As Sir Humphrey would say
...that was very brave, Minister! SN54129 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Since this has recently come up in an Arbcom case, it's worth noting that the community seems to be reasonably lenient on admins making mistakes, provided they apologise and self-revert at the first point of objection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
June songs
my story today |
---|
agree ;) - I like today's Main page, and here's why ;) - (DYK that we got filmed when performing the piece mentioned?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Last weekend was nice, class reunion a funny number of years after completing school, and the lovely park where I spent many Sundays as a child. Today's story is quite dramatic, there's a yt trailer to the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
11 June or: Music not only by Bach --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I had a go at playing some John Williams marches on the baritone saxophone this week, making a change from alto sax which I have previously used. I've also tried to stop a (presumably) soon to be ex-admin from throwing their hands up and walking away, like RexxS. I don't know if I'll be successful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you'll be successful. I watch it from the sides. I practically walked away from DYK, and from something in real life, and life is so much lighter both ends. I understand RexxS better each day, really. There's a line in Der Rosenkavalier, meaning you have to hold and keep and let go with light heart and light hands. It's also a line of poetry by Poeticbent - missed much - quoted here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are a few Wikipedians I could sit with in a pub with for six hours straight and still want to converse with them more - RexxS is one, ClemRutter is another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Martinevans, Storye book, Netherzone, Urve, ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Jörg Widmann is 50, and I began Stockholm pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- There are a few Wikipedians I could sit with in a pub with for six hours straight and still want to converse with them more - RexxS is one, ClemRutter is another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you'll be successful. I watch it from the sides. I practically walked away from DYK, and from something in real life, and life is so much lighter both ends. I understand RexxS better each day, really. There's a line in Der Rosenkavalier, meaning you have to hold and keep and let go with light heart and light hands. It's also a line of poetry by Poeticbent - missed much - quoted here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. You redirected Rebecca Jane in January 2018, which has since been written over with an article about a different person and moved to Becky Jane. I just want to point out that Rebecca Jane is the current deputy leader of UKIP and therefore - if I interpret WP:NPOL correctly - satisfies that policy's criterion 1. That said, I think this requires cleanup before it's ready to go back into mainspace. Could you siphon off the revisions into User:Launchballer/Rebecca Jane so I can work on it? Launchballer 10:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- That was a bit of a pain, but I think I've done what you asked for, and sorted out the merged history for the two separate biographies, per the instructions in WP:HMUNDO. I haven't done it for the talk page as there's not much there aside from maintenance and project templates, which probably aren't important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Question from Gavin Ngabonziza (12:09, 7 June 2023)
Hello, so I have been at it for some days (editing and writing). However, there's a particular article / biography whose information really deserves to be updated and article expanded. As a contributor how do you reckon I can get that done? --Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are you talking about a new article, or an existing one? And is the biography of someone living or dead? Assuming it's expanding an existing biography of a living person, then you need to make sure you have very high-quality source material first, then read the guidelines for biographies of living people. Unless you present the sources of information up-front, your edits are likely to be removed, as we have very strict policies protecting the privacy and respect of people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the sources of my information, I liaise with his personal assistant to get all updates and I am also the designer of his personal website. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see you have been editing Godfrey Kirumira, and I have reverted your changes per the policy I just linked to. In particular, language such as "His Excellence Godfrey Kirumira, an accomplished businessman, philanthropist, and the esteemed Consul General of Namibia to Uganda" is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia; we must describe things in a disinterested and neutral tone. The guidelines on words to watch may be helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- So he is a living person and now an ambassador of Namibia to Uganda. Provided I get to work on the change of tone, will I get the edits approved and consequently visible publicly? Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
DYK for That's 60s
On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article That's 60s, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first song played on That's 60s was the same song Tony Blackburn had played on BBC Radio 1 more than 55 years earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/That's 60s. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, That's 60s), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem I've got with That's 60s is the quality is shoddy, and the programming is hit and miss. I realise that's partly because of the lack of quality archive clips, but there's no reason the channel couldn't restore and remaster coverage of Dont Look Back, Monterey Pop or any amount of Jimi Hendrix footage .... oh wait, that's expensive and can't be done on a TV channel running on a shoestring budget. Maybe there is a reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Question from Gavin Ngabonziza (11:30, 8 June 2023)
Hello, when I make an edit on any article does the edited version get published on the main wikipedia immediately? --Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, is there anything that would indicate to you that it might not? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Re: AfD
I think that "consensus to merge" was inappropriate since it did not reflect later additions done to the article. The debate was essentially about when the article was ~200 words instead of when it was ~900 words. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- (there were no replies to that discussion after sources were brought up or the article was improved) 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately consensus doesn’t always go everyone’s way; if the article had been kept, there would be complaints on this talk page too, and probably from more people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not think there was enough time to gauge community response: the close was done 10 hrs after the article's substantial improvement and the discussion was not yet in the AfDbacklog, where the wider community could see it. Would there be a chance to reopen the discussion for least 2-3 days? I think that is not too unreasonable to ask: it allows to get a better community consensus. (by the way I am just going by WP:CCC)Comment retracted because I have no more uncertainties about the closure. Have a good day!2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately consensus doesn’t always go everyone’s way; if the article had been kept, there would be complaints on this talk page too, and probably from more people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
drv note
Deletion review for Incels.is
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Incels.is. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Urgent........... Editing on a bio page for Godfrey Kirumira (Now Ambassador)
Hey Ritchie, I am currently assigned to a one Godfrey Kirumira Kalule, a Ugandan Real Estate Developer and now Ambassador of Namibia to Uganda. I have to update his wikipedia page with new information including his website, socials, and consular events. I added an edit on his page a couple of days ago and haven't seen them approved and therefore published. As my assigned how can you help to this effect, his official event is 15 of this month. Please help. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted these changes because they violated the policy on biographies of living persons. If you have a conflict of interest with Godfrey Kirumira Kalule, you should not be editing the article at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have a conflict of interest with Godfrey Kirumira Kalule. I am rather the person who can get the page edited given the most accurate and updated information on his life and work. Kindly, understand. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Above, you wrote "I liaise with his personal assistant to get all updates and I am also the designer of his personal website.". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that the policy for COI on Wikipedia has employees or close relationship etc, but in that statement I was giving a case for accurate information and proactiveness to have a new digital identity for Godfrey Kirumira Kalule. If you can find an editor with accurate information as required by the Wikipedia standards, that would be fine, but at this time, the Namibian Consulate and Consul cannot have a page with three sentences, by any means. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand your concerns. The whole ethos of the biography of living persons policy is to err on the side of not including information, until we are certain it can be verified in multiple trustworthy sources from third parties. Unless an independent source mentions Kalule, we don't know whether the information present is of the appropriate tone and balance. I do appreciate that this is difficult to do in some parts of the world, where there is not an extensive corpus of information available like there is in, say, the US.
- I have to repeat - do you understand why prose such as "Mr. Kirumira has become a respected figure in business and a champion of positive change. Recognizing his exemplary business acumen and leadership capacity" is not appropriate for a neutral and balanced encyclopaedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the need for neutrality and balance in tone and overall outlook of information provided for persons pages. I wasn't initially well versed with the rules of editing on Wikipedia, however your guidance and feedback has been impeccable. I'll put together the necessary information on Godfrey Kirumira Kalule's page factoring in all the possible rules so it can acceptable and have his profile updated. I'd request you have a look at the page once am done editing and if there's need for any changes or adjustments, we can have those worked out on my talk page. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that the policy for COI on Wikipedia has employees or close relationship etc, but in that statement I was giving a case for accurate information and proactiveness to have a new digital identity for Godfrey Kirumira Kalule. If you can find an editor with accurate information as required by the Wikipedia standards, that would be fine, but at this time, the Namibian Consulate and Consul cannot have a page with three sentences, by any means. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Above, you wrote "I liaise with his personal assistant to get all updates and I am also the designer of his personal website.". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have a conflict of interest with Godfrey Kirumira Kalule. I am rather the person who can get the page edited given the most accurate and updated information on his life and work. Kindly, understand. Gavin Ngabonziza (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
RFA
I am questioning your action, moving discussion from the RFA nomination page to the talk page. By your ivote and rationale in the RFA you have demonstrated that you are not a fair arbiter in regard to the oppose ivotes. The discussion should not be meddled with - especially by someone who disagrees with the ivotes. I have come here because you have not acknowledged my ping which objected, and the ping of a second editor questioning the move. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I've been off-wiki since yesterday afternoon so I've only just seen this. Looking at the discussion, it seems that there's some agreement with moving extended discussion onto the talk page now, so I guess this is a moot point? Certainly your oppose is still there, and will be counted when the closing 'crat assesses the final result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. The talk page in question constantly recieves WP:NOTAFORUM violations. I was wondering if you could protect it or create an edit notice telling people that the talk page is not a chatbot (they think it is one, hence the numerous violations). Thank you. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the talk page for two weeks (escalating per the week's semi-protection imposed by Deepfriedokra a few weeks ago, and added an edit notice explaining that the talk page is not for general discussion. Hopefully that well quell the disruption a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Two issues: 1) your statement that the arguments for deletion didn't quite have the upper hand
calls your reading of the AfD into question, as no one, not even the nom, argued that the article should be deleted. 2) The relisting statement was "Lets try and find consensus between Keep and Merge." One Keep was posted, then you closed the AfD as 'Merge', which seems incongruous. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree that the closing of this AFD leaves major questions to if you examined the arguments presented. I don't see any problem with the Keep votes (disclaimer: I myself was a keep vote), and some of the Merge votes are on rather specious grounds - like sources treating Balthier & Fran as a pair. Okay, so what? That might be a reason to move the article to "Balthier & Fran" but the most significant merge argument was a lack of sources, which I believe was mostly refuted, although some editors have very strict standards these days. SnowFire (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- The principal argument to delete the article came from the nominator, GlatorNator, who was the only editor to make any substantial contributions to the article during the AfD debate. If there were sufficient sources, this could be demonstrated by adding them to the article either by expanding it or fighting up the referencing. As it was, the references were refuted to some degree in the debate, leaving a lack of consensus for them. Additionally, another editor, Kung Fu Man has implemented the merge suggested in the AfD without complaint. This suggests there's no obvious consensus for keep. The only other reasonable outcome from the AfD would be "no consensus", but since the article has now been merged / redirected, that might be a contentious change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- The only other reasonable outcome from the AfD would be "no consensus", but since the article has now been merged / redirected, that might be a contentious change. This seems like backwards reasoning. You closed the discussion as "merge" and then someone merged it based on that result. If you revised your close to "no consensus", then there'd be no issue with reverting the merge. As it stands, I have a hard time seeming consensus to merge. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the nominator being the only editor to make substantial contributions to the article. The Keep position asserts that the dozens of sources in the article were sufficient to establish notability. Why would editors on that side feel the need to further edit the article on those grounds? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that the AFD nominator, GlatorNator, said we definitely know Notability isn't an issue now after the afd arguments (referring to this AFD) at a separate GAR they submitted and later withdrew, but refused to withdraw or modify their AFD rationale. The nominator, who you say made the only principal argument at the AFD, explicitly admitted that they made that argument on specious grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like we're not going to agree on this, so I'm going to raise a deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Appreciate that you did this! Axem Titanium (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like we're not going to agree on this, so I'm going to raise a deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello Ritchie333,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
RE: Balthier
Undid the merging so you're good to go if you want. Honestly like I said, it did feel controversial but I'm not in the habit of contesting AfDs.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers, I personally didn't have an issue with it, but it looks like there are objections (see above thread), so DRV is best. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth, Washington
Hey Ritchie333,
Deletion page here - [2]
Based on your long history here, I defer to your expertise. That said...here it comes!...I was surprised that the article was deleted based on the voting/lack of voting numbers. For instance, a total of 5 deletes and two merge (and one of the deletes recommended a merge) makes a consensus and adequately portrays the need for a deletion...?
It's just an old community train station and as far as I know, the location is not the answer to cure cancer. But I do still know that Ruth should be listed somewhere so it's remembered because it exists. Would it be improper for me to list Ruth (with a small snippet from the article) at the county article page? Could I start a ghost rail station list/article? Or does the deletion prevent that? If it does, how would I even go about asking for that to be allowed without being accused of trying to circumvent rules and consensus?
My thanks for your reply, Shortiefourten (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not Ritchie, but I can answer your question. The deletion does not stop you from adding information about it to another article, such as the county article. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Shortiefourten: Making sure you saw my above post. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Saw it. Not a train/railroad expert in the slightest so I'll have to get around to it with my fingers crossed. Thanks for the answers.Shortiefourten (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally, if you want a copy of the deleted article restored in your user space for reference, I can do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd greatly appreciate that, Rithchie333. Have no idea how that's done and it's best that I don't because it might overload what limited brain power I have for coding. Tried to save the page before it went down but it turned into some Wingding-Ancient Sumerian recipe for boiled noodles.
- Thanks for the offer!
- Shortiefourten (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
AlisonW case request accepted
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why do I feel like Richard Gere doing the tap dance in Chicago? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
Hello, I'm UserMod124. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserMod124 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sometimes I assume too much good faith. It's the old-fashioned Wikipedian values. Anyway, since you've proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you're not a confused newbie struggling with the editing tools, but somebody who fancies cocking about, here's an indefinite block. Have a nice life. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Closing of AFD for Murder of Carrim Alli
I don’t believe that the majority of sources that I added to that AfD were addressed. There was one delete vote after the relisting that was quite dubious, while another from a relatively new editor who didn’t address most of the sources I added to the AfD. My argument about GNG wasn’t properly addressed either. I’m curious about the rationale for closing it as a delete, rather than a No Consensus. Park3r (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Basically, the rationale for the delete closure is that nobody commented on the sources you added, while in the final relist (which would have suggested "no consensus" if there had been little further comments), Karnataka gave a comprehensive reason why the sources were inadequate and that a standalone article was insufficient. If you want, I can restore the article to userspace or draft space so you can work on it further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I felt that Karnatka didn’t adequately address the sources I added to the AFD, only the sources in the article (which I added a comment about in response to Karnatka’s vote). Also my argument about WP:GNG was not addressed. To be honest, I don’t know why this murder received the coverage it did, and I don’t know about the subjects inherent notability but inherent notability is irrelevant as an inclusion criterion, rather the coverage in WP:RS is what matters, and I feel that was inadequately discussed after the relisting. Park3r (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'll wait and see what Karnataka says in response to this conversation. In the meantime, as I said, I can restore the article to userspace or draft space if you wish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like Karnataka isn't responding. I'd propose re-opening the AFD so that the sources can be examined in detail, along with the argument that the article could meet WP:GNG. I wouldn't really want to edit the article in draftspace, both because I knew the victim, and because the sources I found could be discounted (another editor claimed all news reports are primary sources), which would be a waste of my (and other editors who use the sources) time, and the article could end up back in AFD, even if it's approved. Park3r (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'll wait and see what Karnataka says in response to this conversation. In the meantime, as I said, I can restore the article to userspace or draft space if you wish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I felt that Karnatka didn’t adequately address the sources I added to the AFD, only the sources in the article (which I added a comment about in response to Karnatka’s vote). Also my argument about WP:GNG was not addressed. To be honest, I don’t know why this murder received the coverage it did, and I don’t know about the subjects inherent notability but inherent notability is irrelevant as an inclusion criterion, rather the coverage in WP:RS is what matters, and I feel that was inadequately discussed after the relisting. Park3r (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Request rev/del please
Can you take a look at Special:Diff/1161856884 please? I've reverted already. Knitsey (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Done. No other edits, but if you get any further problems I'd recommend WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've no idea which warning to use for selling your organs? Knitsey (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not entirely serious proposal on my part, but {{No medical advice}} or {{RD-med}} maybe? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've no idea which warning to use for selling your organs? Knitsey (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Richie, you've closed this as "No Consensus" with a reasoning that the Delete !votes are short and based on classic arguments to avoid. I'm very surprised, especially considering the lengthy GNG/NCORP-based explanations I've provided showing why the references fail to meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Specifically the argument made by Keep !voters of "significant coverage" fails to address the "Independent" criteria. Clearly Oblivy was unfamiliar with GNG/NCORP criteria and "gave up" once it was explained. The only other Keep !voter, Alvardi (article creator) only referred to GNG (not NCORP) and did not hang around after listing three references that are based solely on PR. Can you review please. HighKing++ 11:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Examples of poor and cliched delete arguments include "Doesn't meet WP:GNG, Broken link and companies website is used as ref." WP:DEL-CONTENT, "Per nominator" WP:PERNOM and " does not meet WP:NCORP" WP:VAGUEWAVE. I discounted all of them as weak arguments, which leaves everyone else arguing with each other and giving up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your reply doesn't address what I've said above. Sure, you can get rid of some of the Delete !votes that way and if that is your normal method for evaluating arguments at AfD, fair enough and I think it is a good method. So we're left with what exactly? One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP, where the article creator popped in to !vote and didn't respond when pointed out why the references failed our criteria. And another Keep !vote from an editor who has no experience at AfD and eventually "gave up" when it was all carefully explained. Can yu please review. HighKing++ 11:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- "One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP". That's just your personal opinion. Other editors may have a different viewpoint. I would recommend saying "oh well, editors disagree with me, hey ho" and finding a different article to expand or improve. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Except another editor, scope_creep, also supported that view. Also that editor in question then thanked me for the explanation, appeared to grasp what was being said and "gave up" on arguing for those references immediately after. Sorry for bugging you like this Richie, if you stand by your decision, fair enough, I won't pursue it any further, I'm trying to understand your logic/reasoning. If you're happy, I'll accept that. HighKing++ 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'll also note that you've provided reasoning on another AfD above that Karnataka gave a comprehensive reason why the sources were inadequate whereas here you're saying my reasoning is just your personal opinion. I find that odd too. Are you saying that after weighing the various arguments, etc, the reasoning provided by Delete was incorrect or inadequate? Or what's the difference in these two AfDs? HighKing++ 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- "One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP". That's just your personal opinion. Other editors may have a different viewpoint. I would recommend saying "oh well, editors disagree with me, hey ho" and finding a different article to expand or improve. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your reply doesn't address what I've said above. Sure, you can get rid of some of the Delete !votes that way and if that is your normal method for evaluating arguments at AfD, fair enough and I think it is a good method. So we're left with what exactly? One Keep !vote based on three bad references that fail GNG/NCORP, where the article creator popped in to !vote and didn't respond when pointed out why the references failed our criteria. And another Keep !vote from an editor who has no experience at AfD and eventually "gave up" when it was all carefully explained. Can yu please review. HighKing++ 11:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Defeedme socks
These are mostly handled at AIV now, since they're almost all IPs which won't be commented on at SPI, and there's a ton of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for closing WP:Articles for deletion/Incels.is
I know this is belated but I feared accusations of collusion or some other non-sense by the wall-of-text IP. S0091 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)