User talk:Postdlf/Archive28

CLICK HERE to add a new message.

West Wind (1891), Winslow Homer

This user has been on Wikipedia for 21 years and 10 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.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of artists from Brooklyn

Per your interest in the article, just a note that I've been expanding it. Feel free to chip in. Category:Artists from Brooklyn has many entries to work with. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thanks as always for your hard work. One thing we should do though is remove the non visual artists such as writers and actors, as neither "artist" categories nor lists are intended to capture anyone who works in "the arts", as they are not in English classified as "artists" (a word only applied to them in colloquial praise: the evaluative sense of "artist" rather than the descriptive). Are there many entries left to add from the category? postdlf (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Need some time to think matters over. However, per The arts, "Major constituents of the arts include literature – including poetry, novels and short stories, and epics", so I think that novelists, authors, etc. should be fine on the list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, but "the arts" is different from "art". A writer who introduced himself as an "artist" would get some funny looks. Note also we have completely separate category structures for artists, actors, writers, etc. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I'll go ahead and prune... (them's the breaks) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Are you planning on commenting at the ANI post? Your comments would be helpful, particularly since he's inexplicably suggested your page rename was in bad faith. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WSOP winners Afd verdict

Why would you not simply redirect to the event won? A World Series of Poker bracelet is indeed "considered the most coveted non-monetary prize a poker player can win." For many top pros, you can cross out "non-monetary". Consider the quotes in the Prestige section. Those are not overblown exaggerations. P.S. "Side event" is a serious misnomer. These are official, full-fledged WSOP tournaments. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I typically don't consider AFDs a bar to redirects, so feel free to create any you consider appropriate. postdlf (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of KICKER (AUDIO)

Hello, this is my second attempt to get in touch with you regarding KICKER Audio's Wikipedia page. We would like to amend the page to come into Wikipedia guidelines since you have deleted it.

I'll go ahead and copy this to your email again, too.

Hello, Postdlf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We've noticed that competitor pages with erroneous claims, such as having invented/patented the square subwoofer, are still up and running and were not subject to deletion, and are even verbatim copies of the one you deleted (eg MTX).

Regards,

KICKER Audio Kickeraudio (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't discuss anything without links to whatever pages or discussions you're talking about (and I don't discuss anything over e-mail). postdlf (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He's referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kicker (audio), which you closed as delete. (Note that he's already agreed to change his username to a non-promotional one). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You should read the guidelines that are linked in the deletion discussion. Once you've compiled sources that establish the company's notability, present them at WP:Deletion review to request permission to recreate the topic. Make sure you read through the procedures at that page. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

APTelecom

Hi.

I was about to make some edits to the APTelecom page, based on the conversations I had with a different moderator (@Agtx). However, I noticed it was deleted. Should I edit it and resubmit or would it possible to restore the original page and I can look to make it less promotional that way? Thank you in advance for your help.

Jabrams5 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Merely making it look less promotional isn't enough. We need secondary sources that show the company passes our inclusion guideline at WP:CORPDEPTH. Please look over that guideline and then do some research on the company, and maybe you'll have a basis for restoring at WP:Deletion review (you can ask me more about that later, if you get to it). Until that happens, the article stays deleted, as that's the consequence of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APTelecom being closed as delete. postdlf (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Quinn (3rd nomination)

I think you closed this prematurely, The BLP1E issues hadn't been properly explored and the views expressed were split. I think a relist would have allowed a clearer consensus to develop. Would you be willing to reopen this to allow a relist to take place? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also ask you to reopen this discussion. You closed this nearly a full day before the standard period had run, and I have tracked down one of the claimed sources and wish to raise a significant issue that had previously escaped attention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that it was premature (standard listing is seven calendar days, not a guarantee of 168 hours), and the applicability of BLP1E here is far from compelling. But let's see what someone from the other side has to say. @Morbidthoughts: thoughts on a relist? postdlf (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with a relist. He can take it to deletion review if he wants to quibble over 17 hours to argue that it's a "clear BLP1E" despite the two previous nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Alexandra_Quinn Not really bothered so much about the BLP1E aspect but its unconciousable that you can close it early and say its bad luck when a knwoledgeable user wants to raise an issue with a source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in AFD support pages

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Lists seems to undermine WP:NOTDUP

Comments? The Transhumanist 04:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not very compliant with list guidelines generally. I took a stab at rewriting it. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Very nice. That should help a lot. I'm definitely putting that page on my watchlist. The Transhumanist 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Warriors of the Boer Nation

I am surprised and concerned that the article was deleted upon the spurious claims on the deletion talk page that web searches of the group came up with nothing. Here the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium has an article giving it an additional name: http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/national-warriors
University of Maryland hosted entry: http://www.start.umd.edu/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3647 Here a Daily Telegraph article names the group: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1414160/Fearful-Boers-flee-to-South-Africas-last-white-enclave.html South African news article: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/we-did-it-say-boer-nation-warriors-1.31124#.VbqUnbNViko

Considering that there is a vast range of minor articles on Wikipedia with the parent multiple casualty terror bombings articles usually having a daughter article on those responsible and that a 'pro-Afrikaner' nominator put it up for deletion then deletion after the inconclusive 50/50 vote on the deletion page seems a zealous and ill-intentioned action. Did you have a casting vote? maxrspct ping me 21:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, admins who close AFDs do not participate or vote in the discussion. Note also that the discussion was not "50/50", as all of the participants agreed that the subject should not have its own article; a couple commenters merely thought the title might be a useful redirect. You're free to create a redirect to 2002 Soweto bombings. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

Hello Postdlf – I have some serious reservations about the above article, which I have aired in two separate discussions on the talk page. I notice you seem to be quite active on the WikiProject Lists page, so I wondered if you could take a look and add your opinion, and whether the article could be improved – I note this page has been nominated for deletion once before, but it was decided at the time to keep it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a lot of WP time available right now; what's the tl;dr version of your concerns, and are you considering deletion or merely having problems with inclusion criteria? postdlf (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My apoologies, if you are short of time don't worry too much about it, I was just canvassing opinion – basically I think it is impossible to ever have a definitive list of best-selling girl groups, because there is little in the way of sales information prior to the 1990s, so most of the lists on this article are heavily skewed towards acts from the last twenty years. I've had a go at updating the singles lists for girl groups in the US and UK, which I think are about as right as they ever will be: I strongly suspect the list at the top of the page of all-time best-selling girl groups is missing The Pointer Sisters and The Bangles at the very least, but as there are no sales figures for them they can't be included. But seriously, there are more important things to worry about, so I don't want to waste your time. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We have many lists of best-selling artists or albums, so while I don't know how the sales info prior to the late 20th century is handled, it seems clear that there is a consensus that such lists are proper and it's not an insurmountable problem. I'd think the issue would be with specifying "best-selling girl groups", given that "girl group" is a characterization that sources may argue about. So while we may be satisfied enough to categorize an article as a "girl group", claiming that a certain list is of the "best selling" girl groups does imply that it's definitive, as you said. But there may be answers to that objection as well. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's usually much easier to define lists of best-selling singles or albums by year, decade or whatever, because they are usually published with great fanfare by the relevant chart compilers. Trying to find out how many records a particular group has sold during their career is much harder - it's usually an inflated and uncorroborated figure given by the artist's record company. There isn't even agreement for well known groups - there's a big discussion going on at Talk:ABBA, for instance. So I'm wary of any attempt that tries to claim to be a definitive list of all acts of a particular type or genre. The article in question even tries to split it into two lists of physical sales and download sales, which for artists whose career has spanned the 90s until now is going to be impossible to separate out, I would suggest. Richard3120 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So it might be reasonable to expect, in this instance, RSs specifically listing the best-selling girl groups to avoid WP:SYNTH. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed - for example the article contains a photo of the Pussycat Dolls and the caption stated that their single "Don't Cha" was the biggest seller by a girl group in the US... I added the caveat "in the download era" as we simply have no sales figures from before the mid 90s to prove or disprove this statement. But a bigger problem might be which girl groups and their records may be missing from the lists, just because there are no RSs available. The other issue you raised about defining a girl group has also been raised before, but with no satisfactory answer... do you need a minimum of three females to be classified as a group, or do female duos count? What happens when a trio becomes a duo, as in the case of Bananarama - do you only count their sales as a trio? Does it have to be a specific style of music/singing, like soul/R&B groups, or can Salt-n-Pepa be included? Richard3120 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For purposes of List of girl groups or Category:Girl groups, we can afford to be overinclusive, particularly with the list which can annotate if sources disagree. But if we're going to be comparing their sales, we should expect a pretty clear consensus on who qualifies so we're not adding qualifiers to every entry that would make the whole list meaningless (the top seller is Group A, unless we count Group B as a girl group and then it's Group B, but if neither A nor B are considered girl groups as some critics argue then it's Group C...). Anyway, that's just my gut reaction, as I said it's quite possible that there are reasonable responses to these concerns. postdlf (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's more a case of not being able to compare their sales anyway, as they are non- existent before the 1990s, so making a ranking list is almost impossible. For the best-sellers by girl groups in the US, I did the only thing I thought reasonable, and created a list of all the singles that have sold over a million, as there are verifiable sources for these (RIAA certifications, etc.). But trying to find accurate sales figures for each of those singles in order to rank the list and determine the overall best seller... forget it. It's the overall vagueness which permeates the article - what defines a girl group, lack of RSs, completeness from pre-1990s - that are giving me concerns as to how it is ever going to be made "complete and accurate". Richard3120 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Example: someone has tried to create the best-sellers list for Australia by using the Australian certification level. Fine, no problem with the RS - but certification only goes back to 1997. I don't know of any source that would have sales from before this date, so effectively any pre-1997 single is disqualified due to lack of RSs. And this is the case for many of the lists. So are they worth having if they will always be so obviously incomplete? Richard3120 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

On behalf of Wikipedia I want to apologize for this,, All that fuss over it being closed early and since it's been relisted it's only gained 1 !vote - You would've thought COMMONSENSE would've prevailed but obviously not!, Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the closing Admin closed it as Redirect or some other nonsensical outcome!, Anyway keep up the great work & Have a beer on me :) –Davey2010Talk 01:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like this was worth everyone's time, eh? postdlf (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries :), Exactly all that fuss and for what ?, Guess some people have too much time on there hands!, Anyway Happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Yogi Bear characters

Hello, I've no idea who/how, but the redirect done by TokyoGirl on List of Yogi Bear characters from talk:List of Yogi Bear characters means that the article has a redirect as its talk page.Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Pincrete I mentioned that in my last post on the AfD and posted below before realizing you had done the same thing. The article started as a malformed talk page by a new editor, I nommed the errant form to be deleted but instead (as you noted) TokyoGirl moved it. I think that all that has to be done now is for the re-direct to be deleted so the article can have a proper talk page. Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

re your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of Yogi Bear characters

Could someone PLEASE delete that re-direct and establish the now-article's talk page? As it now stands the present talk page is the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks in advance for whatever you can do. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Question, yes the last one (I sure hope so) about that Yogi Bear talk page...

I have a question about Talk:List of Yogi Bear characters. When I nominated it for AfD, it was a malformed article with possible copyright issues and was not the form/content/article-talkpage it is now. So, does the withdrawn AfD stay with the title (even though the content changed)? I did nominate the errant/looping-redirect (G8) so that error was eliminated. Just trying to learn so I can do better next time. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do would have been to move it from the talk page to the mainspace title before doing anything else. But once an AFD is started with a given page title, it just causes confusion to then try to rename the AFD because of all the logs, people watchlisting it who are interested in the discussion, etc. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember the sequence of events: I think I first nommed the talk-page-article to be deleted as malformed (and also copyright issues). It was then moved to article space and a redirect (that started the loop) was left behind at the talk-page. So, the next time I come across a talk-page-as-article I should move it to a new title myself and then do whatever I think is necessary? (CSD/PROD/whatever). It just doesn't seem right to have the nomination aligned with content that is not what I nommed. It now looks like I nominated an article's talk page to be deleted....which 1)makes no sense and 2)isn't the case at all. Seems like there should be a template for occasions such as this, something like "This is a legacy notice. This page was previously nominated for deletion when its form & content were different." Shearonink (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that you withdrew after it was moved from the wrong title, yes, you should have moved it yourself rather than nominating it for deletion, or at least left it alone so someone else could do so. It's contrary to deletion policy to invoke AFD for fixable problems. postdlf (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the withdrawal seemed appropriate, didn't seem to make any sense to let the AFD drag on. What good would that have done when what I nominated didn't even exist after the move (and that looping re-direct...)? Next time I'll just leave the malformed content alone and not report it anywhere - I'm convinced I'll get it wrong at this point. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Postdlf. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Characters in Back to the Future listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other Characters in Back to the Future. Since you had some involvement with the Other Characters in Back to the Future redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Kasautii Zindagii Kay

You reverted my edits multiple times without given a valid reason or providing reliable source. I don't know what basis you claim that these awards is really won by them (when there is no reliable source for verifiability). Chander 07:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, you redirected the entire article (without merging) after it had been kept at AFD, and then after I reverted that, you again blanked its content rather than discuss. You did this based only on its current state rather than whether the information is verifiable. This is contrary to the AFD (which did discuss the verifiability of the content, as the nominator had the exact same complaint about current sourcing) and contrary to editing policy at WP:PRESERVE: except in very limited circumstances not present here, we do not blank content just because it is currently lacking references. It's a notable TV series, and nearly all of the listed awards have their own articles as well. Just as was discussed in the AFD, it is implausible that we could not verify whether notable awards were given to a notable TV series. What are your language skills in this area, or your access to print Indian sources? postdlf (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please userfy talk page plus article

A sockpuppet nominated these articles I was okay with two of them, but the first person is definately notable:

• Dao Bac (19 cashes in the WSOP and over $800K in tournament earnings this person is notable)

• Don Baruch (he is probably not notable I just want to see what state the article was in)
• Dave Alizadeth (probably not notable either)

The second two might warrant a redirect, but Dao Bac is definately notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can prove notability with sources, then request recreation at WP:DRV, or at least recreation to be relisted for a clean AFD. I might even support that if you make a good case, but I'm not going to unilaterally overturn the deletion close. The sockpuppet allegation might be relevant given that these all had fairly low participation. On the redirects, you don't need permission to create those so long as they're actually mentioned at the target articles. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting a userfication so I can work on it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD Reopened

Hello. I wanted to let you know that an AfD that you participated in has been reopened here. I am informing everyone who participated in the old one case they would like to provide insight. Thank you. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 05:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Starkillers Wikipedia Page Deletion

Hello my name is Kiran Chandani. Please check your inbox I have left you a message and I would like to have a discussion with you so regarding why the page for Starkillers was deleted. Hoping to discuss with you as soon as possible.

I was asked by an admin on undeletion request to contact you directly please see my request below for the starkillers page that was deleted: The article seems to have been deleted based on merely a few comments and questioning of source. There's ample evidence of any info that was on the article. The original editors of the article (who I am unaware of) may have gotten a few spellings wrong. This can be easily fixed. No reason to delete an entire article. Its Starkillers true life journey through music. He has had 12 no. 1 beatport records and has been a producer/dj in the music industry for over 15 years. This article was deleted based on not enough credibility to be on Wikipedia? Please rethink this. Its someone's life and career story. If needed, any piece of info in question on the article can be verified by any individuals mentioned directly in the article or any further info required to ensure the info is 100% true. This is unfair to delete a world Renowned artist's life story based on apparently un-sited 1 or 2 pieces of info. Also I would like to add: I looked through the users who requested deletion of the page. The requests (as time stamped) came about after an online controversy happened between Starkillers and Avicii. This clearly says to me that someone conspired against his page to be deleted. At no other time all these years anyone questioned his wiki page, everything was well sourced and cited and on between Aug 4-6 (the time Starkillers and Avicii disussed occurred) someone went out of their way to have Starkillers page deleted this way? Clearly seems to me that the deletion was conspired. Starkillers has been in the music business for over 15 years. There is evidence of his credibility all over the internet. You may look at his website, beatport, spotify, iTunes, soundcloud, or any other music site for that matter for verifying his creditability. Please let me know if you require any further info. I would greatly appreciate your help with this and hope that you will give justice to this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran chandani (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you deleted the page because the comments on the discussion suggested he was insignificant, please refer to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_(Nadia_Ali_song) This is one of his biggest hits out of the 12 No. Beatport Records. Not to mention Diskoteka and the numerous other hits that have charted in various countries. So just based on a few comments that were made by some people who may not find Starkillers of interest, probably due to controversy arising on a personal issue between Starkillers and Avicii, this is not fair to have his entire bio and musical history deleted. I would appreciate you taking a second look to this case. Thank you! - Kiran Chandani Kiran chandani (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having an original username (see signature of first comment) which is the same as Starkillers' record label might suggest a WP:COI... Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

talk Hi Richard! I am new to wikipedia so I am still getting to know more about the guidelines. However, the idea for such a page was to be informational about the artist never promotional as it was pointed out to be. Thats all I am trying to say. The credibility of the artist was at question during the deletion discussion. Please note I am not the original editor of the page what so ever or made any contributions to the page in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran chandani (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, no offence intended - just pointing out that it probably doesn't help your case to be seen to have a possible close connection to the subject, even if that is not the case. Good idea to change your username. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard3120 thank you for you info previously I am still learning a lot about wikipedia! i was asked by one of the admins on wiki to do so and I followed their guidelines :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran chandani (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Starkillers Wikipedia Page Deletion

Hello please refer to my new talk post i created below this one, I did not realize you do not respond to emails so I recreated a new post! Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Starkillers Wikipedia Page Deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starkillers Hello I realized after going a bit through your Talk page that you do not respond to emails. I was asked by an admin on undeletion request to contact you directly please see my request below for the starkillers page that was deleted: The article seems to have been deleted based on merely a few comments and questioning of source. There's ample evidence of any info that was on the article. The original editors of the article may have not followed the guidelines properly for wiki, or not sourced properly. But there's enough articles and websites online to support the credibility and notability factor. This is something to my eyes can be easily fixed. Its Starkillers true life journey through music. He has had 12 no. 1 beatport records across various world recognized record labels and has been a producer/dj in the music industry for over 15 years. Also I would like to add: The requests (as time stamped) came about exactly right after an online controversy happened between Starkillers and Avicii. At no other time all these years anyone questioned his wiki page, everything was well sourced and cited and on between Aug 4-6 (the time Starkillers and Avicii conflict occurred) someone might have gone out of their way to have Starkillers page questioned and deleted in such a manner without searching more on google about him. There is evidence of his credibility all over the internet. You may look at his website, social media, beatport, spotify, iTunes, soundcloud, or any other music site for that matter for verifying creditability and notability. I hope you will bring justice to this situation. Also, if you deleted the page because the comments on the discussion suggested he was not notable, please refer to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_(Nadia_Ali_song) This is one of his biggest hits out of the 12 No. Beatport Records, and it easily meets multiple musician notability criterion based on the wiki guidelines for notability of artists that I read. Please give this article a second chance for proper citing and unbiased use of language on the article. Maybe your assistance and expertise with ensuring all info on the page is appropriate and well cited would be helpful to the page. Please note: I have no connection or contact with the original editor / other editors of the page, neither have I made any edits myself to the page at any time. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, you are not entitled to delete comments posted by others,[1] not on my talk page or on any other page. And once someone has responded to you, you shouldn't be deleting or modifying your own comments either.

Regarding the AFD, if you think you can present evidence of the subject's notability that was not considered by the participants in the deletion discussion, and that you can make a convincing case that they pass WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, or another relevant notability guideline, then present a concise and well-supported argument at WP:DRV by following the procedures listed there. I would suggest you instead take some time to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, as it seems clear from your comments that you're not yet understanding how it works, why articles are deleted, what constitutes a reliable source, or what our notability guidelines mean. And if your only interest here is just to advocate for Wikipedia covering one musician, you're better off finding another online venue to do that. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

postdlf talk Hello thank you for your response. My apologies for this. I will learn more about wikipedia as I familiarize myself with it more. I am not trying to advocate for one musician I am just saying the article could really have a 2nd look into it as his notability is easily proven if someone google's about his music and I can definitely make a well-supported argument at WP: DRV. I was also suggested by one of the admins to post it up on Articles for Creation for someone to potentially pick it up as well and other editors can contribute to it. Please let me know what is the best way to go by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran chandani (talk • contribs)

I already did. You can't use Articles for Creation for an article that has already been deleted per a deletion discussion at AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

postdlf talk thank you for your help! i will post an argument on DRV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran chandani (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Starkillers

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starkillers. 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. Kiran chandani (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)