I appreciate the thought, but I'll be honest in saying I'm not particularly active at PR (my one commentary there was a drive-by) and I don't have a significant interest in the topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amphibians and reptiles - I would not find "removing all the incoming links and just G6'ing this in the future" acceptable. Potential existing external links, the useful page history, and its age are other factors that make this worth retaining. Would you be willing to, at the least, amend your closure to state "removing all the incoming links and re-nominating it at WP:MFD"? I would also find wholly removing the latter part of the closing statement acceptable (and, in fact, preferable) but my former suggestion would suffice. Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)19:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. This is a little delicate. I've worked with Cmguy777 quite a bit. Regarding his close paraphrasing/plagiarism, I think he honestly doesn't understand that it's wrong. The best thing I've found to do is just go behind him cleaning up. His spelling, grammar, and syntax often require clean-ups, too. He means well. YoPienso (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I get that he means well, but competence is required, and "not understanding" doesn't make that kind of thing acceptable. Copyvio/close paraphrasing is a major issue. It exposes us to serious legal liability. It's not okay for someone to just not understand that. We can't just accept it under the assumption that there will always be someone wandering around behind him fixing up these problems. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Indeed! – especially when we're talking about thousands of edits (literally – 5221 to Ulysses S. Grant) to some of our most vital articles. The risk is that some or even all the huge amount of work recently done by other editors on pages such as George Washington will have to be jettisoned in order to clean up after this one. Delicate or not, I'm afraid this is probably a large and serious problem that is going to suck up many hundreds of hours of volunteer time to put right. That's definitely not OK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yopienso, I'm not actually rushing to anything. We have evidence that there is a problem here, potentially a very serious one (and yes, if confirmed it would immediately place at risk any FA status in affected articles). What I believe is needed now is to decide how to move forward. That is not made any easier by two things: our CCI process is so backlogged that it is essentially moribund; and one of our most essential tools, the Contribution Surveyor, is out of action, with the Foundation claiming that that is "a feature not a bug". PMC, do you have any thoughts on what the best next step might be? I see that there is discussion of an FA bid for George Washington; it seems pretty heartless not to even mention that there may be a quick-fail problem with the text. Regards all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Justlettersandnumbers, I honestly don't know. I'm not typically a copyvio-patroller admin; I've been sort of drawn into this a bit out of my wheelhouse. I think we should get into that Washington FA discussion and mention this problem for sure. Maybe we can convince others to help us comb the history. Then maybe we go though the major articles he's contributed to one by one, starting with big/important/FA ones?
Yopienso, nobody is rushing to judgement, but neither you nor Cmguy777 are acknowledging the massive problem that plagiarism causes for Wikipedia. We now have to spend hours and hours of our own personal time to go through articles that he has contributed to, remove the close paraphrasing/copy and pasting, and revision delete massive chunks of history from those articles. For huge articles with thousands of edits like Washington or Grant, that could be devastating. It behooves you to treat the situation with a little more seriousness and less immediate defensiveness of your friend. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi PMC,
Sorry to bother you with one of these again. You recently closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Victor Kosko as a delete, but you also deleted this user's talk page as a G8, and I wasn't sure if that was intended. I didn't think that's usually done for user talk pages. I don't remember if there was anything particularly inappropriate about his talk page specifically, though. Thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Patrash Hembrom/sandbox/Lucash Hembrom: I do not believe anything but no consensus defaulting to a blank (as no one wants to keep it as is) will suffice in this case. Setting SmokeyJoe's contradicting !votes aside, numerically 3 to 2 for blanking (and I do not think the strength of the argument presented by those !voting delete is overwhelming), and one blank opinion went as far as to say "reason for blanking rather than keeping is because the user is blocked." Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)18:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
@SmokeyJoe: this "now that we're here" business strikes me as Kafkaesque. i.e. "we cannot prove you are guilty, but will send you to court anyway. now that we're here, we might as well say guilty". i.e. the "here" is not some place we've wound up by random coincidence or convenience; it's the result of a slipshod nomination which has now been validated. "Let's delete not because there's a compelling reason to delete based on policies and guidelines, but because this page is in the place where we delete stuff, so let's delete it." If something is nominated for deletion that should just be blanked, it should just be blanked. I'm not linking to a particular page because I happen to see this a couple times today about a couple pages I don't feel particularly strongly about, but which are clearly not "problematic even if blanked." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Although slim, there was numerical consensus to delete those pages, and no strong consensus for keeping them. I have no opposition to either of you, or anyone else, taking the closes in question to DRV if you want to have them reviewed. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
There isn't numerical consensus in either one. In the other, I see 4/5 people supporting blank, 3/5 supporting delete. For first choices, it's split between blank and delete, with 3/5 first choices preferring not to delete. Regardless, numbers are numbers. By your close I take it your judgment is that the strongest policy-based arguments were those supporting deletion. This is the hard thing with MfD -- so often we're dealing with pages that it's hard to raise a stink about (e.g. go to DRV), so it's easy to delete and not look back even though the pages had absolutely zero negative impact on the project. Most likely is we're neither better nor worse for deleting it; worst case scenario it has a negative impact. Eh. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 06:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the late response, when I got on yesterday I didn't have a chance to do anything substantial before I got called away. The thing is, arguing to blank this kind of content isn't really an argument for actually keeping the content as-is. It's arguing for a result of "remove/hide in a non-permanent way" (ie, there's some tacit agreement that the content is not worth keeping). If anyone had ever expressed any actual interest in working on the content, I would take that into account. But when even the most inclusionist arguments are "keep but get rid of", I don't see the harm of coming down on the delete side when it's close. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I don't actually see any real issue in most of these (i.e. I would never actually suggest blanking except as a compromise position, taking for granted that if we're at MfD, someone has, for some reason, gone through someone else's userspace pages and had some kind of negative reaction to one of those pages that practically nobody else will ever come across. If they see a reason to blank in such a situation, then so be it; I just hate to see userspace pages that pose no harm taken to MfD and deleted, with no appreciable benefit to the project). "There's no reason for deletion" is a reason to keep, after all. There needs to be a reason to delete these pages beyond "we're here, and that's what we do here." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree to a certain extent; I wouldn't go hunting for the stuff, and I would definitely prefer that people blank it rather than MfDing if only to save time and keystrokes. But I also think there's not a lot of harm in getting rid of it - NOTAWEBHOST, possible BLP issues, slim potential for attraction of trolls, etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I believe blank probably arose as a compromise between keep and delete, but that is besides the point. Blank is advocated because that is what the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline recommends, little judgement and no "tacit agreement that the content is not worth keeping" of the content necessarily comes into play. Moreover, the consensus is what matters, not interpretations of the reasoning behind it. If there is a lack of consensus it defaults to keep (or the most popular non-delete option). — Godsy (TALKCONT)12:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
The Lynn Nunes one shows clear consensus to delete - Joe's comments indicate he prefers the delete result, and NYB explicitly says blank is only a second choice. Taking into account the nominator, that's a clear consensus. The other one is an even split, and I believe the arguments for delete were strong enough not to close it as "no consensus". As I said earlier, if you truly believe my close was in error, I have no objection to you taking this to DRV. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sorry for the late reply, I haven't been able to get on and do anything substantial until now. I'll have a look and leave some comments within the next couple hours. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My page in Wiki is Sandeep Pampally and I had changed my name for movies to "[Pampally]" only, Can I change my Sandeep Pampally to Pampally only. My official ID from Indian government, after receiving 65th National Awards added alias '[Pampally]' to my aadhan ID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.61.236.39 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
First, you should create an account and use the open-ticket resource system to identify yourself securely to a team of confidential volunteers so it can be confirmed that the person requesting such a change is you. Then you should use the {{request edit}} template on the page's talk page (Talk:Sandeep Pampally) to request the edit. It will be best if you have reliable sources showing that you have been using this name as a pen name/pseudonym/working name/whatever you want to call it. ♠PMC♠ (talk)08:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
I am an employee at Making Contact and when we went to edit our Wikipedia Page we noticed our page had been deleted! The deletion log led me to you. Why was our page deleted? Can we restore it for updates?
Thanks so much!
Vtykulsk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I need you to link me the deleted page by putting brackets around the title, because I can't find it and as my header tells you, if I can't find the page, I can't help you.
Second, as an employee of a company, you should not be making edits to any page about your company, as per our conflict of interest guideline. You need to make an explicit declaration of your conflict on your userpage, which the guideline page will tell you how to do. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
You keep saying "we", please keep in mind that shared/role accounts are not permitted (see the applicable policy). Additionally, you must make the appropriate COI declaration on your userpage before you do anything further. This is not negotiable. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
No. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot assume that sources will exist in the future. When (if) the sources are actually published, they can be used to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
At that time, I would recommend creating a draft and submitting it through articles for creation for review by an AfC participant. (PS, I find your mention of "someone" to be interesting - it suggests that there is a group of people interested in promoting this person, which in turn suggests a conflict of interest.) ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is no conflict of interest; I was merely stating that a request might be brought to your attention at that point in time, as you were the one who deleted it. The term 'someone' was merely stating that a person would make that request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.175.116 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
I left them in place because the abbreviations are linked from a few places and I didn't want to break the links, but I don't have any particular objection to deleting them. ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am writing you about the problems on Crespi's page hoping to find a way to solve them. I don't understand what is wrong with what I am doing, as an expert editor could you please explain me what I should change in the text/what is problematic? Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenzo Mattiello (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't add much to Wikipedia anymore and to be honest am not much bothered whether the article is deleted or not. Nonetheless as the article's creator, I suppose I should make at least a nominal effort to keep the page online. So, what information do you need for that? -- Analog Kid (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The article lacks any claim of significance or indication that the band passes any point under WP:NMUSIC. If you believe the article should be kept, you should update it to provide sources that would show they pass that, or any other notability criteria (like WP:GNG, for example). Feel free to remove the A7 tag while you're doing that; it's perfectly fine for you to contest the deletion tag. I have it on my watchlist and I'll review it in a couple of days and either take it to AfD or de-orphan it and leave it be. ♠PMC♠ (talk)12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
You never replied and it wound up deleted by another admin, but let me know if you want it restored to provide sources as indicated above; I don't mind to do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk)22:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know if the band qualified based on the link you gave me. They weren't on a major label and I have no clue if anything they released charted anywhere. They have a handful of reviews on rock/metal sites, but I assumed that wasn't good enough for notability. In any case from Bruno Levesque's Bandcamp site it appears the group haven't done anything since 2012, so I just let the entry be deleted. Thanks for the offer though. -- Analog Kid (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings! Do you mind me asking how long it normally takes a checkuser block appeal that's emailed to the ArbCom to be decided? I notified the ArbCom of one (RUE4533) a few days ago and am admittedly becoming somewhat impatient with the fact that nothing appears to have happened with it. Presumably, things are happening and I just can't see them, but I would appreciate knowing roughly when I can expect a decision to be posted on the user's talk page. Thanks, and apologies for my poor manners. —Compassionate727(T·C)02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about the delay in response here, we're still looking at it - as with everything on WP, the wheels of volunteer time grind slowly. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response, and then for your swift follow-up. This has been causing me more stress than it probably warranted because I felt bad for precipitating his block in the first place. I hope this experience hasn't been too much of a turn-off for him, but I can accept that's (for the most part) out of my hands at this point. I apologize if I've been a pest, and I wish you and your fellow committee members the best with whatever other nonsense you happen to be dealing with right now. Regards, —Compassionate727(T·C)00:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nahhh, it's all good, I know what it feels like to feel responsible for something and then go running around trying to fix it. You're not a pest :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 12 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Q'ursha, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to some accounts, the legendary Georgian hunting dog Q'ursha had eagle's wings, a thunderous bark and a gigantic leap? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Q'ursha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Q'ursha), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
That's fine, as long as there's content; just sticking "American physicist" into articlespace isn't a great way to start an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi.
You had closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NatalieFan/sandbox as leave blanked with the understanding that it would not be used for fake / fantasy reality show purposes. I'd like to draw your attention to its use for playing predict the winner on Big Brother 20 (U.S.) which has yet to finish airing. There is a series of edits followed by an immediate page blanking, possibly to make it look like nothing has happened. I concur with Davey2010's statement in the MFD that the history remains and this looks like Wikipedia's history function is being used for the purposes of storage. I am requesting that the sandbox be deleted per the close of the MFD. -- Whpq (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi PC, I hope this is the appropriate place to contact you. If it isn't, please forgive me and let me know where to go and I'll be happy to. my name is Luke and and although I'm very bad at navigating the technical interior of this website, from what I can tell it looks like you might have deleted an "article about me" that was created a long time ago, I think by a fan. It's pretty helpful, career wise, for me to have a wikipedia page and a great many actors and performers do, many with less "notability" than me. This feels pretty weird because I hate to get into a realm of self promotion, it makes me supremely uncomfortable but if notability is the criteria, I'm left with no other recourse than to talk about what I've accomplished in comparison to others, a nasty practice I try to avoid at all costs. I don't think I'm a big deal. Quite the opposite. I battle constant low self esteem to keep doing what I do because I love the art form. Again, I didn't make the page in the first place. I don't want to offend or step on anyone's toes. I guess it just feels pretty dark to have a wiki page about me deleted in the midst of battling to have some kind of career in this industry. It's really hard and I've been at it for over thirty years and yes, it feels like getting punched in the stomach to have someone now say that I'm no longer worthy of a page, an article, whatever the proper phrasing may be.
Anyway, any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. It's a hard business. Especially for people like me who aren't terribly inclined towards self promotion. Or detest most of the Hollywood culture. Having a page here matters. I don't necessarily care but the people who look at me for a role, do.
Also whatever decision editors might reach regarding this particular case, I'm urging everyone to please be more gentle with kid actors and former kid actors. It seems like it's been really well established at this point that it can be a hard way to grow up. A really nice, talented kid I worked with, Brad Bufanda, jumped out a window not too long ago. Lost my buddy Blake Heron to drugs last year. Brandis, Renfro, River, I'm pretty sure most of us are battling. Blessings to those who aren't but, yea it's hard. This kind of thing affects people's lives.
Hi Luke. Based on your Help Desk post, I'm assuming you mean the article Luke Edwards. I did in fact delete the article, after a community discussion through our normal process determined that you, as a topic, do not meet our notability criteria for inclusion. (That discussion was linked on the Help Desk, but for reference again it is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Edwards). I'm genuinely sorry that you find that upsetting. However, deletion of articles that don't meet our notability standards is a necessary process on Wikipedia in order to help us provide the best, most verifiable information to our readers, which is our primary reason for existing.
Our concept of "notability" flows from our concept of "verifiability" (which in turn is one of our three core content policies). Verifiability is the idea that readers can check our sources to make sure we are getting our facts from somewhere reliable, and that we aren't misinterpreting facts or making things up. If we can't back up what we're saying with sources, then we shouldn't be saying it in the first place.
For us, the concept of notability is basically checking whether there is enough verifiable information on a topic to justify that topic having its own article. Our basic criteria is to check that a sufficient amount of reliable sources have been published about the topic. Reliable sources are sources we can trust to have good information: they discuss the topic significantly, they're not produced by the topic or someone associated with it directly, and they have fact-checking procedures or editorial oversight. Things like newspapers and magazines are usually good reliable sources, but things like IMDB (because it is partly user-generated with no editorial oversight) or personal blogs are not.
What that means for the article about you is that the editors who participated in the deletion discussion looked and could not find enough material about you from reliable sources to justify maintaining an article, so they commented that it should be deleted. My role as the deleting administrator was solely to interpret the consensus of the discussion and execute it (so if the consensus had been to keep, it would have been kept). This is not, on any level, a process intended to slight you or harm you personally. It is simply our way of deciding if an article meets our criteria and then acting on our decision.
You are almost certainly correct that there are other articles about not-so-notable actors and entertainers still on-wiki. Wikipedia is a huge project. We have over 5 million articles. Our editors are volunteers who edit at their own discretion and on their own time. All that adds up to the fact that many articles, especially older ones from before we had the strict notability criteria that we do now, have survived simply because they are obscure enough to have escaped notice. If you have found some of these articles, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion so we can discuss them as a community.
At this point the discussion has already been concluded and the decision made. In the absence of multiple significant reliable sources about you, I can't see a justification for restoring the page about you. Again, I'm genuinely sorry that you have found this process upsetting. I understand your concerns about your career, but unfortunately we cannot make exceptions to our notability criteria to benefit someone's career - if we did it for one person we'd have to do it for everyone, and then there'd be no point having criteria at all. Please let me know if you have any other questions. ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how to properly have a back and forth conversation here. I'm replying in the only way I know how to, which is here. Please let me know how to do it right if this isn't it.
I've tried to be very nice, polite. The responses here (not just yours) have been unbelievably cold.
Is the issue a. whether or not I'm notable enough to warrant having a page or is it b. that the information included in the page be verifiable?
a. If I've not achieved enough to warrant a page, I take serious umbrage with your qualifications. There are a great number of people who have pages or "articles" or whatever the correct lingo is who are notable in perhaps small ways. Personally that's one of the things I really appreciate about wikipedia. Without other points of reference online, it's nice to be able to come here and find something, even if it's not much. Even in the case of small pages, with little information, I often find them extremely useful when I'm doing my own research. Perhaps as points of reference, perhaps to connect people within groups in order to better understand decisions and efforts made by large groups. I've worked in film all my life, it's stunning how much "minor" contributors can affect the final product. I guess what I'm asking is, how does deleting information make the internet a better place? Wikipedia is great precisely because it's so expansive. Why not have a page for everyone? Let's celebrate all of the people regardless of whether the popular culture (a perilously suspicious metric) has judged their achievements to be notable or not? If someone took the time to create the page, why not honor that it was important enough to THEM by, what, not trying to destroy or undo what they have endeavored to create?
b. If the issue is verifiability, those tasked with searching for material to corroborate simply didn't do their job. I clearly don't understand how the editors here judge reliable and non-reliable material so I'm gonna include a lot of stuff. Everything asserted on my page was true. Who would benefit from these assertions being lies?? That's a serious question. Please answer it if you can.
I can't believe you, collectively, would make someone go through all this.
Seems like you, again collectively, have entered into the process of judging which art is worthy and which art is not, a slippery slope. One of the users in the discussion referred to me as a "minor actor". Easy to dismiss people on those grounds. Instead let's not dismiss anyone. We're all living our own story on this plane of existence. No person's experience is worth more than another's. Protest as much as you like that's exactly the message you, collectively, have sent.
My talk page here is a good place to have this conversation; I'm happy to keep the discussion going. I'm sorry that you're frustrated with the response you've been given so far. As with any community, our norms and practices are intuitive to those within it, but it's easy to forget that they can be confusing for people on the outside. I'm doing my best to explain them, but I'm just one person. The policy pages I linked in my response above (and that I link below) will provide greater detail on why we do things the way we do.
The community discussion resulted in a consensus that you as a person do not currently meet our notability criteria. We have notability criteria for a number of reasons, but on the whole it goes back to our purpose as an encyclopedia, and the question of verifiability and quality - our goal is to be an encyclopedia that provides accurate information about important topics. We can't just have a page for everyone and everything, because that is not our purpose. We are an encyclopedia, not a social media site or a venue for advertising or promotion. Being an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source; our role is to summarize and reflect information from secondary sources. If there aren't enough secondary sources, we can't justify maintaining an article, because there's nothing to summarize.
The criteria we use for judging whether or not a source is reliable for the purposes of determining notability are:
significant coverage: meaning the topic is addressed directly and in detail in the source, not just mentioned by name without elaboration
reliable: meaning the publication has some editorial oversight or fact-checking, so we can trust that what is being said is going to be reasonably accurate
independent: meaning the source is not produced by the subject of the article or someone with a vested interest in the subject
broad audience: meaning the audience of the source is reasonably broad. Sources that address a narrow audience, like trade magazines with narrow topic areas, or small local sources, are not strong indications of notability.
We look for multiple sources that meet those criteria in order to determine whether a subject meets our notability criteria. One, or even two qualifying sources are generally not enough. The sources you listed are not a strong indication of notability based on those criteria. Below, I've put a brief summary of why not.
MLB.com, Playbill, all 4 Variety sources, both Bloody Disgusting sources, LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, Carsey Werner, EW, both New York Times sources, Washington Post: all of these sources merely mention your name without further focus on you or your performance in the relevant productions, so they are not considered significant sources for the purpose of determining notability.
Grantland and Yahoo: both of these sources are blogs, which are largely not accepted as reliable sources, particularly for biographies of living people, since they don't have editorial oversight or fact-checking.
Yahoo and Jonah Keri - both are interviews, which are primary sources. They don't lend much weight to notability because an interview is inherently not independent of the subject.
TVGuide: this is just a directory. Being listed in directories does not contribute to notability as we determine it.
Roseanne wiki: wikis are not reliable sources for content, because they are user-generated and don't have any fact-checking or editorial oversight.
Carsey Werner: in addition to being just a name-drop, content about a series from the studio producing the series is not independent.
Getty Images: being mentioned in the caption for a photograph is not significant coverage.
MLB.NBC: this is independent, and reasonably reliable, but way too short to constitute significant coverage.
The Union: in terms of how much content there is, this is the most significant source of all the links provided. It's independent, and newspapers are pretty reliable in terms of fact-checking. However, the audience for this source is extremely small: the paper serves "western Nevada County", a small area within a small area. Based on that, it's not a strong indicator of notability.
I also want to note that I took the extra step of checking Highbeam and Newspapers.com, which are news archive sites that I have access to, and didn't find anything substantial in those archives either.
I understand that you don't like the idea of deleting content from Wikipedia in general, and your page in particular. We don't do it lightly. We don't do it to gleefully destroy things. But it is something that needs to be done when the community finds that the content in question does not meet our criteria for being kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I'm Genie :) First, I'm really sorry about late to reply for your review. Actually you reviewed my article Jige :) But I replied so late that I have had long vacation. As a beginner of Wikipedia, I have a question. Can I get one more chance to get good article grade?
Thank you ^^ Genie.P (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Genie, it's no problem, I understand that not everyone is on-wiki constantly. At this point, per the comment I left in my review, the article Jige is not in a state where it could pass as a Good Article. The grammar and writing style are well below the standard of what we would expect to pass Good Article criteria #1a: well-written, with correct grammar and clear prose. Again per my previous comment at the original review, I highly recommend you submit a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, or reach out to an interested editor with a stronger proficiency in English to review the prose. I would be willing to look the article over again once that has been completed, but not before. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for taking care of the lists of rural localities in Russia. I have seen your edit [1], and, whereas I agree that the lists should be linked from the templates, I am not yet convinced that this is the best format. Would you please give me a couple of days to think about the format? I would then come back to discuss, since we will need to amend more than 80 templates, and it is best to fix the format at once.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thank you! I'm glad they're suitable; I mostly make them because I like de-orphaning things. I'm not married to that edit, feel free to take the link out or move it at your leisure, no need to check back with me :) I only stuck it in there cause I saw the template on a random page and thought "oh, neato, I'll put a link". ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but if you add links to 30 templates, and then we decide to change format, it would be quite some work, believe me as someone who has done this multiple times. Anyway, I will be back soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think this is the best arrangement I was able to come up with. If this is ok, I will redesign all the Russian federal subject templates to add links to the lists of rural localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Youtube-dl was deleted for non-notability, which I disagree with. Its source repository is the 40th most popular by stars on github. It is used as a video fetch engine by other software like mpv. According to debian's popularity-contest, 10% of reporting debian systems have this package installed and that number is increasing ([2]). So it's at least popular software. The project supports downloading video from hundreds of different websites. Adomaszek (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In the reason, you list that the sources do not provide a pursuasive demonstration of Epic Music as a genre. Over at User:Noian/Epic Music I have included specific notes from multiple sources where the word genre is explicitly mentioned in the sources. These sources include those from the very same citations that Leflyman said didn't mention Epic Music genre. I would like to know if you had read the citations, or if you simply took their refutations of the citations at face value. Otherwise, if you believe that the citations are not sufficient, and the list of primary attribution (where artists themselves list their genre as epic music) is not sufficient then I won't bother rewriting the article in the very limited free time I have. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers04:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
As a clarification this is not an attempt to relitigate the deleted article but whether you feel the draft I have would have any value. I lack time with work and school so if it will be unlikely to be accepted then I will save my efforts elsewhere, like writing 10 page research papers each week for class. (It would be highly unlikely for me to finish any draft until many months later due to lacking free time). ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers05:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I closed the discussion in line with the consensus that developed, with a particular nod to the arguments that the sources mainly referred to either a) music that originates from or in relation to the classical concept of an epic (which was not what the article concerned) or b) music that is described as "epic" subjectively by reviewers.
The problem that you're not acknowledging is the two things are distinct concepts. Cultural songs based on things like Homer's Odyssey or the Nart Sagas or Shahnameh are totally different things than "epic-sounding" modern compositions played in movie trailers and video games. A source that solely discusses classical "heroic songs" does not support a claim of notability for "epic-sounding music" as a modern genre of music. Even though some modern "epic-sounding music" may take inspiration from the emotions or settings of those old sagas and stories, it is decidedly not the same kind of music (absence of lyrics, no narrative story, not deeply representative of a particular culture, etc). Notability is not inherited: a work that takes inspiration from an older style or concept is not immediately notable because the older thing is.
In all fairness, an article about classical "heroic songs" in their own right would probably be well worth writing if we don't already have something on the topic. But as for the concept of modern "epic music" as a genre, there wasn't enough sourcing that discussed it as a distinct type of music as opposed to simply a descriptor people toss onto something that sounds big and massive and emotion-stirring.
I can't decide for you whether or not something is worth working on. If you believe you have the sourcing to support notability for the idea of modern "epic music" as a discrete genre, by all means write up a draft. It's not anything I would ever have any interest in following up on unless for some reason someone pinged me or alerted me to it, so if you're worried about me following behind you and tagging it for deletion, rest assured that's really not my style. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Undelete request: please would you consider undeleting to my userspace of Youtube-dl. I concede it was deleted correctly per AfD, but I've found enough sources and I plan to improve and submit via AfC or whatever you suggest. Widefox; talk01:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well. Thanks a lot to you and Katie too. I go through life saving up my best jokes for Wikipedia, I block people like my life depended on it, and all I get is "you had your chance". I'll have you know that when I was on ArbCom we did real work, not like you whippersnappers. And if we didn't have anything to do we created problems. I'm sure AGK feels the same way. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Heh, there's so much old stuff from way back in the day - it's only that I like to go through old maintenance backlogs and find these things. Glad you're not upset about the tagging :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I see that you have Ecclesia Athletic Association on your list of articles to create. In the spirit of trying to do a good deed, I don't want to step on your toes if you wanted to author it, but I think I can pull sourcing together to get an article up and going if such efforts would be welcomed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Aah...As much as I want to say I'll get to it, it's been on my list for awhile and I haven't yet because I've been caught up on other projects. I feel like the statute of limitations on my dibs is pretty much up at this point. If you want it, it's your baby - I might pop in and work on it if you'd be cool with that, though. (PS, it is very sweet of you to ask, I appreciate the courtesy). ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Barkeep49:, I'm not sure what databases you have access to - I have HighBeam (14 hits), Questia (1 book hit) and Newspapers.com (over 800 hits but probably not all relevant) - and can pull sources if you need anything. ♠PMC♠ (talk)14:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks PMC. Wikipedia is of course meant to be collaborative so I would welcome whatever assistance you have time for and whatever sources you can access. I don't have access to any of those databases and hadn't even looked yet at the databases I have access to given promising resources from Google alone. I'm going to start from those and will then check the smattering of databases I have that might help. What a sad story. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've started it as a draft and currently have a rather rough draft of the LEAD as well as an outline of the sections I'm eventually expecting. I expect to have it developed enough to move to mainspace this weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Google somehow indexed the draft, a situation BURob assisted in getting to the bottom of, but the article is now in mainspace and has been substantially developed but there are tons more sources out there, just from newspapers, that I've yet to examine. One area, at least as of the revision as I write this that I'm not too happy about is the introduction of them as a cult - which the RS clearly refer to them as; input would be especially welcomed there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
To be fair, the duty free store entering the states from Canada is one of the most beautiful things on the planet because of the amount of good cheap booze you can buy. Still probably not as good as ours, but it counts for something. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is only Belgian. The rest is...well, some of it tastes good, some of it tastes fine, but it's still Velveeta in comparison to Beemster. Keep talking and I'll be happy to give you a cool-down block. I myself had a brief cool-down block in the pool, which is still around 80 degrees. Now, what did you want me to speedily delete? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Drmies, if you could speedily delete Tony's bad opinions about beer that would be perfect, but failing that I'll take a cool-down block in this pool please. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 6 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phemister graft, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American surgeon Dallas B. Phemister created a bone grafting technique which now bears his name? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Phemister graft), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
I'm sorry, but no. I weighed the arguments and ultimately found the deletes more convincing - it has not been worked on, only tweaked specifically to postpone G13. Anyone who wants to actually work on it is free to ask for it back. ♠PMC♠ (talk)15:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't see what admins see, but I see this: the latest revision before deletion on 21 March 2011 is substantially identical to subsequent versions including the current one. Heck, the current revision even has the same problem that was identified at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Espionage: all "selected" sections have only one selection! Because portals consist of material transcluded from elsewhere, it's not always possible to tell. But here glancing at the history uncovers that nothing in terms of content has changed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The history is kind of fucky because the current Portal:Espionage was Portal:Intelligence before it was moved in July this year. All the revisions before that were originally made at Portal:Intelligence. Therefore it literally can't be a repost. (But even if it was, I can see the deleted diffs from the original Portal:Espionage that were deleted in July 2011 and they don't look anything like the original revision of the existing ones from March 2011.) ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Maybe they should grind up some efficacy studies and dilute them in alcohol to increase the potency of their conclusions... ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Premeditated Chaos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Carolina Anthem, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previously not deleted at AFD, so not eligible for speedy deletion. Thank you. SoWhy07:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Your song was so good that my two cats came into the room at maximum cat speed to hear it, and then got upset that there wasn't really a new cat in the house. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just weighing in on this (after my emails to Arbcom), I'd like to emphasise the point I previously made about SuperJew, Eranrabl and the IP edit warring over ethnicity are three separate editors – there is nothing behaviourly to link Eran to the disruptive IP – it's only the same flawed evidence that was used to link him to SuperJew. I hope he is also unblocked ASAP. Cheers, Number5721:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article Zaki_Ameer_(entrepreneur) was deleted by you. The author (presumably Zaki with a pseudonym) has phoenixed the article on the Simple English Wikipedia presumably because it gets less scrutiny there...
I'm not an admin on Simple Wiki, so there's not much I can do about it. If they have an AfD equivalent, you could nominate it for deletion on their end. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, this is just a friendly notification that I have merged content from the former Infectia article into the relevant section of List of Marvel Comics characters: I per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infectia, since you were one of the people who participated in the aforementioned discussion. Feel free to contact me via my Talk page if you have any questions or comments about my actions. Please do not reply here, as I will not be checking this Talk page for replies. Thank you.
It appears that I have a disagreement with Argento Surfer on the merger location of the content on the former Infectia article. Since you were the Administrator who closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infectia discussion, I have decided to message you about this matter. I would like to start a new discussion about the merger, since the aforementioned deletion discussion was effectively a no consensus on the location of the merger due to equal support for a merge into both the Legacy Virus and List of Marvel Comics characters: I articles. Unfortunately I do not know how to discuss the merger of the former content of a redirect, so I must ask what I am supposed to do in this case.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 28 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lamaria, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Georgianhearth goddessLamaria was venerated exclusively by women, either in private rituals within the home or private shrines outside the village? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lamaria. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lamaria), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content about Vancouver beer to my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)