now I had always gone by the consensus reached at WP:AfD:Tiffany M. Cartwright which seemed to be a standard that was working well, and I realize maybe not everyone is aware, I'm just trying to figure out the acceptable standard going forward. And yes, I realize it may be a question better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges, however I wanted to get a different perspective and/or let the AfD play out before proceedinng. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about the AFD if I were you. Right now all the comments are arguing that the article should be kept. The nominator has had some issues with their AFD activity before. As far as the process, which is what I think you were asking about, Wikipedia allows individual people a great deal of latitude and discretion. This is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," after all. AFC accepted it, meaning the AFC reviewer thought it was fine, and NPP marked it reviewed, meaning that person thought it was fine. However, anyone is free to disagree and test their arguments at AFD, which is what is happening now. There is nothing wrong with someone nominating an article that was accepted at AFC for deletion. I'm sure it's annoying, but there's no rule against it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess from now on if a draft gets moved, nominated and deleted, then I'll just ask for a WP:REFUND. Snickers2686 (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:REFUND is not for articles that are deleted at AFD, or did I misunderstand what you were saying? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm just saying the process seems flawed. So a draft can be moved, verified by multiple editors yet still deleted by another if there's just cause? And instead of Refunding and/or draftifying you're SOL because someone jumped the gun too soon? That just sounds asinine in my opinion. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not going to be deleted. AFD used to stand for "Articles for discussion" way back when. It was eventually changed to deletion as there are other processes for other types of discussion, but it can be a good idea to remember that AFD is still just that - a discussion. It will only be deleted if the consensus of participants in the discussion is that it should be deleted, and right now that discussion is trending in favor of keeping it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Imagine it like this - we're all working on this big book. We need to make decisions about what should be included in the book. You wrote this article for the book, and someone else looked at it and said, "Yep, looks good. I think it should go in the book." It got added to the pile of articles to go in the book. Someone else came along and said, "Wait, I don't think it should be in the book." Now everyone else is looking at it and going, "Yeah, no, it's fine. It should be in the book."

That's all AFD is, someone coming along and going, "I don't think this should be here," and then everyone else giving their opinion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kathleen M. O'Sullivan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathleen M. O'Sullivan 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/Kathleen M. O'Sullivan 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 until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Snickers2686, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)