User talk:Postdlf/Archive19

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 11 months and 27 days.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

JD This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.

BFA This user has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.

en This user is a native speaker of English.

This user is a participant in WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases.

This user is a member of the Comics Wikiproject.

This user thinks okapis are the coolest animal ever.

CLICK HERE to add a new message.

Northern Exposure characters

Thanks. I guess I just got overly cautious since I've had so many redirects blatantly undone by a user who seems to have a long-standing grudge against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cotsco

I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of relegating such summary opinions to footnotes (it "prevents" inclusion of relevant information, namely the case prior and later histories), but I don't intend to get into a huge argument over it (I didn't intend to go further than my initial revert, except maybe to restore the Oneida info). Circéus (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

Hey! We have run into each other on the SCOTUS list pages - I have recently expanded the LSC v. Velazquez case page and I am trying to bring it up to GA-level. Any comments, advice, suggestions for the article's improvement would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for going through the article earlier today :) Lord Roem (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of King Street (Alexandria, Virginia)

The article King Street (Alexandria, Virginia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable city street that does not pass the WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Admrboltz (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding:

• this. As I said earlier on your talk page, if you would have just participated in the CfD discussion and !voted delete (the only logical !vote there) instead of complaining about past CfDs/AfDs... this probably would have not even closed as "no consensus." Now we're back at DRV and another CfD will open up in a year or so. Definitely a great use of everyone's time. Bulldog123 14:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

National Archives

Thanks for your helpful edit which improved the clarity of the presentation. I was led to this article from a discussion at The National Archives about that institution in the UK. Edison (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Keir H. Stahlsmith

I know it's only been created once, but given the revision history at Keir Stahlsmith do you think it might be worth salting? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted it. If it happens once, I'll salt it. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK - I've watchlisted it, too. If I catch it first I'll let you know. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that you took care of File:Keir H Stahlsmith Military EPR 2009.pdf. I was wondering if there was any possible use for File:Keir Stahlsmith Service in DCU 2007.jpg. It doesn't seem to be a CSD, and I'm not sure if there is any use in keeping the image. As far as I know, the prod prcess isn't for images, and I'd rather not open an FfD (image policy is my main weakness regarding XfD). Regardless, I've tagged it for Commons, in case it doesn't get deleted. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was going to prod that but it's just for articles. I don't see any informative value to it, and neither should Commons. I'll start an FFD. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:Keir Stahlsmith Service in DCU 2007.jpg. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

K. Thor Jensen

OK, I'm still learning. How do we list him? TheNate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Response on your talk page. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

review Edward Hanousek, Jr v. United States

Species authority or binomial authority in taxobox?

Well, it is the same really.. But I always see the authority added as binomial authority instead of species authority on wikipedia. It might be you are right with regards to the use of these two, but I think it is common practice to use the name and date of the first description. If the species is moved to another genus, the name and date are placed between brackets. Look for instance at this one (just picking one I made today): Pachygonidia subhamata.. (Walker, 1856) is listed as binomial authority, meaning he first described the species, but in another genus. I listed the previous name in the synonyms field, i.e. Perigonia subhamata Walker, 1856 (without brackets, because this is the original combination). Cheers and thanks for making the article by the way..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of University of British Columbia alumni. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with someone who accuses me of edit warning after one edit to an article. ANI notice is on your talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to Me-123567-Me

Let us assume good faith, that Me-123567-Me believed the removal was beneficial to the encyclopedia. That would make their actions on the article quire reasonable from their point of view - and indeed AfDs are often closed on the basis that articles are appropriate but simply need some kind of improvement. So it makes sense to concentrate on the disjunction between the editors actions and the communities views.

You are of course correct that templating the regulars with a 3rr warning after 1r is a little over the top, although it is supposed to be an invitation to discussion, and I would hope on sober reflection Me-123567-Me would realise this, and that tactic has backfired anyway. And for that reason I would rather not dilute the substantive message about list entries.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Erna Lazarus

I've nominated this article for deletion, after the PROD notice was lifted. The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK. David in DC (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly stop hounding monitoring my contribs

• As you just happened to stumble upon this article I mentioned. Bulldog123 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how that edit, made to an article you've never edited, is disruptive. Looking at your contributions ≠ WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and I see that I'm one of several you've accused of that recently. Given your widespread and prolific XFD agenda regarding ethnicity-related content, you can't be surprised that people have taken an interest in what you're doing, and you're far from the only Wikipedia editor whose contributions I look through from time to time.

    The fact that these ethnic XFDs are pretty much the only thing you do on Wikipedia (as several others have also noticed recently) has I think contributed to your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, because you're clearly very invested in achieving a particular outcome here. I've told you before that your focus worries me, that I object to your approach, and I think you often ignore valid points where you yourself have demonstrated no familiarity with the particular subject matter or the references others cite. But despite my disagreements with you in many instances,I've still supported your XFD noms where I've agreed, closed XFDs as delete where you had !voted delete, and said nothing in your XFD noms where I don't have a strong opinion at present. My Wikipedia contributions hardly begin and end with where you've edited or the single issue you're interested in. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

    • I really don't see how nominating numerous CfDs that go against our core guidelines/policies (WP:OCAT, WP:NOTDIR) can be interpreted as a "worrisome" agenda. Some users never stray away from XfDs at all. Some users exist on wikipedia solely to edit one POVish topic on the article mainspace. Others exist only to promote their nationality. You don't seem to "worried" about any of them. If I was nominating these CfDs with rationales like "This is offensive. I don't think it should be on Wikipedia"... then yes... that would admittedly be "worrisome"... but I only nominate cats that could reasonably be policy violations and that don't make any sense in their current state. Category:American artists of German descent, for example, doesn't make any sense in its current state, but you rather ignore the issue and jump on the "I don't like his approach, let's just say keep for now" bandwagon... which is what makes this seem like wikihounding wikimonitoring (coining a new term here since I suppose you haven't been hounding me as aggressively as a few others). Claiming that my nomination of White American is an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is absurd, especially considering the article's last AfD was a unanimous delete/merge consensus. If anyone can be accused of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's the users who forked it back into existence. Bulldog123 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I always see you updating the 'SCOTUS List' pages with the most recent decisions from the Court. I applaud you for your diligence in keeping it up each decision day. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTDIR

[1] - Thank you. That was a rudimentary error. But actually, I'm pleased that I can still learn new things. I appreciate your taking the trouble to explain it.  Chzz  ►  03:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CFD follow-up

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Diasporas

I am not contesting your closure, I saw it more as a "no consensus", but that's sort of beside the point since the result would be the same. But I would just mention that I think in general with hotly contested AfD's with complex arguments giving a somewhat more detailed rationale about how you have weighed arguments is really welcome. In this case particularly because the outcome is likely to be influencing subsequent discussions. Otherwise, fine job. Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Embassy, London

Hi. Just to let you know that in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Embassy, London, you appear to have forgotten to remove the AfD template at Egyptian Embassy, London, which was also part of the nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

wha?

Got a message stating I was vandalizing WIkipedia pages- have no idea what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.240.106 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings 69.245.240.106! The message posted on your talk page was from 2006, and since IP addresses occasionally change 'location', it's very possible it wasn't you who the warning was meant for. If you're interested in continued editing, consider creating an account to avoid confusion like this in the future. Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob Heinsoo Deletion Discussion

Thanks for analyzing the consensus -- I am appreciative of your work, and I'm glad that the process played out in such a way as to improve the article. Thanlis (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide (song)

I was doing a search on this topic and discovered that you had speedily deleted the article on 4 November 2010 as a "blatant hoax". It isn't a hoax; it is a genuine recording by Paul McCartney (though it remains unreleased), and I believe it is notable because McCartney offered it to Frank Sinatra and was turned down (McCartney confirmed this in a TV interview with Michael Parkinson in 1999). I obviously can't see the version you deleted but I've found it reproduced on another website here. I would like to recreate it and add references if that's ok. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need my permission for that. If you can source it (and prove it exists), go ahead. FYI, the version I deleted was unsourced and had only one sentence, stating that it was a song written by McCartney in some year. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting as that article I found (which claims to be taken from Wikipedia) is a lot longer than that. To avoid any problems I think I'll just start it again from scratch. Thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Santiago article

I don't mean to second guess your decision but the vote seemed more like a no consensus than a delete. --Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In my judgment, the delete !votes were much more substantive and detailed regarding their assessment of notability claims and the sources presented, and provided sound rebuttals of what substantive keep !votes were presented. Further, other keep !votes were general and abstract, so I gave them less weight. Otherwise, purely by the numbers it would have been a no consensus. But the good thing about any notability/lack of sources-based deletion is all you have to do is find those convincing sources (if they exist) to successfully request recreation. postdlf (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (2nd nomination) and capitalization in your closes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (2nd nomination), a discussion I did not participate in but watchlisted because it was relisted from DRV, was a divided debate. I have no opinion about whether or not your closure accurately reflected the consensus as I have not read through it. However, I don't think such a debate should be closed without a rationale. Would you add a closing statement to the AfD so that participants will understand how you reached your conclusion? Additionally, would you place your response to Kumioko (talk · contribs) as an addendum to your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination)? It will allow future viewers of the debate to understand how you weighed the arguments. Cunard (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, you have been using capital letters (KEEP and DELETE) in your closes. Frequently viewed as shouting, such capitalization may irritate editors who are on the "losing" side. I ask that you use "keep" and "delete" instead. The bolding is enough to underscore a debate's result. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a rationale is preferable in these circumstances. I always leave a rationale myself when I close AfDs beyond a certain length without an obvious consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think rationales can be a catch-22 in contentious AFDs. You don't provide one, and those who disagree with the close assume you didn't do your job right because you didn't explain why you didn't accept their ironclad argument; you provide one, and it's taken as a !supervote so you didn't do your job right. The simplest explanation I can give for my close of the Asselineau AFD is that the delete !voters seemed to be going out of their way to reject sources that are considered reliable under prevailing standards, and also seemed to be arguing more against the subject's significance rather than the subject's notability. Among the keepers, S Marshall's comments were, in particular, in line with observed sourcing and notability standards in my view. What it would accomplish other than throwing some obiter dicta out there to have posted this (again, simplified) explanation on the AFD page itself, I do not know, as regardless of what I said there, if someone wants to challenge the close they will come here and/or DRV. postdlf (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that rationales are a catch-22. Editors who believe their positions are correct and that the others are nonsense will likely accuse the closing admin of supervoting whether or not a rationale is provided. However, a well-worded closing statement that takes into account the significant majority and minority opinions in an AfD could allay such suspicions from less opinionated users. Closing statements such as those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians summarize the discussions and reveal the closing admins' thoughts about the strengths of the various arguments. Your explanations above do not read like supervotes of the AfDs.

I again ask you to add closing statements to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (2nd nomination). Users who may disagree with the close but not have a strong enough of an opinion about it may avoid challenging the close. They may believe that you have simply done a vote count or supervoted if you do not provide a rationale (see User talk:Cunard/Archive 4#Bad DRV comment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination)). A closing statement will put to rest such unfounded suspicions. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about the way you've reached your conclusion on Francois Asselineau's AFD. I'm sure you realise that you have overuled a previous closure decision (canceled only for technical reasons) and the general opinon of the :fr sysops (who abide by different rules, but not no so different ones, and have first hand knowledge of French politics). Above you say that the delete voters "rejected sources that are considered reliable". I'd like to know more about that: in particular, do you have a sufficiant command of French to have read those sources and fully understood them ? The sysop that made the previous closure, who could read French, had reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Secondly, you add that the delete voters "seemed to be arguing more agains the subject's significance rather than the subject's notability". I'm frankly stunned by such a conclusion: as a delete voter, I kept on repeating that AF is "a complete unknown" with less than 400 hits on a Google search. That's hardly a way to argue against his significance. --Gede (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I based it entirely upon the AFD discussion of the sources, not a personal review of the sources themselves. The criticism of the sources as not reliable was not persuasive when compared to the support of the sources, as exemplified in the thread between S Marshall, French Tourist, and Sipahoc. The "significance" issues were the comments about how he was just a failed candidate, or not a controversial candidate, all of which was beside the point as to satisfaction of WP:GNG. While you could have an AFD consensus to delete notwithstanding GNG satisfaction based on other considerations, absent such a consensus such significance-related claims are not going to trump GNG. And though a low or nonexistent Google hit count could bolster a claim that there are no sources about a subject, it is not relevant when multiple reliable sources have already been identified. That some of the commenters were :fr sysops is irrelevant in my view, and that seems to have just been a major distraction in the AFD (and prior), not a basis for special treatment of their comments. It would be inappropriate for a closing admin to decide that some commenters had a more privileged understanding, absent a clear demonstration of stronger arguments (which I did not see) or absent recognition of that within the AFD itself by the participants. I considered a "no consensus" close, but for the reasons stated here and above decided "keep" was more appropriate; I did not seriously consider "delete" as a reasonable close of that discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is basically that a low Google hit count does not count considering the sources, but that you have just no idea of what are those sources, as you don't read French. You just happened to believe what the keep voter said of them and did not check out for yourself. --Gede (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my understanding of the sources came from what all the commenters said about them. I weighed arguments rather than forming my own opinion or !supervote. If you believe that this made my close unreasonable, I won't take it personally if you take it to DRV, but given that this already went through DRV once and the prior AFD closer was expressly criticized for doing what you are criticizing me for not doing here, and given that the absolute best result I could imagine you getting at DRV would be a change to "no consensus", I wouldn't consider that a very productive use of time. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I never intended to take it to DRV. I just wanted to know the reason of your closure. My understanding is that you were in no position to properly assess what users said about the sources, as you have no knowledge of French politics and French newspapers. For instance, you obviously could not understand what a "carnet" is, and what it means in a French newspaper, and you coud not, as such, understand why FrenchTourist dismissed it as a source. Anyway, I hope you will take that into account in your future closures: that some of them require a certain level of 'technical' knowlege. Gede (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychopsema: Article was deleted with prejudice by editors of Wikipedia and without consideration regarding the importance of the article.

Academic prejudice and a lack of consideration for the importance of the article appears to be the actual reason for the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirena-aphrodite (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Please be helpful and not argumentative.

I hear your point. Help me do the correct process. I do see a page called WP:redirects for discussion. However, that is for redirects to be removed. If you look at those articles, there is a redirect and a box (not a long existing article).

What Tvoz did was to blank out an existing article and put a redirect. Well, it is improper for me to add the article for WP:redirects for discussion since the article is not present for people to see. What people are deciding is if there should be an article, which is more of a delete issue.

You can see that there is a lot of text and many references, also at least 4 authors, binary, hector, IP, me.

So, give me advice...the following makes sense. 1. keep the AFD and let it run its course. 2. restore the article, ban anyone who tries to blank it out, and change the discussion to the WP:redirects for discussion instead of the AFD but keep the AFD for Patrick Kennedy since this is not POINT but a valid concern. If kids don't qualify, then that is a value judgement.

The worse thing to do is a tit for tat, trying to blank the article. That is childish and not constructive. Someone mentioned concensus but the consensus seems to be to keep the article since there are several authors and the people who blank it don't even discuss it. Help out! I will leave it to you but ask that you don't let the "blankers" rule by brute force. If there a board called redirect an long existing article? The redirect board seems to be whether to keep a redirect or not, not to delete large blocks of text. The deletion board doesn't talk much about redirects but sometimes a few do. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your comments but the person who blanked the article did not vote in the AFD for "merge and redirect". This is puzzling. Should they do that if they are sincere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Engender

Hey, I appreciate your acknowledgment of the sources I found. However, in retrospect I'm not sure what relationship the SWBG/EWBG has to "Engender."

1. EWBG publications are apparently listed among Engender's publications
2. several RSs give Engender's web address when referring to the budget group (not just the Engender Women's Budget Group, on the off chance the source that said they were the same thing was wrong, but also the Women's Budget Group for Scotland)

but

1. the SWBG has its own web address
2. there are a few contradictory founding dates
3. a few sources (not necessarily RS for citation purposes, but) refer to them separately.

Do you think perhaps I should post at a wikiproject for help?

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a problem. Wikiproject help isn't a bad idea. Look at it this way, though: you found reliable sources about something, so if it turns out that we were mistaken in thinking they were about the article subject, they're about another article that could be written.  ; ) Let me know how it turns out and I'll see if the AFD needs reevaluated. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Posted at WT:SCO. Thanks again! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Janos Boros

Are you quite sure there was no consensus at this discussion? I see four "delete" votes with arguments behind them. I see one "keep" vote with no policy-based arguments. And I see "keep" arguments repeated ad nauseam by the article creator—arguments that were quite effectively rebutted by two other users. On balance, doesn't that sound like a consensus to delete? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I read and reread it and mulled over it for a couple days without being able to determine a clear decision, at times leaning towards delete and at times keep. So I don't feel that I could have closed it as anything other than "no consensus". There was a lot of "noise" and repetition in the AFD, but even filtering that out, I saw valid arguments presented by both sides, and I didn't think either case was so clearly right (or so unquestionably effective in their rebuttals) as to merit a "win" over the other, nor was there overwhelming numerical support for either side to the extent that matters. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation and for taking so much time to look over the discussion. I still do think this should be reviewed by a wider audience, so I've taken it to DRV. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your civil inquiries and comments, notwithstanding your disagreement. I'll keep an eye on the DRV and comment further if I feel the need. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Shane Duggan

The article about Shane Duggan was deleted, but I missed the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The article shouldn't have been deleted. One of the goals of WikiProject Irish Football is to "Create an article on every League of Ireland player". While the League of Ireland isn't fully professional, it is the highest level of football in Ireland, the national league of the country. He has also received significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Hsetne (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Shane Duggan==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shane Duggan. 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. Hsetne (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinion on this [2]I.Casaubon (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

help request for Trimble Community Forest

There was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trimble Community Forest to move the article to Trimble Township Community Forest (all three of the major contributors agreed and the fourth participant did not comment).  Can you do this?  It has also been since discussed at Talk:Trimble Community Forest.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Act of Kindness

Hello Postdlf, Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Leonardo

Postdlf, the article about research, speculation and attribution AKA "Ridiculous theories", has been deleted, presumably because no-one who thought it ought to be deleted actually bothered to read (or respond) to the stated reasons why it shouldn't. Did you read my comments? Have you got any idea how huge the main article is? Or thought about whether it is a good thing to pad out the info on unlikely (but persistent)attributions within the list that deals with real works? (All the bonafide works have their own pages, so padding out the dross within the Main list is really providing an imbalance of information. )

Now please tell me how I go about retrieving the content of the article, and putting it into the other articles, where it will sit, uncomfortably confusing the known facts and solid research with the most unlikely and highly imaginative speculation by people who know almost nothing about art, but see Leonardo's face or fingerprint on everything.

The article is warranted because all this nonsense is the result of Leonardo's enormous and continuing fame. But if Leonardo is not your subject, and you personally have never Googled "Leonardo" then you may not be aware of this.

Amandajm (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fram seems to have answered your questions on this. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD Closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake_Trask

Hello,

Could I please ask you to add a rationale for your close of this AfD? I honestly don't see a single !vote for deletion with a basis in policy, so I would appreciate understanding your thinking.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus (supported by everyone else but you) was that he was not notable. It's really up to AFD participants to determine whether subject-specific notability guidelines should be met rather than merely GNG (which is a presumption of notability, not a guarantee) in a particular circumstance, and there was a clear consensus that Trask failed WP:NHOCKEY and so the article should be deleted on that basis. And even if GNG analysis was applied instead, it is very common for local media sources, such as you provided, to be discounted towards fulfilling GNG for local athletes for the reasons that Bearcat and Lord Arador stated. Sorry, your view just didn't have the support. If you can find better sources to establish notability, or if Trask's career advances sufficiently, then the article could be recreated. postdlf (talk)

I certainly don't intend to re-argue the AfD with you, but I feel that there is a significant disconnect between the notability guidelines as written and what actually happened here.

There is no basis in any notability guideline for dismissing an independent, reliable source merely because it is local. Again and again the community has rejected attempts to introduce a "local clause" into WP:N or WP:RS, which is one of the reasons why the WP:IS cited is merely an essay - see for example this discussion of a failed proposal. Any argument at AfD along these lines, and no matter how common, no matter how popular, is at odds with the wider consensus that a reliable source is a reliable source, local or not. WP:ITSLOCAL is relevant here.

Similarly there is no claim in any of the subject-specific sports guidelines that they supercede or replace the GNG, and in fact, there is a project-wide consensus that they specifically do not. Again, there have been many attempts to make the GNG subservient to subject-specific guidelines, so that a subject which passes GNG but fails ATHLETE would be presumed not to be notable, but such attempts have never gained consensus, and have usually been overwhelmingly rejected. So any argument at AfD that an article which meets the GNG should be considered non-notable because it fails a subject-specific guideline is unambiguously against the wider consensus.

So the two key arguments made in this AfD, that the local coverage doesn't count for meeting the GNG, and that the GNG is overridden by NHOCKEY, are both against project-wide consensus. I'm sure you know that it is policy that local consensus cannot override wider consensus. So I'm afraid I respectfully disagree with your rationale here.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of taking this any further. This is just an interesting discussion :) I don't even like hockey! Anyway my GNG claim was marginal at best.

Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't that WP:NHOCKEY automatically trumps WP:GNG, but rather that the general notability guideline is only a presumption of notability and that a consensus to delete notwithstanding its satisfaction can be valid. Plenty of AFDs also go the other way, with a consensus that GNG is sufficient for a particular article notwithstanding argued nonsatisfaction of subject-specific guidelines. On the local issue, it again isn't a per se rule that local media is irrelevant or local subjects not notable, but rather (as I understand it) the view that purely local news coverage of a purely local athlete is routine, and arguably boosterism rather than true significant coverage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that there's a wider consensus against that interpretation any more than there is a wider consensus compelling it in every instance, and it's still up to AFD participants to weigh offered sources. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, a viable argument might be made along the lines of, "WP:GNG is met, but its presumption of notability should be overturned in this case becase..." but nobody made an argument like that. Similarly a viable argument might be made that the local coverage was only routine, but nobody made that argument either, or even implied it.

Of the four delete !voters, all four concentrated on the fact that this guy didn't meet WP:ATHLETE / WP:NHOCKEY.

The single keep !vote, which was obviously mine, stated that the GNG had been met.

No argument was presented that the GNG's presumption of notability should be overturned in this case. Since there was no discussion of this point at all, how can there have been a consensus for it?

Only one delete !voter actually addressed whether or not the GNG had been met. They cited an essay (WP:IS) which actually has nothing to say about whether or not the local newspaper counts for notability purposes in this case, and made the statement that "Mentioning of an athlete by a local paper does not constitute notability", which has no basis in any policy or guideline. Every part of this argument really must be discarded as directly against project-wide consensus and established policy. They also made a vague claim that the source was connected to the player, but provided no basis for this.

No one argued that the coverage was routine or "boosterism". Again, how can there be a consensus for something that was never discussed?

I think possibly when you closed the AfD you took into account the really strong arguments that the delete !voters should have made but didn't. Bear in mind I'm not contesting the close! But it does concern me that the policies and guidelines as written - and the thousands of hours of consensus-building behind them - are apparently in direct contradiction to actual practice at AfD. (Please understand, this is not intended as a criticism of you - the flaw, if there is one, is systemic.)Thparkth (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wendell Flinchum

Wanted to discuss your closure of this AFD. I would have liked to see a bit more discussion here before closure. Also I'm a bit taken aback by the accusation of this article being a coatrack. That's a serious allegation which shouldn't be taken so lightly. Would you consider reopening the discussion for further input?--RadioFan (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As WP:COATRACK states, it doesn't mean there was intentional bias; it also covers situations such as this, where the COATRACK "accidentally evolve[d] through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject." So you shouldn't take it as an allegation of bad faith or even bad editing (I certainly didn't mean it as such). In this case, the arguments presented in the AFD were that the bio was only incidental to the topic of how he and his police department responded to the shooting, which is best summarized in the shooting article itself. There was a full week in between the last comment and the time I closed the AFD, so I don't know what keeping it open any longer would accomplish, or what more could or would be said that would change the result. postdlf (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The other commenters in the article displayed bias towards the more well known of the incidents but WP:BIO1E does not apply here because Flinchum is known for more than this incident, something that is referenced with reliable sources. I believe that the result here should have been no consensus.--RadioFan (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a small request?

I see that you have deleted an article created by me, UCLA Girl Video. First I want to say that I don't disagree with this, I saw that in the discussion many people were against having the article. Their main argument was that it will not be notable in the future. I want to only ask that you undelete the article and make it into a redirect to UCLA or to Viral videos. You can then put a defense on the article (protection) so that no person could edit it. The only difference would be that me and others could see the earlier version in the article history (but not edit it) so if the topic will become notable in 6 or 12 months it can be recreated building on the old sources and text. If you do not want to do it I understand as well this is not that important to me, only a small request. Tüzes fal (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point to doing that right now, nor do I think that would be a valid redirect because neither of the target articles would actually cover this deleted topic. If the topic becomes notable, then you can request its undeletion. postdlf (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant

Could you explain your closure of this discussion? Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The nom changed his !vote to keep. Once he was convinced that the topic was notable, I didn't see any comments in the AFD that weren't resolvable through editing; Robert a stone jr (talk · contribs) seemed to be proposing the refactoring/retitling of the article, not its deletion. Not a very clear AFD to be sure, but it was clear in its lack of clear deletion arguments. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nail Yakupov

As you were the deleting admin. determining consensus, I wanted to get back to you now that Nail Yakupov has been confirmed OHL Rookie of the Year. I don't think the CHL body itself has made their own decision, but the OHL is one of the three leagues under the CHL (the WHL is another, and I think the third is in Quebec but not 100% on that) and - being the top level of amateur hockey in Canada - in my view makes the player notable. Do you have any objection to my restoring the article to the article space? CycloneGU (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not simply up to me, as I was just executing an AFD judgment. I think the best (and typical) route is to post at Wikipedia:Deletion review, present your case that since the AFD, there are new developments/new information that tips the scale to notability, and get a consensus there to allow recreation. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I was taking that step next depending on your reply. I know overturning isn't just your decision, so I wanted to see if you had other ideas first. I know of Deletion Review, I started creating log pages when I found one not created one day and did an emergency creation of one. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Deletion review for Nail Yakupov

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nail Yakupov. 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. CycloneGU (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmin Čampara

You deleted the Jasmin Čampara article without offering any comment on the discussion concerning the proposal for deletion. In the absence of another explanation I presume your decision was based simply on the general support for deletion, drawing almost entirely on the criterion for association football notability given at WP:NFOOTY. The policy as stated relies explicitly on Wikipedia:FPL and no other source of guidance is mentioned.

Neither you nor the supporters of deletion gave any indication of having given any meaningful consideration to the inadequacy and inconsistency of the guidelines either generally or in the specific case of the Bosnian Premier League, some aspects of which I drew attention to in my contributions to the AfD discussion.

The key criterion for notability is the "full professionality" of the league of which a player's club(s) is(are) a member. However "Full professionality" is not defined anywhere. Instead Wikipedia:FPL simply provides ad hoc lists of "fully professional" and "not fully professional" leagues, offering no guidance as to the rigour of the supporting evidence required for inclusion in either category. In fact the supporting evidence is fairly haphazard (eg a webpage reference to the founding of the Argentine Primera Division as a professional - as opposed to amateur - league ion 1931) and often inadequate/inaccurate (the Bosnian Premier League Constitution reference is not conclusive in the way that is implied) or non-existent (the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A and Serie B references and several others are not available). In other words the criterion simply cannot be be applied in an even generally consistent way.

Wikipedia:FPL carefully notes "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." That tone of caution, derived from lengthy discussion, is not in any way reflected in the wording of the WP:NFOOTY guidelines, in the way the guidelines are generally deployed or in the discussion and decision relating to the Jasmin Čampara article. Essentially the whole structure of "policy" in this area is nonsensical (as many conscientious contributors to Wikipedia:FPL have noted). Too often Wikipedia decisions are taken on the basis of authoritative pronouncements on policy made from the commanding heights of a house of cards. I'm a little surprised that you as Doctor of Jurisprudence consider summary deletion an adequate way of considering this issue. I believe that this decision is a candidate for review. Opbeith (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're not the only one I've seen who has a problem with the "full professionality" standard, that's what every other participant in that AFD, and a whole host of others that I've closed recently, supported as the proper standard. You didn't show that Campara met that standard or any other recognized standard, nor did you show that he met GNG in the alternative, so you didn't rebut the deletion arguments or establish that Campara was notable. So I really don't think DRV is going to be a productive use of your time unless you can present new sources that weren't considered in the AFD, because the consensus was very clear and consistent with guidelines in this subject area, and that's what DRV is going to be looking at. DRV isn't the proper venue for changing a guideline. postdlf (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "have a problem with it", I said it was wrong and I said why in this specific incidence. No-one dealt with that. Everybody says brown is white. So it's white. Same goes for all lots of AfDs. So that's OK then. Opbeith (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice on re-opening an AfD you closed in March Strong gravitational constant

Although the AfD was withdrawn, and your closure at the time was absolutely in order, the article is a massive piece of WP:OR basically promoting theories of and publications by Sergey Fedosin. Furthermore, the user page of Wikiversity user "fedosin" says "fedosin" is Sergey Fedosin, as is probably the article's creator, w:User:fedosin, which would raise serious WP:COI issues with the many links he has added to other articles of (probably) his own papers. Furthermore, both at Wikiversity and in an email being sent out to physicists, the Wikipedia article Strong gravitational constant is being cited by Sergey Fedosin as if it were evidence for the importance of his theories. Fedosin's Wikiversity page also links to several more Wikipedia articles that should probably get a closer look.

Clearly, some of this should be dealt with at WP:COI, but I wanted to notify you and ask your advice about re-opening the AfD, as per the advice at this ANI enquiry Thanks! betsythedevine (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Normally it's frowned upon to start another AFD so soon after another one has been closed as keep, but I don't think it's a problem in this circumstance. The AFD was rather incoherent and the one person urging deletion backed down. Just provide a clear and succinct deletion rationale and I don't think it will be a problem. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful reply. I think I will wait a day or so to understand better the related COI situation before thinking about re-filing the AfD. betsythedevine (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

<--Just to let you know that discussion is invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination). I restored "Strong gravitational constant" to the state "owned" by Fedosin and undid the re-direct, so that people can discuss the material in a coherent way.betsythedevine (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding deletion

Hello, I am writing in regard to your recent deletion of the All Caps (band) page. I was wondering if you could explain to me why my argument on the AfD page had no merit. Thanks for your time. Mabiller (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the criteria you pointed to has absolutely nothing to do with Youtube hits. The songs must be "used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre" per Wikipedia:BAND#Others. That's not about one-time audience size; that's about influencing other musicians and music generally. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have some additional arguments that I hope you will consider. I also believe the band might be notable under the 3rd criteria under Wikipedia:BAND#Others. I believe they have helped to establish a type of sub genre (a combining of nerd humor with Math rock) within electronic music. They use the medium of electronic music together with references to tech and popular culture such as World of Warcraft and Harry Potter. They have a well established discography over the past few years that may be purchased from popular online music vendors. Thanks for your consideration. If you decide to preserve the deletion, could you please move the article to my user space? Mabiller (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, they also may be considered a derivative of the Wizard Rock sub genre. Perhaps Wizard Electronica would be a better term in the previous attempt I made to describe their sub genre. Mabiller (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: the sub genre, maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you're just thinking off the top of your head (i.e., WP:OR) rather than describing what you've actually read in reliable sources. It doesn't matter whether they in fact have created a sub genre if no one has written about it. That they have albums for sale online also doesn't mean anything. Because I'm not seeing any sign that this article can be rescued and restored, I don't see a point in "userfying" it, but feel free to ask another admin to do it for you without worrying about stepping on my toes. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Eurowhite article

Hi, I think that it would be good that if you delete an article, you would also remove the links from other articles. Currently there are several links for Aircraft livery to Eurowhite.

Cheers! -- 62.142.117.62 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of YAK films page

Hello -

I just was searching for information on YAK films as part of a research project, and found that you deleted their page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAK_Films for dubious notoriety. YAK has, apparently, been the primary cultural producer of turf dancing videos and documentaries. They are mentioned in several mainstream newspaper articles, including more than once in the SF Chronicle (ex. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inoakland/detail?entry_id=85922) and were featured on NBC (http://www.nbc.com/Last_Call_with_Carson_Daly/video/yak-films/1261684). Further, the burnsinstitute, as far as I know, is a community irganization that works on behalf of juvenile justice, and probably started the article as a way to document positive work being done by a criminalized group of young people.

All that to say that the article should be restored - I am new to the Wiki community, but I would like to participate more if it is so easy for people to declare that articles that relate directly to the communities that I care about can be deleted for being unimportant. (I taught in the Bay Area for six years, and am now doing research on youth culture there). Please let me know what steps I need to take to help restore the article.

Professorjawn (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. To overturn this AFD at Wikipedia:Deletion review, you'd really have to present new sources and information that weren't present in the article at the time it was deleted, such as to change the notability analysis. I doubt you'll accomplish much by claiming that the participants simply got it wrong (i.e., they ignored significant coverage in reliable sources that was already in the article) unless it's really clear cut. I don't think the sfgate.com link passes muster as a reliable source: it contains the disclaimer that "These blog posts are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." So it's no more reliable than any blog notwithstanding where it's being hosted. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Clickbooth Deletion

Can I have Clickbooth restored to my namespace? I'm going to take a shot at it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you could stick it here: User:Noraft/Sandbox/4 that would be perfect. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to User:Noraft/Clickbooth before I saw your post. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Bowers

Thanks for deleting the Graham Bowers article. There were five other articles also included in that AfD. Can you delete them, too? Thanks, Pburka (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OPSGEAR

Jrom86 recreated this right after it was deleted, and now it's even more promotional. Delete again and salt (create=sysop; Jrom86 is autoconfirmed).Jasper Deng (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat

Your comments at ANI about what this user could do to show understanding of AfD policy were right on the money. Thank you for all that you do. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvas infection at AfD

Hi Postdlf, re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan McCauley (2nd nomination), did you notice that the nominator canvassed a number of users about the nom (check what links here)? I don't know whether this would have affected the outcome (it seemed to be rolling towards deletion anyway) and User:Kww already spanked the user, but I thought this probably ought to be noted since it may have affected the close.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The strength of the arguments swayed me far more than the numbers, which weren't overwhelming in this case anyway so I don't know that canvassing changed the outcome. Contra your argument, that a prior AFD went one way does not preclude consensus from changing, particularly given that the last one was five and a half years ago. And there was a substantive rebuttal of the only notability claim offered (presented as a weak keep, no less), so I saw no compelling basis for keeping in light of the deletion arguments. Best way to undo that would be to find additional sources or other new information for her notability. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency

I understand you've marked the article "Cryptocurrency" for deletion.

Reasons: "No sources are provided to show that this even exists, much less is notable." ,"Original essay about a Non-Notable Neologism."

Reading through bitcoin.org's information, you'll find a network of tens of thousands of people who deal with cryptocurrency on a daily basis. There are very active forums that tie in intimately with the Open Source communities. While it's still a relatively small group in comparison to traditional economic systems, the user base and pace of development in the community is, in my opinion, enough to nullify the previous arguments for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.8.131 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I merely executed the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptocurrency in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy; I did not initiate it. I don't doubt that this is something real, but that doesn't mean it deserves an article. Article subjects must be notable and verifiable, which means they must already have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, as those terms are used on Wikipedia). Internet forums or mailing lists (the only citation on the article when I deleted it) do not qualify as reliable sources. So however real it is or however many people know about it, it really doesn't matter until it is written about in the right way. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of NSHSS

Postdlf,

It came to our attention that the page 'The National Society of High School Scholars' was deleted, as confirmed by admin Athaenara. Myself along with my colleagues who are employees of NSHSS were wondering why the page was deleted and if there was any way to restore it. Any information you can provide is extremely helpful.

Many thanks, Adelinebarnes Adelinebarnes (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted according to deletion policy because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Society of High School Scholars. No one could find any significant coverage of it in third-party reliable sources, which in Wikipedia terms, means it was judged not notable. If there are no reliable sources about a subject, then we can't write an article. If you want it restored, find sources about the NSHSS that establish its notability and present them at Wikipedia:Deletion review. But I also have to warn you about our conflict of interest guidelines: it isn't advisable to edit an article about a subject that you work for, and Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising or promotion. postdlf (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

If you are wondering, I am not offended by you deleting the article. I posted a copy on my talk, but is there a way I could edit the deleted article? If it is good enough then re post it? If I cannot edit the deleted one, I will just edit the copy.Thomasbum98 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

Why must Elections roll up into categories on Politics?

What do Elections roll up so early, into categories on Politics. Why can they not roll up into categories on Elections until the "top", whatever that is.

The problem is that Americans already have trouble enought distinguishing Elections from Politics. Articles on Politics already have "bleed over" from Campaigning and Elections and Polls which have nothing to do with serious articles on Politics. It would be desirable to change this. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded to your post here; that was a good place to start a discussion about this. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)