Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Please take Full Protection off in order for a DRV to be held
Over at Falcon 9 booster B1019 you suggested that if I'm unhappy with the deletion discussion previously held, I should initiate a Deletion review. However you've also placed indefinite full protection on that page, preventing me from placing a DRV template on it... Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a no? My statement of WikiBullcrap bodes true then, if admins have decided to start using full protection to get the edge in petty disputes. Doesn't really matter anyway... Bye! Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimograph5, sorry, I was too curt. Let's try again. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, and while consensus may change over time, we must respect it as long as it lasts. In this case, an AfD decided unanimously to redirect several articles into a list. You have, sometimes repeatedly, reverted these redirects, using derogatory language in the process, without any attempt at discussion that I can see, and without attempting to address the deficiencies identified in the AfD. This is disruptive editing, and if you keep it up I will block you from editing Wikipedia. You must respect the consensus established by other editors, even if you disagree with it, but you are free to try to change it. To do so properly, you should first create a draft of a version of such an article that remedies the problems identified in the AfD, and then establish positive consensus in a community discussion at least as well-attended as the AfD - either at WP:DRV or elsewhere - that this improved version of the article should be restored. But I will not unprotect the article as long as there is a risk of your disruptive editing continuing. As to myself, I have no opinion about whether these articles should exist or not, but as an administrator I have a strong opinion about respecting community consensus and being collegial towards other volunteers. Sandstein 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying your actions. I guess my main problem with the whole thing was that I created a few of the articles and was not notified when the AfD started (and therefore wasn't given a chance to say anything about it). I'll focus my future editing efforts on the list that the articles were redirected to. Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because I thought Ultimograph5 here was in the right, but I see the original nominator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon 9 booster B1019 actually intended to do a bundled nomination (despite never really following the process to do so). Even if I agree with the outcome, it kind of bothers me a bit that this never happened. It caught me off guard by a lot to see Falcon 9 booster B1049 (the only one of these articles in my watchlist) get fully protected to enforce an AFD I had no chance of ever seeing. I don't know, but I guess it's too late now unless there's a delrev. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Would you be willing to reconsider lowering protection assuming Ultimograph5 agrees to not revert the redirect? I'd like to place the proper rcats on all the relevant redirects. –MJL‐Talk‐☖21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, OK, I've lifted the protection. Thank you for alerting me to the fact that the individual articles apart from B1019 were not individually tagged with the deletion notice. Consequently, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon 9 booster B1019 does not properly apply to them, and editors are free, insofar as I am concerned, to revert them to their article state. MadeYourReadThis, this also concerns you. Please make sure to properly tag any articles you nominate for AfD. If these other articles are restored from the redirects, please do not revert them, but you are free to nominate them again (properly) for deletion if you want. Sandstein 11:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandstein Sagar Savaliya should not be deleted. It follows every policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. After Sagar Savaliya nomination for deletion. I have improved this page significantly. Please check it. So I would request you to review your decision of deletion of Sagar Savaliya Ys91620 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the concerns of JamesG5,Tayi Aajtakate, Coolabahapple in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagar Savaliya. He has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources therefore it follows WP:GNG. He has played significant role in Patidar reservation agitation and Vikas gando thayo chhe (Development has gone crazy) was his brainchild. There are huge coverage about him like his education, career in reliable and independent sources. He is also founder of popular Gujarati news Gujarat Khabar. Therefore it also follows WP:1P.So I would request you to review your decision of deletion Sagar Savaliya. It follows every policy and guidelines of Wikipedia Ys91620 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ys91620, No. The reason for deletion was lack of coverage in reliable sources. You do not name such sources here that were overlooked in the AfD. You just repeat what you wrote in the AfD. But consensus there was against you. There is no basis to call it into question here. Sandstein 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you supported the deletion of Kyle Kulinski article. I understand and appreciate the reasoning as well.
There has been a lot of good faith discussion about the notability and sourcing of this article. After the March 6, 2020 edits, in my opinion the article meets both criteria, with profile piece in Jacobin magazine, reference as a prominent liberal by CNN and an internet idol by The Washington Post. Sourcing now includes CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Fox News, IMDB, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, The Nation, Jacobin and Vice, as well as multiple published books from notable publishers - all of which are considered reliable sources. Further, the coverage is over a long period of time and broad in context.
Hence, I have submitted the article for publication review. Would greatly appreciate it if you could have a look.
Also, further to the aforementioned sourcing, I posit that the WP:ENT are less stringent than WP:N. There are 3 alternative criteria and Kulinski passes muster on all in my opinion: 1. "Has a large fan base or a significant cult following" - so the YouTube subscriptions (800k) or Twitter following (300k) should also not be dismissed as invalid when discussing notability. 2. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - As mentioned in Draft_talk:Kyle_Kulinski#WP:ENTERTAINER Kulinski has his own show, which is listed on IMDB, but also played a major role (primary guest) on episode of notable Joe Rogan Experience. Further, he has appeared multiple times as primary guest on notable Rising (news show) multiple times. 3. "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - I would argue it is prolific that Secular Talk has had 1500+ episodes Viktorpp (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have also submitted the draft for publication. Could you offer any guidance as to whether there is discussion page for publication consideration discussions as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktorpp (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you don't have a personal view on this, because that means you'll base any decision on evidence presented. While the draft is marked for deletion, it also had the possibility to submit draft for publication. After editing the draft to add proper sourcing, I clicked that button. So my understanding is that the draft is now in a review queue awaiting publication. This is the notice I see at the bottom of the draft page: Apologies if I sound too dumb or a noob, but though I joined Wikipedia in 2010 and have edited a regional version occasionally, I am not familiar with exactly how the deletion and revival process works. Viktorpp (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Viktorpp, I see. As your screenshot shows, there are some 3,000 articles in the queue, and it will take about three months for somebody to review the draft. I'll not do that because, as I mentioned, I'm not interested in the topic. Sandstein 12:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, you're right, this should have been closed as withdrawn, and not by the nominator Authordom, but by somebody else. But since the outcome is the same, there's no need for further process in my view. Sandstein 09:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My main concern is encouraging the editor to act appropriately; there's a fair history of the opposite and that AfD was frivolous, at best.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sandstein. I write Hasan Rahnamaeian page But you removed it. Please Undo it. The reason of deletion because i'm banned in past. But now i'm OK. Hasan Rahnamaeian perisan page is حسن رهنمائیان warm regards. Omid ahmadyani (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
