Jump to content

User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Ebubechukwu1 note

It took me hours to know hoe to write on a talk page.I really want to say I'm sorry about how I responded.

I hope I get forgiven.

Thank you ma/sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebubechukwu1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for an WP:ATD-respecting closure. They're too rare these days. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome. We really need a better process for these ATDs rather than flooding AfD because merger discussions don't get eyeballs/traction. Not to imply any issue with the nom-it was fully justified when the redirect was contested, but so many of these, like the Olympic athletes, could be solved with an editorial consensus to redirect or merge. But there's no such venue. Star Mississippi 15:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie

Oh no no, this message wasn't meant for you but rather for the user himself. xD This is the first time this person is on the English Wikipedia, but he was on the Turkish Wikipedia in early February with a different account, where he also tried to create a promotional article about the same company: tr:Kullanıcı:Muratislek. When I CSD'ed that there I received a Telegram message (I'm in the TG group of trwiki so it's not difficult to find me), where he claims that I violated the Turkish copyright law (which also illegalizes the "harming of a companys assets") by adding the CSD tag, and told me that he had reported me to the Presidency of Turkey via CİMER with screenshots and all. :D CİMER is where residents of Turkey can directly send their complaints to the presidency, and by law they have to respond within 30 days. Since his complaint has been way past 30 days by now, I really wonder what their response was. ~StyyxTalk? 14:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the context. I seem to have acquired a few "fans" lately. Hope this one doesn't stay too active on en wiki, but let me know if I can help at all. Star Mississippi 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Tasnim Mir

Hi Star Mississippi. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you deleted this article after I got it restored after proving it meets Wikipedia guidelines for eligibility to main space. Request you to help me restore it or if you need to suggest anything. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gardenkur. I deleted this at the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasnim Mir (2nd nomination) (courtesy @Hatchens as nominatior). Because it was a discussion, I can't unilaterally restore it to mainspace. However as I noted in the discussion, I'm happy to draftify it for you or others to work on. You'll find it momentarily at Draft:Tasnim Mir, where you can work on it. Sourcing needs to be a little better for it to survive in mainspace. Happy to answer any further questions tomorrow as I'm about to log off for the evening. Star Mississippi 02:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi. Iam really thankful for your prompt reply and response. Will surely do as you suggested and will update you before moving to main space. Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome
Please let me know if I can help in any other way on this or another article. Star Mississippi 01:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broth

Hi, please reconsider your closure. In my view, the consensus was to merge the articles, or at least the AfD should have been relisted.

There were three "keep" opinions, but two of them did not address the reason for which I nominated the article for deletion (i.e., that it is a prohibited content fork of Stock). Oknazevad gave no reason for what is in effect a pure vote (WP:NOTAVOTE, which means that their view should have been discounted. The same goes for the opinion by Neonchameleon, who raised only procedural concerns and also did not address the reason for deletion.

Thanks for your work and your feedback! Sandstein 10:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not going to reconsider as I truly don't see a consensus, but always happy for more input so I have relisted. I forgot to ping you in the statement, but assume you're watching. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Two points: It's already been relisted once, so I don't see how much it's going to help. And two, despite the above characterization, my comment was not a pure vote but a procedural objection to listing at AFD when there was an open merge discussion (prompted by my reversion of a previous undiscussed merge attempt) on the talk page, saying that the AFD should be closed and the discussion taken to that merge discussion. The whole AFD was trying to game the system instead of properly tagging and discussing a merge proposal. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like to go to DRV, @Oknazevad I have no objection. I thought this was the simpler solution since I did/do not see a consensus, but fine with that solution as well. Star Mississippi 18:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm willing to just let the relisting play out. Just thought you might want some additional context for edification. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks. This is a complicated conversation. I as an American always thought stock was plain and broth was seasoned, so I found the articles an interesting read. And now I'm hungry. Star Mississippi 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Soup's on! oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Detailed answer in close

Hello, Star Mississippi,

One of the things I do is look for orphaned talk pages and I came across this one that you created. But there is no accompanying article/main page. Did you mean for this page to go under a different page title? I hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

can't even blame the script, that was my sloppy close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure (1850 schooner). Thanks for flagging. I've deleted. Star Mississippi 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggest salting GlobalPlatform

The article is being repeatedly created in violation of Wikipedia P&G, you may consider WP:SALTING it. ––FormalDude talk 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just looking into the history and saw that this was at least the 3rd. Going to do so now. Star Mississippi 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! ––FormalDude talk 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I am the creating editor of the article, I think there may have been a misunderstanding here (here). As you can see we were instructed to move the page back to the live space if we objected to its draftification. It seems that a few editors have taken this as an attempt to bypass AfC, which is not the case. I moved it back to the live space in hope that a thorough discussion could take place about the notability of the organisation. Previous to deletions, having checked way back machine, we were poorly written/referenced. As an administrator, I'm not sure what your opinion is, but I think this should be suitable for a third AfD discussion? If not, happy to try via AfC. SaffronSettee (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @SaffronSettee. When an article has been deleted through discussion twice, the best solution is AFC acceptance by an uninvolved editor. The last version that you wrote/I deleted was much better written, but did not overcome the content issues that deemed it not (yet) notable. @MarioGom's advice was correct that you are entitled to move it back -- and I'll restore it if you really want, but I can almost guarantee another AfD will result in deletion. I recommend spending some time finding reliable, independent sources that cover GlobalPlatform in depth and then submitting it for approval/feedback. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response last week. I'm pleased to hear that this seems to be a case of mistaken identity and that it was correct to move the page. Since you are now the second editor to warn me of the referencing issues, I think it would be fairly careless to ask to restore it for an AfD discussion. I think this will be parked until I can find suitable references and then resubmit via AfC when sufficient coverage is available. The only final question I have is that the URL has been salted. I believe from the responses above this that it was to stop unauthorised creations of the page. My concern is that if it remains salted so its admins only, could it not stop reviewers in AfC from approving it as easily? The draft has also been removed, I do have it stored offline, would it be better for me to upload it again from scratch (to AfC) or for you to restore it? SaffronSettee (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I think your plan is a good one. My gut is sourcing can probably be found, and without the seven day pressure of an AfD, you or someone else can incubate it in draft and have it reviewed. With respect to the salting, I'm pinging @Robert McClenon & @Timtrent who are the most experienced AfC reviewers that I know, but I believe if they or anther AfC approve it, there's a tag that can be used to flag to admins that it can be unsalted. If neither of them sees this or is on line to weigh in, you can ask at the AfC Help desk to confirm. Either way, if an AfC reviewer approves and I'm online, happy to unsalt it when the time comes as this is simple enough that it doesn't need to go through DRV. Star Mississippi 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I hold paid editors to a very high standard indeed. That starts with their needing to hit the ground running, knowing all our policies and procedures. I do not give them advice. They are paid to know. I am not paid, so they cannot expect me to work towards their receiving a pay check. I am pretty sure @Robert McClenon holds similar views.
I don't care whether @SaffronSettee gets it refunded to their userspace or starts a new draft. It will be judged on its merits if and when submitted for review.
Thank you for the ping, I appreciate your confidence in me. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
As User:Star Mississippi notes, there is a long history of spamming. User:SaffronSettee - Do you have any connection with GlobalPlatform? I will be very cautious in reviewing a draft, and will expect full disclosure. In view of the history, I cannot be optimistic without having seen the draft, and I probably will not be optimistic after seeing it and seeing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I see a reference to mistaken identity. Please explain. In the absence of an explanation, that sounds like a handwave. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think that was in reference to a an alternate account conversation that happened. I think this is paid editing with a declared COI (see Saffron's user page), but haven't seen any evidence of socking and think User:Passman.Lu and others involved in 2019 creation were different people. Star Mississippi 16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Again this wasn’t an attempt to circumvent any AfC checks or speed up the process. I should have triple checked the advice here and didn’t. As for the connection to GlobalPlatform, I was asked to help them with Wikipedia starting in 2021. To my knowledge, GlobalPlatform previously attempted to make edits themselves internally, so this could be the spamming you are referring to in 2019. I will go back to the drawing board with the draft to ensure the referencing issues are resolved and hopefully the draft is acceptable next time it is submitted.SaffronSettee (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
That makes complete sense @SaffronSettee. Let us know if you need any further assistance with the draft. Star Mississippi 21:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Coincidance close

Hello there. No offense intended, but I really don't agree with your recent AFD close. I don't think you weighed the validity of the arguments very well - there was a pretty good breakdown on how the sources presented weren't reliable. Additionally, after the first relist, the only responses were two more valid delete !votes.

Anyways, I believe common courtesy is to ask for another relist before taking it to WP:DRV. So I wanted to throw that out there and see what you'd say before proceeding with that. Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My bad, didn't see that someone had already expressed similar concerns when I sent my message below. But yeah---probably the wrong call made here, and I think we will and are entitled to slip up once or twice every 13 years :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries, the page history shows we were just minutes apart, so it's very possible when you started writing your comment, mine wasn't even here yet. Regardless, I appreciate you saying something too. I don't contest AFDs often, so it's reassuring to see someone else have the same stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Coincidance

I am perplexed as to why you'd close it as a "no consensus", when the only Keep !votes were by the creator and another person who said it was a popular song. I respect your decision but thought I'd get some clarification coz I certainly don't see there being "no consensus", IMO it's a straightforward delete based on the discussion. In any case I will be submitting this for review. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your notes @Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73: and always happy to discuss my closes. The funniest thing is when I saw this on my alerts I assumed it was going to be re: a coincidence, as I'd e/c'ed earlier today in declining an AfC submission. While I don't see a consensus, I definitely don't think my closes are perfect/not attached to then and happy to get more input on this and happy for someone else to close it as a delete, if they also see it that way. I'll relist it to get it back on the logs as I'm not sure how to do so otherwise. Will leave a note that it doesn't need a further seven days. Going to be offline for a few days, so if this needs further attention - take this as my blessing/consent to ping another admin or get eyes on it elsewhere. I'm not one who edits from their phone and will check back in when I'm back. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) and reping in the event you're not watching @Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73:

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Likewise I appreciated your note. Just saw your response to @Kingoflettuce above. Happy at any time to discuss a close. So feel free, and I'd hope most others would be open to it. None of us editors is perfect. Lettuce, does my timer reset now before I can oops again? :D Star Mississippi 02:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents. I strongly agree with Kingoflettuce and Sergecross73. One "keep" vote who created the article failed to prove that it meets WP:GNG by indicating sources and the other "keep" vote only stated WP:POPULARITY. Therefore, I see a strong consensus to delete the article. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce@Sergecross73@Superastig ugh, looks like a relist might not have solved it either. Sorry :( I thought that was going to be simplest. Star Mississippi 14:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries. It's surprising to me too, I wouldn't think something like this would be so contentious usually. It's why I didn't even !vote initially - I thought it was pretty clearly not notable. At least it must be a bit vindicating for you and your initial close, though I'm still hopeful some sort of consensus can be read from it. Anyways, thanks again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd much rather find consensus than be vindicated. Saves us all more time in the long run especially if it's eventually re-nominated. Personally hate n/c situations because it rarely solves the issue at hand unless it's a case of sources IDed and added. Star Mississippi 17:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries. It would've been best had it been overturned. But now that it's relisted, let's see how it goes one more time. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Gerda Arendt for always capturing this history! Star Mississippi 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkley Sin

There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of the closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkley Sin. (This is not a criticism of the "keep" closure decision, which I supported for similar reasons to those stated in your closure.) Note that the light blue rectangle that is supposed to include the entire AfD cuts off in the middle of the first "keep" response. I looked at the wikitext and couldn't figure out what was going wrong myself immediately, but maybe you can take another look at it and figure it out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. It was nothing the closer did. There was a bad reflist tag in the body of the article that screwed up the formatting. BD2412 T 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging @Metropolitan90 and fixing @BD2412. I should have caught that on reload but when I saw the top of the close covered the title as it was supposed to, which has been another issue, I don't think I scrolled the rest of the way. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 18:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raja_Dashrath_Medical_College

Please let me see the article so I might work on it or maybe not. Thank you. RTripathiKarnataka (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Draft:Raja Dashrath Medical College
Please have an independent AfC reviewer weigh in if you work on it and believe it's ready for mainspace. Star Mississippi 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

History redux

Greetings. I started Draft:John Ray Skates. I am having trouble finding an obituary. Also, Catchings, Mississippi in Sharkey County seems to have been a locality and I see it noted in relation to a school district, health center, and even a Main Steeet but scant evidence of it seems to remain? What was it and what did it become? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging. Will put these on my to do. Skates is a fascinating story for sure. Star Mississippi 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We were both working on Skates. Yay I'm not sure where you are w/r/t being able to submit, but if you do I'll accept this. It's ready for mainspace. If you can't, I'll move it, but don't want you to lose credit. Star Mississippi 15:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been looking and haven't been able to find anything reliable on Catchings, @FloridaArmy. Just some of what you found. I think we're OK without it for now until some useful information comes up on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 14:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi Star Mississippi. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination), two editors supported retention, and one editor supported a redirect. There were reasonable arguments on both sides. I do not see a consensus for a redirect which would require you to completely discount the opinions of both editors who supported retention. Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just noting I've seen this and need a little more time to review. Will come back to you as soon as I'm able to give you fair answer @Cunard Star Mississippi 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Cunard, if I may, I believe Star Mississippi had to make a very difficult close in which I believe their close was decent. Whilst I firmly believe we may have our different views on what constitutes a quality argument it is my opinion that HighKing did a very thorough analysis on at least why the article should not be a stand-alone, AFD's aren’t a head count as I have implied above, it is my thinking that a redirect close is only fair/decent, but this is just my thinking or would have been my idiosyncratic approach if I was Star, which may or may not be %100 apt but indeed I would have done the same. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
      • HighKing made very detailed arguments about the sources but so did Park3r who went into substantial detail about the sources (example). Hobit found a negative source about the subject and supported retention. No one in the AfD joined HighKing in supporting a redirect. Although HighKing conducted a very thorough analysis, I do not see a consensus for a redirect which can be reached only if the arguments of Park3r and Hobit are discarded. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      (came across this after getting pinged from the Meesho thread above) To chime in here, I would agree with Cunard here, while Highking did provide a very good argument, no one agreed with them, and 2 people disagreed regarding the sources. Nothing much either in the first AfD, as no one commented after the sources were provided. This article has been in the AfD/DRV hellhole for nearly 2 months now without very little input, which I believe is a sign of lack of consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 07:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I didn't want to open a second deletion review, but I felt that it should have been closed as No consensus. I'm not going to rehash the arguments here, suffice to say I remain unconvinced by Highking's reasoning.Park3r (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
        • In fairness, Park3r said the topic "meets the WP:GNG and *probably* meets WP:CORP" but was unable to properly justify why the references met WP:NCORP - which is the guidelines for companies and not GNG. Later Park3r again continued to argue that it met GNG but failed to show how those references specifically meet NCORP. Similarly Hobit provided an argument that a negative article which used an anonymous source was not PR and therefore establishes notability but was also unable to show how the references met NCORP. I can understand why the closing admin evaluated the AfD, seeing that none of the Keep !voters established any references that met NCORP and reached the conclusion that was reached. But, that all said, consensus must exist in some form and not just "right/wrong" therefore Cunard's and Jumpytoo's point about there being a lack of consensus is the one which should carry the argument and a "No Consensus" would be the more balanced result. HighKing++ 11:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Didn't yet have the chance to do the review I wanted to offer @Cunard here, but I can see consensus is clear, err no consensus is. I'll revise my close per the well reasoned comments here. We don't need seven days of bureaucracy in DRV. Thanks @HighKing, @Jumpytoo @Park3r for your input and Cunard for flagging it originally. Star Mississippi 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Star Mississippi, for reclosing the AfD and to the other editors for chiming in! Cunard (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho

Hello Star Mississippi. I created this article about Meesho today not knowing that it was previously deleted. So it now has a speedy deletion notice. But on reading the AfD discussion, it felt less like a discussion and more like a source denial spree. All existing sources were deemed unreliable or "not in-depth" and based on that, I don't know if reliable sources even do exist in any of the small articles in Wikipedia. Can you rather give me an example of an 'Indian' reliable source so that I can compare it with a source from my article for better understanding? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Excellenc1 and thanks @DMySon for helping on this while I was offline. I'm happy to restore this in draft space on the condition it goes through AfC or DRV for a review, otherwise I think it will just be deleted again since consensus was the sourcing wasn't enough. If that's OK by you, I'm happy to restore it to draft. Let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to the drafting conditions, as there is a scope of more reliable sources on it coming in the future. Like now Meesho rebranding its grocery app is on the news. Thank you, Star Mississippi. Excellenc1 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

here you go. Courtesy @Liz so she has background when she sees it in her logs. Draft:Meesho Star Mississippi 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
In one of the last contributions to the AfD, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs) pointed out:
  1. five paragraphs of coverage in a BloombergQuint article and
  2. three pages of coverage in the International Directory of Company Histories Volume 226 book that was initially provided by Heartmusic678.
Harvard Business School says that the book provides "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies".
Based on the strengths of the arguments, I do not see a consensus for deletion. Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Cunard. Thanks for your note. Given the length of time since this closed and the fact that @Excellenc1 is going to work on it in draft space, I'm not going to revisit my close at this time. I have no issue with it being restored once it has been revised. Excellenc1 is going to take it through AfC or DRV when they're done with working on it, but if you prefer to take it to DRV now, I have no objection with that and happy for the community to discuss. Let me know your thoughts? Star Mississippi 13:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Would you provide an extended explanation about why you found a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho to delete? I would like to understand your reasoning for why you discounted the sources provided by Jumpytoo and Heartmusic678. I read your closing rationale and still do not understand why you found a consensus for deletion. I understand that a month has passed since you closed the AfD and Excellenc1 is working on the draft and has submitted it for review, but I would still like to know why you assessed the arguments the way you did. Like Jumpytoo and Heartmusic678, I frequently present sources like these at AfD and I would be surprised and disappointed if my opinions were not accorded much weight. Your extended explanation about why you found a consensus for deletion will inform how I make AfD contributions in the future so that I can aim to present the strongest arguments I can to reduce the chances of my participation being discounted. If you change your mind and conclude that a "no consensus" close would have been better, then the draft can be restored to mainspace immediately without Excellenc1's having to go through AfC or DRV. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Cunard. Like the below I'll give you a fuller answer later this evening (US, East Coast time). I want to fully go back and look at and re-read the discussions which is something I can't do for the next few hours. Just broadly saying in general I have no issue with how you present sources and recall I believe it was you saying somewhere that the reason you don't (always?) add them to the topic is so that they're not already considered existing if a G4 question comes up down the line when they have been incorporated, which makes sense to me. If that wasn't you, apologies. I can't find the discussion. Star Mississippi 18:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I think you might be referring to this comment that I made at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75#listing sources at AfD instead of just fixing the article?. I do sometimes add sources during an AfD like I did this week for Conrad Bangkok at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok (2nd nomination) and Patrick Larkin (novelist) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Larkin (novelist). In many cases, I don't have time to add sources or don't want to invest five hours into rewriting an article to only have it deleted like what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Tan. I did not make the G4 argument (another editor did). That is not a primary motivation for me not to add sources but I do understand that argument. Thank you for the reassurance that you have no issues with how I present sources, and I look forward to your response when you have the time to fully review the discussion. There is no rush on this so please take your time. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
You are correct in what I was sort of remembering, and I wholly agree with you that "winning" should not be the outcome. My frustration with AfD discussions is that seven days is both too long and too short. There are discussions that could easily be resolved in less time, and there are others where seven/fourteen days isn't long enough especially if true assessment of notability requires navigating offline or non-English sources simply because they aren't as accessible as online, English-language sources. But we're not going solve that issue, unfortunately. I always find your engagement with AfDs in depth, you don't drop sources and run and seem to either watch the discussions or respond if someone asks a follow up, which is helpful because your source access seems to be better than many editors, myself included.
let's hope this is legible. Collapsing purely to avoid the side scroll/weird line wrap. Feel free to move content out of collapse or... however is best to handle. Can you tell I hate formatting?
Extended content
Discarded and why
  • Lacks reliable media sources. Most of the links provided deal with investment or acquisition deals. And seems like page was created by someone that was affiliated to the company. NancyAggarwal1999 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) yep, discarded the nomination. Those all speak to problems with the content as it existed, not the subject of the article. It's not an invalid nomination, but nor is it a particularly good one because it doesn't address the issues with the subject matter. This doesn't tell me why we shouldn't have an article about Meesho.
  • Speedy Keep: Article easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:CORP. Although it needs some brushing to improve neutrality, cursory Google search shows that Meesho is quite notable in the Indian ecommerce space. There are like 7-8 sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Moreover, it has a unicorn status. To me, this deletion looks like an attack on the company. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Discarded isn't quite accurate here. But partial weight. There was no grounds for a speedy keep. None of the !vote is policy based with the possible exception of the There are like 7-8 sources that are reliable, but ASW didn't make it clear why they were reliable and independent. Following the google search comment, I read this as "I found google links" which didn't make for a strong keep.
I also didn't put too much weight into the possible SPAs as the vast majority of the contributors explained their input. There may have been some canvassing, but I didn't look into this
Considered and why
  • Keep I think that this just barely passes WP:GNG. I think the Wp:THREE are . As for the WP:NPOV issue, it does seem to be a bit promotional but I don't think it is overtly so. Possibly draftify so that the NPOV issue may be fixed. GoldMiner24 Talk 10:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) self explanatory. Well-reasoned, policy based.
  • Response This is a company therefore NCORP applies. None of those references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability....All fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC) snipped HK's sources but in my comment on HK's vote, I also take into account his actual vote later in the discussion that explained why CORP applies. I think that's a little muddy (personally, as an editor, not wearing my admin hat), but it's based in policy. This was an in depth on why the number of sources did not add up to the level required for NCORP and why that was applicable. .
  • Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS that indicates its notability, passes WP:CORP.ZanciD (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)· that it's mentioned doesn't explain why it's notable. No one was saying it wasn't mentioned.
  • Comment I found this Bloomberg Quint article and Jumpy's extended comment on the book Heart IDed: I agree with the three of them and HK there that the book could be good, but no one was able to access it to verify that it was in enough depth. Jumpy had some concerns about the article given it's quality and while this is absolutely a well reasoned input, it was not a strong keep although they disagreed on how much the Bloomberg piece should contribute, weight weise.
  • Keep and do a lot of cleanup. There is very little independent material about the actual business activity of the company (because articles on this topic are all interviews with company personnel), but there are many sources about numerous founding rounds. Of course, promotional tone will have to go. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC) relatively policy based, although Anton didn't go into whether these sources had the depth required.
  • Keep I think the funding section has too much info and needs to be summarized, but i agree that the company meets notability guidelines. Zeddedm (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) this was not a strong keep as it was basically "I agree" without why. Yes, this is broadly a problem, but weight of argument factors in.
  • Keep I was able to find over 20 articles through Wikipedia's library regarding the company's business activity, and here are several of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Although I was unable to see the pages, the company is covered on three pages of the 2021 version of International Directory of Company Histories (pages 295-297). This passes WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) well-reasoned, policy based vote. No issues with this vote at all.
  • Keep: Firstly, sources provided by GoldMiner24 and Heartmusic678 pretty much clarifies that the page passes WP:GNG. Secondly, yes the funding section requires a clean-up to upright the promotional way it looks. Lastly, I think the company is notable enough to be there on Wikipedia. ManaliJain (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC) well-reasoned, somewhat (the GNG/vNCORP I raised above) policy based vote.
  • Delete: It must pass WP:ORG, so we should not talk about any other guidelines. 8 Sources are shared in this AFD page.Here we Go...Adgully is not a reliable source. campaignindia is not reliable, not independent, not even in-depth. Similarly ET, mediannews4u, dfupublications are not having any byline (not independent), Techcrunch, Talkmarkets are unreliable sources. Infact, majority of them are not reliable sources, not a single is in-depth source. All 3 sources shared by GoldMiner24 are vague. Forves is not even about the company, other 2 are not considered reliable. Behind the moors (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) well-reasoned, policy based. Assessed the sources for why they didn't meet WP:ORG. We have a broad issue with Indian sources, as you're well aware of. Adding in tech/finance makes it even more complex.
  • Delete Agree with Behind the moors. Some of the sources linked here are unusable in general, let alone on a company article. In addition, from the article - TechInAsia is exclusively made up of quotes from founders. Same with techcrunch (from around the same time), but with additional content about business model that repeats company lines. Fortune India is a bit better, having talked to people from outside the company; but even that article suffers from essential facts being sourced to the founders and may only count for partial NORG notability. The rest of the refs are purely routine funding/product announcements. As the company is unlisted, analyst reports are non-existent on public web. Hemantha (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) in depth, further explained why much of this isn't independent coverage even if reliability might be OK (techcrunch seems divided, wikipedia-wide). Also addressed why more sourcing isn't necessarily better.
  • Keep Meets NCORP with sources like [9] [10] [11] [12]. One of the most downloaded apps in India [13] [14] and globally [15]. Often cited as the "pioneer" of social commerce in India [16] [17], and last valued at $4.9 billion [18], so not a run of the mill startup. M4DU7 (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC) partially policy based (the sources). Most downloaded, pioneer, last valued don't actually speak to Wikipedia notability. This is a broad issue in how we use the term vs. the English language usage of it. A company can be important and not notable.
  • Keep Meets NCORP, per sources providing by keep voters.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC) this doesn't explain why it meets WP CORP.
So in evaluating each of those in the second section, I landed on a stronger weight for those in favor of delete because they went into a depth on why the sourcing was not acceptable that generally was not matched or countered by those in favor of keeping the article. To ansqwer your question about using this to inform how you participate, I don't think you need to change what you do. In the discussions I've seen, and I'm sure is true of all you participate in, you explain why the source you present meets the relevant guideline and how (depth, independence, etc.) and for non English sourcing, you give a translation where possible. I'm very curious to see what Excellenc comes up with in further sourcing of the draft. My personal opinion, had I seen this to vote, might have been draftify. But I don't think a relist for further time to find policy-compliant sourcing would have helped, which was how I came to the admin conclusion that I did that there was a consensus to delete the article. Is this helpful? Happy to continue the discussion, but I don't see a scenario where I come to a different conclusion. If you feel strongly that a different outcome is likely, I have no issue with this going to DRV.
Regardless of whether we ultimately come to an agreement on this discussion or the one below, always happy to discuss my thought process on any I nominate and/or close. As I said in the Coincidance section above, I do not think my conclusions are perfect. I hope they're the correct one in a given scenario, but these are complex and subjective. I will answer the other one as soon as possible tomorrow so that we're timely if I feel a relist or otherwise vacating my close is appropriate. BUt it is too late to fully assess tonight. Thanks again Star Mississippi 02:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your very detailed analysis of the comments in the AfD. Closers almost never go into this level of detail to explain their closes, so I really appreciate your taking the time to do so. I think that while the "delete" participants made some good points, the "keep" participants did also. I've asked the community to review this close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 7#Meesho as I want to see what other uninvolved editors think. I have made comments at AfDs similar to the ones made by Heartmusic678 and Jumpytoo about International Directory of Company Histories and BloombergQuint so I would like to see whether their arguments are sufficient to support a "no consensus" close.

Thank you for your kind words about my AfD participation! This is very helpful. When I participate AfDs, I find a lot of the sources through databases available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as well as other databases I have access to. These WP:LIBRARY databases are very underused as I frequently find sources there after several editors have supported deletion and no editors have supported retention. I agree that some AfDs should be WP:SNOW closed a lot sooner while others should be held open for longer to allow for editors to search for offline or non-English sources. I have seen many articles from the pre-Internet era or from non-English-speaking countries that likely would have sources but can only be deleted since no one who saw the AfD has access to those sources.

Thank you again for your willingness to go into such substantial detail about your thought process for this close and openness to discuss any AfDs you nominate or close. Many AfD nominators do not engage after creating an AfD, and many closers provide very brief explanations of their thought process, so it is amazing that you are not like that. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Any time. Given that it was a couple of weeks ago it was helpful for me to revisit the input and what I thought/how I weighed. Curious to see how the DRV participants read it. I don't think there was anything wrong with either of their arguments either. If the referenced book ad been accessible to any of us, it might have been a clearer conversation. Lack of continued engagement is a challenge. I can think of a few relists where I've essentially said "unclear if the sources provided have been assessed" because someone may weigh in on day two, and you may provide the sources on day five and it's unclear whether they've seen the sources and/or it has shifted their opinion.
Thanks for the Wikipedia Library reminder. I recently had my access restored following a username block on Indonesian wikipedia and need to explore the depth of what's there. I imagine it will be useful for museums where my default is the utterly non policy based this must be notable! but I run into issues finding non-local sourcing to back that up. Look forward to continuing to work with you. Star Mississippi 21:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
So far, everyone weighing in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 7#Meesho is endorsing your assessment of the consensus, so I concede that your close is well within discretion even if I would not have closed it that way. I wish the "keep" AfD participants had engaged more with the arguments for deletion instead of commenting and not returning to engage. The AfD outcome likely would have been different.

When admins are closing based on the strength of the arguments and the close does not match the headcount, it can be a surprise to AfD participants and to others who are caught off guard. That's why I liked what Spartaz did in his relisting comment for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Dover (2nd nomination), "Keep.votes don't address the BLP.concerns. Further comment on that would establish if we close by headcount or strength of argument". With seven "keep" votes and two "delete" votes, Spartaz could have closed as "delete" per WP:BLP1E and DRV would have endorsed the close. But by relisting the AfD with such a blunt and explicit relist rationale, Spartaz gave the "keep" AfD participants another chance and made it clear that if they failed to provide better arguments, the AfD would be closed as "delete". I think it'd inspire more confidence for admins to do this more to lessen the chances of an unpleasant surprise. This is just a suggestion if you come across more cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STANLIB (2nd nomination) in the future where you are considering making a close based on strength of argument that does not match the headcount. In the case of the Rupert Dover AfD that Spartaz had relisted, I had seen the AfD before the relist but did not read the comments in detail or participate as it was a well-attended AfD that seemed on its face to be a "keep" or at worse a "no consensus". I generally do not invest substantial time in conducting research for well-attended AfDs unless I feel I can make a difference in the AfD outcome. That's because I have limited time and if I spend time on a well-attended AfD, I will have to give up spending time on less well-attended AfDs. After Spartaz relisted the AfD with that blunt rationale, I knew the article was at risk of deletion. I spent five hours researching the subject and writing a rationale for why WP:BLP1E does not apply. A relist with a blunt rationale can be a "wake-up call" for current AfD participants to do better or draw in participants who would have otherwise not invested substantial time into participating in the AfD. If no one does better despite the blunt "wake-up call", then it's very well-justified, less controversial, and much less surprising for a "delete" close to follow seven days after the relist.

Another example is in Liz's relisting rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine64: "Two advocates for keeping the article but no sources provided that would establish the notability of the company, not their products, have been offered." (I prefer Spartaz's wording slightly more in being more blunt and explicit that a "delete" close is likely to follow if arguments do not improve though it is unclear whether Liz was considering a "delete" close.)

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a great resource. When searching for sources for AfD, the resources I find most useful are EBSCO, Gale (Wikipedia:Gale), ProQuest, Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, and Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com. You need to submit an application for Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com (which is approved if you meet account eligibility criteria). The other sources you will have access to by default. When you are searching for sources for museums, I recommend searching in all five of these databases and hopefully you'll find some really good sources so that your this must be notable! turns into this must be notable and I can prove it!. I also have access to NewsBank which The Wikipedia Library is missing. NewsBank frequently has sources that the other databases don't have (and vice versa).

I'll take a look at Talk:Avri Levitan. I hope these databases will return good sources about him. Thank you for the ping there and please feel free to reach out to me whenever you come across any articles where you have trouble finding sources. I'll either find sources, suggest an alternative to deletion, or recommend deletion. I look forward to working more with you in the future. Thanks! Cunard (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. Definitely agree that if there had been a dialog the outcome might have been different. While Meesho isn't in one of the gray areas I feel that especially with regard to schools, sports we're in a gray area unlike prior years where there'd be division but overall consensus was clear on a topic. There are a broad range of articles recently where I feel it could go either way because consensus itself is unsettled and it really depends on who turns up to a discussion, what time/effort they're able or willing to provide and what comes back on the other side of the discussion. As we both know, a "keep/delete per previous voter" carries differing weight whether that vote is one such as yours or High King who has put some analysis into your vote, or a drive by vote that doesn't go into an explanation. What you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure (1850 schooner), which I just closed, was also helpful in terms of the sourcing/license and history so people could more easily follow the why, background.
Thank you very much for those links to discussions where you found the relist helpful in guiding the discussion to a conclusion. While neither of those had crossed my radar, I have seen similarly helpful comments from those editors and generally think we as closers should provide sufficient info so the why is clear. In Dover, you did what I wish all participants could do - keep tabs on a discussion so when Stifle asked a question related to the content you provided, you presented those three in a spot where people could essentially say here's the best, for more here's the rest and what they add to the !vote". While that was a complicated discussion with at one point a parallel DRV, I think the AfD went well.
Thanks for the specific TWL resources. I imagine I'll be pinging you and Netherzone again as I work through the backlog. With 6 million + articles, we're guaranteed to have some with issues. Hopefully in at least a good chunk of the cases, we can solve them. Have a good week! Star Mississippi 02:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your block of user:JGabbard

JGabbard seems to have created the User:Make Great Music Known account in October 2020. It doesn't seem to have been used for anything of consequence, but should perhaps be blocked too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you for the heads up @AndyTheGrump. Star Mississippi 00:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks so much for the heads up @No Great Shaker. Do you know whether it will automatically appear in the Delsort gadgets or is that a question for the script maintainers? Star Mississippi 16:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it should do, but not entirely sure. Certainly the manual operation works without any problem. I'll keep a watch on it. Glad you think it will be useful, especially as there is an increasing volume of Olympic articles going to AfD now. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi again NGS. I tried to use this sort for Harry Gill (gymnast), but the AfD isn't showing at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Olympics. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks again for this helpful tool. Star Mississippi 18:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New ip edit warring

Hello this new created account continues to edit warring and removing sourced material even though they got warned on their page. [[1]]. Can something be done, also due to persistant edit warrnig of various ip, is it possible to protect the pages, Vojislavljević dynasty and Constantin Bodin, thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:23 15.April 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi Theonewithreason. While there isn't enough disruption to warrant protecting the articles, I have given them a final warning. I'm going to be offline shortly so if it coninues and you don't see me editing you may need to ping another admin. Thanks for raising. Star Mississippi 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response. But they continue to edit warring now on Stefan Vojislav page Theonewithreason (talk) 21:31 15.April 2022 (UTC)
I have blocked. Thank you. Star Mississippi 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI as a way to bludgeon people

ANI is now being used to attack me for editing an article because of the extremely broad nature of the topic ban that has no been in place on me since September of last year, with no really good explanation of why it is so incredibly broad, including a "broadly construed" clause that invites this type of extremely ANI bringing up, and no good explanation as to why it still needs to be in place at all. I wish there was a way to get it at least re-written so it was not so overly restrictive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I was offline but it seems as if the immediate situation was resolved.
If you believe you're capable of editing non LDS religious figures, you're welcome to proactively appeal it since it has been six months. I have not followed your edits nor have we particularly interacted outside of the sports AFDs, so I don't know that I would take a position. I supported you being unblocked and don't have an issue with your conduct otherwise, but I do not know whether you can neutrally edit religious figures. Star Mississippi 01:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
How would I go about filing such an appeal?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I believe WP:AN would be the venue. Pinging @Ritchie333 as he closed the topic ban to see if he has a different opinion. Star Mississippi 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I only closed the thread to enact the topic ban because that's what the consensus of editors who expressed views there wanted. I don't have any personal opinion, which is the correct position for administrators. If you want to appeal the ban, then it should be at AN, explaining why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I should have made it clear. It was the venue opinion I was asking about, not your personal on the topic ban. Nuances of AN/I sometimes escape me and wanted to confirm I was steering JPL in the correct direction. Star Mississippi 15:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that JPL is subject to any kind of ban on any topic on Wikipedia. The machine is turning screwy for that to happen. That is all. A loose necktie (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's possible @Johnpacklambert has since appealed. I don't follow AN/I in detail and have been offline the last few weekends. If he hasn't yet, I'm sure he'd be happy for your support @A loose necktie Star Mississippi 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty Commission

This entry seems strange to me. I'm not seeing where the politicians who led and funded the commission are named? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for flagging this @FloridaArmy. I'll have a look into it. Star Mississippi 19:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI I started Draft:Oxford, U.S.A. and Draft:The Message from Mississippi. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow! It looks like you've been busy. If you het a chance and have any interest I would be happy to have some helped with newspaper accounts of the violence and arrests at Draft:Moss Point High School after desegregation. As an aside, if you ever come across Sovereignty Commission films or a way to view them please let me know. I'd be very interested to see them. Thanks for all your help. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy I have a newspapers.com account and can send you PDFs of the articles if you'd like. CUPIDICAE💕 17:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Happy to help. Thanks for the newspaper clipping on Harvie P. Jones as that helped flesh it out as my account is still a little upside down despite resolution of TWL access. From Jones I'm going to look at the campus gallery which I'd imagine was a landmark due to age and probably why it was moved/preserved. Will have a look at Moss Point as soon as I can and keeping Sovereignty on my radar. I'll get Message resolved as soon as I can. No question on notability, just some confusion as you'd also noted.
And thanks, Prax! Grateful we've recently begun to cross paths more frequently. Star Mississippi 18:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please post the links User:Praxidicae? Maybe my talk page or better yet the drsft talk so as not to clutter Star Mississippi page. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy to have this here, but I think Article Talk is most helpful for future editors. I love when you drop links @FloridaArmy as it's a good starting point whether or not you've had the chance to integrate them. Star Mississippi 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD decision regarding Tomás Matos

Hello, you are the admin who recently closed the deletion discussion for the article on Tomás Matos, stating the consensus was that we don't have "significant coverage" of the subject to warrant an article. I could see the article headed for deletion, but I do not believe the discussion which unfolded there was well-founded in our policies and guidelines, and i am contacting you to ask you to reconsider the deletion. Please consider the following:

  • The last person to edit the deletion discussion indicated that two of the reference pages he tried to verify were on the New York Times and were paywalled to him-- this means, I think, that he did not actually read them, but still gave his own conclusions about what they must have contained. This makes it feel like articles from sources such as the New York Times end up taking a "hit" because some editors can't get access to them for free! Marking these as "paywalled"... what difference does that make? If none, why mention it? except to try to discredit the source? Or to admit ignorance but say you are going to judge anyway? I don't see what the purpose of that was and I don't understand how it adds to a deletion discussion. It would be great if you could help me out with that.
  • In the NYT article which I have to assume, for paywall reasons, none of other reviewers actually read (did you get a chance to read it??) Mr. Matos is discussed directly and in detail. The guideline under WP:SIGCOV says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That is exactly what we have here. No, he was not the main subject. But he was one of FOUR subjects hand-chosen by the New York Times to be featured in that article, and each of those four people got several paragraphs of text that was just about them. When I saw that, I figured his notability was all but guaranteed. I am still stunned that people thought otherwise, because if they had read the Times article (?) they would surely have agreed that he is notable. If.
  • The deletion discussion started off with some disorienting claims about the article being moved to draft space, then out of draft space without any sourcing being added. Yes, it was moved into draft space-- which, according to the guidelines about what kinds of articles should be moved into draft space, should never have been done. WP:DRAFTIFY lays this out pretty clearly. And so I read over that carefully and then decided to move it BACK into the mainspace... but not before adding two additional sources to it! No one cared.
  • Another reviewer stated that the subject hadn't had enough of the kinds of roles on Broadway that we expect from performers per WP:CREATIVE. That statement is also true. But I tried to make clear that I wasn't trying to "sneak him in" under the terms of WP:CREATIVE, but was arguing that he already met the WP:GNG and that WP:CREATIVE had no bearing here at all. I made a statement about the role and purpose of the subject-specific notability criteria, and how that criteria aren't supposed to be used to EX-clude any articles at all. No one cared.
  • The nominator ended his nomination with, "Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Tomás Matos from having to be the subject of quite a bit more than just one short blurb in a legitimate source." Once again, this is off the mark. I agree that there is nothing "inherently" notable about him: he is not a prince, he isn't a newly discovered species of insect, he doesn't hold a named chair at a university. But "one short blurb", a "blurb" that is ALL ABOUT YOU and which is featured in the NEW YORK TIMES, is maybe a pretty good sign that you are heading towards notability. Combine this with the other sources which discuss him in whatever degree of depth, and add to this the interview (it looks that was written off as well, "because it was an interview"-- I understand that interviews need to be handled carefully because their content is up to the interviewer and his/ her subject, but I don't think this means that the content of an interview is supposed to be discounted entirely just because it was an interview, yes? WP:INTERVIEWS) then a decision to delete based in a lack of significant coverage becomes rather difficult to sustain. The source materials talk about his age, his education, his career, his performances, his ethnicity, and his sexuality-- these are exactly the kinds of things we need for a Wikipedia article on him, and we have them, in multiple reliable published independent sources.

Which is why I am having some difficulty accepting the outcome of the discussion. I feel the facts of the article were presented incorrectly, that the wrong notability guidelines were applied to the subject, that other editors did not actually review the source materials cited, and that some valid sources and evidence of notability were dismissed for the wrong reasons. Each time I brought these things up, no one cared-- maybe they didn't want to respond because there was no defense. And if there was no defense, then it feels like the article maybe shouldn't have been deleted.

Please do not decide immediately how you are going to respond. Please take at least one day, please review all of the sources that were originally in the article, and then, without regard to anything I ever actually wrote about him, ask yourself, "Considering all of this, is it likely that this person is in fact notable? Even if he isn't the star of a Broadway show yet? Is there enough evidence to show that he is notable now? Do we have enough material to write up an article about him on Wikipedia? Is he being talked about?" I am certain that you will eventually agree that the answers to these questions is "yes", even if the community in its clumsy way said, "Nah."

...And when you've been interviewed by the New York Times.... The notability is real, even if it is behind a paywall. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your detailed note. I'm happy to take the time to review my close per your request, or just to re-open the decision and let it run longer. Let me know if you're good with the latter and I'll do so this evening, east coast time. I'm not a big fan of bureaucracy and happy for more input. Star Mississippi 21:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I totally lost track of this and only saw it again when looking for something else here. I'm going to be offline for the weekend but @A loose necktie please let me know if you'd still like a revisit next week and I'd be happy to. Apologies again Star Mississippi 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please. Absolutely. A loose necktie (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I will get to this by tomorrow or Tuesday. Thanks again for your patience @A loose necktie Star Mississippi 01:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi again. I have reviewed the !votes and my close and still feel confident I'd have closed it the same way as there was not a consensus to keep this content. As to @Kbabej's !vote, I'd interpreted that to say that he was able to access it (noting one of four subjects), but that it was paywalled which might be a factor in other reviews. (I can access the NYT sources and did reread to refresh my memory). If you'd like to go to DRV, I'll happily support that. However I have two alternate options: merge to the Diana, musical article preserving the history/attribution until such time as a future role garners Matos notability, or if you really think you can make the case now, I'll happily restore to draft for your improvement. I do not agree with the nom that your restoration was in bad faith and would assume any move you did now was similarly in good faith. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? Star Mississippi 02:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

Do you think we should indef block them and revoke their talk page access? They're getting quite annoying. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You could try removing their talk page from your watch list if they're that annoying. – 2.O.Boxing 11:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Did just that. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm Involved, which is why I'm taking no admin action, but I would not be surprised if we end up there. @Squared.Circle.Boxing's suggestion is the best since you don't have to worry about them turning up elsewhere on your watchlist. Star Mississippi 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Telescopic pixel display

Hey, Star Mississippi,

I hope you are well. You tagged this article as being promotional but it reads like a technological development, not advertising. I don't think I'm seeing what you saw. Also, is there a reason why you didn't delete this article yourself instead of tagging it? Thanks for any info you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I tend not to delete myself unless it's blatant G12 or whichever category the nonsense is because it's subjective as you point out. No worries if you don't think it's promotional enough, it's how it read to me. It's not enough a G12 of this source to tag on G12 grounds so I might take it to AfD if you decline. Not sure I care enough to have it removed though. Always nice to hear from you. Have a great night! Star Mississippi 01:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I was looking at articles that were going to hit CSD G13 tomorrow and came across this one, Draft:4 Acting Tony Nominations. I thought of you after reading the discussion above about plays and musicals. Looks like a lot of work went into this page but the page creator came and went quickly. Think there is anything here that is worth preserving and maybe merging with another article? Hope you are well! Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I just fixed a typo to re-start the clock and give me some time to see where the content can be used. Between @Discographer and the watchers of his Broadway list I'm sure we can find a good home for it. Star Mississippi 13:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(pinged...) – Hi! I don't know if this is really an interesting page of info to save or not, even I have no interest in this info, as the number of awards nominations increases over time, so those totals would change anyway. I go to the Tony Awards articles (Olivier for the UK) themselves and just go from there when I'm looking for something, unless it's the winners themselves, who I do have on my Broadway list page. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosetta Lawson

I managed to get that article up to GA, and then I figured she was probably lonely in mainspace so I threw together an article for her husband, Jesse Lawson, which I just nominated for GA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nicely done! I forget she is how we met (? I think? Or was it about my NPOV vacuum?) but wow, that article is 1000% better than the draftspace article I'd stumbled on. Off to learn about her husband. No mainspace widowing allowed. Star Mississippi 20:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
We had seen each other around, but I think she was our first actual interaction. I think I might spend some time working on the articles adjacent to them, as I feel there are probably a lot more activists that don't have articles yet. And maybe get the university with the name I can't spell up to GA as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been working on some FloridaArmy drafts as he has some gems in there that are underrepresented, content/subject wise. Not sure on activists, but likely at least a few. Not sure how you feel, but I always find it easier when someone has done some of the source legwork. Star Mississippi 20:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
What I had been doing was going through declined women in red drafts and cleaning up the low hanging fruit. Now that I've done a few, I didn't find writing Jesse's from scratch to be too hard. I find it's much easier if I throw some section headings down and start putting important facts with cites in them, then do the actual writing after. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to find a project's declined drafts? Museums are my main world and some stubs are borderline but could be fixed with some research TLC. Star Mississippi 21:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I forget how I found it, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Drafts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

A close:

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flea Circus Hi!, just reaching out after my uninformed change and then selfrevert. Any particular reason for soft over regular? (watching) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 08:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for flagging! I certainly didn't mean to close it as soft redirect. We'll chalk it up to editing too late. Star Mississippi 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I know absolutely nothing about that at all. No problem, Happy Editing--IAmChaos 14:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey! In the deletion discussion for Ukraine genocide that you closed, I noted that the redirects Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian genocide (which currently go to the Holodomor article) should also be deleted as a result of the discussion. I know the first one is long-standing, but in light of the current discussion I think they ought to be deleted as they are basically variations on the deleted page's title, and this seems to be the opinion of others in the discussion too. Thank you! --QueenofBithynia (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I took care of the latter, but Ukrainian Genocide has such a long history, it should probably go through RfD. I'll start a discussion. Thanks for the heads up! Star Mississippi 13:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Houston Christian High School

I have access to the Houston Chronicle archives, so I can check if I can get access to important articles about Houston Christian High School.

But I want to see if I can find more. If you like I can mail the articles to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I found

  • Vara, Richard (1998-04-25). "Coalition buys land for school". Houston Chronicle. p. 1. - This talks about the purchasing of the land for what became Houston Christian.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @WhisperToMe. I don't know that I have the time, interest at the moment to work on this article right now. Happy to draftify it for you if you'd like to work on it. If you're not inclined at the moment and I decide to work, I'll definitely take you up on the source offer. Thank you again Star Mississippi 19:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with draftifying it so I can work on it. I'm happy to work on it now :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Merry school-mas! Draft:Houston Christian High School Star Mississippi 20:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I got access to the Houston Chronicle archives via my library card and used them to add sourcing. I think the Chron articles "Christian High sees increase in students" by Annette Baird, "Houston Christian opens new campus Area churches collaborate for high school" by Danny Perez, and "Coalition buys land for school" by Richard Vara should suffice for GNG grounds. If you like I can e-mail the three articles to you. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm absolutely chuckling at the campus hokey pokey that went on as the schools moved. I don't have a ton of time to look at this now, unfortunately and don't want to hold you up process wise. If you think the GNG issues are resolved I'm happy for you to move it back. I can tell with just a quick glance at the diffs that we're nowhere near G4 territory and the AfD issue was more "we can't find sources in this window" than "this school is definitively not notable" so there shouldn't be a re-nomination. If you'd like an eye on it, I can aim to do a review early next week. Let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 00:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the GNG issues are resolved, so if you're OK I can move it back in them mainspace. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Go for it! Have a great day Star Mississippi 13:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
accidental benefit of your restoration. your edits to the various articles where it had been removed/de-linked are making for easy watchlist cleanup. I try to go through my contribs and un-watch ones where it's just AfD related, but sometimes I forget. Yay watchlist diet! Star Mississippi 21:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #57763

Neutralhomer has an unblock request there. I cannot make any sense of the talk page discussions. What should I tell him? What advice can I give him? If any? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur. Unfortunately, NH cannot see the green comments. I know. quirky. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
You need to click the reserve button. I just recused. His response to my request that he answer the three questions makes me think he has no idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
He doesn't, and I do feel bad because he's trying. But it sums up why this is going to end poorly. He's not aware that his conduct continues to be the problem and is therefore blaming all of us. I wish he'd go edit another project-not to get rid of him but to show whether he can edit collaboratively. Without that I don't see a path back. Star Mississippi 02:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

David Carson Berry

I note that you suppressed the red links to David Carson Berry in the Schenkerian analysis article. This indeed was necessary. But I don't understand why you also suppressed the reference to his Topical Guide to Schenkerian Literature, which IMO remains an important source of information on Schenkerian studies. Can you explain? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There was definitely a glitch in closing that AfD as I was just about to explain to @Kosboot in relation to their cleanup. I'm not sure if it was due to the ongoing issues with the script, or my own misclick. Either way, I apologize. I restored it, but please feel free to flag (or revert) any other edits that went amok. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 14:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For patience and endurance above and beyond any reasonable expectation at UTRS appeal #57763 FWIW, I'm in Florida. If you want to know what that's like, search Twitter for #FloridaMan. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and right back at you. That was something I truly hope to never need to repeat again. I'm glad to have been offline for this afternoon's chapter. Star Mississippi 02:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This

feels almost Joycean --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

and so timely and fitting. This is ridiculous and sadly he's enjoying every second. I feel for ArbComm having to navigate this. Star Mississippi 03:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_7&oldid=1093524802"