User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2020/07
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
(Untitled)[edit]
why did you delete the ebi page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.148.98.178 (talk • contribs) 20:40, July 1, 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- The Score extension has been disabled for now. This is because of a security issue. It will work again as soon as the security issue has been fixed. [1]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 July. It will be on all wikis from 9 July (calendar).
Future changes
- Abstract Wikipedia is a new Wikimedia project. It will collect language-independent information that can be easily read in different languages. It builds on Wikidata. The name is preliminary. You can read more. [2]
- The iOS Wikipedia app developers are thinking about new experimental tools. If you use an iPhone you can help them by answering the survey.
- Some rules for user signatures will soon be enforced. Lint errors and invalid HTML will no longer be allowed in user signatures. Nested substitution will not be allowed. A link to your user page, user talk page or user contributions will be required. You can check if your signature works with the new rules. This is because the signatures can cause problems for tools or other text on the page.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Closing of War of Wrath discussion[edit]
Dear King of Hearts, you have closed the War of Wrath deletion discussion a short while ago. I would be very interested in the rationale for your decision. Is this the right place to ask, or could you please point me to another avenue? Thanks a lot for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the assessment of reliable sources is inherently subjective. As long as "keep" !voters have supplied sources that they believe meet the GNG and "delete" !voters have provided an argument as to why they do not, it ultimately comes down to convincing others of your position (i.e. a "vote", if you will) because it is not the closer's place to decide which of two validly argued points is more correct. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. Voting after all, huh, I'll keep that in mind. Do you think the deletion votes should count even in this case where they (mostly) did not even deign to acknowledge the existence of sources by disputing them? It feels very frustrating indeed!
- Anyway, thanks for doing the thankless job of closing, someone has to. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- With fictional subjects, sources don't "count" if they only cover the subject in an "in-universe" perspective. Otherwise, if there are two or more encyclopedias that focus on a particular fictional universe, then practically every minor plot point will get its own article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see, and I found several of such sources. That shouldn't be the issue here, however, as the six sources I have listed as examples all go beyond "in-universe", either have some literary analysis, or talk about possible inspirations, or draw parallels between the fictional topic and real-world or mythological events. I have tried to explain that in my summaries, but that didn't help much. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- With fictional subjects, sources don't "count" if they only cover the subject in an "in-universe" perspective. Otherwise, if there are two or more encyclopedias that focus on a particular fictional universe, then practically every minor plot point will get its own article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Great Shot![edit]
The view at Mt. Auburn from the Washington Tower is spectacular. You replaced my shot from about 8 years ago, which I thought was pretty big, but what you uploaded was a behemouth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needsmoreritalin (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Alleged Dutch porn? I'll take it. Actually, I already have. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for undeleting this page. I see that the page is still being considered for deletion and that DESiegel is objecting that the references are not adequately independent, or something, despite other editors saying it should be kept. What can be done so that that it is no longer considered for deletion? Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1dubwize (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @1dubwize: You've got it reversed. DESiegel wants to keep the article, when all the others want it deleted. You can participate in the discussion, but remember that it is not a vote. You need to present well-reasoned arguments for why he meets the notability guidelines for authors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not an editor. There did not seem to be any way for me to participate in the discussion on the page. I could only edit it and leave a comment but it did not seem correct... please excuse my ignorance and advise if there is another way for me to join the discussion on the page.1dubwize (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No worries, your comment made it onto the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Katz (author). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Please close this nomination it has been more than seven days. Richton Shore (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- You did not transclude it properly onto the log, so other people did not see the AfD. I have fixed it for you, but I'm afraid it will have to run for another seven days to given others a chance to comment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Please consider reversing your close at the above-noted AfD. It fails to take into account the clear results of the NSPORTS RFC pointed out by both myself and Malcolmxl5, which states that NSPORTS does not override GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are two types of criteria that might be found in SNGs: subjective criteria (e.g. WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors") and objective criteria (e.g. WP:BAND #3 "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country"). The former can be thought of as a refinement of GNG, since determining what "significant coverage" and "independent of the subject" actually mean could differ by subject area. The latter, however, is clearly orthogonal to GNG. If the GNG had to be met no matter what, all objective SNG measures should be deprecated as useless. The fact that they are still standing is evidence that that is not the case. The closing statement that "no subject-specific notability guideline ... is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline" is simply not true, as time and time again consensus has confirmed WP:PROF as an explicit alternative to GNG. Basic logic and common sense overrides a summary of a discussion written by two users that hasn't even been formalized into policy. Their wording has not been audited; merely surviving due to not being objectionable enough to garner complaints is not the same as gaining enough support !votes for a concrete proposal to change the wording of GNG and/or SNGs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear: Do you believe the two criteria in WP:NFOOTY to be of any worth? If yes, give an example of when it might be a deciding factor, i.e. GNG is not the sole determinant of whether a footballer's article gets kept. If no, you really should just nominate it for removal, because otherwise you're suggesting that there is currently extent guideline text that should never be followed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- NFOOTY as currently defined (one game makes a person presumptively notable) is of absolutely no value in determining whether or not there will be sufficient coverage to justify retaining an article. Playing a single game in one of several dozen fully-professional football leagues is simply not a reliable predictor of whether or not there will be actual in-depth coverage, as the article in question clearly shows: the subject played seven games in a third-tier fully-professional league and there was still zero coverage of him available. The only current value of NFOOTY as I can see it is that it defines a reasonable claim of significance for the purpose of A7. Your close contradicts your reasoning above. You state I should start an RfC, but above, you denigrate the results of a large-scale, widely-participated RfC on NSPORTS vs GNG. Which is it? Are RfCs valid, or are the results merely summaries of a discussion? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The purpose of SNGs is not to serve as a defense to speedy deletion. If they are worthless in a regular deletion discussion, then they should be removed. That RfC was very scattered and did not result in an actual policy/guideline change. There is a reason why we have formal policies and guidelines: to make it easier for posterity to refer to a common set of well-written rules instead of a talk page discussion that endlessly interpreted. Again, if the current consensus is that objective SNGs are of no value, then it should be easy to get it removed. There is WP:NODEADLINE, and the world is not going to end if a random footballer's article stays on for an extra month while the details of our notability guidelines are sorted out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- NFOOTY as currently defined (one game makes a person presumptively notable) is of absolutely no value in determining whether or not there will be sufficient coverage to justify retaining an article. Playing a single game in one of several dozen fully-professional football leagues is simply not a reliable predictor of whether or not there will be actual in-depth coverage, as the article in question clearly shows: the subject played seven games in a third-tier fully-professional league and there was still zero coverage of him available. The only current value of NFOOTY as I can see it is that it defines a reasonable claim of significance for the purpose of A7. Your close contradicts your reasoning above. You state I should start an RfC, but above, you denigrate the results of a large-scale, widely-participated RfC on NSPORTS vs GNG. Which is it? Are RfCs valid, or are the results merely summaries of a discussion? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980). 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Mail Boxes Etc. (MBE)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mail Boxes Etc. (MBE). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Mail Boxes Etc. (MBE) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Users can thank others for their edits. Checkusers can now see user data related to that action. This can help identify sock puppets who harass others using thanks. [3]
Problems
- Everyone was logged out a couple of weeks ago to fix a security problem. The problem was not entirely fixed. Because of this everyone was logged out once again last week. [4][5]
Changes later this week
- Wikis that are not for one specific language can translate pages. Sometimes parts of translations are outdated or missing. Outdated translations are marked with a pink background. Missing translations will also be marked in the future. This markup can sometimes break things. It can soon be disabled by using
<translate nowrap></translate>on the source page. [6] - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 July. It will be on all wikis from 16 July (calendar).
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Comet ITN[edit]
,_Petrivka_township,_Odeska_.jpg)
Thanks for cycling through the pictures of the comet at In the News. I've just had a look through Commons and quite like this image (right) as it shows the two tails of the comet quite well. Please consider adding it to the rotation.
While I'm here, please note that you didn't give credit when posting the ITN items. I took care of it myself for the three editors in the nomination but am uncomfortable giving myself credit and so it would best to have this done when the item is posted. No big deal – just letting you know.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I've been planning to do that one. Sorry about that, will remember next time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi King of Hearts, just a query about your reversion of my change to the caption. At all screen resolutions I've looked at, both on mobile and on Chrome and Edge on my laptop, the caption "NEOWISE over Ukraine" occupies two lines. I've not seen any way of constricting it to one. Similarly, adding "Comet" at the front still seems to have it on two lines only - never three. Have you experienced something different? I'm not that fussed about it, and it's true some articles in the popular press have shortened it to plain "NEOWISE" or "Neowise", but I did make the change because it was raised at ERRORS as an inaccuracy. The term technically refers to the telescope which found the comet, and there don't seem to be any NASA sources which describe it in the vernacular as simply "NEOWISE", it's always "Comet NEOWISE". Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, interesting. I edit Wikipedia using Firefox, and it shows up as one line on Firefox; I checked and indeed it is two lines on Chrome and Edge (and two lines is too many on a large screen). Anyways, I've cycled to the next image, which is a horizontal one so there shouldn't be any problems. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing to rotate the pictures. In yesterday's Times, they printed a comet picture too, "The Milky Way above the Ming'antu observation station in Mongolia is the backdrop for the Neowise comet..." But that the picture is this one – one in a batch from Xinhua which doesn't actually show the comet. Thanks to you, we have ensured that all ITN's comet pictures show the comet! Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Request for Mandarin translation[edit]
Hello! I saw your name listed on Wikipedia:Translators available#Chinese-to-English. I am working on the article Five Fingers of Tibet and have come across an article which talks about it: 重新审视“印度象”. Although Google Translate is giving a plausible result, a manual translation will be better to ensure that no factually incorrect information is added to the article. I require the translation for only one paragraph (历史上，西藏是作为喜 ... 度对本地区的控制力。). It will also be great if you can provide some information about which magazine does this article belong to. Your help will be highly appreciated. Thanks! SignificantPBD (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ciaren Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- A temporary fix helped wikis make their main pages more mobile friendly. This was in 2012. It has not been recommended since 2017. The mobile main page special casing stopped working 14 July. 60 wikis now have main pages that don't work well on mobile. You can see which ones, how to fix it and how to get help in Phabricator. This is the same problem that was reported in Tech News 2020/24 and 2020/26.
Problems
- There is a problem with the interlanguage links. The interlanguage links are the links that help you find a specific page in a different language. The sorting is broken. The developers are working on a solution. [11]
- Some users keep getting the notifications for the same event. Some of these are old events. [12]
- Some users have trouble logging in. This is probably a browser cookie problem. The developers are working on understanding the problem. If you have trouble logging in you can see the details on Phabricator. [13]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 July. It will be on all wikis from 23 July (calendar).
Future changes
- There is a
Printable versionlink. This will disappear. That is because web browsers today can create a printable version or show how it will look in print anyway. [14]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The Starter kit is now available for wiki communities. This page lists technical resources, tools, and recommendations. These are essential to operate a wiki project. This is mostly useful for smaller wikis where the community has limited experience with this. [15]
- The first features of the Desktop Improvements project are available for logged-in users on all wikis. In order to use them, uncheck Use Legacy Vector in your local or global preferences in section Skin preferences. More improvements are planned. Feedback is welcome.
On multiple wikis, a UTCLiveClock gadget is available. For wikis that import the gadget directly from mediawiki.org, end users can now choose a different timezone to show instead of UTC.
Problems
- The deployment train for MediaWiki has been blocked this week. [16][17]
- Translation Notification Bot was sending the same message multiple times to every translator. This has been fixed. [18]
- Some users were receiving the same notification multiple times. This has been fixed. [19]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from July 29. It will be on all wikis from JUly 30 (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Question...[edit]
I knew nothing about filters, until the discussion of the (hidden) filter 1068.
I started looking at nearby filter - most are obfuscated, like 1068.
1057, which I think you worked on, isn't.
Am I overlooking something? It seems to me that this filter would match a ref like the following:
<ref> {{cite news | title = "Can wikipedia.org provide the factchecking twitter and facebook need?" | url="http://smartypants.com/wikitwitterfacebook.htm" }}</ref>
That would be a false positive, wouldn't it?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it matches. However, it's relatively rare for "wikipedia.org" to be used in a title and this is a warn+tag only filter so we are a bit more tolerant of false positives than disallow filters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
About File:Santa Ana Hospital (New Panaderos, Santa Ana, Manila; 2014-10-15) 01.jpg[edit]
Good day! I recently tagged File:Santa Ana Hospital (New Panaderos, Santa Ana, Manila; 2014-10-15) 01.jpg with {{FOP-USonly}} because I assume it might fail the free standards of Commons (No FOP indication in the Philippines). Nevertheless, I found a Commons category named Commons:Category:Santa Ana Hospital (Manila), which has existed since November 2016 (createdby Judgefloro), and somehow it didn't get deleted. Do this hospital, completed in 2010 (and since the source website there doesn't indicate a specific person but an architectural firm, so likely 50 years after the completion + 1 for it to become PD), is merely simple in design? In other words, it has low threshhold of originality? I can find similarly-styled buildings built in other parts of Metro Manila and some in our province (in my personal travels and road trips, and in pictures existing here on Wikipedia and in Commons), so I begin to think it fails elaborate characteristics in architecture which might give it copyright according to the desires of the Berne Treaty and the principle of derivative works in photographs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
- This one is an edge case; I'm not the biggest expert on Philippine TOO so I'm not totally sure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. This is what has hounded me for some time, most especially lately. If photos of architecture and other similar structures (e.g. Memorials, monuments, sculptures) in the Philippines are considered as copyright violations, if they do serve for commercial purposes or for websites that allow commercial reusing, like Commons. Having read the relevant portions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, reproductions of copyrighted works, including architecture, are only allowed for "fair use" like news reporting, private educational purposes (in schools or homes, for example), and researches. Such fair use provision inevitably never passes according to COM:Licensing. It might seem "counterintuitive" (for some part of me) since personal photos of Filipino social media users (generally bearing copyrighted works like EDSA Shrine, SM Malls, etc) are being uploaded to social media sites like Facebook that have commercial-like terms and conditions (i.e. allowing third-party reuse of users' content), and that no case law has been reached in any courts here regarding FoP and principle of derivative works on the users' social media photos.
- Nevertheless, a page on Commons describing "precautionary principle" states that what can be found on the Internet or some social media site cannot be the case for Commons. Although this seem to run contradict to a statement uttered by Hon. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of the Ako Bicol party list during the June 8 hearing for the ABS-CBN's franchise. Here is the link at the Facebook post of Philippine Star - https://www.facebook.com/PhilippineSTAR/videos/275910473791726/ . It might seem totally unrelated and irrelevant to the concept of FoP amd copyright, but I might assume that his statement can be applied to all Philippine laws (again, this might be against precautionary principle of Commons). At point 1:47:50, he said that the "basic principle in law, and that principle is that what is not prohibited is allowed."
- For one thing it might be only relevant to the franchise issue (and the ensuing citizenship issue by Gabby Lopez that was being conducted at that hearing). Nevertheless, if Hon. Garbin's statement was meant for existing laws in the Philippines (not just the citizenship law, or in other words, general to all laws), in the case of architecture and other static works of art (memorials, monuments, sculptures, etc.), it can be interpreted as photos of Philippine static works of art are allowable in any medium, since there is no explicit prohibition in the copyright law - it only states limitations to copyright and fair use, but no explicit mention with regards to the new media like on Wikimedia or on social media sites. Again it is highly contrary to precautionary principles, and I think the no-FoP situation it will remain for many more years, considering the absence of even a single case law against people found to be: using photos of copyrighted PHL static structures for commercial purposes or uploading such photos on social media websites that enshrine third-party use (considered as "commercial"). As a former excerpt on the relevant Commons page said before (until for some reason it was removed): "Ijon met with the Director of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in November 2011, and asked about FoP. The Director said "The law is silent on the matter", and said they are waiting for case law to settle the question one way or another. The matter has not reached the supreme court yet." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Reconsider your close[edit]
Hi King of Hearts,
I am writing to ask you to reconsider your close here.
Three editors (Devonian Wombat, Red Rock Canyon, and myself) apparently made serious attempts to assess the availability of sources not already included in the article; in particular, I read (via Google translate) every source in the German Wikipedia article. None of us concluded that those sources support notability. It is also possible that some of the keep !voters made attempts to evaluate the sources on .de; if so, they also must not have produced anything, because none of the keep !voters asserted that those sources support notability. (The only comment that comes close was look to German Wikipedia article to improve which looks better sourced
, offered two weeks before the end of the discussion, never endorsed by anyone, and specifically refuted by me.) I think it's safe to say that if there were any in-depth coverage of the subject in a source in the German Wikipedia, one of us would have turned it up -- certainly, I would have reported it if I felt any sources on .de included meaningful coverage of the subject in a reliable source.
In your close, you seem to balance the efforts of those of us who took the time to examine and evaluate sources against an argument not defended by anyone. I hope you appreciate why I find this disheartening. Would you be willing to re-evaluate the discussion and your close? Thanks, JBL (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the "keep" !voters simply make a WP:VAGUEWAVE at Google News or try to spam dozens of sources (Gish gallop), then you aren't required to assess each and every one of them. However, when the number is more manageable (like 9 here), the burden of proof is on the "delete" !voters to individually refute every source, as the existence of 2-3 good sources (sometimes even one) could be enough. You need to explain how each source fails at least one of the following: 1) reliable; 2) independent; 3) significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but no keep voter identified even a single good source, let alone 2-3 of them. All the discussion of the quality of individual sources took place among people who eventually concluded that none of them were solid and voted delete or redirect (in the cases of DW and RRS, after changing their initial !votes).
As a meta-comment, I have no doubts about your intentions, competence, or good faith, and so I don't want to badger / argue with you about this or waste your time. If you've taken a second look and are comfortable with your conclusion, I am happy to drop the discussion here (though I may consider whether I care enough to go to deletion review). --JBL (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) - Sorry, I took a long time responding and you slightly changed your comment, so let me address the newer part: I do not see why that should be necessary in the absence of a single assertion by anyone that any of the sources on .de has any of those three properties. --JBL (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but no keep voter identified even a single good source, let alone 2-3 of them. All the discussion of the quality of individual sources took place among people who eventually concluded that none of them were solid and voted delete or redirect (in the cases of DW and RRS, after changing their initial !votes).
- Because the hard part of identifying the sources, of separating the wheat from the chaff, has already been done. If the "delete" !voters summarily reject all of them, then it's just a "delete, fails GNG" !vote which is no better than a "keep, meets GNG" !vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- As reported in my comment in the AfD, I read all the sources on the German Wikipedia. I included a brief (collective) analysis of those sources, which I stand by. No one challenged that analysis in whole or part. I do not know if DW and RRS also read all sources in the de article, but they clearly considered sources beyond those found in the en article and did not find any that supported notability. The argument you're offering here, and in your close, does not reflect the discussion that took place. May I request that you either (1) revert your close and allow someone else to close, or (2) indicate clearly that you will not do that, so I can avoid wasting your time and mine? Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977)[edit]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia (1944–1977). 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. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me above, and apologize for the annoyance. JBL (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)