This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. 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.
First, including the nomination, it's 2:1 for delete, and that's counting the single weak vote (week keep) as a regular one. Second, while thee was no consensus after first week, each subsequent week generated delete votes only. Third, while this is of course my biased POV, I think delete arguments where more policy-based than the keep ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally, a no-consensus close means there is no harm in re-opening another AfD at a later date. If you're still struggling to improve the article after a while, that's an option. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Gerda I must apologise for the Jonathan Ross Fan Club turning up this evening and gatecrashing my talk page ... if nobody has grabbed this by the weekend, I'll see if I can have a look. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that was super-efficient and friendly! - Only now do I realize that "your" GA review came with bot assistance, while the other one looks more handmade, - and the article still lacks the little green symbol. Would you know what to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The bot puts the symbol on, it also adds a revision ID of what the article looked like when it passed GA. So it's better than doing it by hand; you just need up to 20 minutes' delay while the bot comes round on its next run. Occasionally it trips up and just removes the review from the pile with a log of "maintenance", in which case you need to do everything by hand. I've never worked out precisely what causes it to barf, it just does. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The bot transcluded the GA review (or I would not have noticed, but didn't do any of the messages to my talk, nor add the symbol. The talk page is fine, so is the list of GAs, thanks to Figureskatingfan. I want to do nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, it's literally been years since I've regularly reviewed GAs (mostly because I've just submitted a couple myself, and believe in quid pro quo, even though it's not required at GAN), and you disparage me. When did I tell you you couldn't translate Freundlich Vision to friendly vision? All I did was tell you to stop confusing us 'Mericans with fancy-shmancy stuff like calling a song a lied and to use more refs that us mono-lingual hicks can understand without using google translation. The addition of that green button-thing was done on its own, and yes, I did update the GA list. That I can do, but tables [1]? No-freaking-way! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Christine, I'm sorry that you confuse two things (and that I was not clear enough), the question about how the GA bot works (which related to you and the GA process, so I pinged you), and the "friendly" question which had nothing to do with you, but you invited to look here. Moonraker said that "friendly" implies a friend, and a vision thus can't be "friendly", - can't find the comment, though. - How will the article get the green icon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Gerda sweetie, did you not see the smiley emoticon? So much of my life is already full of Big Bang Theory moments, and you just made me have another one? Was I being sarcastic? Oh no, not at all. Actually, one of the ways that I provide BBT moments for others is to attempt to create humor, and I fall flat on my face most of the time. And the green icon question has already been answered. Or is that yet another social cue that I missed? At any rate, please forgive me for inserting myself into the discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Christine, teach me telling smiley from other. I saw it but thought it was for the last sentence. - Just yesterday, I saw a great opera on the difficulty of seeing what's real, what not, Lost Highway (opera). Nothing to forgive about entering a discussion to which I pinged you. Sorry about BB, and about repetition: the article still didn't have the little green icon when I looked today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for review, mentioned in the FAC which is now open, - I added some, you will be surprised if you look again. Everybody: comments welcome, also imrovement of the ALT texts, - not what I can do well ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
On 6 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Led Zeppelin III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the release of Led Zeppelin III was held up for two months because of its volvelle-based sleeve design? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Led Zeppelin III. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Led Zeppelin III), 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.
Hi. An article was recently recreated after almost an year old AfD. The article is still valid for AfD as it fails the criteria. But is it valid for G4? —usernamekiran(talk)22:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@SkyGazer 512: lol, there is no need to apologise, at all. Its actually good thing, and also getting the answer of the question is the point; doesnt matter who answers it :) —usernamekiran(talk)04:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Kudos as well. I haven't had the time to look as closely as I'd like but it sounds promising. I was initially disappointed by some of the reactions, as it seemed like there was more emphasis on taking pot shots than discussing solutions. Your initiative is exactly the type of thing we need.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Well I have legged it with luggage from the WCML at Euston to the HS1 platforms at St Pancras in 15 minutes train to train; there's no point getting on the tube if you know the back streets that run parallel to Euston Road and put you in the side entrance by the SouthEastern platforms. EML was marked as nearby to Esq on the standard tube map at one point, but I just looked and it's gone. :-/ The most deceptive interchange, in my view, is the Victoria line to St Pancras HS1 via the signposted route - it's about half a mile and I can recall running through the tunnel at full pelt and bombing it up the escalators to make a connection because (as I believe is documented in our article), you can save a bit of time changing at Stockwell to go north instead of just saying on the Northern Bank branch. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
When stations are marked with white line connectors on the tube map, that doesn't mean TfL is trying to trick you into thinking they're nearby, it means an interchange there doesn't count as a break of journey for ticketing purposes. (The actual proximity on the map doesn't have any relation to proximity on the ground any more; Lancaster Gate to Paddington is a walk of a couple of minutes, for instance. The only geographic relationship they try to preserve now on the map is that only stations near the river are shown near the river, and even that isn't as a convenience to passengers but to minimise the necessary changes if and when the riverbus is added to the map, in the same way that there's a broad white northeast/southwest diagonal of empty space between Tottenham Hale and Parsons Green in anticipation of Crossrail 2.)
The worst offender by a mile for a deceptive interchange is Lea Valley Line to Jubilee Line at Stratford via the signposted route (down the steps, turn right, left and left around three sides of a square, along the long corridor, right, up the escalator, left, down the escalator, right, left), with Bow Road to Bow Church (a 500m walk through a violent crime hotspot) a close second. Honorable mentions to Upper Holloway→Archway and the ever-popular Monument/Bank interchange; in a few months when Crossrail opens, Canary Wharf is undoubtedly going to take the title.
@John Maynard Friedman, for Green Park just get the escalator from Victoria or Jubilee to the ticket hall, walk the ten feet to the Piccadilly escalator, and back down. Hey presto, you've interchanged with no dragging and no steps at all. ‑ Iridescent13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, o, I read the wrong date, it only had one post, I read the date on the vote, I was actually thinking it should of been relisted, but wasn't going to say that. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like meeting the criteria for a soft delete, which obviously means the article can be restored immediately on demand. I looked for sources but couldn't see anything that obviously leapt out to make me !vote "keep" instead of closing it. Having had a closer look, I think I could probably write a decent article on this, unless Megalibrarygirl wants a go first. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
O well, I think it's just my stupid dyslexia and confusion. I did try to find sources on her a couple of days ago but nothing really helped. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy: Right, I've recreated Cissy Jones pulling in a pile of sources and mentioning the BAFTA award up front, which I believe qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin III art cover link
Ok, I reckon I should have talked here, not in the edit section.
But the sentence is about French pressing, the vinylmania link refers to Italian pressing. Do you really think it is accurate ? Why don't you want to show the right images of the original French pressing ?
Plus, how am I supposed to reach the AV media notes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.159.49.140 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There's been a whole discussion at cross-purposes. To go back to the beginning, I added the reference to the original LP ie: Led Zeppelin III, Atlantic Records (France), id 940 051. A source only has to explain where the information can be verified; it doesn't have to be an online source. Indeed, many of the best sources are printed books, and given that Led Zeppelin III is a good article, it behooves us to adhere to the best quality source material available, which in this case is the extensive work of Dave Lewis, who has been acclaimed by at least one band member as being an authoritative source. In lieu of that, there can't be any better source for an LP's artwork than the original LP. It is not original research to simply observe something and write it in words!
Anyway, the vinylmania link was added by Martinevans123here outside of the GA improvement process, and no, it's not any more or less reliable than discogs, so we shouldn't have it either. I've removed that link. The problem with making drive-by improvements without registering it it's difficult to start a discussion in a place where it's going to be picked up, which means unfortunately we need to use big sticks on occasion to get things going. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to put in a few hours' paid editing before I can afford that. Any defunct 15th-century noble families want articles, hear ye, hear ye, you know where to come...of course, with luck and inflation, the groat will soon replace the duck's egg as the currency of choice, although I can only take bitduck and bitegg for security purposes. ——SerialNumber5412919:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes the GA improvement process. I had hoped that my edit summary there: "difficult to find a non-commercial source which has an image, but I think this mighthttp://vinylmania.net/?4838,led-zeppelin-led-zeppelin-iii be useful?" might have suggested that a second opinion, or even a third, was more then welcome. I think commercial sources are still readily available if one wanted, or needed, to go down that route. My rationale was just that A picture is worth a thousand words. And I'd still like to hear of any supposed difference(s) between the Italian cover and the French one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I surely agree sources and references don’t have to be online all the time, and of course there's no better source than the item itself. I also understand that written statements and facts have to be related to standard and praised books and articles.
But here we talk about the visual difference between regular and an odd, old & maybe rare LP pressing. And if someone can’t have this very item, and if he’s curious to SEE the difference, it should be useful to deliver some illustration in an encyclopaedia tending to be comprehensive. He eventually can find some on the Internet, but on marketplaces, and less detailed than the ones in the link I put. Ok, a Wikipedia page is not the place for exhibition of all the angles of a LP cover, but isn’t one of the purposes of a link to give further information ?
So Discogs cannot be reliable for its overall written information, ok, if you like. But what about pictures, do they really have to be edited in books first ? Discogs is user-generated, so is Wikipedia ! There were just a bunch of pictures, even one with the “Imprimé en France” label, which is somehow the crux of the matter. Then, because it came for Discogs, it was fake, photoshoped, or inaccurate in anyway ? If I’d log into Wikipedia and put on the page one of these pictures, or one of my own, sourcing something like “Derived from digital scanning of the front cover”, I think you’d might let me do it depending on some details as the place and the key I’d put. But it seems that assuming honesty or good faith of editors is restricted to the ones of Wikipedia...
I’ve seen lots of unsourced pictures in Wikipedia, starting with the Bron-Yr-Aur cottage picture whose source is “Own Work” which doesn’t really prove or mean anything. Will you remove it too because the source is not referring to any books, magazine, or reliable website ? Why don’t we put the geographic coordinates instead, claiming that it can’t be any better source for a cottage than the cottage itself ! ;)
At least the edit warring you’ve begun was of some use, as you removed the other link so it is now consistent with the sentence !
By the way, you use “ big sticks ” only because you want to, as any contributor I have a “ talk “ link too…
I was thinking more about the image, not the words which say "“Prodotto e distribuito in Italia”, etc. But thanks for mentioning the colour of the cross on Plant’s chest. I wonder why that was. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The best discussions to have a look at are Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#www.discogs.com, which in turn leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and explains here why you should avoid citing user-generated content such as discogs. The most notorious example of this is a long-standing urban myth that Robert Plant played bass on Led Zeppelin's first album, which has appeared over all sorts of user generated websites and wound its way onto Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that this is the case from more authoritative sources, such as experts who base their research directly off band and associate interviews. And more to the point, an experienced session musician like John Paul Jones ought to have been able to record the bass lines for every song in a single take, as he had previously been paid to do exactly that. So for a good article, we have to aim for things we have a high chance of being factually correct; sometimes things repeated on fansites are not actually true, but just taken as gospel.
The source usually given is this one. I think Bob did a fine job on Baker Street; after he'd played the sax, he didn't want to listen to the playback, but Gerry Rafferty disagreed and said, "I'll have a P please, Bob". Did you know he also played the lead guitar part on "Layla" as Duane Allman was too stoned to get up and do it, and Eric Clapton just wanted to play rhythm. Holness asked Clapton if he wanted anything as a token of his appreciation and Clapton reportedly said, "I'll have an H please, Bob". And that was Blockbusters. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
IP pretended to post as me
An IP that is not from my country posted a false comment during this discussion pretending to be me. [8]. What do you think is the correct course of action?--NØ16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think reverting it is the correct initial course, and if you see them doing again, it's block-worthy. The chapter and verse is here and here which basically says it's a complete no-no. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Disappointing. I thought the delete side made by far the stronger arguments, and the discussion was definitely trending towards delete after a consideration of the actual contents (or lack thereof) in the article, after all the WP:CRIC people had breezed in, gone "Meets WP:MILLIONSOFEMPTYPRETTYSHRINES, no nergh" and breezed out again. But good luck getting anyone to listen. ReykYO!10:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't Shoot Me, I'm only the closing admin. I've known about this article for ages, and suspected that when it went to AfD you'd get both the "but our policies and guidelines say this article meets the criteria" camp and the "this is a silly idea for an article that imparts next to no useful information whatsoever" camp. The two clashed, with equally valid arguments from both sides, and so a "no consensus" became pretty much inevitable. I think you make a reasonable point, Reyk, but I can only go with the arguments presented, and I suspected if I had closed it as "delete", we'd have 3-4 people here complaining. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we scrap NCRIN? (or whatever it's called). We have an article on a cricketer whose name we don't even know, don't know any of his cricketing performance, all we know is he played one match for Surrey in 1800. Brilliant. I'll never be able to !vote delete on a biographical article again, for as long as that sham of a notability guideline exists. To think I !voted delete on the BLP of a young American girl who might (though equally might not) have made history in her sport, but we're keeping tripe like Chitty (cricketer). Just brilliant. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
And people, including myself, wonder why there's a gender imbalance on the encyclopaedia. Female BLP: I made history. Wiki: Nope, not good enough. Male BVDP (Biography of a very dead person): I played a couple of innings 218 years ago. Wiki: Right this way my good sir. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, closing as NC does not mean it closed as "keep". There were heated arguments from all sides, which led me to believe a relist would not have been appropriate as we'd have just got a repeat of the same. This is like one of those longevity bios, which end up with the two polarised sides yelling and everyone dropping out of exhaustion. I did, in particular note Llywrch's suggestion to merge the article somewhere else. That sounds like the ideal compromise to me, and something that might sound acceptable on all sides. However, not enough other people supported the merge, so I couldn't close in that manner as it would look like a supervote. I think, ultimately, that NC was pretty much the only option left. Don't forget, that NC also means there's no reason you can't start a fresh AfD at a later date. As for "Female BLP: I made history. Wiki: Nope, not good enough." - if this is related to Isophene Goodin Bailhache, well I don't think it should have been deleted but the community said otherwise. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see the discussion sooner so my suggestion could have been given more time for consideration. But the problem of permanent stubs is not going away soon, & will continue to crop up.
Merging such short articles is not a new idea: back at the dawn of Wikipedia, when I used to edit here using dial-up (true!), there was a fierce squabble over "Pokemon stubs" which was resolved by merging all of the short articles into a list. It appears that this is not done more often because too many people equate "notability" with "this subject must have its own article, no matter how short it is", & a lack of experience or maturity to know articles combining several related subjects work perfectly well. Bending the rules, if you will. But that problem -- of editors who aren't comfortable or confident to know when to break the rules to make a better encyclopedia -- is one that will never go away, as long as we continue to attract (& need) new volunteers. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Nobody wants to get the cricket wikiproject's dander up. Start making a concerted effort to clean this junk up, and they go around to administrators' talk pages campaigning to get you banned from Wikipedia. Easier to give the same weight to "keep- meets my pet SNG" as a careful and detailed examination of the article and its sources, than risk a harassment campaign. ReykYO!11:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel your pain. A while ago (actually years now) I suggested that a whole bunch of articles like Texas Recreational Road 255 probably shouldn't exist, let alone be GAs, as they're basically duplicating what you can see on a map in text, which went out of fashion with John Ogilby's strip maps in the 17th century. Yet I still managed to get my head ripped off for it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) This is a pathetic close and I am charitable, as to my choice of words. Even not discounting Accescrawl's blatant trolling and not including SN54129, there are 18 Delete/Merge! votes as compared to 9 for keep. I mean,....... ∯WBGconverse11:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you go with the suggestion above and merge / redirect the article as Llywrch suggested at the AfD? That would get us out of this logjam, and can be done by normal editing without requiring an AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
And post that redirect, when Davidson will revert that, with an emphasis on the fact that a NC, by default, equates to keep (which is correct), will you try to restore the merge/redirect? Or will you advise me as to why don't I open a merge-discussion? ∯WBGconverse11:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hard to say. I'm not going to get into a revert war over this; once should be enough to make my point for now. ReykYO!11:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I've done three reverts, so wondering if I continue if that's a 3R rule violation or just reverting vandalism, which is allowed. When an RfD is closed as no consensus doesn't that mean kept (for now at least) and reverting the page blanking or page redirect is just plain ole reverting vandalism? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no vandalism. Even if Godric had reverted with a summary of "why the **** are people edit warring over this, **** off all of you", he would still be doing it under the impression he was doing the right thing. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
So any number of editors can overrule an AfD close by just reverting in-tandem until the editor who must then either stand down or sit on the bench per WP:**** OFF, and cannot put the page back anymore due to 3RR, is given a red card or sent to the showers. Since I cannot revert again I can only watch sadly as the spirit of AfD is given a kick to see if it is still conscious, and no movement is detected. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
If all the 30 participants of the AfD wish to use their quota and no admin decide to spoil the fun (either block or page-protection) , that will be quite fascinating, to say the least.I am eagerly watching the page-history for a new name to crop up! ∯WBGconverse12:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, tandem page-blanking or forced merge after an AfD is the new solution to AfD results we don't like. I won't revert again because of 3RR, and won't take this to AN3 because I've never done that to any editor. Is this "solution" now acceptable policy? Signed, Confused in Cambodia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The page has again been blanked and redirected, directly contradicting the close. Is this now new AfD policy, because deletionists are going to love it, party, and balloon sales will go through the roof. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Ritchie, I recommended inclusion of the data in a list like the one User:Reyk has selected so I am happy with that, except it has now been undone. While I understand your decision that there was no consensus, I am at something of a loss on this GNG v SNG issue. My reading of GNG makes me think that it overrides SNG and that the latter is a preliminary step, but there seem to be inconsistencies within both guidelines leading some editors to justifiably believe that notability rests on either GNG or SNG. As an administrator, can you give me your views on it to try and help me understand better?
In addition, I have been reading the cricket project page which includes their SNG, called WP:CRIN. This has come in for a lot of criticism and I think it is deeply flawed, especially as it contains a completely false statement about a fictional important match classification that has never existed and is original research based on the title of a handbook by one of the cricket project members. I notice above that Mr rnddude recommends scrapping WP:CRIN. I suspect his main concern is the one match qualification and I think he is right because there have been countless players worldwide who played in a single match and nothing more is known of them than their name on the scorecard. I would suggest that WP:CRIN's bar is raised from one first-class match to more than one first-class match played over more than one season. That way, they would be getting rid of the one-time guests and suchlike. A player who is active over a couple or more seasons and plays in at least two matches over that timespan is bound to have much greater credibility and, one would expect, wider coverage enabling him to meet the GNG notability as well as the SNG. I do not know if that would be acceptable because obviously I assume there would have to be compliance with other sport project SNG wordings but it does seem commonsense to me looking at things through a fresh pair of eyes. Thank you. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Scribbles by The Scribbler: Closing AfDs isn't an exact science; all you have to do is look at the arguments and see who is saying what. In this case, opinions include Godric "we need significant coverage. Is the word significant so difficult to understand?", Reyk "I could support the creation of list articles where these bare statistical entries could be included.", Cullen328 "I would switch to "Keep" if any source emerges that provides biographical detail allowing for even a very brief biography to be written", Andrew D "Some good improvements have been made to the page in the course of discussion per WP:HEY and so we see that such improvement is feasible", SportingFlyer "am giving a benefit of the doubt to the SNG and due to the historical nature of the encyclopedia entry." and Llywrch "IMHO, there is no point in having separate articles on these poorly known cricketers, ignoring that they are sportsmen". Many of the !votes, both for "keep" and "delete", were challenged by people on the other side, and not very many people suggested merge (and mentioned above). In a discussion, my thought process generally runs along the lines of "what's best for the encyclopedia in this scenario?" followed by "does policy back it up". Going the other way round, trying to shoehorn policy into what you want, regardless of whether or not it fits is back-to-front. It is, after all, why we have WP:IAR. As long as people are making reasonable arguments not in the list of cliches to avoid (and I don't think anyone was), then the views have generally equal merit to others at the same level. Given reasonably expressed opinions were expressed from everything to keeping the article as is to killing it with fire, with shades in between, it seems that a fair outcome would be "no consensus". "Merge" would invite accusations of a supervote, "Keep" would be like this discussion only worse, and "Delete" would have a similar volume of complaints, just from different people. I don't really mind anyone starting a discussion to raise the standard at WP:CRIN, but that can't be applied to a single AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion of raising the bar from "single first-class match" to "more than a single first-class match, across more than a single season" would, I have to imagine, cull many of the worst cricketing biographies here. If it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing, than I'm willing to support it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the AfD. I appreciate it was a tricky one in lots of ways to close, so I appreciate you shouldering the responsibility by stepping up and doing so! Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I went away for an hour and see that a new name has indeed cropped up. Shall I join the party and wait unless it's get sysop protected? ∯WBGconverse16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
"I respectfully propose you strike your original hook in favour of A4."[1]
I respectfully propose you strike your original hook in favor of A4 (A4 the hook, not A4 the road). This is too good to mess up. EEng05:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think both ALT0 and ALT4 are good, which is why I unstruck ALT0. But I have no objection to using ALT4 if that is what others prefer. Catrìona (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You have recently deleted the Kor-Lay singer page. The fact is that I have been working for Wikipedia for a long time. Mostly in the Russian section, but I accidentally mistakenly changed the Ko Lay business policy page. Can you cancel the deletion of the singer page Kor-Lay? I would be grateful to you. Since I am his fan. MentosLava (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ritchie333, a query for you. You declined my speedy nomination of Osvaldas Jablonskis because it has a source. However I didn't list it as a speedy under BLPPROD, which would have required a source, but under WP:A7 no claims of notability included. There is no CAT:A7 criteria regarding sources but is purely based on whether or not the article makes any claims of notability. The article in question does not make any claims to notability, in fact it consists of a single statement saying they are a Lithuanian painter and that is its entirety. So I'm not sure why you declined the speedy as the fact it has a source is not relevant to the A7 speedy deletion criteria. Canterbury Tailtalk01:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah that's why I couldn't find a policy on it. So it's coming from an essay and some talk consensus that hasn't made its way into the policies. I'm okay with that, I just wanted to know where it was coming from as the policy pages make no address to that point. If we're declining speedys because they have a source and it's not in the policy, even though there's a consensus, then I think we should migrate that into the policy to avoid such confusion. Otherwise this will keep coming up (not from me.) It's a rather important piece of information and it's at odds with the actual policy on speedy deletions for whom it is purely that they lack a claim of notability. Cheers for the time. Canterbury Tailtalk12:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's only true most of the time, which is why it isn't policy. SoWhy would probably know more about the specifics. The most notorious case where I wanted to speedy something but policy kind of prevented it was Kimberly Lee Whyte, which was stereotypical Sun and Daily Star type tabloid gossip (to the extent that I don't even want to summarise the deleted content), but which had one source to The Independent which prevented it from being an out and out BLP violation. I deleted it per G11 instead, was challenged, restored it and downgraded it to AfD, then another admin deleted it per A7 anyway. And that was that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
(pinged) @Canterbury Tail: for whom it is purely that they lack a claim of notability Actually, it isn't. If you read the policy, it does mention notability only to explicitly state that A7 only requires a claim that the subject is "important or significant" which is a lower standard than notability. So logically, if notability requires coverage in multiple sources, coverage in a single source usually means the subject meets a "lower standard" than that. A7 serves as a first line of defense against the clearly irrelevant. If a reliable source deemed a subject important enough to dedicate coverage to it, it's no longer clearly irrelevant because where there is smoke, there might be fire (or where there is one source, there might be more). So even if it's not explicitly mentioned, the whole point of WP:CSD is to only apply to the "most obvious cases" as stated in the lede of the policy and these are not such cases.As for why it's not included in the policy, additionally to what Ritchie says, we can't include all previous "case law" in the policy because that would expand it to the point of not being readable anymore. It's common for policies to have supplemental pages for that very reason after all.Also, in this case, lt:Osvaldas Jablonskis contains plenty of claims of notability and potential sources. This also leads back to the spirit of most policies: If it can be fixed, fix it. If one wiki has sufficient information to likely establish notability, we should translate that information from there, not delete it here. Regards SoWhy13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
If that was not enough, a subject which has been amply covered, (in detail), by the most-circulated daily of a nation ought be declined with a vague note (nothing specific) because the creator was stupid-enough to insert some additional unreliable sources.
Hah! THIS is a GA production brigade! As I said on the Women in Red talk page, I'll do an audit of improved and rescued AfC submissions at the end of the week, and see how many we've done. They're not all masterpieces, but AFAIK I wouldn't !vote delete on any of them if they turned up at AfD. If someone is notable but has unreliable sources, you remove the unreliable sources, not delete the article! After doing a summary, I'll see if there any repeat offenders making too many mistakes, give them a head's up, and if it still continues, remove their reviewer rights (with consensus, of course). That'll light a fire under them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Article for Deletion: Sprout Social
"For starters, there's sprout soup, followed by sprout salad, and for dessert - a little unusual, but I think you're going to like it .... sprout crumble." "Rimmer, you know damn well sprouts make me chuck!" "Well this is terrible, I've got you down for sprouts almost every meal ..... hah, tell a lie ... it is every meal!" click
Hi,
I wanted to see if we could get the Sprout Social article you deleted restored to a draft so we can make sufficient edits so it has the correct factual tone and isn't considered advertising. I am employed by Sprout and we were in the process of trying to update for accuracy but we want to follow wiki guidelines accordingly (WP:SCOIC etc). As we are a midsized SaaS company similar to Zendesk, Hootsuite and others it would be great if you could point me to a few guidelines so I could ensure the article is not considered advertising. Thanks for your time on this!
Try Google books, google scholar, high beam research, dog pile and bing.com. They are not all simple regurgitations of google.com. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:Thanks so much. To clarify, are you looking to identify additional independent resources? We have a number of articles on prominent and independent sites so please let me know if you need me to share any of those. Additionally, I'll be sure to pass this as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING along to the team creating the copy. Thanks again for a speedy resolution. Liz at Sprout (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Liz at Sprout: The best way to write an article is to start from the most well-respected and independent sources you can find. Start with high-level publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, that sort of thing. Then work down to specialist publications. The source must have written about Sprout independently off its own back without being motivated by the company (that's what a "conflict of interest" usually boils down to). As a general rule of thumb, if you can write about 500 words just from at least five completely independent and reliable sources, you're probably okay to have an article. As far as prose goes, Words to watch is a good first essay to have a look at. If you need any further help, let me know. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Ritchie333. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
.jpg)
