User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Centre stick vs side-stick

why nothing of info saved to center stick and side-stick ? (Idot (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Because the AfD consensus was to delete it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

it was not a consensus it was simple majority for deleting! even more some people explained thtat before deleting info should be move to other two artilces + you are the one who said that it should be deleted so you can't be fair when you tell the results of discussion, 'coz you are just have interwest on it (Idot (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

check voices carefully and be fair:

7 people (Jayjg, Ahunt, Reyk, MilborneOne, Nick-D, Dave, Pcap, Armbrust ) just said detele without explanation what should be done wityh content

for saving info:

5 people (Rlandmann TomStar81 BilCat Satori Son) said delete but save info

1 people (ErikHaugen) just said "it should be broken up into two articles or renamed"

1 people (Fnlayson) said "Merge any useful content to existing Side-stick and Yoke (aircraft) articles "

5 people (Colonel Warden, Idot, A Nobody, Dream Focus, Hepcat65) people said keep

so totally we have 12 people who said that the content should be saved

which is more than 7 - who didn't say anything 'bout saving (Idot (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

• will you save? (Idot (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

I was not stating my own opinion, but summarizing the consensus of the policy and guideline based arguments. That consensus of those arguments was to delete the article. Is there specific material from it that you wanted to preserve? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

advantages and drawbacks, as both Centre stick and side-stick articles are really small and need to be expanded (Idot (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Were you planning to use the material to create, say, comparison sections in the articles, along the lines of "centre stick vs. side stick"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

unfortunatelly I can't see the text of Centre stick vs side-stick :-( Idot (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome (window manager)

Hi, Jayjg. You closed the deletion discussion for Awesome (window manager). Since then an additional source covering it was found in LinuxUser [1] (it was not mentioned during the discussion). Do you think it would be enough to undelete the article? If so, please leave a note here or at the requests for undeletion page. -- MagV (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is really the kind of thing you should take to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. See the deletion review. MagV (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem

This individual[2] has went through removing Constantinople along with supporting references[3][4] from numerous articles. I've posted two warnings on this person's talk page, but judging from the volume of deleted sources, I would say this will mean nothing. Could you keep an eye on this person? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still waiting for responses to my concerns (preferably ones that don't use out-of-context quotations from mass-market histories). Please add to and comment on my summary of the argument. DNYHCA (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Donnyhoca has deleted a reference and referenced information, since his argument on the talk page is nothing but his opinion and does NOT refute the 3rd party published source that he deleted[5]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Then Donnyhoca copies and pastes what I posted on my talk page on the Talk:Halide Edip Adıvar[6], in an attempt to give his "argument" some validity. So far, this individual has posted NO 3rd party published source to refute the references he continues to delete. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Donnyhoca, I've responded on your Talk: page. The course you are taking will not lead to a happy outcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Only Exception

Hi Jayjg,
for some reason I have The Only Exception (song) on my watchlist, and checked it on Friday following the recreation. Seeing that since the AfD, it has now been released and charted on a national chart, I found that it would require a new AfD – changed circumstances like this are usually enough of an improvement with regard to WP:NSONGS to get a song article past G4. There are also several sources covering the song itself these days (1 2 3), in my opinion even enough to get it out of the "probably notable" gray area of WP:NSONGS and make it explicitly pass that guideline.
Would you please undelete it, and revert to the 18:37, 6 March 2010 version?
Thanks, Amalthea 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closed 5 weeks ago, and the DRV closed less than a week ago. Both of the conclusions were to delete (or keep deleted). I would recommend respecting that detailed deletion process and review, letting the article rest for a few weeks, and perhaps trying again in April. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. And I quote: "[...] with no prejudice against a recreation in the future if the WP:NSONG criteria are met."
You show considerable prejudice if you base deletion on the deletion review. For the reasons I mentioned above, I am convinced the WP:NSONGS requirements have been met. The "song must have charted" criterion may only be a litmus test, but taken together with two quite detailed MTV articles I am convinced it would pass a new AfD. In any case, the article has certainly been improved enough to get it past speedy deletion. Amalthea 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, the DRV completed less than a week ago, and the commenters there were quite explicit in their view that it did not satisfy WP:NSONG. Elen of the Roads cited NSONG in her comment:

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Given that this song has not been released yet, it would appear that the above cannot apply. No objection to recreating the article when the single gets into the Top Ten.

Exactly which national chart did it chart on, and at what position? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It charted on #23 on the New Zealand chart, according to acharts.us it's been on that chart for two weeks already.
I don't see why it should matter one bit whether the last discussion was one hour or one year ago if the situation has sufficiently changed in the meantime to moot the previous concerns. If the article came to an AfD at this point, without any history, it would quite certainly be kept. Why should the baggage it has force it into a four week hiatus? I myself know neither song nor artist, and don't care about the article per se, but judging by the recreations of several editors during the last weeks, it's certainly going to be recreated another dozen times (at The Only Exception (Paramore song) or wherever else) in the next weeks.
We constantly ask folks creating song articles that the songs either need to chart on a significant chart, or that there needs to be very significant coverage in reliable sources before standalone articles can be seriously considered. Telling them now that "well, it does all that, but now you also have to wait an arbitrary time since the last discussion" only blurs that line, and doesn't help enforcing that community position. I wouldn't mind if you opened up a new AfD straight away, but I'm convinced that a G4 was wrong in this case, both from a strict policy point of view and from a pedagogical point of view. Amalthea 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these matters, but 23rd on a chart in New Zealand (currently 123rd on the list of countries by population) doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG. I recommend having this reviewed at WP:DRV, if you feel strongly about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's just as much of a "probably notable" indication as if it were on a US chart. It's there on #13 now, I find at least three articles in reliable sources dedicated to that song, none of this was known in the AfD or at its DRV. I know how annoying it is if people ignore community consensus and continue to recreate articles, but in this case the situation has certainly changed enough so that G4 deletions are inappropriate, and based on my experience it clearly passes WP:NSONGS now and would certainly be undeleted/kept in a new DRV/AfD. Seeing that one of the article titles has now been unprotected by another admin following a request at RFPP however, I will ignore this rule by skipping another review and undelete the most decent version, so that it doesn't have to be rewritten from scratch and we don't get in revision history merging trouble. I hope you don't mind too much and don't consider this wheelwarring, but I believe starting another DRV now would be a waste of time and would be made moot through another recreation in the meantime anyway. If you're terribly unhappy about it, I am absolutely open to bringing this to a wider forum at DRV or AfD nonetheless, but I think a quick undelete is at this point the smoother option.
Amalthea 23:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Elen is OK with it, even though she hinted at the same concerns regarding New Zealand's music market you had. Amalthea 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article - IronE Singleton

Hi Jayjg,
I just created IronE Singleton's page and just discovered you deleted it. I am a fan of his work and he has been getting a lot of press lately, due to the success of The Blind Side being up for an Oscar tonight for Best Picture. Could you please explain how this article can be reinstated for those of us who is fans of his work? You can view his portion in the trailer of The Blind Side at [7] His performance begins at the 1:40 mark. Thanks! FilmnMusiCritic 23:58, 7 March 2010
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmnmusicritic (talk • contribs)

Hi Filmnmusicritic. The IronE Singleton article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronE Singleton. If you want to contest that deletion, or request that it be overturned, you need to make an argument for that at WP:DRV, the Deletion Review page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, Thank you so much for the information. I started the contest and I have provided the updated information that will prove that he was in The Blind Side, which was the main discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronE Singleton. Thank you once again!Filmnmusicritic —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Good luck, I hope it goes well for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On WP:RS

Hi I would like to say something about your comments on the radical website kavkaz center on the wp:rs page. Please note that nobody believes the website isn't extremist in nature. The only rule for inclusion is to publish statements from rebel leaders / commanders which is something all tabloids do. For anything other than that the website has never been regarded a reliable source on wikipedia. The persons who post about it on wp:rs have the intention to remove all references to the site, playing onto the sentiment of people like you who do not like the extremist nature of the website. Well Neither do I or anyone else who has quoted the site, we've only used it with utmost scrutiny. I hope you understand. Grey Fox (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't at all appear to be the argument Biophys is making, nor the use he wishes to make of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page Artist Vs Poet

Hi, i know the page was previously dleted via a discussion and, at the time, that was the correct decision. Since then the band have released a second EP and a full-lengh album on reputable indie labe Fearless Records. They have also garnered significant coverage in Alternative Press magazine and have a strong online following. They are now a much more notable so a page would be appropriate. For example, I am from the UK, if they were not notable it would be very unlikly that I would have, or even been able to, purchased an album by an unknown American band. Can you un-delete it? Thanks! Adam2201 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the circumstances surrounding this article have changed materially, I recommend you make that argument at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for MUME

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MUME. 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.

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wonky close

...I think your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disco-Funk was malformed. — Scientizzle 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Bet Shira Congregation

Hi Jayjg, I'm guessing that you missed it, but the article has already survived a deletion discussion in the past, see here. That means that it's ineligible for PROD, but you can still bring it to AfD. Just letting you know, thanks! -- Atama頭 04:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had survived AfD before. Glad to hear it, and thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'ma confuzzled

Greetings Jay! Well I really don't like bugging administrators about their closes (I get it all the time [too?]), but would you consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism? I understand that the article contains original research, but I felt that that could be fixed by a removal of content rather than deletion. More importantly, however, there was still some active discussion at the time of the closing that had yet to be addressed. Does this make sense? So sorry to bother you with this, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbitratily0. I appreciate your efforts to save the article, but the AfD had continued for the full 7 days and more, the only real "active discussion" at that point was you responding with JokerXtreme, and the conclusion of the policy-based arguments was pretty clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, I'm still confused (but on the good side, I've renamed this section header appropriatepy :) ). It seemed to me that the argument to keep the article (because it can be sourced and ridded of original research) was just about as valid as the delete rationale. Since by !vote count alone the discussion was fairly balanced, it just seems like a relist would probably be helpful. I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that 'my way is right', I'm trying to look at the discussion as you are, without bias. Sorry again for wasting your time, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing rationale, the keep arguments generally didn't address the issue of WP:NOR. In fact, I can see only one commenter who did attempt to directly address it, that being you. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, for example, said "Lacking some sources, but not a huge issue unless there are some factual issues coming up". To me, this seems to address the original research rationale by saying 'should have better sourcing, but deletion is avoidable' (note that in the discussion I volunteered to source the article and remove any unsourceable content). Reenem also seemed to contradict the deletion rationale for the same reason by saying "All unsourced content can easily be replaced with sourced content, rather than simply deleting the page." Wouldn't these be considered two more valid keep !votes? Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't directly address the OR/SYNTH issue; OR often contains many individually well-sourced elements, but the combination of material creates a synthesis, as was the consensus in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sara Hurwitz

As per your previous contributions on this topic, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this article.Joe407 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think in the past I've only really done some basic copyediting on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, and that was many months ago. It, and the related articles, all need a lot of work still. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials which you have closed is a multiple deletion nominations. You have deleted only one page. Sole Soul (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone video

Hey, sorry if this seems kinda of random, but seeing as though your a master editor, I was wondering if you could delete the page Telephone (music video). A majority of the people saying yes to the separation from the song and video were Lady GaGa fans (I checked the users edit history) and while the discussion is/was still going on a user went about on they're own and created the article. Similar to what happened with me with on the article "The Only Exception" page (it was under debate to be created but I accidently made it without approval), could you delete the article until the separation gets complete support? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crystal Clear. Both articles are fairly substantial; at this point I think you'd have to use an RFC or AfD process to delete (or redirect) the music video article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I had a feeling I'd have to do one of those things. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Squeeky Kleen

Hello! You deleted this article, although said, "with no prejudice towards merging to parent article, if anything worth merging can be found". Could you please undelete and redirect so that anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so? Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll move the article to your user space, if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note User:A Nobody/Farewell. As others argued to keep and merge in the discussion, it would probably be best to redirect with undeleted edit history to allow them to merge what they can. I figure one of my final "acts" on Wikipedia should be to request something on behalf of and that will be helpful for others. Thank you for help and goodbye. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)