User talk:RoySmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon[edit]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.


Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:50, Friday August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

deletion of HTTPhotos[edit]

Hello, I thought we should reach a consensus before deleting a page. I really didn't have this impression on the debate and given comments are quite subjective. Do you also consider the 5 sources below are unreliable or not independent?

Thanks, FromSpace (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I could see in the debate, there was clear consensus to delete. It looks like 5 people arguing for deletion, with reasonable, policy-based arguments, and you were the only one arguing to keep. You did present a number of sources, but the people in the debate who reviewed those sources didn't feel they were sufficient to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, 4 people were against the article because of Notability based on 1 CNET article only and we've no idea if 2 of them would have changed their mind after knowing about the 5 sources. 1 was against because of stub status and we have no idea if he/she would have changed his mind after the last article update. I believe we could have relisted the article instead of deleting at this point. Also, I find very subjective the opinion one can give on the quality of sources and I'm not sure any of the sources listed there would appreciate to be qualified as unreliable:
  • Richie333 wanted to delete because of Notability (only a CNET review)
  • Jinkinson gently disagreed with Notability but was pro delete because the page was in Stub state
  • Dialectric said there is only COM Magazine so it's not enough for Notability (at that time he/she didn't know about the 5 sources)
  • Dmitrij D. Czarkoff: same as Dialectric's opinion and didn't change his mind after knowing the 5 sources
  • Lesser Cartographies find the 5 sources are not enough

FromSpace (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My role in closing the AfD is not to evaluate sources, but to summarize the arguments of the people who participated in the debate. That being said, I just went back and took a look at the sources you cite. I'm afraid I agree with most of the participants, that these sources do not meet the WP:N requirement. If you still feel that I closed this incorrectly, your next action should be to bring this to deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I was happy to write this article but I won't spend my time trying to keep it. If people vote no, then let's delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talkcontribs) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RoySmith. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Motorcycle Club terms.
Message added 09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26#Fomato[edit]

Hi Roy. In your close at WhisperToMe (talk · contribs)'s DRV filing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26#Fomato, you wrote, "No Consensus in this discussion, which defaults to the redirect staying deleted."

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If you're interested, here are several "no consensus" situations dealt with by previous closers:

  1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14#Glucojasinogen ("no clear consensus", relist at RfD: "DRV, dedicated as it is to reviewing the deletion process, is not the place for a discussion on the merits of the redirect.")
  2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 26#Alan Roger Currie (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
  3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17#The Cartoon (no consensus, relist at AfD: "A few scattered arguments involve, among other topics, the amount of sources in the article and possible inadequacy of the debate.")
  4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17#Steven Slater (no consensus, relist at AfD: "it would be beneficial to open up a clean AfD on the event without worrying about BLP1E")
  5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 30#Steelhaven (no consensus to overturn no consensus close, do nothing)
  6. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13#June 2010 West Bank shooting and August 2010 West Bank shooting (no consensus, relist due to recent developments)
  7. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 7#Cracking the Quran Code (no consensus to overturn, relist)
  8. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15#List of statistically superlative countries (no consensus to overturn, restore and relist: "the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round.")
  9. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6#List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (no consensus to overturn, relist at AfD due to AfD closer's recommendation)
  10. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#List of African American women (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
  11. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13#Common Dead (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
  12. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (no consensus to overturn, do not relist "because nobody argues for a relist")
  13. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9#Justin Bieber on Twitter (no consensus to overturn, do not relist)
  14. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 16#List of Wikipedia controversies‎ (no consensus to endorse the close but "a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary")

The DRV closers' rationales may provide some good insight about when to relist and when not to relist.

The Fomato redirect was speedily deleted so it was not discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Instead, it was taken to DRV where there was no consensus regarding whether the speedy deletion was correct.

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions only, so the divided DRV discussion indicates the speedy deletion was not uncontroversial. On that basis, I would advise a relist so the redirect will be discussed in the proper venue. Would you consider revising your closure to "no consensus, list the redirect at RfD"?

Cunard (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This was on RfD, closed there as wrong forum, and kicked over to DRV. Kicking it back to RfD just seems silly. The amount of effort that has been invested so far in this totally trivial matter exceeds the value. There are more important things to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You may consider it a "totally trivial matter" but WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) did not. He created the redirect and contested its speedy deletion at DRV. As DGG (talk · contribs) wrote at the DRV, "it isn't clear enough for speedy since its been challenged in good faith, it should therefore be restored and discussed at RfD. (where I expect to argue for deletion)."

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 25#Fomato was speedy closed as "wrong forum" so the redirect hasn't had the chance to be discussed at RfD. "The amount of effort that has been invested so far in this totally trivial matter exceeds the value" could easily be said about all of the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but editors consider it worth their time to participate in those discussions anyway. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, it's not protected. If you like, just recreate it and RfD it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
If you restore the redirect, I'll take it to RfD. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Deal. Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Roy! I have listed the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 3#Fomato. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Why do we have an old discussion about Cody Lohan in today's AfD? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like somebody added it to the list by accident. Also looks like it's been cleaned up by now. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Also beneath XUVO we have a Michael Logan something. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. Looks like somebody totally borked this up with manual editing. I've fixed it (I hope). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7#Category:LGBT Roman Catholics (closed)[edit]

Hi, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7#Category:LGBT Roman Catholics (closed). I've relisted the discussion and manually repopulated the category, so that's all done now.

Should you add a link from the DRV to the re-opened discussion? – Fayenatic London 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi mate, just to add on this:- It's rather rare for DRV to restore a category overturning a CfD. The most recent case that I recall was the rather interesting one at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24 when the closer faced a similar problem to yours: how to repopulate the category? In this case Fayenatic london's very helpfully done it for you. If you ever need to do it yourself, at the moment the process is to find the relevant section of User:Cydebot's contribution history and revert it. You may feel it's worth asking User:Cyde if he can get his bot to automate the repopulation of categories as well as their depopulation and deletion?—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the tip. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering what you thought of the restoration of tenants here, since you edit in this area and seem to have a degree of expertise in it. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the edit comment said, re-adding tenants. WP:TENANTS is an essay and this is just a stub anyhow. That's true, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Sure, it's "just an essay", but it's the best we've got. The argument about the weight of essays vs. policies has been going on forever and we're unlikely to resolve it here. Likewise, I don't see how the article being "just a stub" means anything useful. But, you knew all this already :-) More specifically, I disagree with that material being added back to the article, which is what I suspect you were hoping to hear me say. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
All that is interesting. Essays come in different flavors, to add an issue you didn't discuss (though your response was very thoughtful, for which I thank you). This one indicates that it reflects the consensus of the wikiproject in question. Tx for your thoughts. Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RoySmith. You have new messages at Talk:Fuel oil.
Message added 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I hope I don't have to wait so long for a reply to my post there... Peridon (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)