User talk:RoySmith

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63

Talk:Logan Abbott

Hello! You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Abbott as "redirect to MyRatePlan.com". I was tidying up and merging, and I couldn't find the usual talk page notification of the AfD and closure, either on at Talk:Logan Abbott or at Talk:MyRatePlan.com. Was this an oversight, or is there usually not a talk page record when the result is redirect? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm going with oversight. I've gone ahead and patched it up with the OldAfD template which was missing. I assume that is the result you were seeking? Thanks for catching the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Some people at the AfD were concerned about the possibility that someone might try to re-expand the redirect page into a full article. So I thought the history of redirection via AfD should be documented. Now it is! --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Don't Kneel

I don't think your reasoning behind the "no consensus" ruling on this AfD is correct. Of all the comments, not all mentioned the condition of the article and one commented that English coverage was absent - which does in fact go to notability. This would indicate that a rescue of the article is impossible. I think the clean up template has been there for months and there has been no reaction. Suggest you re-visit this decision now and ignore the references to the condition of the article. Thanks. 58.165.7.185 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I looked at it again. This was a close call, but I'm satisfied with the result. At some point in the future, if the references to prove notability haven't appeared, it can always come back to AfD for another discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they haven't appeared for months prior to this nomination and I don't think they are going to show up in the future unless something happens and we can't CBALL here. I'm sorry, but I don't think you've got this right as you've focused on the article condition as indicated in your decision. 58.165.7.185 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish decision. Clearly not notable. Did you even look at the sources? Arguments against deletion were weak and proven so in comments. There was no substantive objection to the arguments put supporting deletion. Is there a minimum time limit to re-submitting this for deletion? That is, can I re-nominate it straight away or do I have to wait a certain period of time? 203.17.215.22 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your additional note and feedback :-) The applicable policy on re-submitting this can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, specifically, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again. I'm afraid I cannot offer any guidance on what a reasonable amount of time would be. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek McGee

Hi, RoySmith. I was looking over old AfDs, and I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek McGee as Merge. I was a bit surprised, as there was a clear consensus to delete, and I see no relevant information to merge into Hacker Time. Was it your intention to suggest that a character list be created in the main article? Honestly, I still don't think there's any worthwhile information to merge, and my web searches didn't turn up any indication that this is a main character. At best, this looks like a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested Merge, because it was mentioned by one of the participants in the AfD. I'm not familiar with the subject matter. If there really is nothing worth merging, then I guess a plain redirect would be appropriate. If you like, I can update the AfD closure to indicate that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding on the close. I don't mean to be a bother, but I was initially a bit confused. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bother. I'm glad you asked, and in the future, I will try and provide greater clarity the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Binliang

Given there was little challenge of the evidence that League 1 is fully professional (only debate about it referenced previous AFD which seemed to also say League 1 was fully professional, the evidence I provided was not discussed, and the decision to delete was subject to future determination of professionality), and not one shred of evidence was provided showing that the leagues were not fully professional, then I really don't understand the basis of your decision. If it really is delete, can you expand your discussion and provide an explanation of your decision. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one was not complicated. I saw 5 people (including the proposer) putting forth cogent deletion arguments based on policy, and only one person (you) arguing to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what numbers have to do with it; consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The issue comes down to whether Chinese League 1 is fully professional. While evidence was provided that suggests League 1 is professional, no evidence was provided to the contrary. Evidence it was professional was arbitrarily dismissed, and the counter evidence provided was a pointer to a "consensus" that did not actually exist. However, if you've made up your mind, please explain the basis for your decision in the closing statement, which will assist in focussing the deletion review. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained my reasoning. I understand that you do not agree, but in this case, I think the consensus was clear. If you believe my close was in error and deletion review is appropriate (WP:DRVPURPOSE), that is, of course, your right. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment "I have already explained my reasoning". Your closing statement consisted of the words "The result was delete.". There is no explanation there. Please provide one. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No response? You say that you've already explained your reasoning. Where was this explanation that I can't find? Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is above, I saw 5 people (including the proposer) putting forth cogent deletion arguments based on policy, and only one person (you) arguing to keep. I am sorry the decision did not go the way you wanted, but in my mind, this was about as clear a consensus as it gets. My job when closing an AfD is not to evaluate the article. That's the job of the editors who participated in the discussion. Your fellow editors were the people you needed to sway with your arguments, and you apparently failed to do that. My job is to summarize the discussion, determine if the participants in the discussion came to a consensus, and if so, carry it out. If you believe my actions here were in error, please take this to deletion review; continuing the discussion here seems pointless -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Marques Brownlee

I'm unclear as to how you determined "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marques Brownlee. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, the discussion should have centered on the applicable notability rules. I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion if I thought the article had merit. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marques_Brownlee_(2nd_nomination). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This just closed 7 days ago, it should be sent to deletion review instead of repeating another deletion discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Work Stress Claims

Hello! I wanted to create wiki Page for Work Stress Claims but it is showing already deleted and if wanna create then contact with you. Can you please help me regarding this. KateSteele (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

One of your AfD closes has appeared at deletion review and I see nobody has told you.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies
Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward)

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Pogroms - AfD

Hi Roy, thanks for closing the AfD at list of events named Pogrom earlier. Personally I don't agree with the merge decision, but I am willing to support it in order to move forward - as they say, the best compromise is when all parties are the least unhappy, and this may be it.

Having said that, the nom at the AfD has begun attacking the merged content at Pogrom, adding numerous tags and removing the list criteria, among others.

Please could you keep an eye on Pogrom for a few days to make sure this doesn't spiral downhill too fast? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch it. I realize nobody actually suggested merge in the entire bizarre ~~debate~~ brawl, but, as you say, it seemed like the best compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The nom and his buddy are using a "no consensus" argument - ie ignoring its previous existence as a standalone article. Such an argument undermines the whole concept of the merge. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Alabama

I've nominated this for deletion review. Closing an AFD is not an invitation to ignore the entire discussion and many thought-out responses and substitute your own opinion, and there is no possible reading of the discussion that would suggest a consensus for anything like your desired solution. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What authority do YOU have to close the AfD discussion and decide, all by yourself, on merging the articles? I agree with The Drover's Wife that there was NO clear consensus. Many of the individual state pages have plenty of their own unique references that would be out of place on a merged page.Lexington62 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another view

An excellent, clear, well-reasoned close, and a model for what to do in similar situations. (some problem analogous to this tends to arise every month or so, and I will be used your arguments.) I don't even think you needed to say you were using IAR--you were deciding what was appropriate in a close: deciding on the basis of the informed comments, rather than vote counting. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate the vote of confidence! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

You were on the admin list so I have a question I hope you can help with. Recently, I have had users making up false claims about my account, and have been disruptive in article. I have actually gotten random Reverts on article edits just because of this, and not because there was an ACTUAL reason to revert the article. Take for example, a recent article I edited was reverted, and the edit summary was basically "I accuse you of being a troll" or whatever. So then they just remove the content from the article. Currently, a user is spreading these lies further on his talk page and I believe this may become a much more frustrating issue if something is not done.

So I was wondering what my options are in regards to this? Do I talk to someone, fill out a form, you, etc? TheKingsTable (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a disruptive comment made by one of these users on your talk page. You will see my point when view the message. TheKingsTable (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]