This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
I really, really appreciate you
following up with the PROD after you removed the speedy tag. I get frustrated by patrollers who just remove deletion tags and don't address the problem the tag was trying to address, so thank you!
Jytdog (
talk)
00:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Unless I completely agree that the article should be deleted, I will either PROD it, take it to AfD, or leave a note on the tagger's talk page with an explanation and suggesting PROD/AfD. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hungarian
Thanks for all your help deleting these redirects at CSD.
In Hungarian accents and actually they affect the pronunciation are very important they are not just some kind of bit of typographical clutter. só means something completly different from sö, you jjust can't do it like this. These were made by Neelix and if he knew any Hungarian I'm a dutchman (holland férfi) but I live here and speak it every day, minden nap, this just makes no sense. You have to trust me on the Hungarian ones because I am probably the only editor here, or at least the only one who cares, who can actually speak a bit of Hungarian.
Si Trew (
talk)
17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice to know you are a member of
WP:MILHIST. Going through the Neelix redirects, I have not seen many yet but if there are any military ones will it be OK to call on you for your expertise? I think there was one yesterday on some helicopter but there are not many.
Si Trew (
talk)
17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for going through the Neelix redirects. Tough slog and not many people doing it. I replied back at the RfD, noting that our policy on
diacritics allows for redirects with and without diacritics, because we assume that most users aren't familiar with the foreign languages in question. It's not a question of if it's correct in Hungarian (it's not), but what users of the English Wikipedia are likely to reproduce into the searchbar. Feel free to touch base with me on milhist-related redirects! ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, we have {{
R from title without diacritics}} the thing is in Hungarian these make very little sense because the diacritics are very important. That's great as I trog through them, there are not too many military ones, I will ask your expert aídvice. It may amuse you to know I have a cine photo of me firing a missile at a little russian tank on a firing trial on the edge of essex (
RAE Shoeburyness) and we managed to blow that up at about the sixth attempt. I have the pic on me noticeboard.
Si Trew (
talk)
18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm on the back of me pack of fags it sazs a dohányzás halalt okoyhat!. Good that my Hungarian is not brilliant enough to translate that, I think it means "coughing sticks will probably kill you". Non smokers die every day as the great
Bill Hicks said.
Si Trew (
talk)
18:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
CSD
I should say I do appreciate your calls at CSD with the Neelix redirects. I think you are wrong, obviously, otherwise I would not put them there (I do actually save about forty percent of em) but to give a second call when I am well obviously not wrong I am always right :) but maybe have missed something, thank you very much for calling it. It must be as boring for you at the back end as it is for me trogging through them. I am bound to miss occasionally. Neither of us is in bad faith and that is the most important thing, neither was Neelix I believe, just some of these now are nonsense with a better search engine.
Si Trew (
talk)
22:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Processing such a huge amount, there's bound to be decisions others disagree with you on, so don't worry about it. :) I think I do like to keep redirects as plausible search terms. Maybe that's just because the search engine used to be much worse. The backend has been pretty tough, with a high of something like 250 CSD candidates yesterday, down to about 20 now. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read the speedy deletion tag on your talk page: "A tag has been placed on
Jay Bowlin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under
section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not
credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about
what is generally accepted as notable."
Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to do that in future closes. Weird that it's different from how AfD does it. Do you know why the two XfD forums diverged? ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it's probably because AfD has individual nomination pages (like MfD does), but all of the others (RFD, TFD, CFD, FFD) have daily subpages where multiple nominations are grouped together.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why did you delete
Mondago? This page was providing a useful reference to explain who the company is from the other references within Wikipedia.--
Amitron12 (
talk)
06:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I recently tried creating my first article called ARI Network Services Inc. and it was deleted for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Is it possible for me to try creating this page again, and if so, do you have any tips for making sure it doesn't fall under the unambiguous advertising/promotion? I've read a lot of Wikipedia's articles concerning posting new articles since I first tried posting, and I'm hoping my revised draft is acceptable so I can have my first article published.
It was deleted under
G11 because it was written in a
promotional tone, including among other things products section that was completely unreferenced and clearly promotional phrasing such as a trademarked slogan in the lede and "allowing it to enhance and expand its suite of products and the vertical markets it served.". Articles must be neutral and encyclopedic. Unless you can find
reliable, third-party sources that show how the company passes our
notability guideline for companies, it is unlikely the article will survive an
articles for deletion discussion.
If you have a
conflict of interest with respect to
ARI Network Services, Inc. or if you are being paid to get this topic on Wikipedia, either as an employee of ARI or a PR firm hired by ARI, if it is best if you do not recreate the article yourself, but rather, go through the
articles for creation process. If you are being paid, you are should also follow the
Wikimedia Terms of Use and disclose your client/employer. You can post such a disclosure to your user page by using the following template: {{paid|user=your username here|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.Thanks, ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions06:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why the RFD discussion for
Shelf of Russia was closed so prematurely. Would you mind reopening it so the full discussion can run its course? Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk)23:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Reopened, I was going through speedy keeps and other such obvious closures, and seem to have forgotten that I was on the latest page by the time I had gotten to the bottom. My bad, ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
undelete request for our page (ALAPALA)
Dear PATAL
could you please kindly undelete or stop deleting our page called ALAPALA
because this company is a 60 years old company and producing one of the most amount of this kind of machines.
this is not an ordinary company page..
but a company with awards like Good Design / GRAPAS and etc. (which are only given to reputable companies like BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Apple and etc.)
Please kindly undelete and stop autodeletion of this page..
There's also a recent change to {{Rfd top}} which may affect your habits. Specifically, the new recommended syntax is {{subst:rfd top|'''result'''.}} [Additional comments.] ~~~~ - the content inside the template will show up in header of the collapsible box on
WP:RFD, whereas the additional comments only show up in the daily log page.
Deryck C.14:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Confusion about the Speedy Deletion of Sitting for a Cause
My article of Sitting for a Cause received a speedy deletion because "the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia."
I am very confused by this because competitors to Sitting for a Cause (specifically DogVacay and Rover) both have pages on Wikipedia. My article was similar to theirs yet they still have their article on your site? Neither of their pages indicate why or how their page is important yet mine was deleted? I understand they have more articles around the web written about them, but Sitting for a Cause is a start-up company, brand new, and citations to relevant information were included in the article I wrote.
Can you please further explain this deletion because after reading through the credible claim of significance and seeing competitors articles on your site, the deletion makes no sense to me?
Hi, I have a problem with the creation a page on Wikipedia. I should create a page on a historical fashion company called Cristian Leone based in Florence both in English and Italian. But every time I create the page come and even reported on the Italian Wikipedia Elwood administrator have locked me the IP address. My priority is to create the page in English, but later also in Italian, I know how to fix this situation? I also recorded my e-mail address. waiting for your reply. Thank you, smartlabstudio — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Smartlabstudio (
talk •
contribs)
09:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Patar knight
If i send you what i would write in the page for review and then later publish it on Wikipedia, it gives me the certainty that the page will not be deleted? it's possible to do it ?
Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you delected my page game, this is own be true real, please, please, please, please, please, let me taked back! please, don't delected the game page!
That's not the first time an A7 tag removed by me has been retagged. Do people not bother to check the history, or have I developed a reputation as someone best ignored when it comes to A7? I suspect both actually.
Adam9007 (
talk)
12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Kindly return to the discussion and justify your posting of this as blurb. There was significant opposition to a blurb and the death does not meet the criteria for blurb. Also the decision was hastily made within just 12 hours.
MurielMary (
talk)
09:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I've been out the entire day and just got back, so I haven't been able to look back at the thread. I (obviously) don't agree with you, but I'll be sure to post an explanation. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Please be a bit more diligent before declining speedy deletion
Please be a bit more diligent and check the edit history of an article/user page, before declining speedy deletion. The primary article creator and account owner of
User:Nauriya/sandbox3 placed a generic speedy deletion tag requesting deletion. I merely re-categorized it under CSD G7. Had you properly checked the edit history, you could have confirmed that. The article creator/account owner most definitely requested deletion in good faith, so that speedy deletion tag should not have been declined. Thanks.
Safiel (
talk)
02:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You should not have simply copy-pasted the user's deletion rationale and kept the first-person without some sort of indication like ("Original author said:X" or "From page history:X"). Ding makes its look like you are the one requesting deletion and not the author. In any case, it's not an issue to have generic speedy deletion tags with deletion rationales that are essentially G7, because admins will go check the page history automatically if they see G7; converting them to G7 is at best useless and at worst leads to cases like this when the new deletion rationale is misleading. I've gone ahead and deleted the page per G7. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If the user requests deletion in userspace, both
G7 (which doesn't explicitly exclude userspace unless it's just blanking the page) or U1 would apply. Since the above complaint was based on a G7, tagging, that's the one I chose, but it could've been either though. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You have deleted the sourced page, please recreate it.
Please remeber that the editor, who marked the article
helds a grudge against me, so please check his opinions in the future.
Xx236 (
talk)
05:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of any disagreements between you two, the deleted article consisted of one sentence asserting that the title foundation was a foundation and then listed one redlinked president of the foundation. It was in that state for seven hours.Articles that do not make a credible claim of notability can be deleted under
A7. I am in no position to judge disputes between you and other users, but the speedy deletion tagging of your article was correct. I would recommend recreating the page in your userspace and expanding it before moving it into mainspace. Thanks, ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions05:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That one was more borderline, since it was essentially a rephrasing of its title (i.e. the centre for X and Y between A and B promotes and Y between A and B), but restoring it is also reasonable given this request. I've added relevant content tags, and would recommend expanding it to add more content. For example, while I googled this while deciding to restore it or not, I came upon this
[3]. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the major reasons Zee is significant is because she is one of the few cats to receive stem cell therapy, She has been in a news article, She has 5000 Followers on twitter. I can verify Zee had stem cell therapy
MrWonderful2000 (
talk)
20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Being in one news article or having s couple thousand Twitter followers is not by itself indication of notability. Any mention of possible notability because of advances in veterinary use of stem cells was not present in the article. If you recreate the article please add references that show how it meets our
notability guidelines (i.e. being covered in-depth by multiple, independent
reliable sources). Thanks, ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions06:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
As it says in the deletion log, it was deleted under
speedy criterion G11, which is meant for unambiguous cases of
promotional material. Given that the article was liberally peppered with sentences like "His goal was to complement his natural business savvy with a strong foundation in technology, and finance," and "Lalit Moorjani's work ethic is described as strong urgency paired with unparalleled stamina," it is very clearly promotional in nature. Given how the rest of the article reads like a CV with sections on his duties and contains spammy phrasing like "a recognized financial industry professional", "has traveled extensively," " a seasoned international businessman," "vast international work experience," "Lalit was crucial to," etc., deleting as G11 was an easy choice.
In any case, if you recreate it, I doubt it would survive speedy deletion unless it is extensively rewritten to not be promotional, and even if it is written in neutral, encyclopedic style, someone who as far as I can tell was your average, competent financial VP (who are a dime a dozen in the finance industry) who once saved someone's life in a minor incident, would fail to meet
our notability guideline for biographies and would likely be deleted at
articles for deletion process.----
Patar knight - chat/contributions16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant that maybe they should he reconverted to redirects so that they could possibly be deleted per
WP:REDLINK to promote the creation of the lists at those titles. (That, and our policies are not very clear on what criteria qualify a disambiguation page for deletion if it isn't eligible for a
WP:CSD.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems
awfully bureaucratic to convert them into redirects to be discussed at RfD so they can be deleted and recreated as lists whose initial content would be pretty similar to what we started with. If you want to turn them into list or whatever, just
be bold and do it. As for deleting disambiguation pages, IIRC, the few I've seen at AfD to had arguments using the
main disambiguation guideline page. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions04:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, considering that an AfD result for those pages may be "redirect to ..." if nominated. I may revisit those pages at a later time; I don't foresee me taking any action on them in the immediate future since I'm pondering how to approach this situation with those pages the best.
Steel1943 (
talk)
00:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw it (hence the delay between deleting the article and the talk page) and did not agree with that assessment. The deleted article was not substantially different from the one deleted in October last year. The primary concern in the
AfD was that Letele did not meet
WP:NBOX because winning a corporate title was not sufficient for notability and the "new" article did not have anything other than more fights to retain that corporate title. The AfD also found that his non-sporting achievements were not sufficient to pass the
WP:GNG, and the article I deleted did not make new claims that were not in the previous version. Since the AfD's concerns were not addressed,
G4 is still valid. However, if you want me to userfy it for you or some other user, I can do that.----
Patar knight - chat/contributions19:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Obviously, I couldn't compare it against the previous version; I just noted the many references later than the previous deletion date. I do, however, wonder about it not meeting GNG, with the Herald article pre-AfD, but the Paul Henry interview more recent. I reckon it would survive AfD this time round based on GNG. Can I suggest that you restore the article and we start another AfD? Schwede6619:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries. It's always refreshing when someone opposed to deletion makes a polite request instead of shooting of an angry email. With this level-headed attitude and what looks like a solid history of edits, you should seriously consider running for adminship (if you want it that is). ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Too lazy to write a full post there. I'll just say that I would !vote for you based on this interaction and based on a quick look at your edit count page, that you would have a good shot at passing. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to elaborate on "Divided W Fall"
The original page was "Divided W Fall". The creator submitted an RM, which I closed quickly as a technical request, swapping Divided We Fall (album) with it. Hence, I deliberately placed the redirect at the typo page following the
round-robin procedure. It just didn't feel right to R3 newly moved retargeted redirect that I performed, if that makes sense. I could have placed the redirect at some other location and not make it qualify for R3. I didn't want to come across as gaming the system in the slightest. Granted, the RM by the creator was unnecessary, but the guidelines on redirects moved via "page-swap" aren't exactly clear about it, so I went what I believe was a safer RfD route. Thanks, hope that makes sense. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb)20:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Redirects from implausible typos are basically guaranteed to get deleted at RfD and always qualify for R3. In this case, G7 would apply as well. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
Welcome to
WP:RFD!!! (Or, welcome back if you've been there before, but if you were, it was before my time.) Seems as though you have become one of RfD's new admin regulars!!!
Steel1943 (
talk)
22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I never did RfD before this May when I was doing my CSD patrolling and Neelix redirects started coming up in the queue. Good to know I've found a new place for myself to help. :) ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions23:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That shows that the intermediate (i.e. junior varsity) team went undefeated in their season, which for the intermediate level, ends at the regional level. Those are not national championships, and regional champions are a dime a dozen and not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions15:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Good evening sir.
I would like to know the exact reasons of deleting the page
Paul Katsetis.
Thanks for your time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Manos H. Scorer (
talk •
contribs) 18:35, 20 July 2016
Retargeting would do nothing with the DRV template on the redirect anyway. DRV and a likely relist at RfD would be about two weeks of discussions. The only way to preempt this would be if everyone on the original RfD discussion agreed to retarget to
Margaret Thatcher#Early political career with the relevant content included, then there would be cause for a speedy resolution of the DRV. If you want to ping/notify everyone and try to get a speedy resolution, go for it, but I would prefer to just let the deletion process do its work; it's not really a big deal and a new RfD with more opinions might lead to a clearer consensus(clarified 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is now moot because someone has endorsed the close at the
DRV discussion, so the DRV and any possible relisting will have to run its course. A note for the future, Neve-selbert, pings don't work for IP editors, so you would have had to post on their IP talk page to notify them. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean the Early political career section from 1951-1955? Early life and education section was before she got married, so that wouldn't apply.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
14:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I was in a bit of a rush but I had meant
Margaret Thatcher § Early political career. I am a little unsure about what is going to happen with the redirect now. To be clear, I am content with either us (a) retargeting to
Margaret Thatcher § Early political career and transferring the paragraph at
Denis Thatcher § Marriages to the Thatcher article or (b) keeping the redirect the way it is at the moment while removing the "Mrs Denis Thatcher" paragraph from the Thatcher article and wholly transferring it to the Denis Thatcher article.--
Neve–selbert01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I was aware of the conversation already through my watchlist and I'm currently working on meeting the concerns of Ontario Teacher re: restrictions on scientists that I'm planning on finishing before going to the talk page. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to transfer our comments about Public Transit from "Weasel Words" to "Environmental Policy" on the talk page. I feel this way, the discussion would be more organized.
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (
talk)
18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure that you've noticed this, but there appears to be a squad of sock or meatpuppets that have been editing these articles that all commented on this AFD in a short period of time. Is it worth taking this to
WP:SPI or not worth bothering?
shoy (
reactions)
13:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
For the AfDs, admins will close based on policy arguments and if they don't you can discuss with them and possible DRV it. I wouldn't SPI unless it remains an issue after the end of the deletion process. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've pasted this across several admins' talk pages to no avail. Maybe you can break the streak! If not, I'm still going to stop now. Either way,
helllllllp.
RunnyAmiga (
talk)
00:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Already endorsed the deletion at the DRV. Please be aware of
WP:APPNOTE; my unlinking of an article deleted at AfD doesn't really constitute "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions05:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Liz Sandals
My post on Liz Sandals was factually accurate and I believe my edit should be re-reversed. I cited Canadian news articles to backup the claims. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.251.56.217 (
talk)
05:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Last I checked the Toronto Star is one of the oldest newspapers in Canada and hardly a "right-wing" news source... ----— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.251.56.217 (
talk) 05:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Being short is not a speedy deletion criterion. Take it to AfD if you disagree, but per
WP:POLITICIAN, members of top-level sub-national legislature are typically considered notable. In the future, please do not tag articles like this one with
WP:A7, which requires no credible claim of significance. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions14:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.