Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/106

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 105 · Archive 106 · Archive 107 →

REGIS PHILBIN

[edit]

The date of death on his tombstone states JULY 25 2020, but you incessantly change it to the 24th, just because some media outlets incorrectly reported it as so, and you incorrectly report it on Wikipedia. I have changed it repeatedly and will continue to do so, with the reference, until it stays. I think the family who erected the stone knows better, than media publications.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.111.54 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: block extended. Daniel (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect how is this disruptive editing? I am a friend of the Philbin family and know for a fact he died on the 25th of July, again also as evidenced by his tombstone. But if you wish to report inaccurate info on the page so be it. Shame.

Talk:Regis_Philbin#Date_of_death_dispute. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Technical question

[edit]
Hi Daniel. I’ve got sort of a technical question over what recently happened at Michael E. Rodgers and WT:AFD. The IP felt that the article should be deleted; so, they added {{AFD}} to the top of the article, but didn’t complete the rest of the process. Maybe they tried to do that and just didn’t know how or maybe there’s some technical reason which prevented them from doing so. Regardless, the IP instead went to WT:AFD a few minutes later and requested the that someone else finish creating the AFD. A couple of more minutes pass and nobody responds to the IP’s request and the AFD discussion has apparently still not been created. The IP then decided that it would be better to redirect the article instead; so, that’s what they boldly did. They then removed their post from WT:AFD, which nobody still had not responded to, and probably figured that nothing more needed to be done. It was at that point that things started to go off the rails and the back-and-forth reverting started to happen at both pages, ultimately leading to a RPP request.
My question is whether the AFD was formally created as soon as the IP added the template to the article. The IP didn’t finish the rest of the process and seemed to have no intention of doing so. The other editors involved in the dispute also didn’t seem to intend to start an AFD. I thought about doing so just for procedural reasons, but reverts kept coming and you eventually locked the page. Is there a partially completed AFD now floating around in the system that needs to be taken care of in someway? The IP has reappeared on the article’s talk page to apologize, and has also apologized on one of the other editor’s user talk pages. So, if the AFD is in limbo and still needs to be completed, I can explain that to the IP and give them a chance to sort things out. Does the IP need to create the discussion page, and then withdraw or otherwise explain their nomination? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marchjuly:, I believe IP's cannot create pages in projectspace (not absolutely certain about this, but it's a deduction from the nomination at this AfD). Given editors can withdraw AfDs if there is no dissenting opinions, I think it's fair to say that the AfD can be considered procedurally withdrawn based off their actions to remove their request to create the page. We could work ourselves into an unnecessary wikilegal twist if we wanted, but I feel like we'd be wasting our own time doing so. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I restored the article based upon WP:STATUSQUO, but then went back and removed the AFD template bascially for the reasons you've given above. It seemed pointless (at least to me) to add the template if nobody was interested in following through on it. I only was going to do so myself on the chance that it had already been entered into the AFD que and would lead to other problems if nobody bothered to create the discussion page. I posted on the user talk pages of the IP and the two other editors involved explaining my assessment of the situation, but there were so many plates in the air at once (including RPP) that it was hard to catch them all before the article got locked. Once that happened, there was no point in discussing things anywhere other than the article talk page. The IP posted an apology on my user talk after I made my OP here. The IP seems to realize than the end didn't justify the means and hopefully now will continue to participate in the article talk page discussion once the PP has ended. My guess is that eventually a consensus will be reached through talk page discussion to redirect the article and there will be no more edit warring over this; if someone new comes along a contests the redirect, then there's always AFD. So, for the time being, it seems best to see what happens on the talk page and then move from there. My only concern (as raised by another editor involved in the matter) was whether an AFD discussion had actually formally be started by the adding of the tag; I didn't think it had, but wasn't sure. I saw that when you locked the article, you left the tag off as well, but wasn't sure if that was intentional (i.e. the AFD hadn't been started) or simply procedural (i.e. reverting to the last stable version). So, that's why I queried you about it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Craig Dillon

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Craig Dillon. 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.

Hi Daniel, I have requested a review of the deletion and salting of the page Craig_Dillon here:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 17

I believe this page passes the gng and it should not have been deleted without a discussion, the 1st article for deletion is from 2006 and referencing a different person, and the recent article was well sourced with the subject appearing in multiple reputable news sources as the main subject. The deletion at least deserved a proper debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to contest the wisdom of a merge close here

[edit]

You closed a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Junior Fed Cup Final as consensus to merge into Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. We have two editors asking for delete, one for keep, and one for merge/redirect. The article to redirect to is a huge list of 35 years of finals. By saying to merge we would have to do the same with 35 other created finals articles. It would be unwieldy. We've also had many other similar articles that were just deleted such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Junior Fed Cup Final] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Junior Fed Cup Final, etc... There were several others that were simply redirected here, and here, and here.

Yours is the only one that was decided as a merge so the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup article would now have to be rebuilt with the chart split in half while accommodating a single year, 1996. Please reconsider your choice of merge. Really, once the first one of these was listed and deleted, the rest should have been done as a group so this situation would not have happened and the origianl editor requesting these deletes should be told as such. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is editorial discretion how much content gets merged, during a merge and redirect. Therefore, a very small amount could be merged, the article redirected, and the action would be completed. I am satisfied that my close is the correct one. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And voilà! :) Daniel (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A random thought Fyunck(click)...I think it might be worth just redirecting a lot of the other articles of the other seasons, which have similar articles. No need to flood AfD with them, WP:BLAR suggests you can use the talk page or similar? Not sure if you want that done or not, but seems odd for this article to get nominated and other years to persevere. Daniel (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I didn't start these requests. A whole heap have been nominated with many simply deleted. Plus it didn't look like you merged anything... you simply redirected. So your close should be to redirect rather than merge. If a consensus was to merge and absolutely nothing gets merged... it's simply deleted content with a redirect. That is wrong per wikipedia. The merge would be a lie. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citinite page deletion

[edit]

Hello. I noticed today that the page for Citinite had been deleted, and read your reasons for doing so. I understand but I don’t think it's strictly true that there is a lack of sources addressing Citinite directly — there are some, one of which shows up in the first set of Google search results which is a news item about the closure of the label. Many other articles that can be found are reviews of Citinite releases. No doubt some reviews were written on sites that no longer exist and so may no longer be easy to find, if at all, but that's a problem with the internet rather than a problem with the label’s merit. In addition to The Fader, releases were reviewed in print in DJ Magazine, The Washington Post, and XLR8R Magazine. Online reviews can also be read in The Wire magazine but they can only be viewed if you are a subscriber to the magazine. I notice there are also a few Wikipedia pages which also mention Citinite. I hope the page can be restored. Thankyou. Cosmau (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmau: the article was deleted as a result of the consensus at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citinite. Therefore, the only avenue available to appeal this decision is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spears

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27 § Jamie Spears, Vaticidalprophet has raised the question of whether the existence of James Parnell Spears goes against the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Spears. As you were the deleting admin there, do you have any comment on that? Specifically I'm curious whether this falls into G4 territory. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tamzin, I don't have a strong view either way. I'd also suggest that as consensus can change, recent events may have rendered the last debate and outcome moot. Either way, the outcome of the AfD feels less binding than it might otherwise, and the community can reach its own outcome in isolation. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for P2P_Foundation

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of P2P_Foundation. 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. Mitar (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Volkers

[edit]

In your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Volkers did you ignore my comments? After the allegations are removed from that article, it will no longer be a target that mentions Scott Volkers. What is the rationale for redirecting it there? --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar: when the AfD was closed, Volkers was still mentioned at the target article, so the consensus in that discussion was to redirect it (notwithstanding your comments). Now that the name has been removed (which, I note, has happened post-AfD close), the redirect can be deleted. I will go do so now. Daniel (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up! DanCherek (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawal Kishore Dhawal

[edit]

Hi Daniel—I'm very surprised to see that you closed this discussion as "No consensus." I feel that admins have an obligation to try to carefully interpret consensus and avoid using "no consensus" whenever possible: it just kicks the can down the road and invites future renominations. In this case, the nominator presented no valid deletion rationale and one very experienced user (Jeepday) refuted that and argued to keep. Reasonable outcomes would have been "keep" or relist, but I can't see how "no consensus" is a reasonable summarization of a discussion where nobody supported the nomination. pburka (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that this invites future nominations - that is why I closed it as no consensus. Realistically, this is a very poorly-attended AfD, and similar to how soft-delete works should it have been poorly-attended with only votes to !delete, if anyone wants to try again, they're welcome to. I did weigh Jeepday's comments but, ultimately, the article is wildly unsourced (literally, none). Based on all these factors (poor attendance, unsourced article, etc.), I deliberately didn't want to preclude a potential renomination in the future. I could have relisted, you're right, but it had already gone for two spins on the AfD wheel and had very low contribution rate, so I didn't see the point. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to see more discussion you could have simply relisted it a second time (a mundanely routine occurrence). If you have an opinion about the article yourself, you could have chosen to participate in the discussion and let another admin close it. Inventing a new policy (soft keep?) is, as I said, a surprising outcome, and feels vaguely like a supervote. pburka (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RK DreamWest AfD

[edit]

Hi Daniel, the page was added to AfD about a month ago. It’s re-listed a couple of times. It’s about a month. The Artist is well known in his area and keeping it marked for deletion any further is a humiliation to him. Can you make decision on this case? Your help would be highly appreciated Rnair2020 (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Rnair2020 (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rnair2020, the discussion will be closed by an administrator in due course. I don't necessarily agree that the case is as obvious as you make it to be with regards to his notability. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

[edit]

Who is this User:Drmies? Thanks very much that you chose to support so early in the process. Please call on me if I can be helpful or if I shoot myself in the foot. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Mediation Committee members has been nominated for discussion

[edit]
Category:Wikipedia Mediation Committee members has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suriname national football team 2016

[edit]

Are you closing redirect one article, or all the articles on nomination?? Govvy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: sorry, that's my fault - I thought the script I used would do them all, but alas, it didn't. Will go and fix now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
k, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onfleet

[edit]

Hello. Would it be possible to relist Onfleet, rather than the soft delete? The close is correct on paper, but usually something with low participation gets at least two weeks at AfD. --- Possibly ☎ 19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: happy to do so. Normally I only relist instead of soft-delete if I expect someone will eventually contest it. Daniel (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Anil Pallala Page

[edit]

Hi Daniel, I'm trying to improve the anil pallala page whenever I got the information giving reliable citation links to it, can you please recover it.Poojasrireddy (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poojasrireddy (talk · contribs), this page was deleted by clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Pallala. I cannot undelete it. This will need to go to Deletion Review. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Kelly

[edit]

Why was the overwhelming support for the Aliza Kelly article completely ignored? Why was the page deleted after comment after comment of back up of the legitimacy of the article being there? This group of users and admins that saw to it that this article was removed seems to operate with extreme bias and delete pages with content they simply don’t believe in or agree with. There was no unbiased review. This was complete unjustified. Ek2931 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the policy-referencing contributions were for 'delete', hence the consensus. If you would like the decision reviewed, please file at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Kelly

[edit]

Daniel, you made an excellent point here. I also observed that this page was deleted due to an irrational attitude of hostility against the subject's profession. The subject was unfairly held to a ridiculously high standard, for example coverage of her company/brand was featured in the New Yorker and the New York Post, yet Wikipedia 'editors' deemed this press 'not significant,' twisting the guidelines to suit their ends, which was to delete the article. The subject's book was published by Simon and Schuster, meeting notability standards as an author, yet she took a great deal of abuse on the discussion page, with one editor, saying something like, she couldn't possibly give an intelligent view of business, she's an astrologer, for chrissake. That was an awful comment. This kind of ganging up on the subject is troubling, and must be addressed if Wikipedia is to maintain credibility. It's very disheartening. Magdalamar (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I observed different, yet equally poor behaviour by a number of people on both sides of the discussion when I closed it. However, that is not for my consideration - conduct issues were raised at ANI and it is for ANI to handle. As the closer, my job was to evaluate consensus against our policies. I did that, and hence I closed it as delete. Daniel (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, your comment raises a good point that I didn't previously consider - this debate might benefit from being courtesy-blanked. I shall go do that now. Daniel (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Article to Mainspace

[edit]

Thanks a lot again Daniel for all your consideration regarding the article on Kamla Nath Sharma. I have redrafted some paras where required, added more references, deleted some irrelevant ones, and pruned repetition, so as to make this article hopefully as desired. This elderly gentleman is an engineer, literary writer and exponent of scientific subjects from oldest/ancient Indian scriptures written in Sanskrit language, a combination of 3 different types of knowledge streams rarely seen and demonstrated through publications. Although you had authorized me to move this article to the mainspace after editing, I request you to please do it. I thank you again. Regards, Aaditya.Bahuguna (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaditya.Bahuguna, thanks for the note. I might get one of my colleagues with more experience reviewing drafts to do so, it's not an area I have a lot of experience in. Leave with me to sort out, I will work on getting that done today. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

[edit]

Hi there, you closed this AfD on 5 August, but only deleted one of 5 articles up for AfD in this particular discussion. Could you rectify this please. Many thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rugbyfan22: done, thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes list of Russia's 200 richest people 2021

[edit]

Hi! It is very strange that the article Forbes list of Russia's 200 richest people 2021 was deleted so quickly. I do not visit Wikipedia every day, I did not have time to react and complete the text. And it also seems to me that fears of copyright infringement are unfounded. Anyway, is it possible to restore the article and talk page to me in drafts? I carried out analytical work to find out what articles are missing. And he did not keep a copy for himself. This is essential for me in creating articles about persons from the list. Thanks. --ArkadySorkin (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArkadySorkin, the discussion ran for seven days, which is the mandated time per deletion process. There was a clear consensus to delete the article at the end of it. Due to the suggestion of a copyright violation issue which went untested, I cannot draftify the article. I am not saying that I agree with the claims of copyright violation, to be clear - I am not a sufficient enough expert on such topics to make that statement, nor have I looked into it closely enough to make that statement. However, due to that concern, two options for you:
  • Discuss with the person who suggested there was a copyright violation (Metropolitan90) on their user talk page. If they accept your argument as to why it isn't a copyright violation, I can then draftify it.
  • File a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, for the community as a whole to consider the issue.
Hope this helps. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SYSLINUX

[edit]

Hi, I believe your summary misrepresented the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SYSLINUX. It particular your views on the article sources:

  • Bresnahan, Christine; Blum, Richard (11 July 2019). CompTIA Linux+ Study Guide — Exam XK0-004. United Kingdom: Wiley. ISBN 9781119556039. OCLC 1066596041.
  • Negus, Christopher (2006). Live Linux CDs: Building and Customizing Bootables. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-243274-9. OCLC 846108594.

Thankyou.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't take a view on the article sources, I assess the consensus view of the sources. This was outlined in my close. Daniel (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. That is what I felt. So these sources are new information to your close and relevant towards a DRV surely as they were not discussed at the AfD? 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems silly to list it at DRV, wait 7 days there, then probably have a new AfD due to the sources. I'll reopen the AfD now, please jump straight in and make your case if you can. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ... my days are silly. Do I (try again) remove 1/4 of caked on poo from a toilet bowl; do I review neutrality at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and siblings; Do I charge my camara?; Do I get back sorting Replica 1? Do I get back to the peace of the Waterford and Tramore Railway? Do I do what I'm meant to in RL? or do I end up at AfD discussions, lose my head, and appear at ANI? Anyway thankyou for the re-consideration and taking action. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The world is a crazy place, especially at a time like this! Half my country is in lockdown still. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College

[edit]

Hi Daniel, Regarding article Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College which was deleted on 8 August 2021, here I am requesting you to userfy same article to my user page. Thanks,----Irshadpp (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irshadpp, apologies for the delay, I have been travelling recently. Please see version at User:Irshadpp/Seethi Sahib Memorial Polytechnic College. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks--Irshadpp (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Therapeutics

[edit]

There was no consensus for deletion of this article, the decision should have been keep. Waiting 6 days after relisting for a delete vote and then deleting the following day after without any further discussion was not a fair decision. - Indefensible (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefensible: Disagree. As I noted in my close, the last delete !vote was the most persuasive. It was relisted on 13 August and closed 20 August, which is the normal timeframes provided. If you want a review of the close, you can ask for one at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I won't be altering my decision in this case. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the downside in keeping stub articles like that? Wikipedia is fundamentally never going to be able to reach its goal without such articles. Furthermore, all company articles have to rely on "company information" such as number of employees, headquarters location, etc. How is any information going to be otherwise even if reported by a 3rd party reliable source?
In any case, can you please restore the article at least to draft space so that the material can be kept for improvement without having to start from scratch? - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|}

I don't hold an opinion on what Wikipedia needs to do for its future prosperity, or how that applies to this article - my role is simply to assess the consensus of the discussion. I will draftify the article per your request. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the draft, hopefully will have consensus to keep soon. - Indefensible (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/106&oldid=1048233168"