User talk:RoySmith

Deletion of Richie Williamson

Hello RoySmith,
I am reaching out regarding: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Williamson closed on 4 October 2018.
As a new user, I took additional time to review the guidelines and content presented. I would like to appeal the conclusion and discuss any additional options regarding Wikipedia: Deletion Review, including the ability to bring the article into Wikipedia: Articles for Creation for additional assistance in improving the page.
It seems this AfD discussion was subject to WP: MAJORITY or WP: EVERYONEELSE. The motions for DELETE largely addressed WP:GNG and in response, I was able to provide additional sources and contextual information to respond to each participant in the discussion.
Unfortunately, there was no acknowledgement or guidance around the additional content that was presented, which resulted in a conclusion based on the original nominator's concerns (without acknowledgement of the ways it was addressed).
I hope you will consider these reasons and provide direction for next steps.
Thank you,
Rachel Kauffman 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (talk)

Rachelkauffman thanks for your note. I don't remember the details of this, but looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Williamson, the problem was that people felt the sourcing wasn't enough to meet WP:CREATIVE. More specifically, people said that while Williamson was mentioned in various sources, there weren't sources which talked primarily about him. For example, while The NY Times is certainly considered a good source in general, the article you cited isn't actually about Williamson. It's about major show at The Met, which includes some of Williamson's work. Williamson gets a single sentence. @Redditaddict69, DGG, Timtempleton, Hoary, CAPTAIN RAJU, and Arthistorian1977: I'm going to go ahead and restore this to Draft:Richie Williamson so you can work on it. Your suggestion that AfC can give you additional assistance in improving the page is a good one. My suggestion is that your first task should be to put in some quality time with the search engines, find everything you can about Williamson, and then evaluate each potential source against WP:NCREATIVE. Be careful to distinguish between sources that are about the subject vs ones that simply mention the subject in a larger context. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

yes, working in draft space is the way to go about it, much more likely to give a successful result than Deletion Review. If you can find enough sources, it will be accepted; but you need to realize the possibility that you may not find agreement that they will be enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping - I started a discussion on the talk page. Draft talk:Richie Williamson Basically, I still don't see notability. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith Thank you for the additional feedback you have provided and the restoration of this article to Draft Space. I am actively working on researching additional sources as you mentioned and I have added the template to submit the draft to Articles for Creation. If you have any further guidance as to how to strengthen the page, it would be welcome. I am also in the process of addressing any concerns that have arisen regarding WP:GNG and WP:Creative and am reviewing Wikipedia policy on these guidelines to ensure compliance.

Thank you,

Rachel Kauffman 22:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC) (talk)

Hi RoySmith,

As per your suggestion, after adding an additional source and continuing to gather further research and sources to share in the AfC process, I nominated Draft:Richie Williamson for Wikipedia: Articles for Creation. Based on my understanding of the "peer review" nature of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation, I nominated the article in hopes that the AfC community would be able to assist in the contribution of sources and input to strengthen the page. Once I submitted the page, it entered a queue of slightly under 3,000 pages awaiting review and was ultimately declined on November 4th, 2018 by user talk:frayae. Upon further review, I noticed that the user who declined the page has been blocked and the account has been nominated for permanent closure due to WP:HSOCK.

I wanted to circle back to you with this information in hopes of gaining some additional guidance on appropriate next steps. I can begin work on adding the additional sources, but I am wondering if re-nomination for AfC would be best or if you recommend a different course of action. I am committed to contributing to the community and still believe this page has the merit and historical relevance to successfully develop Wikipedia's encyclopedic record.

Thank you

Rachel Kauffman 01:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)(talk)

My best advice would be to continue to look for references, and resubmit after you've found some better sources. Please note that I said better sources, not just, more sources. Three really solid sources will usually do more to impress reviewers than a whole pile of marginal sources. The generic advice I give people at WP:THREE might be of some use to you.

I know that your most recent reviewer was blocked, but looking at his review, I don't see any reason it should be discounted because of that. You could resubmit it for review immediately, but I don't think that would be your best course of action. The odds are, whoever reviews it next will say something like, not substantially improved since the last time it was declined, and that won't be useful. I know it can be frustrating how chaotic the review process on wikipedia can be. About all I can say in its defense is that somehow it works out in the end.

I should also point out that articles about living people are especially difficult to get accepted. See WP:BLP for some of the reasons. In addition to that, there's usually the assumption that any article about a living person is being written for the purpose of promotion and probably involves a conflict of interest. See WP:COI for more about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this comprehensive reply. I will promptly review the pages you referenced and once I have strengthened the page, I will reach back out if further clarification would be helpful at that time. I really appreciate your on-going guidance.

Rachel Kauffman 02:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)(talk)

Constantine Mavroudis

You recently edited my draft article Constantine Mavroudis. This is my first submission and I am working to make it Wiki-worthy as I believe it is a worthy subject. Kindly undelete it so I can continue working on it. All feedback from editors have been very helpful. I'm still learning. Thank you. Amr247rn (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to restore it. I assume this is actually an article about yourself? If so, please see WP:AUTO for why that's not recommended. This was submitted and rejected five times over the course of 16 months, it seems unlikely that further work will bring it up to standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's actually not about myself, it is about a surgeon in my field whom I respect, there are many physicians who should have pages as they make great contributions to the health and wellness many of us experience, but who does these pages? In this case, me, and out of the respect I have in this field. I also work full time and am doing this on the side, I am a health care provider and this writing is new to me, I am working hard to learn and get this right but I don't have endless time to do it, hence the long spans between submissions. I'm trying. It is not about me, and I am trying to take the recommendations. Please undelete my work so I can revise. Starting from scratch undoes all the recommendations from previous editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr247rn (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not going to happen. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Noah K

Dear RoySmith, Can you please explain why you put a COI notice on my article about Noah K? The article is neutral, non-promotional, well sourced and I was not paid to write it in any way. I have made a good faith effort to resolve the notability issue with my article on Dollshot by wrapping it into the article on K who unequivocally passes WP:MUS standards. Please remove this notice, Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest. Even if you weren't paid, it's clear you have some relationship with the band beyond simply being a fan. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How do we move forward? The article is completely factual, unbiased and non promotional. I have been working hard to understand how to properly write a wikipedia article so that I can continue to create them. In regards to the photo (which you mentioned on another page), it is indeed my photograph of K. I'm not sure how posting a photo that he may have used elsewhere violates any Wikipedia policy. If there is an issue with the article not being neutral enough in tone, I am happy to edit it further, but I have taken care to make sure that every line is factual and cited properly with high quality sources. Artaria195 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To start, the way we move forward is for you to fully comply with WP:COI. I did not say it wasn't your photo. All I said was that if you had the kind of access to the subject to allow you to take what's obviously a carefully posed and lighted studio photo, you must have some relationship beyond simply being a fan of his band. WP:COI requires that you disclose that relationship, even if you're not being paid.

I am a hobbyist photographer who likes to photograph musicians and artists and frequently attend concerts of experimental music and the like in the New York area. Noah asked if I would take some photos for him a couple years ago after we met at a performance, which I've done with a number of other people. Other than that, I try to attend his bands' concerts when I can. You're pressing me for an answer which I'm afraid I can't give you since I don't work for Noah or his band, nor am I a family member or close friend. Artaria195 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If that's how you're related, then you should say that on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I just added this info to my user page. How does it work from here? thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The template seems pretty self-explanatory: You may request corrections on or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but can the COI tag be removed from the article? Artaria195 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No. You seem to still be resistive to learning how things work around here and instead concentrating on getting things your way. I'm not sure what else I can tell you. If you want to continue this discussion, someplace like WP:Teahouse might be the right place. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I answered your question as clearly as I could and did exactly as you said and posted on my user page. I've been totally compliant. I honestly thought that Dollshot had enough sources at this point to overcome the notability issue so rewrote the article and posted it. There was never an issue with wording, just with sources. I made a good faith effort to explain my rationale and when it was disagreed with, I compromised and just included a short section on Dollshot in a larger article on K. Can you clarify what you mean by "trying to get my way"? I read WP:COI and as far as I can tell there isn't an issue here. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I posted this on my user page, but since it seems relevant to our discussion I thought I post here too. In case it makes any difference, here is a link to an article on Noah from Wikipedia Germany that I came across: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Kaplan. It dates back to 2012 and has been edited by multiple editors since (last edit is from 2018). Just to show that I am not the only person interested in contributing to an article on K. Artaria195 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaria195 (talk • contribs)

AfC notification: Draft:Michael Sayman has a new comment

I've modified the article based on your feedback and have left a comment on your comment, which can be viewed at Draft:Michael Sayman. Thanks! -- Purplehippo458 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RoySmith. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove Deletion tag from Noah K article

Dear RoySmith, please remove the deletion notice from my article on Noah K. This seems like aggressive, non-neutral editing, and the claim you make that he doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO is clearly not true. See my response here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noah_K. The fact is, he passes #10 immediately, since he composed music for and appeared as himself performing that music in the Once and Again episode "Chance of a Lifetime". I am a new editor to Wikipedia, and mistakenly used IMDb as the source for that when it should be the episode itself. Please remove the deletion tag as soon as possible and stop accusing me of WP:UPE when I have told you multiple times that I was not paid in any way to write the article. Artaria195 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please Explain

Hello, RoySmith, I am sorry but I looked through some of Wikipedia policies but I still do not understand why my article “Baskut Tucnak” was deleted. The guy is a UN diplomat and I added more than twenty new reliable sources to the article. So I still don’t get any lesson for my future activities on Wikipedia. I appreciate if you could explain this to me. Alex-h (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. Looking over the AfD comments, the general opinion is that we need reliable independent sources that talk about him. We've got lots of things he wrote himself, and lots of things on official UN pages, but none of those are independent.

You might want to look at Category:United Nations special rapporteurs for some examples of other special rapporteurs we've got articles about, and look at the kind of sourcing they've got. Be aware, however, that just because we have an article about somebody doesn't necessarily mean it meets our own sourcing requirements. It's still worth looking at them to get a feel for things.

If you want, I'd be fine with restoring this to draft space so you can continue to work on it. @Chetsford, EnPassant, ThatMontrealIP, Sandstein, Sam Sailor, and 1l2l3k: pinging the other participants of the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No opinion by me, I was just the relister. Sandstein 15:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There was chance to add or present sources during the AfD, which only just closed. I can't imagine that much has changed in a week.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 13th Street Repertory Theatre has been accepted

13th Street Repertory Theatre, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Fowles

You were the closing (and deleting) admin on this discussion of an article I nominated for deletion. Fowles has just (relatively unexpectedly) been elected to parliament and thus become indisputably notable - would you be able to undelete this so we don't have to start from scratch? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Draft:Will Fowles. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello RoySmith, It’s nice of you to help me on the article “Baskut Tucnak”. I wonder if you can spare a minute and check the sources below. These are what I can find now. If these sources meet your requirements as independent, then please put the article in draft so I can add them. If not, it’s my bad luck. I don’t know what else to do. Thank you.Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• UN Special Rapporteur sounds a human rights alert on toxic exposure in the workplace
• The EU and glyphosate: it's time to put children's health before pesticides
• UN expert urges Ffos-y-Fran opencast health inquiry
• “No one is untouched by pesticide exposure” UN Special Rapporteur on human rights about Glyphosate
• Grupo México tiene derecho a la impunidad por el caso de Río Sonora, señala Baskut Tuncak, relator de Naciones Unidas sobre sustancias tóxicas
• Britain's air quality threatens children's human rights, says UN rapporteur
• UN report expresses ‘alarm’ at UK’s air quality plan
• PLATFORM NEWS – UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR CONCERNED ABOUT GERMAN SHIPBREAKING PRACTICES
• UN Special Rapporteur Baskut Tuncak in Berlin
• New UN report highlights Sweden as a global leader in action on chemicals
• U.N. rights expert urges Japan to halt women and child evacuee returns to radioactive parts of Fukushima

At least some of these look reasonable to me, but please understand, my role in the AfD was essentially clerical. @Chetsford, EnPassant, ThatMontrealIP, Sam Sailor, and 1l2l3k: the people who took part in the discussion are who evaluated the article and the sources. I'll restore this to draft space, but that's no guarantee that your new sources will be deemed acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, i have added the above sources , please check again. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, my role in this was clerical. What you need to do submit it for review and wait for a volunteer reviewer to take a look. Instructions are at WP:AfC, under "Review and publishing". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Pomona Electronics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pomona Electronics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomona Electronics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Sibella Brown

On 29 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Margaret Sibella Brown, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that bryologist Margaret Sibella Brown was awarded an honorary master of arts degree from Acadia University at the age of 84? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Sibella Brown. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Margaret Sibella Brown), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing title of Druid Hills Baptist Church

Hi Roy,

You rejected the new page I proposed for the Church at Ponce and Highland. You said there existed a page previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid_Hills_Baptist_Church

Unfortunately that page has the wrong title. It needs to be Church at Ponce and Highland. The church is no longer called Druid Hills Baptist Church.

Instead of the inaccurate old name in the title and a small note in the body, my proposal was to put the correct name in the title and mention the prior name in the body.

Unfortunately you rejected this solution. Can we instead change the title of the Druid Hills Baptist Church page? I see no option to do so.

The failure of Wikipedia to reflect the church name everywhere else (google, etc) is a source of confusion.Wanderwrite (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. I didn't realize what was going on when I first declined the draft. I now see that you left an explanatory note in the edit history when you first created the draft, but I didn't notice that. My apologies for the confusion. Very new users (accounts that were created less than four days ago and/or have less than 10 edits) cannot move pages. For future reference, the instructions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Moving a page. In the meantime, I've verified the name change, have added a reference for that, and I'll go ahead and do the rename in a few minutes. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, I'll leave it to you to clean up the rest of the text. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisit Request

Dear RoySmith, I wanted to see if you'd be willing to take another look at the article I contributed to on Noah K and its AfD discussion page. All of the issues you addressed on the AfD page have been addressed in good faith. A prominent Jazz contributor to Wikipedia has made several significant edits to the article and improved it substantially. I have continued to research sources on K and have added important ones to the article. As is explained on the AfD page, K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 because of his two albums on HatHut Records. The quality sources (Downbeat, Irish Times, New York City Jazz Review, WNYC, etc.) provide additional support. You mentioned doing a search of "New York City newspapers which might cover local talent . . . NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Village Voice, and DNA Info." From my research and experience following jazz, after the NYTimes who significantly scaled back their jazz coverage, The NYC Jazz Record is the most prominent "local" jazz coverage in NYC. DownBeat Magazine (cited twice) remains the most influential and prominent jazz media coverage, akin to RollingStone in rock. here is a book about that published by Oxford. K has appeared in multiple important international music publications as well. I have worked on this article in good faith and it has now been edited by other editors. The two "keep" votes on the AfD are both by very serious Wikipedia Jazz editors who work extensively on WikiJazz Project. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration on this, and thank you Artaria195 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pestering me and other people about this on our talk pages. You've made your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah K. Continuing to canvass people with targeted messages is not appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to pester or canvas but only to continue the discussion since it was relisted last week and no one has posted since. I was hoping that you and other editors who voted "delete" might reconsider given the thorough discussion of #5, the revisions and the source additions. With one exception, all "delete" votes simply say "delete per nom" without any explanation and it seems no one has updated their opinion in light of the thoughtful and guideline based revisions and discussion to the contrary. I am simply hoping to resolve this in a clear and fair manner. I've complied with everything you've asked, so was hoping you'd be willing to review your initial objections. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

In a continuing effort to be polite, yet trying to make my point clear, I request that you stop posting messages to my talk page on this topic. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Iadarola

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Iadarola. 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. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

December 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Fordham University's Lincoln Center campus in Manhattan, near Columbus Circle. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities. Wednesday December 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Fordham University's Lincoln Center campus (South Lounge) at 113 W 60th Street, Manhattan (note this month we will be meeting in Manhattan, near Columbus Circle, not at Babycastles) We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 03:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edelgard Huber von Gersdorff

Hi, I see that you regularly close AfDs as "delete", without invoking WP:ATD. I wonder why in this case, where you say that there is a "clear consensus to delete", you decide for "redirect" even though literally nobody in that AfD !voted that way. I could understand a "delete and redirect", but aa simple "redirect" when there was a "clear consensus to delete" seems a bit weird to me. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The redirect suggestion was in the AfD nomination itself, so it seems a good redirect. Hello another Randy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Randy :-) Creating a redirect as suggested after deletion, fine. But I find it weird not to delete against such a clear consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, she was 112 years old and close to a record-breaker. I would have commented 'Keep' on the AfD (I don't venture into the sad realm of AfD often, too many good articles are put up by too many editors, often on a daily basis, without an initial gateway which would be useful). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The point is not to re-litigate the AfD. It's to understand why the close was so different from the consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor, Legacypac, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Sandstein, RebeccaGreen, Willthacheerleader18, CAPTAIN RAJU, ThatBaileyLad, JFG, Randykitty, Newshunter12, and Rzvas: When I turn an existing article into a redirect, I ask myself, Is the existing text something that needs to be removed because it's in violation of our TOU (copyvio, WP:BLP problems, etc), or just something that's not notable? If the answer is that it's just not notable, I don't see any reason to actually delete the underlying text. That was the case here.

I also look at what people wrote in the AfD. If people are explicitly saying, delete, then redirect, I'll generally honor that. If people don't say one way or the other, I try to read between the lines. In this case, I looked at what those arguing to delete wrote, and came to the conclusion that what they were really saying was, Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but didn't see any specific reason to hide the existing text.

I've pinged everybody who participated in the AfD. If I've mis-interpreted your sentiment, let me know. If more than a couple of people feel my reading between the lines was in error, I'll be happy to revise my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Roy, once more, I'm not here to re-litigate the AfD. I'm just surprised that I see a string of AfDs where you deleted the article, didn't make any redirects, and didn't mention ATD. And then there's this one where suddenly ATD pops up and what you yourself call a "clear consensus to delete" is ignored and we get a simple redirect instead. I just would like to understand what the difference is between all those AfDs where you deleted the article and this one. Why does ATD apply here and not with the others? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There's two different questions here. First, Why did I go with redirect?, and second, Once I decided to redirect, why didn't I also delete the history?. Your initial note made it sound like you were OK with the first one, and were just seeking an answer to the second, so that's what I concentrated on that in my response.

To now address the first question, several people talked about covering her, in reduced detail, at List of German supercentenarians. At least, that's what I assumed people meant by mini bio. It's standard policy, supported by WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, that when a non-notable subject is covered to any extent in another article, we provide a redirect as a navigation aid. But, I'm sure you know this, so maybe I'm not quite understanding your question.

It's not uncommon for me to take what looks like a delete consensus and turn it into a redirect in my close. My justification for doing so is essentially what I've outlined above. Search my AfD closes for "ATD", and I'm sure you'll find more than a few of these. I could have done a better job explaining this in my closing statement, and I'll be happy to update that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reply Well, I !voted Keep - but I agree, there was a consensus (not well argued, or argued at all, in some cases, in my opinion) to delete - but the nominator and one Delete !voter both said they could see a mini-bio on the List of German supercentenarians, and one other Delete !voter said that they had already placed some of the unique info in the caption under her photo on that page (wonder how long the page will survive .....) So, 3 of the 5 Delete !voters mentioned something other than a straight Delete. Personally, I thought several of the Delete !voters had no arguments about this specific article, and could have been ignored in closing as not having any rational arguments - but, as you say, we're not here to relitigate, and as far as I'm concerned, redirection is not against the spirit of 5 of the 9 participants in the AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm just a relister, so I have no opinion. Sandstein 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse – For my own part, I agree with the redirect, and I think the closer's decision not to perform a hard delete first was within their discretion. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• People, this is not DRV nor have I the intention to bring this to DRV. There is no need for all participants in the AfD to come here and endorse (or not) the decision. All I wanted was to understand why Roy invoked ATD here, what made this AfD different from all the other AfDs that were simply closed "delete" without leaving a redirect and without invoking ATD. Roy has given some explanation. I don't really follow it, but let's leave it at that, OK? --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan administered Kashmir

Hi Roy, I am here to discuss your closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir, Thanks for taking out the time to read the long discussion and special thank for sharing a long closing comment.

You had agreed Some people did point out that "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is a term that's used in many WP:RS, and is apparently the term used by the United Nations. which was a correct observation. You noted that However, most people here felt that this article was a WP:POVFORK, and as such did not merit a stand-alone article. This comment was just carried over from the older AfD which had a POV title "occupied", no explanation was given how it is POVFORK and whose POV since it is a term used be neutral third party, POV arguement did nt make much sense.

I am not sure how you weighed the arguments of each side, so I am here to understand the same.

Worth noting is that there's been long-term disagreement about the use of "controlled" vs "occupied" vs "administered". They all have similar meanings, but with subtle differences in tone. It's unlikely there will ever been complete agreement on which is the best word to describe the current situation. a disagreement about title words should be discussed in a subsequent WP:RM discussion after keeping the article, this should not be used as a reason to delete/redirect.

In my opinion there were strong policy based justifications to keep and on the other side there were weak, factually incorrect, policy misrepresentation arguments to delete. On top of that as expected, this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested. User:The_Donkey_King is already blocked as a sock and cursory look at the contribution history of another clearly imply canvassing. This should also should be taken into account while deciding the weight of arguments.

Please let me know if you can change your closure to keep or No consensus. I feel there are strong reasons to keep as explained in the table discussing all the comments. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 23:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rationale	!vote	user	Response/Notes
Article is a content fork of Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan	Delete	Qualitist	Factually incorrect, all three articles, are about different region/topic.
This is only a term used for referring two of the states (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) that are administered by Pakistan	Delete	Qualitist	not just a term but a Political, Geographic and historical entity.
"Azad Kashmir" and "Gilgit-Baltistan" are separate from each other as political units.	Delete	Qualitist	They have different local governments but are federally governed by Pakistan through Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan, so it is a political unit in that sense.
There should be no need to create an article which treats them as same.	Delete	Qualitist	This article doesnt treat them as same, they are different and that treated as different.
The more popular redirect is Pakistan-administered Kashmir and has significant talk page history on its talk page Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir.	Delete	Qualitist	not a valid reason to delete but to rename.
According to that talk page, a similar article was turned into redirect before after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir.	Delete	Qualitist	Result of the AfD was to redirect to Pakistan administered Kashmir, which was an existing article then. Long term consensus was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 [1], till 2012 [2] when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
unneeded WP:POVFORK	Delete/Redirect	(5 Users) Satpal Dandiwal, Capankajsmilyo, Shiv Sahil, Umar shahid, 1990'sguy	WP:POVFORK talks about both article on the "same subject". There is "no other article" for the same subject (geographical entity). It is quite obvious from the maps itself that the geographic entities of Pakistan administered Kashmir are not the same as either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. If there was an existing Pakistan administered Kashmir and then someone created another article at "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" then one could have argued that its a POV FORK, but with only 1 existing article for the subject one cannot claim WP:FORK, let alone WP:POVFORK So it is not a fork. Pakistan administered Kashmir internationally refers to the combined geographical entity of "Azad Kashmir + Gilgit-Baltistan", the two parts of Kashmir. It is fallacious to redirect Pakistan administered Kashmir to Azad Kashmir since they are not the same entities.
multiple past RfCs	Delete/Redirect	Radhamadhab Sarangi	So RFC was held and no links provided.
it is best not to create articles that are already covered in other separate articles.	Redirect	Capankajsmilyo	The topic of this article is not the same as any existing article.
The sources provided here does not show how this topic is distinct or it can be differently covered than what it has already been at Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan	Redirect	Capankajsmilyo	Sources CNN and BBC clearly show that it is not the same as AK or GB.
no such entity	Delete	The Donkey King	Blocked Sock making factually incorrect arguments
3 sources don't mention Gilgit-Baltistan and say "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" means "Azad Kashmir"	Delete/Redirect	Shiv Sahil	Factually incorrect. Our article Azad Kashmir does not claim that Azad Kashmir includes, "Gilgit Baltistan". Even the Pakistan Government mentions Azad Kashmir (map) on their official website gov.pk and they don't include Gilgit Baltistan in Azad Kashmir. -DBigXray Until 1990s, Pakistan did not even reveal that Gilgit-Baltistan had been irrevocably separated from Azad Kashmir. (See the Karachi Agreement page.) In her well-regarded book,[3] scholar Navnita Chadha Behera comments that these mountainous regions had been "enveloped in multiple and overwhelming silences". So, you cannot use the fact that there are some ill-informed sources as a justification for propagating the same kind of ill-information here. And, I wonder if blocking an article from being written here is also a contribution to these silences.-- Kautilya3 All the three sources were rebutted by Kautilya3 in reply.
this article cannot be written without copy pasting content from Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir	Delete/Redirect	Shiv Sahil	Not a valid reason to delete. see WP:SPINOFF
All of the sources mentioned above (with some not even mentioning the term) seems to be verifying that we can't create more than a couple of sentences of the article.	Delete	Umar shahid	Invalid, the article was more than a couple of lines and was already 22,000 Bytes at the time of AfD.
This is already covered in the 3 named articles by the nominator and also covered on Kashmir	Delete	Umar shahid	There is no existing article that is redundant to Pakistan administered Kashmir. The geographic entity Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not the same as the geographic entity of Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. Each of them has its own different map, which is different from the other. So no, this is not a "redundant" article but a geographic article representing a unique geographic entity.
the subject is already described enough times in numerous articles that we dont need this page.	Delete	Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari	same as above.
Wikipedia is certainly not to be used for advancing nationalist POV.	Delete	Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari	This term is used internationally by neutral mainstream media and the UN. and not a POV.
Redirect to maybe Kashmir#Current_status_and_political_divisions. The best place to explain this is the main Kashmir article . My suggestion would be to keep this as a redirect and explain the terms in the main article where the context is provided. This avoid too much fragmentation and yet preserves the information	Redirect	Example	No valid reason to delete, the comment is against widely followed WP:SPINOFF
Scope is dubious since the term can mean both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan or only Azad Kashmir. In reliable sources, the use of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is similar to that of "Indian-administered Kashmir" and that is why we can't just create a "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" against long term consensus [4] while avoiding the creation of an Indian-administered Kashmir page.	Delete/Redirect	1990'sguy	Long term consensus was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 [5], till 2012 [6] when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
In any case, such articles cannot be created without mass content forking and that is clearly against our policies. There is clearly nothing new for us to describe here that hasn't been already described elsewhere.	Delete/Redirect	1990'sguy	Topic is distinct and does not duplicate any existing article. Regarding the point of "nothing new here", note that this geographic entity is federally administered by Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan. The United Nations and the international media refer to this entire region as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so this article can discuss the history, administration and geography of this geographic entity.
Completely unnecessary to create another article only for repeating what we already have repeated around. These kinds of creations do not help encyclopedia but encourage more WP:POVFORKs.	Delete/Redirect	Srkamal	Topic is distinct and does not duplicate any existing article. Also, just a few mins back, Srkamal posted here on the talk page of this article, opposing merger and saying that "Yes, it should continue to be a separate article"
"Pakistan administered Kashmir" is the term by which UN refers to this area of Azad Kashmir + Gilgit Baltistan.[1] And this is the term by which the neutral international mainstream media refers this geographical entity,[2] "Pakistani controlled Kashmir" is the other widely used term for the same Geo area	Keep	DBigXray	no rebuttal or source using any other term provided.
The subject is the title of several books.[4][5][6][7][8]	Keep	DBigXray	Multiple historical books with the title greatly strengthens the notability of the topic.
"Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a well-attested term, covered in reliable sources. this[9] recent scholarly book has a section on Pakistan-administered Kashmir and 20+ other occurrences.	Keep	Kautilya3, Spinningspark	enhances notability and no rebuttal provided.
Kashmir has an obvious international dimension to it, and internationally Pakistan-administered Kashmir is one unit even if Pakistan were to administer it internally as two separate provinces. There is in fact a single ministry in the central government that deals with both of them.	Keep	Kautilya3, Spinningspark	enhances notability and no rebuttal provided.
As to what this article might cover other than what is covered in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles, I expect that it would focus on the "Pakistan-administered" aspect: why Pakistan administers it and how Pakistan administers it. A certain amount of overlap with the other articles is inevitable.	Keep	Kautilya3, Spinningspark	explains why the article is needed. no rebuttal provided
performed Google searches and shared the results to demonstrate notability and better title	Move	Arun Kumar SINGH/AKS.9955	Didnt suggest a deletion and made arguments in support of a better title.
prior to this article being created Pakistan-administered Kashmir was being redirected to Azad Kashmir. That was done in 2012, when most of the present editors weren't around. The edit summary says "per talk", but the talk page discussion was a mess. It was WP:OR and factually wrong, because the reliable source I gave above [7] clearly shows both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan being parts of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The old redirect is not acceptable.	Keep	Kautilya3	Valid arguments and no rebuttal was provided. A reply comment was made about few sources misusing the term, but few sources misusing the term is not a reason to delete.
Maps from CNN, "BBC". and Pakistan Government provided to show distinct entity	Keep	DBigXray	no rebuttal provided.
terms such as Indian Kashmir have a clear redirect target - the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir. It's clear that both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are part of the Kashmir region. There is a lot of overlap, but that doesn't prohibit separate articles; The Maritimes and Atlantic Canada overlap quite a lot as well.	Keep	Power~enwiki	Valid argument in support along with a similar existing example as a precedent.
Kashmir is de facto partitioned between India and Pakistan. Whether the two halves are "administered", "occupied", or "controlled" is a matter of POV - whether the speaker has an Indian or Pakistani POV. There is no formal border, only a cease-fire line or line of control...[suggested a title]]...Merging or redirecting is not an option, since it covers both Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir.	Keep	Peterkingiron	Valid argument in support describing the situation and suggestinga keep. no rebuttal provided.
the term refers to both the territories. The article was previously unanimously disambiguated then without clear consensus redirected to Kashmir. A redirect won't suffice as well, a broad target such a Kashmir isn't correct, DAB fails and an article which covers Kashmir under Pakistan is needed here. Also, I fail to see what is POV or POVFORK here the term is a widely used neutral one and the article simply covers the administration of the region.	Keep	Gotitbro	Valid arguments and no rebuttal provided.