User talk:RoySmith

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

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.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:53, Thursday, August 29, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

Draft:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

Continuing discussion from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May_2.

Not only is Gaon the official chart of South Korea, it is also used to help give awards for the annual Gaon Chart Music Awards. Keeping this list of number ones is a good idea, rather than deleting it, because Gaon's website doesn't give a list of only weekly number ones all on a single page the way this article does and the way previous annual articles do. Lists of number one singles are not simple mirrors of content on Gaon's site, as they are more strict in the content they present. For these reasons, I move that the page be reinstated, and that all further discussions of deleting Gaon number ones pages, such as this one, be ended. If the page is reinstated, it will also help new users by removing the possibility that someone will begin recreating the same page, which already exists in someone's user pages. Logically, looking for the number one singles page for 2017 and only finding prior years, does not indicate that the prior years' pages should be deleted; rather, it only appears to a new user that the 2017 page has yet to be created. As it stands, it is a difficult and lengthy process to find the current user page, which would be used for the final article. If more users begin to edit Wikipedia with K-pop pages, only to find that they have already been created, it could discourage new users from contributing. If 2017 is not reinstated, then all other Gaon Chart pages should be removed. Please kindly consider my opinion. Satou4 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, like the closing statement said, if somebody can write a new article which addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, they are free to do so. But, keep in mind that you'll need to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, and meet all our other requirements such as WP:N and the guidelines it references. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, until the other annual lists finish their deletion debates, it isn't pertinent to consider improving them. Satou4 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page a featured list candidate? To my eyes, it is a simple mirror just like the rest of them. Satou4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and marked several pages for deletion on the Billboard and ARIA top singles lists. They are also mirrors of their respective sites, and have no place on Wikipedia. Of course, those deletion discussions will be swift. Satou4 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like to help, you can start by marking all of the pages in Category:2010 record charts and the other years. Maybe it would actually be best to start with 2017. Satou4 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Satou4: Please don't do things like this out of spite. Just because your article was deleted, does not mean you have to try and go after other users' articles/similar lists. One list's deletion does not mean others will succeed. The Billboard 200 is the albums chart of the biggest music market in the world, and those articles linked to are not easily accessible on any kind of list. ARIA's website does not contain an archive, and several links are to other websites. I disagree with the Korean list being deleted, as I tried to find it the other week and saw it had been deleted, but this is not a right or justified reaction. Other things exist is not a good argument. Ss112 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've contested every prod by Satou4 on the Gaon-related articles. For the 2010 article specifically, I restored that page in May after it was originally deleted via prod in April to build it and make it a featured list (which is going along nicely). I did so in order to make a case to prove that this chart has been notable since its infancy, when it didn't receive regular coverage and wasn't so widespread like it is today. Once the 2010 article is promoted, it would be pretty much impossible to argue 2017 isn't notable, and of course improvements will be introduced to further prove that. These lists are not a problem and do not violate WP:NOTMIRROR as Satou4 claims, Category:FL-Class Record Charts articles is proof of this. It is simply a matter of systematic bias against non-English subjects, a problem I have been actively trying to combat. ℯxplicit 23:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Ss112 (and @Explicit), for responding. I was not aware Billboard was very different. I tried looking at some of the ARIA sources and I was brought to a page which appears quite similar to the Gaon-style listings. As you can see on the category page (bolded, above) there are many such list pages on Wiki from all around the world, and I wanted to bring some attention to that. Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that last claim @Explicit: as I think many editors here feel just the same about English-speaking nations' number-one chart lists, but thanks for restoring that list and making it a FLC, and working on the Gaon articles. I wholeheartedly disagree with the 2017 list being deleted (or any number-ones list being deleted, for that matter). Ss112 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel the same, as you can tell by my reaction. Perhaps there will be further discussion about the 2017 page. As I understand it, the List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2010 is a featured list candidate because it meets every Featured list criteria. It meets the criteria of 1) prose, which is covered by the lead's style of professional writing, 2) lead, because it has a lead which could be copied to other years, 3) comprehensiveness, which a list would have trouble not meeting, 4) structure, which is covered by the easy-to-read tables, and 5) style, because it has images with relevant captions.

Should I assume that the 2017 article does not meet these standards simply because it does not have an engaging lead? Sure, the captions could be more succinct, which would be a point against 2017's style, but if that was fixed, and a lead added similar to the one found on the 2010 page, then 2017 would meet all of its missing featured list criteria, would it not? I understand that the 2010 page has some links to news articles which are not directly linked to the Gaon chart, but they are only used as references. Most of the information used in the lead could still have been found from the chart itself. Confusing.

I quite like that there are people who agree with my view that the 2017 page should not have been deleted. I'm not sure how to go about opening the debate so that it can be reinstated. So, I will stop marking other pages for deletion and keep the marked marked, for now, at least until some official discussion can be had on the matter. Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it does not violate WP:NOTMIRROR; but it was used as one reason for deletion and was claimed by others. I would personally like to see the lists remain on the site; I'm just trying to understand what exactly makes the 2017 page so different from the others. Thank you for your input (and for the archived pages of 2010 Gaon lists!!). Satou4 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Revert

Could you revert User:Annonymous4's edit, where he redirected his talk page to the article namespace? Thanks. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 13:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Chandigarh stalking case I know you couldn't do anything different from what you did for the above. However may I take the liberty to share my feelings here that majority may not be always right for a country, humanity or even Wikipedia. User: Arunbandana

Life West Chiropractic College

Hi Roy, was just directed here via a conversation I had with User:Yamla on her talk page. I was wondering if you would grant permission for me to restart the page Life West Chiropractic College, or for it to become undeleted so that I may edit it appropriately. Any other information is found on Yamla's talk page linked above. The AfD is linked here: [1] Thanks for your assistance! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on User talk:Yamla -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Civility

You might like to know I have issued a civility warning, in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility warnings, at User talk:Jytdog. Roberttherambler (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring of views at DRV

I noticed you ignored my views and closed the discussion at DRV under WP:STALE. Link:[2] I explained this was my first time and apologize for the insertions and re-edits, and repetition and text. I was learning as I went. I easily proved that all arguments for deletion were untrue and without merit. Consensus is not determined by voting and is based on the merit of arguments which you ignored. I have restored my sandbox under WP:IAR and ask that you restore the deleted material on your own. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Johnvr4. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I responded. The entire community consensus was that the WP:STALE policy did not apply to the Draft. However, you closed it for that reason while ignoring my Super Valid reasoning (however disorganized).

"Johnvr4's userspace pages – Endorse. Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these state user drafts. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)" Johnvr4 (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Direct Link:[3] Johnvr4 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement of deletion decision for article on Stewart Levenson

Hi, Roy, I am contacting you regarding your September 8th endorsement of the deletion decision for the article on Stewart Levenson. I am considering recreating the article on different terms and putting it through the full articles-for-creation process. To the best of my understanding, there are no prohibitions against my doing this, but I am concerned that there may some policy or other of which I am not yet aware that forbids this or requires extra steps of me beyond straightforward submission of the article to AfC and a full paid editing disclosure (which I have retained on my user page despite the article's removal). Please let me know if you know of any. Thanks. KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, S Marshall, Starblind, SmokeyJoe, and Winged Blades of Godric: Hmmmmm. Not sure what to tell you. The AfD and DRV were both unanimous. While I don't know of any policy which would forbid you from creating a new version and trying to get it past WP:AfC, I suspect you will have an uphill battle convincing people that a new version from you addresses the concerns of the AfD. It's not my place to give or deny you permission to try; this is just my personal opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history?

So, my question is: is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history or how it stood as? I forgot to save the Power Shortage in Japan 2012 article as it is, for something to be added from there to Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and now it's too late from my end. I was supposed save it to wait our the result of the AfD and then utilize some of the content at the mentioned existing article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Restored to User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/Power Shortage in Japan 2012 -- RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of the text wasn't useful, but I remembered there being something of value and that there was: the mention of Setsuden. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for CRMNEXT

Hi

CRMNEXT has a Company website: https://www.crmnext.com/ It was recently cited in leading financial paper in india http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms

However, I believe that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted and I am contacting you, the administrator who closed the discussion, user RoySmith.

Moreover, In the page delete discussion I saw a comment, Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Plenty of "awards", but none are notable. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Below link is of Gartner which should qualify as reliable https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/sales-force-automation/vendor/crmnext

So why was the page deleted?

First, why did you not read and obey the big red Attention editors notice and provide me a link to the discussion? It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. But, the nominating statement at WP:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT (2nd nomination) is pretty clear; nobody could find the WP:RS needed to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I also note this has been deleted about five times. Once at the AfD we're talking about here. Another time at a previous AfD (which, to be fair, didn't see any significant discussion), and also three different times via WP:CSD under the title Crmnext. Your Gartner link is essentially a blog post, so doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. Sorry, I don't see this getting restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

[22-Sep-2017] First of all sorry for not spotting the notice and thanks for the reply. But it is not still clear why the page is deleted. If there was any objectionable content you could delete that part or if references were missing put up that the article is unverified. I mentioned that the company has been cited in multiple news articles e.g. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms Below are the offical links to gartner: https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-3ZQSL68&ct=170508&st=sb https://www.gartner.com/doc/3760163/magic-quadrant-sales-force-automation https://www.gartner.com/doc/3787766/magic-quadrant-crm-lead-management

Can you state what is needed to un-delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik-Hill (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted was because it did not meet WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Please go read those pages to understand what we're looking for. Gartner reports are generally not considered to be WP:RS, at least as far as establishing notability. See, for example, this discussion. The IndiaTimes article you mention above is a routine funding announcement; these don't count for much either. To be more clear, the answer to your question, what is needed to un-delete the page?, is that the company has to do something which makes it notable. Based on what I've seen, that hasn't happened yet, and until it does, this page is not going to get restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The below articles should enough notability to CRMNEXT, no?

First Indian Cloud based CRM solution http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html largest provider of CRM in financial services globally https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017 largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/ Nik-Hill (talk) 23 September 2017

Deletion review for CRMNEXT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of CRMNEXT. 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. NiK (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page Jason Brett Serle

Hi, Roy, could you please tell me why you felt the need to delete the page I created for Jason Brett Serle. I understand that he is not a mainstream personality but he is much respected by people interested in the themes he speaks about. The only pages I have created are about people whose work has influenced my life and who are not already on Wikipedia. I really do not see what Wikipedia has to gain by not having this information. The page I created only contained facts. I have spent my time and energy adding to the information here and the other pages I have in mind to create are also concerned with fringe personalities as these are the people who have touched my life. Is Wikipedia not for people like me? Your deletion makes me think that I am wasting my time here and I find it unreasonable that other people should decide what information is 'important' or not. The page contained only facts - verifiable facts. Why would it be a problem for Wikipedia to have this information available for people in one place? Don't tell me Wikipedia can have a page on Kim Kardashian that talks about her sex tapes and who she's married to but has no place for a man who makes documentaries and writes about serious matters. I'm sure that there are people you admire who I don't and yet I am not pro-actively attempting to have their pages deleted. There is space for everything and everyone here and as long as the information is factual, I do not see the problem. I hope you consider my concerns. -- Fabulistical (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can tell you beyond what you already know from your participation in WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Brett Serle. Other than yourself, there was unanimous agreement that the requirements laid out in WP:CREATIVE were not met. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Unanimous agreement? What? Amongst people who don't even know or appreciate the work of Jason Brett Serle? Have you read anything he's written? Have you seen any of his films? Heard any of his music? Who are you to judge then? It's a 'unanimous agreement' by those who know nothing of the subject at hand. A decision made in perfect ignorance does not constitute a reasonable decision. Fabulistical (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick note on a user you blocked recently

Just as info [4]. -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of page MCskill ThaPreacha

Hi Roy, how are you? I need advice before taking this to DRV. Reaching out to you because you participated in DRV the first time i took this there last year. I recently found some news sources on the subject MCskill ThaPreacha and I'd like to know if you think they are suitable enough to get the artist article restored. And yes, i reached out to the admin who closed the discussion originally but no response for about a month now. She's probably very busy. Find links below.

1. https://www.channelstv.com/2017/09/22/for-hip-hop-community-to-grow-rappers-should-unite-mc-skill-tha-preacher/

2. http://thenationonlineng.net/mcskill-thapreacha-drops-new-video/

3. http://thenet.ng/2017/08/mcskill-thapreacha-goes-reflective-on-man-in-the-mirror-video/

4. Germany's Juice Magazin (Edition #173, p.72) Juice Magazine. Berlin, March 2016. ISBN 4194503705909.

5. http://rapstation.com/article/mcskill-thapreacha-spotlight-interview

6. MCskill preaches change in Man in the Mirror. Vol.17: NO.9174, p.27 Vanguard (Nigeria) | Vanguard. Nigeria, September 23 2017.

I have photos of the offline sources. Will appreciate a feedback. MustaphaNG (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I look at some of these. Here's my take on them:

• www.channelstv.com. This is largely an interview. Interviews tend to not be useful sources for establishing notability. See WP:Interviews.
• thenationonlineng.net. I'm not sure what to make of this one. The fact that the byline reads "Posted By: Our Reporter" makes it sound like a blog. I don't think that will be valuable.
• thenet.ng. This doesn't really go into much detail.
• rapstation.com: Another interview.

I also notice that most of the dates are very recent. Of the four I looked at, three were in the past month or two. You're probably going to have problems with WP:RECENT. That all these sources are from Nigerian publications isn't strictly a problem, but reviewers will be more impressed if you can find international sources talking about him. Overall, I don't think these are going to change people's minds. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think its best i wait for more reliable sources then. Thanks again. MustaphaNG (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD of ItBit closed as Delete

@RoySmith: I believe your recent closure of the AfD for ItBit as Delete was premature. A more appropriate action under the circumstances would have been to relist the article. I request that you do so—and undelete it provisionally, without prejudice to the final outcome of the deletion discussion. Your closing statement read:

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Some people felt that the sources presented were rehashed press releases; there's no consensus on that particular, but they clearly failed to convince the other participants that they met our requirements. Salting was suggested, but I don't see any support for that.

But even the last Delete vote, by Jeff5102, stated (emphasis added):

Cunard makes a good case by arguing that there are enough sources present to use for this article. However, nine months after the previous AfD, no progress in sourcing is made. To go even further: a week after the start of the second AfD, we still basically have the same poor article as we had in January this year (although one reference was added). So, unless something will change drastically, a deletion of this article is the best option.

That doesn't sound like failure to convince, but rather impatience with lack of change in the actual state of sourcing in the article, which by WP:NEXIST is not relevant to notability:

If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Remarks like "Kill this spam with fire" suggest a similar impatience, irrelevant from a policy standpoint, on the part of other Delete voters.

As to realistic prospects for the state of the page to "change drastically": although I did not even learn of the existence of the article on ItBit until a few days ago, it was I who added that "one reference" (a textbook!) that Cunard had found. I had also found (and fully cited) several other references—in the AfD. Deletion of the article creates a Catch-22 by foreclosing the possibility of improvement.

Also, the quality of the argumentation on the Delete side up to this point, at least on certain aspects, has been so poor that it could not possibly create consensus by the standards of WP:CONSENSUS, no matter how overwhelming the numerical majority involved. In particular, the allegation of "recycled PR" (from itBit, it was implied—press releases from the NYDFS are another matter entirely) was based on no evidence whatsoever—it was pure naked assertion. The use made of WP:GNG, WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH was only marginally better; these guidelines are supposed to be used as the basis for a "structured discussion".

For these reasons, I ask you to reopen the discussion, without prejudice to its ultimate outcome.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Let's also mention that the words "GNG" and "general notability guideline" appear five times, but only one editor claimed the topic failed the GNG.  Yet the close claims that there was consensus that the topic failed GNG.  That one editor made a proof by assertion that was rebutted by my pointing out that had the editor provided WP:BEFORE results, those results would have shown WP:GNG.  The GNG ruling lays the ground for future difficulties, because IMO the future for this topic is to be returned to the encyclopedia with the perspective of history.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Syrenka, after the first AfD, virtually no improvements were made to the article, and I didn’t expect any major improvements to it if the article was saved another time. The best option would be to request an editor to give you the text of the article, copy it to your Sandbox, and edit it until the sourcing of the article is ok. Then you can ask for someone to look at it, and it can be reinserted I Wikipedia. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)