User talk:Tone/Archive 25: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 303: Line 303:
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Khemed|deletion review]] of [[:Khemed]]. 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.<!-- Template:DRVNote --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Khemed|deletion review]] of [[:Khemed]]. 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.<!-- Template:DRVNote --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
:Per comments at del rev, would you be so kind and relist this? If no votes are added we can close it again as no consensus, through I do stand by my view that the deletion rationales are significantly superior to keep ones :P --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:Per comments at del rev, would you be so kind and relist this? If no votes are added we can close it again as no consensus, through I do stand by my view that the deletion rationales are significantly superior to keep ones :P --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 01:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:: You can go ahead and redirect yourself, it is not a particularly controversial move. If people disagree, then we can return to discussion. At least this is the route I would prefer here... --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 18:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


==[[Dasha Nekrasova]]==
==[[Dasha Nekrasova]]==

Revision as of 18:25, 12 September 2020

Comment

Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone.
Click here to leave me a new message

Archive
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

Voice for Children and Families deletion page

Hey tone, I am the one that nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voice_for_Children_and_Families for deletion, and I think putting your thumb on the scale by saying "I'd close as keep myself but I participated in the discussion" is a really shitty and unethical thing for you to say. I think you're dead wrong about the sourcing, obviously, but you're entitled to be wrong(though I wish you'd one more than just assert those sources are reliable). But letting everyone know that you, an administrator thinks it should be closed but for the red tape is deeply unfair. Grung0r (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, as demonstrated, many of the sources are strong and solid (true, some are not, some are blogs or forums). And you were the only one questioning them. I will modify the relisting statement. --Tone 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion - Cycling age categories

Hi Tone, I noticed today that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycling age categories, and deleted the article Cycling age categories, but I could not find the reason for the deletion. I thought that I had sufficiently cleaned the article to address why it was nominated for AfD and saw no need to go beyond that except to make a note that I had done so at the tail end of the discussion. So that I don't in the future invest any unnecessary time cleaning an AfD, could you please explain to me why you proceeded with the deletion? Thank you. — WILDSTARtalk 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a second thought, I will relist it so that the community can establish whether the issues have been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tone 19:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's ok. It's already been relisted once... and I am fine with the deletion. I just wanted to know what needed to be done for the next time. Thank you Tone!! — WILDSTARtalk 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quick! I'm good either way.  :) — WILDSTARtalk 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Beer Star

The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Beer Star seems invalid. Please reconsider. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is always the issue of references. Can you fix the article in this regard? If yes, I will be happy to relist. --Tone 12:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I can't fix the article because you've deleted it. I already suggested a sensible alternative to deletion in the discussion. Did you not read it? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is listed there already, and the format of the list does not allow substantial content to be moved. What I wanted to say is, if you are willing to fix the article, I will recreate it and relist the AfD. --Tone 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not your job as closer to negotiate some sort of plea bargain and I will not encourage such demands. The closer should summarise what was agreed or not agreed in the discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am moving past the discussion. My decision was to delete because the article did not cite good sources, thus, GNG policy etc. What I am doing now is opening possibilities to move things forward. --Tone 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauryn McClain

Hello, you recently deleted the article Lauryn McClain, which I understand. Now, it is possible that in the near future that she'll become notable in her own right. How do I go about recovering the page that was deleted instead of starting all over again, when necessary? Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy, you ask me or some other admin who can provide you the content. And possibly even recreate the article so that the editing history is preserved. Ideally, that would take place in the draft space and then moved to main space. --Tone 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for you to redirect all of the page links that were deleted for Lauryn McClain to Thriii, which is the band she's a part of with her sisters? Because the page and all of the links were deleted, there no longer is no history like there once was. Prior to the most recent page creation, all of the links associated with the page redirected to the band page. Also, the edit history would be preserved this way. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable move. --Tone 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. You deleted all of the pages that redirected to Lauryn McClain. Could you restore the following redirects please: Lauryn mcclain, Lauryn alisa mcclain, ‎Lauryn A. McClain, and ‎Lauryn A McClain? Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just redirects. Feel free to recreate them with the new target ;) --Tone 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD closure

Hi,

You recently closed an AFD of mine, but I am not sure you did it correctly. You see, if you look closely enough at the AfD you'll see only 2 people commented at it, I the nominator, and one other user. I am concerned you may have made a mistake in this AFD because given only one other user expressed supported for the nomination, I believe you should have relisted it. I don't think the support of one other user is adequate to have it deleted. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the nomination was reasonable enough, citing policies, and another user agreed. Noone opposed the nomination. So, seems fine to me. No point in waiting for five other users to stop by and say "delete per nom". Relisting is when the consensus is not obvious. --Tone 13:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deer Lake School

Hi, you recently closed an AfD for Deer Lake School, an article I created, despite there being only three votes, two of which were opposed to the deletion. I also improved the page after the most recent vote. I would have liked to have the page moved to my draftspace had the discussion suggested a delete, but I had thought that was not a possibility based on the discussion, so I didn't bring it up. I am also confused as to why it was deleted, as no reasons were provided that made sense to me based on the state of the article, given that the nominator of the AfD claimed the article had no secondary sources when over half the material in the article was based on secondary sources. Could you help me figure out why the article was deleted, why the conclusion was delete, and restore it to my draftspace if that is possible? Thank you. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! AfD is not a vote but a debate based on arguments. The main issue was notabilty, and this argument was not refuted in the discussion, hence the delete outcome. If you can establish notability, we can look further. --Tone 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of days before the deletion of the article, but after the last vote on the AfD, I added a second source which I believe established notability, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. According to my understanding, a secondary school is notable if it meets notability (organization), which means that it is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I didn't keep a record of all the links I added to the page, but I'll provide two sources here that I was able to find quickly.
https://theprovince.com/sports/high-school/for-burnabys-deer-lake-falcons-no-religious-compromises-necessary-on-road-to-saturday-night -- This is a newspaper article from The Province, which is one of the two largest newspapers in British Columbia, with a reputation on par with a "newspaper of record", so it is the most reliable secondary source possible, in my opinion. It heavily features Deer Lake's athletic program, and highlight's the school's Seventh-day Adventist faith, and given the importance of athletics programs to secondary schools in North America I would deem that "non-trivial coverage". As a provincial paper it demonstrates regional coverage.
https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-406397/canadian-union-messenger-april-21-1965 page 12 and 13 -- This is a magazine article from the Canadian Union Messenger, the official journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada. The topic of the article is the construction of Deer Lake School, which is covered in detail, and is further covered in later issues, all of which makes it non-trivial coverage. As a subscription periodic print journal, we know that the account was written by someone who did not have a vested financial interest in the success of the school, and is therefore independent of the subject; nor is this a case of self-publishing, which makes this a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. As a national journal, it demonstrates regional coverage of the subject.
If there are any problems with the above two sources, I will address them when I return home from my trip. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to evaluate sources outside the AfD discussion. It would be better if you ask the editor who nominated the article for deletion, I just closed the discussion. --Tone 07:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the editor who nominated the article for deletion was acting in a hostile manner and made no attempt to be respectful or thorough, so I do not believe it would be worthwhile to engage that editor. They did not even realize that there were any secondary sources until I called them out on it during the RfD process, which demonstrates that they did not check the sources prior to nominating the article for deletion, and therefore had no idea whether they proved notability or not. Would it be an acceptable course of action to move the article to my draftspace and then run the article through a proper new article evaluation process? NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space is a good idea, I was about to propose this myself. Restored and moved there. Draft:Deer Lake School Happy editing :) --Tone 16:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Ernst Nilson

Hi! I thought this one might be worth a relist in light of my recent comment—there's currently no corroboration for the main affiliation given for keeping the article. czar 21:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this one was a bit thin, but I am not a big fan of relisting for the third time - unless you are willing to provide more input? --Tone 22:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't push it—just thought that the participants might have wanted to respond before it closed, considering how it looks like it was kept on shaky ground (and that after the nom was chastened, in my opinion unfairly). Besides sticking around for responses, wasn't planning to add much more myself unless prompted so will leave the call to you! (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish Thompson

Hi - Would you mind explaining how this page differs from, say, the page on Mark Borkowski? Florapostewrites (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each nomination is separate, I can't draw any comparison here ...--Tone 07:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I would argue that the Hamish Thompson's article is very similar in content/achievements to Mark Borkowski. If one is seen as Wikipedia-worthy, why not the other? is all I'm saying.Florapostewrites (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding draft shiwani chakraborty

Can you please review it for me. And how it can be moved to main page ...If this article meets the Wikipedia's guidelines Khusin26 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the article? --Tone 07:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article draft shiwani chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shiwani_Chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help in editing this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shiwani_Chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article ¡He matado a mi marido! Deleted

Hi Tone, Hope this message finds you well and in good health. I'm writing because I saw that an article pertaining to the film ¡He matado a mi marido! was deleted due to questionable notability and "no critic's reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and no external reviews listed at IMDb" The film was reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes and does have other reviews online that perhaps are not linked to the imdb page but exist. (https://www.metacritic.com/movie/he-matado-a-mi-marido!) The film was also released in more than 20 countries including the U.S and latin america (se https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt4930292/?ref_=bo_se_r_2) and has a considerable latino following because of the actors involved. Is there a way to reconsider the decision to delete the article? I think it's important to champion latino films in the US that were created within a society that oppresses them. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borolandi (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sure, it is important to have articles on latino films, as long as they meet the notability criteria. Are there enough 4rd party sources available to establish notability? If so, I can move the article to the draft space where you can improve it. --Tone 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Robert Dorigo Jones

Hi Tone,

One of my associates told me you are listed as the person who deleted the Wikipedia page for me (Robert Dorigo Jones) the day before my birthday (it was deleted on July 26).

If that is true, can you please tell me why you did that? If you didn't do it, can you help me find out who did and why it was done?

Thank you.

Regards,

Bob Dorigo Jones 73.144.177.21 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Belated happy birthday! The article was deleted because it was nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dorigo Jones. The issue was that the article did not demonstrate the (required) notability for an article, as well as the lack of third-party sources. I hope that helps. Best, --Tone 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page for Anna Burdzy

Hi, I see you have deleted the page for Anna Burdzy - Miss Universe Great Britain 2017 stating you think there are no credible sources that she won. Here is the link to the Miss Universe webpage showing she represented GB and placed in the top 16 of Miss Universe. Please can you reinstate the page? https://www.missuniverse.com/contestant/1000236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.154.154 (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article should have several independent (3rd party) sources covering the topic. The website of the competition does not count as such. --Tone 11:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi, thank you for your reply. please see following http://leicesterupdates.com/25-year-old-from-leicester-wins-miss-universe-great-britain-2017 https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/mr-nottingham-finishes-third-mr-208566 https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/miss-universe-2017-beauty-queen-representing-great-britain-is-a-nottingham-university-law-student/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/beauty-pageants/foreign-pageants/miss-universe-great-britain-2017-is-anna-burdzy/videoshow/59650467.cms https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/miss-great-britain-2017-anna-burdzy-is-named-a-top-16-news-photo/879860282 https://pressat.co.uk/releases/human-rights-law-student-to-represent-great-britain-at-miss-universe-2017-0f2d6ed7e93eed07d1e5bbf9f557ab26/ https://m.beautypageants.in/miss-universe/miss-universe-great-britain-2017-is-anna-burdzy/videoshow/59650635.cms https://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2017/07/16/anna-burdzy-crowned-miss-universe-great-britain-2017/

would the above help in reinstating the page? Abcd1234.11 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you instead discuss this with the editor who nominated the article for deletion? I just closed the discussion. --Tone 18:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Erokhin

Hi! You deleted the article Dmitry Erokhin. Could you please send me a copy of its edit history? It is because Erokhin is creating paid articles in ruwiki and I wonder whether certain other users who create paid articles in ruwiki are related to him. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how can I send you the copy of the edit history ... would you like me to temporarily undelete the article so you can have a look? --Tone 11:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones

Dear Tone,

The purpose of this note is to present a case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones, a best-selling author whose book was published by one of the largest publishing companies in the world, Hachette. His work has also been featured on the editorial page of USA Today, by John Stossel on his FOX News program for 10 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoOfswnojA), and on TV programs in at least five countries on three different continents and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp4M9DCQaI

Dorigo Jones is considered one of the leading authorities in America on how excessive litigation has affected families, communities, professionals, job providers, governmental units and non-profit organizations. He is currently the president of Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a non-partisan issue advocacy organization that has recruited prominent community and business leaders from across Michigan for its board of directors. Its website can be seen at: https://www.lawsuitfairness.org/about and his book is available on many websites including Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=remove+child+before+folding&qid=1596670151&sr=8-1

His op-eds have been featured in the largest newspapers in Michigan including the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, the Lansing State Journal https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/contributors/viewpoints/2020/04/22/frivolous-lawsuits-hurt-michigan-families-and-communities-viewpoint/2988535001/ as well as Newsmax: https://www.newsmax.com/insiders/bobdorigojones/id-454/

As president of a non-profit organization that is challenging one of the largest and most power special interest groups in America, the trial lawyers association, radio and TV hosts and producers have relied on his Wikipedia page for nearly 20 years when preparing for his interviews on their programs. Removing his page will put a small but respected organization at a distinct disadvantage when trying to give a voice to thousands of victims of lawsuit abuse across America.

One of those victims was a food bank operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dorigo Jones helped the founder of the food bank get an article on the front page of the largest newspaper in Michigan when it was a victim of a frivolous lawsuit — a lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. See cite here: https://www.overlawyered.com/tag/beaumont/page/3/

Without Dorigo Jones’s efforts, thousands of victims of frivolous lawsuits filed by millionaire personal injury lawyers will not have a voice in the media. For ten years, Dorigo Jones wrote, produced and hosted a syndicated radio commentary that profiled these victims. We believe his efforts warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Please let us know if you have any questions or need more cites. Thank you for your consideration.73.144.177.21 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you instead ask the editor who nominated the article for deletion? I just closed the discussion. --Tone 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone. Who has the final say on this? If you are the one who deleted the page for Robert Dorigo Jones, why should we deal with the person who suggested it be deleted? Seems like you have the final say, and we think we've made a very strong case. We are concerned the person who made the suggestion is just going to refer us back to you. Really appreciate your thoughts on this. 73.144.177.21 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the admin, I estimated that there is an agreement on the reasons for deletion. These reasons were brought forward by the person who initiated the nomination. So, it's really them that you should talk to first. --Tone 08:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afd closure

I was wondering your rationale for deleting the COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Independent States article. The comments after relisting had 2 keeps and 1 delete, and while I understand that wikipedia is not a democracy, the deletion reason of the one person who voted delete the second time was addressed by removing that content, obviating the objection, meaning that the only unaddressed responses after the relisting supported keeping the article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at all the arguments, not only those after relisting, and I believe the arguments to delete were stronger. --Tone 07:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, once you remove the arguments that said they wanted to delete the article because it just summarized the response of other countries (since the sections that summarized the countries' responses were deleted), only 2 !votes actually supported deletion and 6 supported keeping the article which is a pretty clear consensus. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. The removal of all country-specific content left the article with minimal content. Which comes back to the original reasons stating that the article is not needed. --Tone 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Fresh

Tone My article has been deleted after I added what the nominators want. The nominators also have less knowledge about this subject and rely in outdated sources such as https://allworldceleb.com/mrfreshasian-net-worth-wiki-bio-age-height-real-name/ . If there is any problems I will fix them, please restore my article.

Artice link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Fresh

Best regards, Kalabsm Insta

Hi, the article was deleted because there was a strong consensus to do so. If you believe you can address the issues, I suggest you rewrite the article in the draft space. If all is fine, it can be then moved to the mainspace. --Tone 08:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tone Can't the page be restored as no consensus. If the admin is in a disagreement --Kalabsm insta
There was a clear consensus to delete, restoring it as a "no consensus" would not make sense. Really, go with the draft approach, the best way to move forward. --Tone 09:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Can I get copy of the work at least --Kalabsm insta —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I left it on your talk page. --Tone 09:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close question & STEP Bible afd

Hi Tone, I am wondering why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STEP Bible as "redirect", when all the !votes were for "merge" or "keep". Cheers, gnu57 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is an elegant way to keep the content of the article so that the merge can be performed when someone is willing to do it. The consensus was against keeping the article as it was. --Tone 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this afd. There was a small typo in the target of the redirect - The SWORD Projec instead of The SWORD Project - which I have corrected. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for fixing it! --Tone 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severn Valley (Cthulhu Mythos)

May I ask why you closed this as redirect to Lovecraft Country, when the result appears to have been no consensus and, as was pointed out, Lovecraft Country is a highly inappropriate target, given the Severn Valley is not part of Lovecraft Country and the article doesn't even mention it? Please reconsider this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I instead redirect to Ramsey Campbell? The consensus was certainly not to keep. --Tone 10:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was certainly no consensus to redirect either. No consensus defaults to keep, as I'm sure you know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the action that I though best represents the compromise of the discussion, also taking into account the strenght of the arguments. --Tone 13:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how, given the keep arguments included references to plenty of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will relist it so that I remain neutral on the outcome. Fair enough. --Tone 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

Really? Consensus to redirect here? Please explain. I see clear consensus to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tone 13:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you have this much consensus, your close appears, I'm afraid, much like a supervote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I believe I made a good call. I understand your point, though. --Tone 09:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I'm really not sure you can say that WP:NOTINHERITED (an essay in any case, even if generally true) applies to members of families like this one. Every member is notable in their own right, not because they're related to a specific person, but because they are members of the best-known and most written-about royal family in the world. Given this and the fact that a clear majority wanted to keep the article, I think siding with the few who wanted it deleted or redirected is not really a viable option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of those comments were keep or redirect. In any case, with the recent series of nominations about nobility, I often checked for an alternative, where there was some substantial content beyond "was born, got married, had children". If the article can be expanded to some degree, that would be a much better argument in favour of keep. If there are sufficient sources, I am sure this can be done and then the redirect can easily be reverted, outside the AdD process. --Tone 09:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Landauer

Bernhard Landauer, - you closed the deletion discussion initiated by a user who has not even a talk page entry (I welcomed them now), and with practically no participation, and the really relevant project, Opera, not notified. Can you please revert the close and relist properly? I haven't seen the article, but the singer - with several links to notable recordings - is most likely notable, and the sources just need to be found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it. I know you are the proper person to make the notability assessment in this case. --Tone 09:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I can do for the moment (having to expand and nominate for a friend, and reference and nominate for myself for DYK today, + RL). Please check if you can unceremoniously close that nom for a 2006 article with versions in several languages, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I'd still prefer not to close straight away, but I'll leave a note on the nomination page that you improved the article a lot. --Tone 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it was a nom out of process, - I mean just request more sources would have been a possibility, no? Will you please notify project opera, to make them laugh again, because we just had a silly nom for a composer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Goldberg (surgeon)

I was surprised to see this closed as keep when there were 4 deletes (5 with me) vs 3 keeps, 2 of which were SPAs and the other's argument that an OBE was sufficient to pass PROF was refuted. The SPAs didn't present any secondary sources demonstrating "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" and yet you seem considered their argument stronger than nearly everyone else who had evalulated the sources available and concluded that PROF was not met. SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a second thought, I still believe that there is a chance that WP:PROF is met, but perhaps it's better to TNT the article altogether and start anew. I will revert my closure and relist. --Tone 08:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, hope you are well. I have responded to various commentators on W:PROF. I think that this meets WP:PROF but some commentators seem to be very emotive in their discussions which seems wrong. They have not explained why this does not meet WP:PROF even if they question WP:BIO. SpeccledCT(talk) 10:35, 03 Sept 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think it is close but I have relisted it to generate more consensus. --Tone 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reopen and relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khemed?

An identical article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros was just redirected. I think this would benefit from more discussion, I haven't noticed this AfD and I'd like to comment on it; one keep argument is invalid and the other lists sources that IMHO don't discuss the subject sufficiently. With 2 delete votes (given the default one from tne nom) and 2 keep votes this should have been at best closed as no consensus, and best, it should be just relisted. Also ping nominator User:Goustien. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Khemed

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Khemed. 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments at del rev, would you be so kind and relist this? If no votes are added we can close it again as no consensus, through I do stand by my view that the deletion rationales are significantly superior to keep ones :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and redirect yourself, it is not a particularly controversial move. If people disagree, then we can return to discussion. At least this is the route I would prefer here... --Tone 18:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova

Hi you saved this page previously from being trolled with bad faith nominations, see the history of nominations for deletion for both this page and Red Scare (podcast). I think a previously blocked user has tried submitting it for deletion again under a different name but they've messed up the formatting, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (3rd nomination). Can we get a speedy keep on this one too, or at least get the formatting fixed so more people can vote on it? I can't figure out what they've done. Thank you!Pinchofhope (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page of Robert Dorigo Jones

Dear Tone, We are writing to follow up on a note we sent to you more than a month ago when you deleted the page for Robert Dorigo Jones. You asked us to contact the person who nominated the page for deletion, and we did that, but we have not received a reply. We believe this page was nominated for deletion by someone who was ignoring Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability, and we have waited more than a month for a response or explanation. Now, we are reaching out to you again to see how we can move this discussion forward so the page can reinstated. Below, you will find the note we 73.144.177.21 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)sent to Johnpacklambert:[reply]

Hi Johnpacklambert,

The purpose of this note is to present a case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones, a best-selling author whose book was published by one of the largest publishing companies in the world, Hachette. Wikipedia administrator, Tone, suggested contacting you about reinstating the page.

In addition to his book, Dorigo Jones’ work has also been featured on the editorial page of USA Today, by John Stossel on his FOX News program for 10 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoOfswnojA), and on TV programs in at least five countries on three different continents and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp4M9DCQaI

Dorigo Jones is considered one of the leading authorities in America on how excessive litigation has affected families, communities, professionals, job providers, governmental units and non-profit organizations. He is currently the president of Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a non-partisan issue advocacy organization that has recruited prominent community and business leaders from across Michigan for its board of directors. Its website can be seen at: https://www.lawsuitfairness.org/about and his book is available on many websites including Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=remove+child+before+folding&qid=1596670151&sr=8-1

His op-eds have been featured in the largest newspapers in Michigan including the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, the Lansing State Journal https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/contributors/viewpoints/2020/04/22/frivolous-lawsuits-hurt-michigan-families-and-communities-viewpoint/2988535001/ as well as Newsmax: https://www.newsmax.com/insiders/bobdorigojones/id-454/

As president of a non-profit organization that is challenging one of the largest and most power special interest groups in America, the trial lawyers association, radio and TV hosts and producers have relied on his Wikipedia page for nearly 20 years when preparing for his interviews on their programs. Removing his page will put a small but respected organization at a distinct disadvantage when trying to give a voice to thousands of victims of lawsuit abuse across America.

One of those victims was a food bank operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dorigo Jones helped the founder of the food bank get an article on the front page of the largest newspaper in Michigan when it was a victim of a frivolous lawsuit — a lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. See cite here: https://www.overlawyered.com/tag/beaumont/page/3/

Without Dorigo Jones’s efforts, thousands of victims of frivolous lawsuits filed by millionaire personal injury lawyers will not have a voice in the media. For ten years, Dorigo Jones wrote, produced and hosted a syndicated radio commentary that profiled these victims. We believe his efforts warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Please let us know if you have any questions or need more cites. Thank you for your consideration.

Please stop copy-pasting the same text over and over on my talkpage. The proper way here is to start the article in the draft space WP:DRAFT and then have it evaluated. --Tone 08:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

requesting undelete to redirect

BDD's August 27 proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories was actually requesting a soft-delete (a redirect) not a hard delete.

Since there were aside from the two keeps also two "merge" requests (TFD/Pickle) and six more "redirect" ones (Ivan/PK3/Woko/Maile/Djflem/Prima) I'm wondering if it (and talk page) could be undeleted so that the history is retained, but that the page be redirected to Eastman's section as BDD proposed, and locked so that it stays a redirect. WakandaQT (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok as it is - everything relevant is already in the other article. Is there anything specific in the history that you would want to preserve? --Tone 08:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindScan

Hi Tone, would you mind helping me understand why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindScan as keep? Besides the nomination by Fgnievinski there was only one iVote, mine, which was Delete. There was a comment from the creator of the article stating that external references had been added, however, as far as I could tell, these references did not even mention the topic ( WindScan ). Also, as I pointed out, the creator of this article appears to also be the creator of this product. Wouldn't this constitute a conflict of interest issue? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, that was apparently the wrong button. Thank you for noticing. I will correct myself, it should be delete. --Tone 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, thanks for looking into it! Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Thomas Hruz

User:Asdasdasdff has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Hruz. 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. —Cryptic 15:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone/Archive_25&oldid=978068757"