User talk:Randykitty

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Have seen your edit on pages I created and followed up to your user page and really happy you are doing a fantastic job. Sulthan (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa deletion - request to discuss

Hi Randykitty

Please pardon if I miss any conventions regarding how this talk page works. I have done a limited amount of editing on Wikipedia but I am novice for sure.

I am checking with you about the deletion of a page I have spent the most time on - a relatively obscure martial art known as pencak silat Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa. Obscure insofar as it has few adherents outside of Indonesia (most being around a village known as Garut) - I am one of only a few certified non-Indonesian instructors.

I had troubles with the email address listed on my Wikipedia account and had not updated it until now - so I missed any notices that I might have otherwise received prior to the deletion.

I have reviewed the WP:REFUND page - it says start with you.

I have reviewed the history of the page - I note the brief discussion regarding the style being deemed "non-notable". I have reviewed the WP:MANOTE and WP:N notability pages. I cannot seem to reach any version of that page, even in my sandbox.

For a start, I take exception to the definition of notability for martial arts being applied as a basis for deletion. It essentially says that Wikipedia only contains information on large, well established, well marketed cultural practices that have sufficient media exposure. Many such arts are maintained in relative obscurity, as oral and practiced tradition, and rarely documented - and frankly are on the edge of extinction.

I established that page thinking that it was way to preserve some very rare and obscure information on a very credible living cultural artifact. This criteria suggests to me Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of preserving rare knowledge, at least. It can act only as a secondary reference. In that case, how does this kind of knowledge become part of the corpus? Is there no means of acting as a primary reference?

I also note that the preamble to the WP:MANOTE page suggests that it is not strictly criteria for deletion. Not sure if I interpret that correctly.

Whatever the reasoning behind the "notability" definition for martial arts, it appears to have the consequence of eliminating relevant and valuable knowledge on rare cultural arts. Any art with no or few living teachers and/or no popularity would have no place in Wikipedia. As a person involved in promoting SE Asia cultural arts - many of which are poorly documented - I am dismayed, saddened. And confused.

Perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps there is some other objective served in deleting pages like this one. I am hoping that you can help me understand and possibly I can identify the means to reversing this decision.

If verification is the key, I would be happy to put you in contact with leading members of the system in Indonesia. If verification is limited solely to what can be found on the Internet, then it would seem likely to fail. Some other means should be acceptable to ensure that unique information is preserved. I would be happy to pursue.

NOTE: I would at least like to recover the contents of that page - I am afraid some irreplaceable information has been otherwise lost.

Yours in good consideration

Fenrismaelstrom (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have reyread the AfD and their is consensus that there are no adequate sources. WP can only report what is stated in independent reliable sources, if they don't exist, we have a problem with notability and verifiability. Apparently, you don't have any additional sources either. Therefore I don't see any possibility of restoring this article. If you still disagree with the deletion decision, you can, of course, go to deletion review, but in the absence of any new evidence, I doubt that would be successful. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Randykitty. I now better appreciate what everyone is trying to achieve after further review. Still disappointed and feel it is a loss. Like there should be a category of "unverified research material" or similar. Meanwhile, I am currently checking for other verification references for new evidence. I will get back to you within a month either way.

Two questions:

• • Any way to get the article "unpublished" and put back in my sandbox so that I can pull the contents out?
  • Mdtemp who originally tagged it suggested during the review that some portion of it could be integrated into another page - is there a procedure or policy to consider?

Fenrismaelstrom (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Article recreated

Hey, just giving you a head's up - there was an attempt to recreate the article for Rachel Santesso yesterday. I'd moved it to the draftspace since there was interest in improving the article and I actually ended up just doing the "heavy lifting" myself when it came to providing sourcing. It's not the strongest bio, but I found enough to assert notability for two things: the choir and an album that she put out in 2005 as a soprano artist. I don't really think that she'd be able to pass on the mentoring angle since that's a pretty difficult thing to really back up enough to satisfy criteria. (IE, being a mentor or big influence means that they'd have likely received enough coverage to make that criteria a moot point or that the coverage would be extremely heavy.) In any case, I just wanted to let you know. I'm debating about restoring the article history just so people can pull some limited info from the old page, although I really don't want some of the old sourcing to return - some of the sources were really dodgy. (IE, publisher sites that sell directly and the Daily Mail.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. I'll leave it up to your able hands to handle this :-). --Randykitty (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Another note

Hey, just letting you know that I ended up blocking Pmay1, who created an article you'd commented on previously, Carmel Borg, as well as all of the various articles on his journal. It looks like he'd tried to evade detection by posting the article content at Talk:Postcolonial Directions in Education, which shows some fairly bad faith on his part. I've blocked him for spam and offhand I don't see where he's likely to get unblocked or at least remain unblocked, given the tone of his edits.

I've edited his article for tone, but I need some help whittling down the publications lists since I don't think we need every recent paper he's written in a list. Also, I'm slightly concerned about notability. I think that he's probably notable enough but given the amount of puffery I'd really like to make sure. I'm going to post at the education WP for help on this as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good call, that is indeed a problematical editor. In general, I don't care too much about people editing with a COI, if they manage to do that in a neutral way. Pmay1 obviously fails in that and the biographies they created are basically short CVs with complete publication lists and all. Strange that an educator doesn't have a better idea of what an encyclopedia is for... The journal is, at this point, not notable at all (no independent sources, no indexing anywhere). Peter Mayo likely is notable, if the citations in GScholar are correct. Borg is indeed less certain, the GS hits are borderline, but I didn't have time to look whether he meets any other criteria of WP:PROF. I'm kind of busy in RL myself at the moment (and in the 4th day of a bad migraine...), so I cannot be of much assistance here, but hopefully somebody at the education project can help (and DGG has already taken a first stab at Peter Mayo and may be able to assist with the Borg article, too). --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up Borg. Very uncertain about notability: his only 2 independent books are in Maltese, and wouldn't be expected to be widely held or reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Recreated

The article you deleted, Asad akbar, has been recreated. Please delete it and I also think you should creation protect it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Done and editor indeffed (NOTHERE). --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

'trivial indexing services'

Hi Randykitty, At the Dubrovnik Annals-article, I saw you removed some indexing services for being ‘trivial.’ All right. If you don’t mind, could you do a similar move at the Hebraic Political Studies-article? In an attempt to improve the notability of that journal, I inserted the indexing services in which it was covered. However, since you are more an expert in the field than that I am, could you please have a look at those services? By the way, there is no article covering the Social Services Abstracts-indexing service, yet several articles have a link to it. Do you have an idea what to do with that? All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Chimsnero Goldsmith - request to discuss

Hope you are doing great, i will like to recreate a page you previously deleted chimsnero goldsmith is the name of the page. how can i do that please.