User talk:Daniel

Archives

edit 

101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110

111 · 112 · 113

Relists

Hi Daniel, It's really good to see you active! I've seen a couple of your relists where you imply that an article needs to be improved before the discussion can be closed as 'keep' (" Relisting to allow the improvements promised in the above discussion to materialise." and "Improvements in line with "keep" comments need to be made if this is to be closed as keep. Extending for 7 days."). Now I may be misreading them, and if that's the case feel free to tell me, but afd is not cleanup and there's (generally) no requirement that improvements need to be made for an article to be kept. So I'm just curious where relists such as these are coming from. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891, thanks for the message. Fair cop on the first one, agree with your comments. The second one is closer to no consensus, but realistically if the material asserting notability was actually added to the article, it would be easier to view this as keep than no consensus. Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, pretty much what I thought-- a misread on my part. What you're saying here makes sense, and I would probably have relisted too. I just read your comment as saying this nomination would have been closed as keep but the only way it can be kept is if improvements are made but I think you were really trying to say something like "it would be helpful in determining notability if improvements in line with the comments are made", which is a sentiment that I agree with. Thanks for explaining! Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Brevity (read: laziness on my part in not writing better relist comments) is sometimes the cause of misunderstanding :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Abdullah Khan (Author)

Dear Daniel, This is related to deletion of page Abdullah Khan (Author). It is really strange to see the comments that he is a self published author which factually incorrect. Abdullah debut novel PATNA BLUES was published by Chiki Sarkar's Juggernaut Books and has been translated into 8 languages. A chapter from PATNA BLUES is being taught at university of Kerala. It was also quoted in a couple anthologies. It has been reviewed by all major publications in South Asia. Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannu80 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please undelete the page as the said author is traditionally published. Tannu80 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Your closing rationale on Toggl Track

Daniel, can you explain how the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toggl Track was "no consensus verging on Keep"? There was one single !vote to Delete with an explanation that it was a "personal opinion"? It just seems to me that the it was a clear consensus to Keep. Thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 22:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

HighKing, don't forget about the nominator too! It wasn't a straight down the line no consensus close, hence the comment, but I don't think it was bright line keep either. Realistically it makes little difference. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

La Mesa, California mayoral election

Hi Daniel, you closed two AfDs [1] and [2] after only one week with only one !vote. I'd request you consider relisting these for more participation.  // Timothy :: talk  01:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this the same principle as soft-deletion? Daniel (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe so, I don't object to a soft delete, others similar articles [3], [4] have been deletes. After deletes at AFD I was able to PROD the remaining El Cajon, California mayoral elections and was planning on doing this for the remaining La Mesa articles. Thanks for considering.  // Timothy :: talk  14:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

• News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

• Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

• In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

• Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

• In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

• Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

• Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

• News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

• Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

• Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

• Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

• Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Soft Deletion: The Graduate Network

Hi Daniel,

I hope you're well. I just wanted to reach out regarding The Graduate Network article I wrote. It was soft-deleted with no real conviction for deletion. The original reason for writing the article was that there are several other companies with the same name and this one is the one that ranks #1 on google with 10 thousand page views per month

.

Furthermore, there are several other Wikipedia articles written about similar job search engines in a similar format: see , . It would be great if you could reverse the decision. If there this is absolutely no way you can undo the soft deletion, I would appreciate some pointers on how to go about getting the article published.

Cambridgehistory (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)