User talk:Joe Decker

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Thank you for your review of article on Isao Noda.

I see things noted which I will work on improving. ArtistInWordyThings (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just as an aside, I had been previously unaware of the 2d IR spectroscopy, I got sucked into reading about that. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors of Ghana to Russia

Dear Joe Decker,

I wondering if it will be possible for you to have a look at the details for addition with regard to his appointment. Perhaps it could be squeezed in, to follow the first paragraph.

Mr. J.B. Elliott's letter of accreditation as the first Ghanaian Ambassador to the Soviet Union was presented to him by the last Governor-General of the Dominion of Ghana, the Earl of Listowel (William Francis Hare), under the direction of Queen Elizabeth II. His appointment announced in Moscow on 8th January 1960 as Ambassador designate to the USSR did not fare well with the US and was critiqued in the central intelligence agencies bulletin of 12th January 1960. It was obvious the US government of the period would have preferred an appointee with a more pro-western orientation. Mr. Elliott presented his credentials to the then Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Mr. Voroshilov. On 1st July 1960 Ghana became an independent Republic within the Commonwealth and the first President of the Republic of Ghana Dr. Kwame Nkrumah reaccredited the appointment, which he presented to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council Mr. Leonid Brezhnev.

http://www.businessghana.com/portal/aboutghana/index.php?op=postin

(Approved for Release 2002/07/12 Doc No/ESDN: CIA-RDP79T00975A004900080001-9) Pages: 12 http://www.foia.cia.gov/search-results?search_api_views_fulltext=Central%20Intelligence%20Bulletin&field_collection=&page=259 http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP79T00975A004900080001-9.pdf

Sorry, I had problems opening the pdf, but I do have a copy of the text should you have the need for it. Thank youDorothyelliott (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Dorothyelliott (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joe Decker, I have just reconstructed the sentences somehow I felt It wasn't all that clear. Please edit accordingly and let me know. Thanks a lot, DorothyDorothyelliott (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dorothyelliott, I will review those later this weekend, thanks for your patience! Sincerely, --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

First, you have been doing some diligent research! I'm concerned about our ability to use it, but it's impressive to me that you've found the FOIA information.

I'm not quite sure where the Businessghana link fits in, I'm not seeing the Ambassador mentioned there--maybe I'm looking at the wrong page? I think, because it's not clear how BusinessGhaha came up with that text, that our policies would not permit us to use that for any controversial information, but ...let me start by asking what information you're using that source to verify. (Just let me know in general terms.)

I think, for the very, very limited use you need the FOIA document for (the US view of his appointment), we can probably get away with using it, for the claim of the US view on him, more or less. We have very strong restrictions on the use of legal primary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY) when discussing living people, and those rules, while they may seem arbitrary, prevent quite a bit of mischief. (I'm not saying you're causing mischief! But I do have to work within our policies.) Anyway, let me know what you were using out of BusinessGhana, and I'll see what I can do. The text seems pretty good, the one FOIA-related claim might need to be made more specific, but that will be easy for me to touch up when I put it in. Let me know about the BusinessGhana source. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. I just want to state that, in my opinion, no consensus was achieved in this discussion. However, the article was deleted, although I made some improvements since its nomination. Again, in my opinion, this should be no consensus closure. I am looking forward to your thoughts and insights. Thank you for your time in advance. --BiH (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sources, your improvements included a link to http://pinpoint.microsoft.com/en-CA/partners/filehold-systems-inc-4295557620, and http://imageadvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/FileHold-TOMRMS_CaseStudy.pdf. Neither addresses notability under WP:CORP. If I've missed something, do correct me!

I consider two-opinion AfDs a bit weak, but I'll stick by this one. If you'd like to take this to WP:DRV, I'm happy to have it reviewed, I'd appreciate a note when you do. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leone Cruz

Since Leone Cruz meets WP:NFOOTBALL with his appearance today, can you restore the article that you deleted a couple years ago. – Michael (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Would you do me the favor of putting that ref into the article? Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Tonilanec

Hi Joe, You recently deleted my page. I would like to be redirected to my initial post to absorb the content and submit for edits. If you would also be so kind as to inform me of the circumstances leading up to this action, which I feel is unjust, I would greatly appreciate it. Preventing this in the future is paramount to ensure your editors are not misunderstanding my company.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonilanec (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Happy to tell you why the article was deleted: A consensus of editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MinuteMenCreatives felt that the article was promotional and in violation of our WP:NPOV policy. My role in that discussion was "assessing the consensus" and taking whatever action was indicated. If you feel that I have misread the discussion (which is unlikely, since opinion was unanimous), that can be appealed at WP:DRV.

I think you probably will have better luck if you try and create an article that is more likely to be seen as neutral. One way to get started, which is the path I usually recommend, is to create a draft in your sandbox, and, when you have something that you think will be received better, submitting it to WP:AFC to get an assessment. You can do that by adding {{subst:submit}} to the sandbox once you're ready for a review.

Let me know if I can be of any further help. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my username?

I put the username DeloitteHK because this is the current company Chris works for, however I need to change it to my personal name on Wikipedia. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeloitteHK (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Take a look first at Wikipedia:Changing username, it has some instructions, limitations, and advice (including considering reasons why you might not want to use a real personal name on Wikipedia--this is my real name here, but that choice comes with some upsides and downsides) on getting your username changed. From there, if your new name choice isn't already taken, you should be able to request the change at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Hope this helps! Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Article: Kevin Terrell

Hi Joe, My wife, user:snapgrl, recently submitted this new article. But it was declined due to copyright violations. Can you please help us find the draft, so she can make corrections? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you a copy. I can't restore it due to the copyright issue, but that should give you the structure and references to work from. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new section: Article on painter Waleed HAssan

Hello Joe, I noticed that my submission (on articles for creation) on Waleed Hassan has been deleted but I could not find any explanation for that... Also, I would like to review the content, but where can I find it? THere seems to be no log. THanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwhoami (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I should have said more at the time. The article has not been deleted, but merely declined, what that means is that you can still see it at Draft:Waleed_Hassan, and can improve it and resubmit it. It is possible that we can have an article on Hassan. What we would require before we can do that, is to see multiple sources that meet the "general notability criterion" mentioned in the pink box on that page. Unfortunately, many of our explanations of that guideline are complicated and hard to make sense of.

More or less, what we'd like to see is a few newspaper/magazine/book sources that discuss Hassan in some detail. I hope you will consider looking for those additional sources, adding them to the article, and resubmitting. Let me know if I can be of any help. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantium Solutions

Hi,

I recently submitted an article for creation "Quantium Solutions" but the draft got rejected. May I know what are the reasons? I cannot seem to find the review comments.

Thanks!

Regards, fuzzster87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzster87 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the basic explanation is in the pink box, where it says "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

What that means is that the article doesn't meet our "general notability guideline." To fix that, the article needs to have added two or more reliable, arm's-length sources which discuss the topic in detail. These would generally be newspapers, magazines or books. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added two more citations to this article as per your guideline and resubmitted it for review. Please let me know if I have submitted correctly, thanks!

Proposed Deletion Of Phil McCarthy Wikipage . . .

The article Phil McCarthy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

Then I'll add the references that you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamjk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Weavers

Can you help me understand how to improve the Churchill Weavers article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Weavers)? You indicated that it was presented as opinion and not cited from sources. I have lots of citations, so I don't understand. You also say that I use inline citation incorrectly. I'm really confused because I used footnotes.

Please advise so I can improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Murphy Boone (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First, it's generally a very strong article. The "essay" comment will take me longer to respond to, and I need to run right now, but the citation stuff only needs one fix, we really don't need the square brackets in the citations. I just tweaked references 4 and 5 to show what I mean, if you could hit the rest, you would be most welcome to remove the template regarding inline citations as well. I'll get back to you on the rest, I work with hundreds of articles a day and I'm going to want to reread your article in full before I give you a full reply on the essay, rather give you a good answer than a quick one! Thanks, and more soon! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I couldn't remember having added an essay to that article, and I finally figured out why, I'm think you have confused me with User:Jodi.a.schneider, at least I am not in the article history [1] before I tweaked a couple references above. You might ask her about the essay thing, I don't think it's too bad, but Jodi might have some comments. Hope this helps. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integration Point article declined

Joe,

I appreciate your review of the Integration Point page and for providing information on how to improve the article. You are the first editor to provide more than just that it was declined. I do have a question about it being declined as it follows the same format as another software company and their page has not been declined. I would like to understand why their page is fine but our page, with the same type of information, is declined. As I'm sure you can see from our talk page that we have been working on this for some time now and feel that we are following all the rules, especially in light of a similar company's page being approved.

If you could please let me know why one page is fine and the other is not, I think it will really help us in understanding what we need to change and why.

~~Anna Rushing~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPcontent (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna. With 4 million articles and tens of thousands of editors, there's lots of material, some from years past when we've had different processes, some more recently that were misreviewed or for which someone's judgment was different, that doesn't meet our standards, and while we continue to work toward uninformity, we are not there, to be sure. There is also a disparity between our polices for what can be "declined" and what can be "deleted" after it is approved, which complicates comparisons. This question is very common, we have an essay on it somewhere, I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

That having been said, if you can point me at the competitor you are concerned about, I would be delighted to take a look at it and see if I can move it in the right direction as well. I've never heard of your company, I'm not trying to mess with you, nor is anyone else here. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Picasso

For the life of me I couldn't remeber the name Jake Picasso until a few minutes ago - it's been a while since I had deal with him and I have been semi-retired from Wiki for a lot of the last 3 years - but you found the SPI cases from back in 2011. I think my comments from May to July 2011 in the SPI archives for Jake sum up most of what I can remember of him, except I always thought he was and is actually quite knowlegable about British TV history. There may well be a few more works of fiction out there; I was able to catch a few by watchlisting a few of his favourite targets back in 2011, as he was fond of slipping in links to his hoax articles into articles in the "Year in British television" list articles, so I might take a look at them tomorrow if I get a chance. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still impressed you remembered a sock from years back! Thanks for the details, let me know if you want a peek at any of the deleted stuff. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was bit stuck for time yesterday, so I'm only getting a chance to go sock-hunting now. I was more surprised that I actually couldn't remember Jake's name, as I, along with a couple of others, spent a *lot* of time chasing him. I have almost all the Year in British Television and other list articles of a similar vein watchlisted because of Jake. He has a distinctive style with his hoaxes; the one that was at AFD had a few trademarks, including wikilinks for awards which were actually linked back to the hoax page and the formatting of external links and refs to make them look genuine at a cursory galnce, as long as they weren't clicked. Some of the articles he creates are complete hoaxes and some are based on actual people, but many tend to share the same strange career path, where the subject wins Emmys, BAFTAs and Oscars, and yet seemed to take what appear to be minor roles in (real) UK televison series or roles in fictitious Eurpoean TV series. The end result is that I could spot one within 10 seconds of starting to read the article :).

I know I made these observations about his style back in 2011, and I would guess that he read my comments, but that never deterred him. A lot of his articles never made it to AFD; once it was obvious that there was a Jake sock involved, the articles were CSD'ed. Most of his work got zapped fairly quickly, but I'll take a look now and see if I can spot any socks. I haven't done any sock-hunting in a while and I want to see if I can still do it.:) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good hunting! --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletions on Émile Durkheim

Hi. I noticed (via mention on Russavia's talkpage) the revision-deletions on this article. May I ask if someone asked you to delete this number of revisions, whether there was an OTRS request, or if there is other background to these deletions? I ask because when I reviewed the history last month, my impression was that the copyvio material represented a relatively small portion of the article and would not necessitate rev-deleting this many revisions. For my future reference, I'm interested in how it's decided when to delete such revisions (and I know there's an ongoing consultation on this with Legal going on somewhere). If more appropriate, please feel free to respond via e-mail. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... honestly, I have not done a great number of such copyvio revdels, I came by the requested RD1 redactions section yesterday and figured I could pitch in, but I am completely the wrong person to ask whether so many revdels for such a long history is consistent with current practice for other people doing the work, I just don't have a lot of on-the-ground time with the process. Of course, as fun as it will be, if you or other folks with more history in the process believe it's best that I undo that, I'm happy to.

I certainly don't know of any process involving WMF legal. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well leave it alone at this point; there was a justifiable reason for the deletions and I doubt anyone will ask that they be undone. And more generally, thank you for pitching in to help with the chronic, significant backlog in this area, even if this specific instance was borderline.

If you're curious (and I'm not saying you should be), there's relevant discussion and links on Russavia's talkpage (look in particular for the comments from Moonriddengirl, who's probably our most knowledgeable user in this area). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm always curious, and I have run into Moonriddengirl many a time from having reported copyvios, and have the greatest respect for their work. I'll take a look. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request

Hey Joe - I'm in need of an admin, and you're the first one that popped out to me on the recent changes :) Do you think you could speedily delete StarDrive so I can make a page move from Draft:StarDrive? I'd like to move the page ASAP as I'd like to take a nap (not joking; I got up earlier than usual and got caught up in editing, and my bed is calling to me). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done That looks solid. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks! I'll probably work on expanding the article in due time. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Joe Decker. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article Mostafa Salameh

Dear Jeo Decker, Thank you for your time and effort for reviewing my article Mostafa Salameh. I will go through it again as per your suggestions, and thank you for the example that really made things clearer. As I understand from what you said, I should only state facts nothing more. One more thing, regarding the photo I used on the side box, which was deleted as well as I was informed that I need licensing from the owner of the photo, who is in this case Mr. Mostafa Salameh himself. Can you please clarify more what type of license or authorization I should get from him to be able to use this photo or any other photo related to the subject in future?

Finally I hope you don't mind if I get back to you for further clarification and information.

Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation

Ruba Atallah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.176.195 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! Thank you for helping to build our encyclopedia!

With regard to the image: For us to be able to use the image, the owner will have to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find instructions for doing this at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, which explains in more careful detail than I can manage the implications -- roughly speaking, the image has to be licensed for anyone to use for any purpose. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me.

I wanna move Dan Benson (actor born 1987) to Dan Benson. but I can't. plz move article. thank you. Kanghuitari (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I can't, as the first has been deleted. Judging from the comments on the deletion, it seems to be a persistently recreated biography that doesn't meet our notability guideline. Is that the case? --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioScience Research Center article declined

I understand all your comments about the BRC, but I'm basing my article on some other similar collaborative life science centers. Their pages (like the Clark Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Clark_Center) have fewer references than my page. I can add more of the references that you are looking for, but I want to show that Texas has a thriving life science research culture just like the East and West coasts. That would be the notability. 107.202.77.178 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)ScienceMaggie[reply]

I agree with you that Clark also appears problematic as is. I'll have to look and see if I can find reliable sources on Clark and send it to one of our deletion processes. With 4+ million articles and tens of thousands of editors, as well as with many articles having been created many years back, there are many things that have slipped through the cracks. Our goals as an encyclopedia focus on reliability and neutrality, and the arm's length requirement is not something we particularly want to compromise on.

Still, your question, implicit though it might be, "Why do they get in and not us?" is understandable question, and common enough that we have an essay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that touches on the problem. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to BioScience, I'll try and look more in the morning, but I see some mention at: [2] mentions the building in some detail. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, try looking through the nearby major newspapers, e.g., [3] search, while not perfect, looks like it *might* have a couple results that would help. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi Joe Decker. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Atlanta's Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. We are expanding the LGBT Atlanta, Georgia pages. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --tdempsey (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission declined

Hi Joe,

You recently reviewed a page i wrote called 'Cyclic Corrosion Testing', and declined its submission to be created, reason stated was 'copyright infringement'. This is the second time i have submitted the article, i would like some advice please, which parts of the article were deemed as copyright? Any advice you can give would be appreciated. Thanks JodieJlr83 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jodie, The best way to not have an article submission deleted for copyright issues is to write it in your own words. When we find parts of the text that are word-for-word identical in the document you submit, as I did comparing your document with [www.ascott-analytical.co.uk/salt-spray-or-cct.html], we know that the material has been copied, rather than written anew. Was that your question?

My general advice for writing an article here is this

Look to find two or more books, magazines, or newspaper articles that cover the subject in detail.
Summarize what those sources say in your own words, in straightforward neutral language
Note, in each section, which sources back what you say, with references. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope something here helps, let me know if I can be of any more assistance. You may also want to read Wikipedia's advice to people writing their first article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, The text on the website, wwww.ascott-analytical.co.uk was also wrote by us, does this still count as copyright if we wrote the original text? I referenced two books and linked them appropriately on the subject matter? Your advice is very useful,i really appreciate it. Thanks JodieJlr83 — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination)

Hi Joe, I understand completely that you closed this AfD as "keep", however, I am a bit disappointed that you didn't say anything in your closure about the inappropriate comments and false arguments delivered by COI editors (see the very last IP edit - which I just reverted - for example). I hardly can remember a journal AfD that led to such a contentious debate and so many accusations as to my motives. Unfortunately, very few regular WP editors participate in AfDs of academic journals. Anyway, thanks for closing this and wading through all that verbiage, it had been going on for way too long already and the outcome was rather clear. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll put more words to it, that's a fair request. There were some indications of trouble, as you suggest, and I think there may be one or two themes in the support for the article that can be at least noted for the record. It will take me a couple hours to get back to a real keyboard. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful, thanks!!--Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (And as an aside, sorry you had to deal with the BS there. *shakes head* What a mess.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd nomination)

While I obviously would have preferred to see the debate go the other way, your close was clearly an accurate summary of the consensus of the participants. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]