User talk:Postdlf/Archive23

CLICK HERE to add a new message.

West Wind (1891), Winslow Homer

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 6 months and 7 days.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

JD This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.

BFA This user has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.

en This user is a native speaker of English.

This user is a participant in WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases.

This user is a member of the Comics Wikiproject.

This user thinks okapis are the coolest animal ever.

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Postdlf: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lower_level_design

Hi Postdlf, did you intentionally keep the bundled article, High-level design? Or did you not notice it? Only one of the respondents addressed that second article, so maybe it's worth nominating it on its own to get more feedback. Sancho 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that was overlooked, sorry. It's a risk with the later-added articles whenever they are not formatted the same as the initial nomination; I'll have to watch for that better. I agree that there's no clear consensus to delete that second article. Two options: 1) I could reopen the AFD and relist it; or 2) I could note in my close that there is no consensus regarding the second article and explicitly suggest a second separate AFD for it. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I like option 2. I'm still on the fence about high-level design myself. Sancho 04:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. postdlf (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album

I was the one who wrote the article, didn't start it but did write it, didn't know it was nominated for deletion because I've been away (just got back today actually). Can I get a copy of the source text? Like, the whole thing? I would've saved a copy of it if I had known it was nominated for deletion. I need it for my own personal archive. Thanks in advance.--Krystaleen 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Krystaleen/Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album. Please tag it for speedy deletion once you have made your copy. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Krystaleen 03:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing happened to me with my article - highest football grounds in England. It's a useful resource, a popular pub trivia question, and I know I've actually met people who have used the page! It got deleted over a weekend, so if I don't check Wikipedia over 2 days over a weekend, a whole article gets deleted? I don't know what classifies as original research these days, but surely using publicly available data and maps isn't original research? It's a collation of existing material. Gavinio (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is it's existing material put to a purpose that is not reflected by reliable sources. The AFD discussion was unanimous while it was open in determining that football stadiums are not categorized or analyzed by their altitude even if you can find verify any individual stadium's altitude. Calling it "pub trivia" is actually an telling characterization, because that's a common label thrown out in fact by editors who think something should be deleted, if the article doesn't amount to more than pub trivia (and I say this as someone who is quite fond of pub trivia) because Wikipedia is not the place for that, as it's too far away from what an encyclopedia is.

I did close the discussion early because I saw no chance of further discussion changing that consensus. If you can show me that there is a valid argument to make for the list being kept that is supported by relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP, WP:GNG, WP:NOT, etc.), I'll consider reopening and relisting it, or at least direct you to how to otherwise have that discussion reviewed.

I know it can be frustrating when something you worked on and used gets deleted, but that's inevitable because of the standards we try to maintain. It's more likely to happen when you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia simply because you are new and it takes time to learn all the various acronyms people throw out and how they are put into practice. Are you aware of Wikiprojects? They are collaborations between editors on certain subjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, and they are a good place for raising ideas for new articles or for seeing what articles need some help from willing editors. postdlf (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Syrian Civil War slogans

The result was delete but you only deleted the redirect List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans is still there. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; the closing script I use didn't catch that because the page had been moved since the nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why?, when there is new information?.

• Hi Postdlf, speedy deletion of Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi was not the proper way, did you read the talk page of the article, there are new reliable sources that were cited and text is very different than previous one, and that was also edited by me.You just deleted the article without accessing the new cited sources.I do not understand your move?. would you please clarify your positipon in this regard. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I directly compared the deleted version with your repost and did not see any new sources; the only differences were some copyedits such that there was a slightly different order in which the sources appeared. Perhaps I missed something, but any change would have had to be minor so as to not stand out, and best practice is still to have that evaluated at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than unilaterally recreating it. No offense taken if you go that route. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I was mistaken to recreate the article without discussing/asking you, because you closed the discussion as the result "Delete", as a closer administrator. I still have to learn many things/rules. Of course and surely you missed to access this source and its editorial board. I do not want to comment on "there was a slightly different order", but I bold to mention Not neutral?. Other thing the issue was not the content, that was lack of "significant coverage" and that was provided and cited in the new version that you speedy deleted per G4?. The previous version was also edited by me. How you will copy edit any version or rewrite?, just a example, "He received master degree or he obtained or studied". It is very logical and common sense, you cannot make it in any other original supper version. Anyhow, I have already requested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for PAGE Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. 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. Justice007 (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SNOW and deletions

I'm fairly certain that you understand that invoking WP:SNOW to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands whose leader is not the lead singer is invoking WP:IAR, WP:IAR is applicable to deletions and keep; however, I think there is a reason WP:SNOW is worded the way it is. WP:SNOW, as I read it, applies to cases where there is no support for the original proposition, not to cases where the support is overwhelming. Again, WP:SNOW isn't a policy, but just an explanation of one, so my interpretation of it does not matter since IAR applies to both cases. In the case of this, allowing the article to remain for the entirety of the discussion would not have been damaging to the encyclopedia. My biggest concern is that the author of the article had not yet weighted in by the time of the snow closure. It's possible that the author could have enlightened the rest of us in a way that might have swayed the vote. In any case, I don't necessarily expect the deletion to be overturned unless an objections is raised by the author. Ryan Vesey 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

SNOW, even on its own terms, doesn't have anything to do with whether the overwhelming consensus is for or against the original proposition, but instead the principle simply applies when continuing with ordinary processes would be pointless, as I believe is the case here. If the original author or anyone else were to complain to me about this early close, I'd ask them what argument they'd present if I reopened it and then evaluate what impact that argument might have on the outcome. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Alsbridge page

Our company page was recently deleted due to a misunderstand of how to setup a page on wikipedia and our desire to start fresh and provide a quality page with notable content. I would like to verify before setting up the Alsbridge page that this passes by policy. Also any insight on how to develop a quality page with note worthy content would be much appreciated. thanks Johnmeyerson (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)johnmeyerson

My first bit of advice to you would be not to do it at all, exactly because it's your company: read WP:COI. Our usual view is that if a subject is worth writing about, then it shouldn't take someone affiliated with it to write about it. We take a very harsh view of those who would try to use Wikipedia for advertising or other self-promotion.

Outside of those concerns with the integrity and motivation of who contributes to an article, we require that subjects are notable, which means that they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. To count towards establishing notability, these sources must be independent of the subject, so you should take note of the criticism in the deletion discussion about press releases not helping. More specific inclusion criteria for corporations are at WP:CORP. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Citations"

You have a lot of nerve.

I tell you what, "citation" "petty and snide" administrator. Put up one of your articles next to Shapley-Folkman theorem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)