User talk:Coffee

This user is more awesome than you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Shiloah closure

I'm curious about your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Shiloah. I'm not sure that I feel passionately enough about the topic to open a DRV, to be honest, but I am curious about how you interpreted consensus to reach your closure. It's certainly true that the individual in question has quite a few raw hits in the media sources, but I remain unconvinced they rise to the level of notability. The interviews Glovex104 added are, by the nature of interviews, not independent sources, and the CEO position is not that of the huge multinational Interpublic Group of Companies, nor the subsidiary advertising network McCann Erickson, but its regional division in Israel; I'm not sure that's a notability claim under current policy, especially not for the individual (but possibly for the corporate subsidiary). And I'm certainly not sure there was consensus for an explicit keep, even considering those sources. If nothing else, I try to understand why AFDs I participate in close the way they do -- even, or especially, when they close against my opinion -- so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly expound upon my reasoning... but I'm about to get some tasty lunch, so it will be a while before I fully reply. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Tasty lunches are always excellent ideas. In fact, I believe I'll do so myself as well! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I'll point to is this: WP:SUPPORT to explain why it doesn't matter how many people asked for it's deletion or preservation. I'm not saying your opinion on the AFD didn't have any validation (as it did originally)... but that instead the others, after providing sources, made a stronger argument for its inclusion. That argument was based in the article passing WP:GNG, specifically the area of the policy to read is WP:NRV as that lays out in a detailed fashion why this article (now) meets the policy. The scalability of the business world doesn't really have an effect on notability as we are a worldwide encyclopedia. If you were to look at his role from the perspective you outlined above, it could indeed appear nonnotable. But, when viewed as being the CEO over the largest advertising firm in Israel, that does create some form of inherent notability on its own, although not enough to pass GNG without sourcing proving that there had been significant coverage of him in these types of roles (through interviews and other news articles, as there is no stipulation against interviews in WP:RS). As that sourcing has now been established, it then is able to pass WP:GNG and therefore is not harming the encyclopedia by its existence. And it is not harming the person it is about as long as it remains properly sourced. I hope that clears it up a bit more for you! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the thorough reply. After a day's consideration on the topic, I do think I'm sending this one to DRV. It's nothing personal, but we clearly have different opinions about the relevant policies and how consensus should be read from that discussion. And, hey, that's what DRV is for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

If you are going to be rude and smug to good faith contributors at deletion discussions I suggest you refrain from closing them. I spend a lot of time looking over the sourcing and information in articles on subjects at AfDs, often covering things I have little or no interest in. I assure you that "Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" is a perfectly valid argument. Obviously it helps to include examples of sources, but there is absolutely no requirement that they be provided. Deletion arguments citing policy and stating that they aren't met are similarly valid. Your suggestion that any such comments are "disruptive" is absurd. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I was neither smug nor rude; I was polite yet firm. If you're not mature enough to handle someone telling it to you straight, that's not my problem. AFDs are not votes, and simply stating that sources exist without providing them is doing no more than voting and it adds nothing to the discussion (and yes doing this repeatedly is disruptive... of course if someone had already provided sources and you were just backing them up, that would be a different story). If you want to actually be productive in your participations at AFD, you can simply provide the sources in your comments. It's that easy. It makes no difference to me if you choose to overreact to such a simple request. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mihovil Lovrić

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mihovil Lovrić. 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. Neven Lovrić (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This also came up at WP:ANI - that thread may be found here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Strike that, I see you responded at the DRV - and that Spartaz has blocked the editor indef. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, just the same! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ilan Shiloah deletion review

Hi,

Just wanted to thank you re the discussion surrounding my article. I'm just a little confused about what happens next - Is the article nominated for deletion again?

Glovex104 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For now the article is in the clear but it could be brought up at AFD again at a future date, if another editor believed it to still not conform to policy. Therefore, I would definitely recommend improving the article as much as you can, ensuring valid referencing is in place, to ensure that doesn't happen. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Arsen Mikayelyan

You deleted Arsen Mikayelyan when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Ohanyan. I didn't explicitly name him as one of the articles with references, that met a special purpose notability guideline. At first I thought there might be two individuals named Arsen Mikayelyan -- one who was a member of the Nagorno-Karabakh legislature and one who was a diplomat for the Republic of Armenia.

I couldn't find any RS to substantiate the legislator. But the diplomat met the criteria for WP:DIPLOMAT.

Looking into Nagorno-Karabakh further, I saw that a number of individuals who held high level positions in Nagorno-Karabakh also held high level positions in the Republic of Armenia. One individual served as the President of both republics, although not at the same time. Nagorno-Karabakh is a very small country, and it seems like most members of it legislature only do so part time. So, I concluded there was only one individual named Arsen Mikayelyan. I moved the information about the diplomat, into the original article.

I am going to suggest its restoration, as per WP:DIPLOMAT Geo Swan (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Emilie Schenkl

How was the debate to delete Emilie Schenkl closed with decision to merge with the Subhas Chandra Bose article, when it wasn't advertised on the Subhas Chandra Bose article? I'm the guy who's been rewriting both the Subhas Chandra Bose and the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose articles and I had no inkling. The page can't be deleted or merged. She's too important a figure and there are now too many independent reliable sources about her. Please restart the debate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

PS The article has been around since 2005! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

::PPS And who the heck is Garamond Lethe? An expert on Indian history? Some random guy walks off the street and nominates an article for deletion, without advertising on WT:INDIA, and after two keeps, one by WT:INDIA veteran, Dwaipayan, why was there even to restart the debate? I am adding some decent sources to article and will expand it. The best thing to do, is to ignore Wikipedia bureaucracy, and remove the deletion or merge nonsense. I don't have time for the bureaucratic stiff myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Apologies for rude note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

PPS Please ignore. Sorted out at User_talk:Abecedare#Emilie_Schenkl. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your back!!!

COFFEE!!! SO GLAD YOU'RE BACK!!! Sportsguy17 (happy holidays!) 22:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sportsguy17: Glad to be back mate! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

AfDs

Can you please point to the link, edit, message, notification, whatever that prompted these AfDs. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN

I have initiated a discussion regarding your administrative activities at the administrator's noticeboard. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI I have re-asked the question about actioning own prods of sourced articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Abraham modal haploype -- request undelete

Deletion review for Abraham modal haplotype

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abraham modal haplotype. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I would like to request undelete since the sources were reliable being used as reference for the second artcile by Rozhadinii which makes it secondary source not primary source since the second study by Rozhadinii endorse it and speaks about the same sunject of klyosov. study. both studies are master studies according to ISOGG website and others which make the whole study (researcher, study, and journal) reliable. both articles are published in Proceedings of the russian academy of dna genealogy, which has issn and oclc but I forgot to put them thinking doi number suffice. also many articles studies referenced both articles klyosov 2009, and rozhadinii as immediately shown with googling where the study show cited by number articles. I also had a list of articles that referenced and cited the klyosov studies and also mentioned the abraham mh in their studies. I was stonewalled in the deletion discussion. for while I responded to Notability request by stating the study or article is notable according to Notability guideline, I get responses commenting on my using the word notable ignoring the wikipedia Notability guidelines which they requested in the first place, which I explained I read it in detail. I am a retired MD with good knowledge of the dna subject, and even though i dont have BA in English I can still navigate Notability wiki section, but the they stonewalled me by wasting the 7 days on lecturing me about the word notable I used. I spent too much work on the page to see it deleted in a sec. the seven days for discussion were wasted on stonewalling. so I would like to add the many studies that referenced the article sources ( and criticized them) and to add issn and oclc to sources not just doi I am an old man who does not have time to read all over the wikipedia guidelines ( I have no space left in my brain for this) may be you can direct me to a solution.thanxViibird (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)