The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Daniel...Hi. I saw you deleted the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There was an open discussion about this. I was modifing the article to meet the requests. Indeed, yesterday I added some accademic thesis to the article's references and a couple of days before I also added to the related talk page a statement to fix the Conflict of Interest issue. I was still working on it following the tips that HouseOfChange and Rosguill gave me. You deleted the article even before somebody could reply to my last changes and messages. Can you help me to undestand what happened?--Megaride (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming what Megaride says, I had not had a chance to see the new material added to the article, which might have changed my !vote. Although I think the article still needs substantial work to get rid of PROMO, even if it did pass GNG. Thanks for your effort to improve Wikipedia, but could you let the AfD run a bit longer? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOfChange, Megaride, I was able to review the additional sources just now. While they were better than the prior batch, I think they still fall short of WP:GNG. [1] is not significant coverage; [2] and [3] have coverage that I would consider significant, but as they are Master's theses, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, are not generally considered reliable sources unless they have had a significant impact on academic literature. signed, Rosguilltalk15:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Thank you so much for your time (and your expertise) reviewing these new additions to the article. Megaride, Rosguill is a very experienced new page patroller, so if he saysthey say the new sources do not rise to GNG then we should accept that. I believe your best step now is to hope for more coverage in real life and to ask for a deletion review at some future time, based on new sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:, I'm not sure I understood what do you mean about the "significant impact on academic literature". I added some master degrees graduate thesis of different universities. Aren't those part of the "academic literature"? I'm still looking for other valuable references, please help me to understand what acceptable or not. Thanks. --Megaride (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Megaride, the relevant part of the guideline is Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So, if you could demonstrate that those theses have been highly cited (at a minimum dozens, ideally hundreds of citations), they would be considered reliable. Based on Google Scholar's records, the first thesis has been cited twice, and the second has never been cited. signed, Rosguilltalk16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Megaride, HouseOfChange, Rosguill: where do we sit with this? I am always a supporter of relisting discussions where the article changes significantly, although I must confess I didn't identify this occurring with this one (not saying it didn't, I might have just missed it). Options available are undelete and reopen discussion, move the article to userspace to continue working on it, or something else? Daniel (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, thanks for these options. I suggest you move it to the userspace of Megaride, who will be looking for opportunities to bring it up to GNG. Based on what Rosguill told us, it still has not reached that level and would just be re-deleted if discussion continues now. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Manuel Rivera, Jr. USMC Harrier Pilot (page deletion)
Hi Daniel - not sure if this is an ok-method to discuss page deletion. I am new to wiki editing, trying to find my way around. Can you elaborate on the deletion of Captain Rivera's page? It included multiple external articles, which I thought was wiki's main standard for general notoriety. Also, the nomination was not specific about why it should be deleted, except a seemingly subjective objection to the idea Captain Rivera deserved notoriety. Since Captain Rivera has a school and a park named after him, it seemed the notoriety is beyond dispute. I already made these comments in the deletion discussion, wanting you to clarify on the policy, since it seemed to me to say that if consensus for deletion is not achieved, then the page will remain. The deletion discussion included 2 objections, so there was no consensus to delete. Combined with questions about how the policy for general notoriety is being applied, since this wiki has multiple external sources (LATimes, NY Times, and NY Daily), in addition to military overviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgeels (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Klgeels, to answer a couple of your questions, Tony the Marine's comment was disregarded as it had no basis in policy. I assessed the consensus of the discussion as being that the multiple external articles did not convey notability referencing WP:GNG. I don't have to take a view on that, just that it is a realistic interpretation of policy and that there was a consensus for it.
Hi Daniel, elaborate on your idea of "consensus" if you get time. I disagreed with the majority opinion, as did Tony the Marine. And it sounds like your opinion is completely subjective, since you defend it not, but assert your right not to defend your opinion. I just want to be clear on how the policy is being applied, as well as the specific verbiage, "consensus" and "independent sources" and "notoriety". It sounds like you disregard the metric of independent sources, consensus means something different than is typical, and notoriety is subjective. I just want to point out to you, separate from an appeal, that there are multiple public sites named after Captain Rivera, 3 independent articles in major newspapers (not small local papers), and the idea is that he is symbolic of the patriotic dedication on behalf of an entire culture. Just seems like you had to blatantly disregard some fairly mainstream definitions in order to support the assertions of several anonymous, plainly mean-spirited voices in order to remove an otherwise benign article that has been published for nearly 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C8B0:7410:9D1:2225:154:C5ED (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, consensus is establishing the prevalent views in the discussion that are accepted (again, by the prevalent consensus) as being in line with policy. In this situation, I assessed the consensus as existing to delete.
Daniel - I can accept the outcome. Captain Manuel Rivera, USMC pilot died on the 5th day of an offensive air-campaign operation during a training mission. He was in a combat theater, preparing for his inevitable combat mission in an operation that lasted only 42 days, and he died getting ready to go into the middle of the fight right around the corner. Captain Rivera was going first into battle, he was a successful pilot who had tons of training experience at an extremely high-risk profession, and he died the way lots of military people die: taking on tasks that are inherently dangerous.
Gathered here to weigh in on whether or not Captain Rivera DESERVES a page of entry in limitless digital space, because ALL he did was the above, we have 7 mystery identities:
Lettler, Mztourist, Bushranger, Captain Raju, Clarityfiend, Peacemaker67, Intothatdarkness. I can remember when the public library or an expensive private encyclopedia was the only way for people without a lot of money to explore the world, other than joining the military, or some other risky occupation. I hope this comment is a small reminder that there are a lot of "we the people" that rely on you to put your best foot forward in your leadership activities. Good luck and Best Regards, Klgeels (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect vs delete
Why in this discussion did you opt for redirect rather than delete? The end result was 3 deletes, 1 redirect, 1 merge and 3 mostly meaningless comments. The case for deletion was better argued and, aside from the editor who opted for redirect, none of the others bothered to argue their case. The one who said merge is, in fact, known for just throwing merges or redirects (anything but delete) around deletion discussions without taking the time to look at the context and properly analyze what is the best course of action. It was totally unreasonable for you to summarily ignore the case for deletion after I had painstakingly argued it and after the discussion had already been dragged on for an unreasonable amount time. I beg you reconsider your decision. Avilich (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aulus Postumius Albinus (propraetor 110 BC). Firstly, totally disagree with your "counting". Honestly, what do you lose out of the content sitting behind redirects? I just don't get it. It's the exact same result in practice. Take a step back and consider how they are just so incredibly similar - the article no longer exists.
Quite simply I won't be changing the decision, so extended discourse here is going to be a waste of everyone's time, our positions on the assessment of consensus are polar opposites and unlikely to reach any agreement here. Please feel free to list at WP:DRV if you so desire. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you disagree with, exactly? Only the one editor who said redirect bothered to argue his position thoroughly. The others never came back to reply when their positions were challenged, and most of them even stopped short of making an actual decision by stating comment instead of merge. Finally, the aggregate support for deletion increased after the discussion had been relisted. One of the deleted articles brought yet more incorrectly-named redirects to the other you merged them into, and you would save me a lot of trouble if you just got rid of them altogether as three people in the discussion supported. Avilich (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably unique to each discussion. Either the article has significantly changed which needed to be assessed, or there hadn't been substantiative debate, or in a couple of cases I thought we might reach a consensus if it was given another seven days. Obviously that is all discretionary , and I might have got one or two wrong that could have been closed, but by and large I'm pretty happy with my strike rate given the number of AfD's I processed to help clear a multi-day backlog. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen Hancher. 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. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for this misguided review, by the way. This article was my fourth or fifth participation in AfD and I should have read up more on the process. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus, not at all. I think your comments at DRV were fair enough (and I said as much). It's a really tough balance sometimes and provided people are willing to converse with a positive, open mind, no harm no foul from my point of view :)
Hi. Can you make a request to review/close an AFD currently under discussion or do you have to wait until decision is made? I'm also considering review of one recently closed. Can you request review of more than one or will doing so cause one to prejudice the other? Thanks.
Hi HistoricalAccountings, I must confess I struggled to work out exactly what you meant by your comment, although that may be less on you and more because it's approaching 1am here!
You cannot request a Deletion Review of an AfD which is still open, if that's what you mean...you have to wait until it's closed.
Cannot see the issue with requesting Deletion Review for two articles simultaneously, it wouldn't prejudice the debate beyond if an editor thought your reasoning was good/bad/etc. on one, they might apply the same standard to the other? (Human nature and all that...)
"it wouldn't prejudice the debate beyond if an editor thought your reasoning was good/bad/etc. on one, they might apply the same standard to the other?"
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about.
Could I ask you to take a quick look at an open AFD discussion and see what way you think it's heading? I think no consensus, but not sure.
HistoricalAccountings: I might give that one a miss (I worked out which you were talking about), only because I read it a couple of times and wasn't really happy closing it as either of the potential decisions as it didn't feel like a great close. Hard to explain but you know when something doesn't quite feel as right as it should? I had that feeling.
@Daniel: I understand. There doesn't seem to be consensus right now anyway. I hope it defaults to keep, but if not I can request review, I guess. Still debating on other one. Thank you for your time. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cunard, I believe that (not factoring in your comments here) there is a consensus at that discussion, because the only person not advocating for deletion referencing a policy-oriented reason, did not make as strong a case as the people advocating for deletion on a couple of separate grounds.
I do not like to make a habit of reopening AfD's that have been closed after 7+ days (it invites people to come here and persistently ask for it to happen), but acknowledging your frequent contributions to them, happy to do so on this occasion.
Goes without saying, please try and get your comments in before the 7 day window wherever possible :)
Thank you so much, Daniel! I really appreciate your reopening the AfD! I wish I got to this AfD before the first seven-day window to avoid having to ask for reopening. I will make sure to get my comments in before the seven-day window after I finish my searches for more sources. :) Cunard (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure as always. Let me know if you need any help with anything else.
No problems, all done. Would recommend getting to the article and making the improvements over the next week or so, to avoid it being renominated :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
