Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Archive 42: May 2017

What is this article?

Evans House (Phoenix, AZ). I am about to AfD it, but I'll give you time to reply. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Fixed the supposed redirect. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DatGuy - having an issue with the laptop, and it's interaction with the mouse. Thanks for fixing it. Onel5969 TT me 11:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

re California governors

Thank you for your kindness, and please do not take my bluntness as rudeness but: I find that table completely useless. Why does it matter how many days someone served as governor? Who is helped by knowing that Earl Warren spent one extra day than Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian? Also, this merge was done nearly two years ago... I'm not sure it was all that important since no one seems to have noticed til now. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Golbez - no offense taken. And as I said in my message with you, I agree with you that it's totally useless. I reverted as an attempt to head off an edit war over the article page which contained that list itself. In retrospect, I probably should have simply AfD'd the other list article. Will remedy the situation. Onel5969 TT me 19:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I missed that you agreed with the rationale and wanted to be strong as to my rationale, so glad we're on the same page there. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Elliot321. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dalina Bocour, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Elliot321 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

10:51:17, 4 May 2017 review of submission by Tevelbtzedek


I changed and edited a large portion of the text. the current version was excepted in the Hebrew Wikipedia. If this is not suffiecient please let me know what I should change in order to publish this value. Thanks !

Occupation

I'm all for simplifying DABs, and have done so myself, but not to the point of inaccuracy. Assistant directors and directors are not both directors. They are different occupations. Assistant directors should not be put in Director (or Filmmaker) categories, as you initially did at Charles Kerr (director). Another DAB should be found for this page, if Charles Kerr (assistant director) is unacceptable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Gothicfilm, but you're applying modern standards to a different era. While I would agree with your assessment regarding AD's from the 60s on, during the silent era up through the 40s, AD's were more closely aligned with their title. The role began to change in the 1940s, becoming much more closely aligned with a production, rather than direction role. Some pretty famous directors were AD's first, such as Alfred Hitchcock. It's also why AD's and UPM's (unit production managers, which are similar) are members of the Directors Guild of America. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 12:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. You say during the silent era up through the 40s, AD's were more closely aligned with their title. Their title then and now is Assistant Director. I am quite familiar with DGA categories, and they would not agree with what you're doing here. For purposes of categorization, there was no confusion between directors and ADs before or after the 1940s, including on the five films on which Hitchcock was an AD in the 1920s. Some famous directors today were previously ADs as well, not that it's relevant here. The DGA would tell you the fact directors and assistant directors are in the same union does not mean they can be categorized the same, as you imply above. The roles are quite different and they should not be blurred in an encyclopedia. Especially on a page whose subject never became a director.
The DAB should be either Charles Kerr (assistant director), or if that is unacceptable, Charles Kerr (screenwriter), though he had only a few screenwriting credits. However that appears to be why the article was created. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are a tough, fair reviewer. Thanks for a billion comments on 50+ articles, I love the feedback. Some of your notability comments don't jibe with my overview of WP:N but that's why we edit. I look forward to improving my work based on suggestions

Bill McKenna (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bill McKenna - for the most part, your articles are well-formatted and cited. However, the citations are almost always primary, which is fine for referencing the assertions made in the article, but don't go to notability. It would help if you found secondary sources. Regarding notability, I have usually not had an issue with editors creating articles for specific years of college sports programs, however there have been a couple of these types of articles which have recently been deleted through AfD. The rationale at those deletion discussions was that the individual years have to show some type of notability. So the standard I've been using is that the team should at least make the finals of their league championship that year, or advance to the sweet 16 of the NCAA tournament. Or, of course have something else notable happen during that year (one of their members establishing an NCAA record, for example). The other thing that happens occasionally in your articles (although not frequently by any means) are that you sometimes forget to format your citations, or to add an article to categories. But keep up the good work. Now, about the Molly Byrne (ice hockey) -- I'm not seeing the notability there. I did a search for her online, and only found a couple of articles which briefly mention her, so she doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and as I said in my prod, she clearly doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Are you seeing something I'm missing? Onel5969 TT me 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I've got for Hockey:

WP:NHOCKEY

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they

Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league; Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant; Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues; Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star), or in an NCAA Division I collegiate hockey league (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American). (Note: merely playing in one of these leagues is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements); Are a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft; or Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: playing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements). For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.

Emphasis is mine.

Per the seasons, I am trying to build a full documentation of the past 3 years of NCAA Div I women's hockey. While some of the teams are certainly not notable for success (see 2015-16 Union Dutchwomen's ice hockey season), I am led to believe, per the guidance of the College Hockey task group, that this is acceptable at the Div. I level. As I am trying to document complete Div. I seasons and provide encyclopedic and complete coverage, I have completed them all (except about 10 which are works in progress). Your concerns are certainly valid, yet I hope my rationale holds water. Your concerns also highlight inconsistency in guidelines. Regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

PS Molly Byrne was the dominant Defensive player in her Div I league for 4 years, and was a major factor in getting Mercyhurst to the Frozen Four in 2014. I've added a secondary source per your suggestions, and will go back to other articles to try to upgrade source material. Thanks again.

Request on 14:01:21, 7 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nickelliottinfo


Nickelliottinfo (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Onel5969,

I'm hoping that I'm posting correctly, this is the first time I've done this so I hope you receive it OK.

I have updates all the citations for Nick Elliott and hope that this is sufficient - actually, I think I may have gone overboard as Nick has so many external references but I tried to select the ones that meet your criteria best.

Please let me know if you need anything else or if anything isn't clear.

Thank you so much for your help, I hope that the page is no accepted.

Hi Nickelliottinfo - Looks good. One issue, however, your username suggests that you might have a close relationship with the article's subject. If so, please read WP:COI and take the appropriate steps. If not, then your username violates our username policy, and you should probably start a different account with a new username, or ask an admin to change your current username. Regarding the article, if you resubmit, let me know here and I'll move it mainspace.Onel5969 TT me 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I've read the information on the links you supplied (thank you for this) and have included a COI declaration on the Nickelliottinfo talk page, which I am hoping is correct. If there is anything else that is required, please let me know. Thank you very much for your help. (sorry if I've posted this twice...I'm still learning!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelliottinfo (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nickelliottinfo (talk) 11 May 2017 (UTC) Hi again, sorry, I think I declared the COI on the wrong talk page - Nickelliottinfo rather than Nick Elliott talk page. I have now done this and hope that it is all now correct. Many thanks for your help. Nickelliottinfo Hi again, sorry, I think I declared the COI on the wrong talk page - Nickelliottinfo rather than Nick Elliot talk page. I have now done this and hope that it is all now correct. Many thanks for your help. Nickelliottinfo

Ap"peal"ing research

Hi O. I know this is as fansite so it can't be used but I wanted you to see it anyway. TCM has Ding. I don't think I've ever seen the script but it is possible that Ding is his given name but Benjy calls him Dingy repeatedly. In other "Mad Mad" fun stuff you will enjoy my post in this thread Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Update Wikipedia Logo. I hope you have a great week! MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD - I agree. I have the same memory of the film, but the citations unanimously all had the same info. Cute discussion of the Big W, btw. All the best. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Bisham (Parktown) and House Mckie (Houghton)

Hi there.These two pages are part of a wikitown project, Joburgpedia, I'm a volunteer on this project working with GLAM institutions in Johannesburg to increase African content. The page is linked to a qr coded blue plague installed on the building where the public can scan and be directed to the page... Please see links for the project below.

http://joburgpedia.co.za/index.php?title=Main_Page

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/WM_ZA/Joburgpedia_Digitization_2016

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_ZA/joburgpedia-2014/Report

Bobbyshabangu talk 08:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bobbyshabangu - All for increasing content, but you need to be aware of what constitutes notability on WP. Please read WP:GNG for general guidelines, and since these are structures, WP:GEOFEATURE is also relevant. Good luck with your project. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
"All for increasing content"- not just any content but African content which is a dearth in Wikipedia. At times the content might be there but the referencing might not be there... I digress Bobbyshabangu talk 17:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:24:42, 9 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nickelliottinfo


Hi, I've read the information on the links you supplied (thank you for this) and have included a COI declaration on the Nickelliottinfo talk page, which I am hoping is correct. If there is anything else that is required, please let me know. Thank you very much for your help.

Nickelliottinfo (talk) 11 May 2017 (UTC) Hi again, sorry, I think I declared the COI on the wrong talk page - Nickelliottinfo rather than Nick Elliott talk page. I have now done this and hope that it is all now correct. Many thanks for your help. Nickelliottinfo

Proposed deletion of Inferno (play) on 9 May 2017

:

Hi, Onel5969. Thanks for flagging up this issue Inferno (play). It was built from a stub on the Tivoli Theatre, Aberdeen, which this play helped to reopen. Is it the content of the play/article which could benefit from better citation?

WRT linkrot: which links need replacing? Best regards TBywater (TBywater) TBywater (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, just wondering why do you keep redirecting the soundtrack articles for Vice City? The pages for GTA3 and GTA5 have their own soundtrack articles here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_III_soundtrack and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_V_soundtrack

I'm confused why its "okay" for those two articles to remain, but the Vice City article has to redirect to the commercially-released discs that don't contain the full soundtrack ingame... Damian001 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A.J. Balukoff

I simply redirected it back to the election article. It is a valid search term. MB298 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability of college football season articles

Onel5969, per your recent tagging on 1976 Boston College Eagles football team and 1955 Boston College Eagles football team, WikiProject College football has established that season articles for major college football teams (NCAA Divsion I FBS and historical equivalents) are surely notable. Boston College may not be Alabama or Notre Dame, but they do play at the top tier of college football and the program has won a generally recognized national title, in 1940. In fact, we have meany season articles for programs at lower tiers as well. If you have an issue with this assertion of notability, it would be more productive to start a discussion at WikiProject College football rather than tagging random articles with notability tags. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cbl62: can you add anything here, especially given the season articles campaign that you have spearheaded? Jweiss11 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Not random articles, newly created articles which don't meet the notability guidelines as per WP:NSEASON, and so, as a process of the new article review were tagged as potential notability issues. Also, at least one of these non-notable season articles has recently been deleted as per an AfD discussion (sorry, can't provide the link, as I don't remember the team/season, and since I didn't participate in the discussion, it isn't on my watchlist). Onel5969 TT me 14:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems silly to have different standards for new articles than old ones. You're also misinterpreting WP:NSEASON by taking broad suggested guidelines and applying them in a strict, literal sense. 1955 Boston College Eagles football team isn't really less notable than 1982 Boston College Eagles football team. The number of bowl games has steadily increased over time allowing less then less successful teams to participate in them. I would certainly like to know about that AfD. I'm not aware of any major college football season articles that were deleted other than some 2017 ones that were procedurally deleted (and then recreated) because they we created by a banned user. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, seems to me that you're the one misinterpreting WP:NSEASONS. Doesn't seem to be much ambiguity in "For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome." I don't know of a single individual, outside of rabid BC fans which would consider their program one of the elite football programs. And with that in mind, a season with a mediocre w/l record and no bowl appearances, especially on stubs like these which are little more than w/l results (not even recaps of the individual games), does not seem to meet the notability bar. And there aren't different standards for old and new articles. If I came across an old article which was similar to these, I'd tag it as well. My point was that as a new page reviewer, not to tag it, as per the guidelines, would be a disservice. I'll look through my old watchlisted items and see if I can't find that AfD discussion. If I do, I'll ping you.Onel5969 TT me 18:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Lack of article development does not imply lack of notability. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other college football season articles out there much likes one you recently tagged, ones for program that are not "elite", with little more development than an infobox, a short lead, and a schedule table, if that. Then are hundreds of other articles like them with more development and scouring that suggest there are indeed reliable sources to establish notability for all of them. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Boston College Eagles football program is part of the Atlantic Coast Conference, which is one of the Power Five conferences. The Power Five conferences represent the highest level of competition in college football. I follow college football AfDs pretty carefully, and I don't recall an AfD for a Power Five conference team/season article being sustained. Below the Power Five is the rest of Division I FBS, followed by Division I FCS, then Division II and Division III. At the Power Five level, the coverage is so extensive that team/season articles clearly and easily pass WP:GNG regardless of whether or not they also pass WP:NSEASONS. (Frankly, I'm not sure when WP:NSEASONS was written, but it should probably be amended to reflect current standards.) FWIW, I believe season/team articles for lower levels of college football require case by case analysis to determine whether WP:GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cbl62 - Thanks for the explanation. Was unaware of that schism among DIFBS schools. I searched my AfD votes, and no joy. Then I searched my watchlist (man I have got to clean that up), and again no joy in the wp:afd section. And then I looked in my general watchlist, and I finally found them. There were two, but they were not college football, but college wrestling. While I understand the difference in public interest in college football versus wrestling, the two articles were about seasons of one arguably one of the most, if not the, most elite wrestling programs in the country: Iowa. Here they are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–2016 Iowa Wrestling Team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–2016 Iowa Wrestling Team. I was not aware of the different, lower standard for notability in college football season articles. Onel5969 TT me 23:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. It's really not so much that there's a different or lower standard for college football, just a different level of coverage. Team/seasons should all be judged according to WP:GNG. Whether for better or worse, top level college football generates a tremendous amount of fan support, revenues, and media coverage. Far more than any other collegiate sport. Cbl62 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, quick query

Hi Onel, quick query. Why did you resist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saima Azhar and not close it as Keep? Thanks. Lourdes 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi [[User:|Lourdes]] - very astute question. Probably 95-99% of the time if I relist something it's a no-brainer. There are either very little commentary, or very divided commentary. This was an exception. I almost did close it as keep. But if I had I would simply have been counting !votes. There were 3 keep !votes, but the last one made no sense to me in respect to guidelines. The second one also was not a well-defined !vote either, not really explaining how they passed notability criteria. Yours was the only well-reasoned vote. In that respect, I felt more eyes on the article wouldn't hurt. Personally, I would !vote to keep, but since I've relisted it, I should abstain. Hope that makes sense. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Incidentally, there's nothing that stops you from !voting Keep after re-listing in such cases where the predominant view has been keep. Cheers. Lourdes 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Just for transparency, as you considered their !votes not well explained, I'll ping Ret.Prof and Power~enwiki. Thanks. Lourdes 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Regarding !voting after relisting... I thought so as well, but I've been admonished by several admins for doing so in the past. Hence, my stance. Take care and keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no concerns at this time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Onel5969,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 816 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

GFW

I have warned the IP about edit warring and fully protected a couple of pages due to the reverts. They have never been warned about 3RR or about what an AFD was or about trying to develop a consensus for their edits. I have now opened up a discussion at the GFW talk page two hopefully discussion can occur and we can prevent any further disruption. Woody (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kew Football Club

Hello! I noticed Kew Football Club has been recreated after you had returned it to a redirect yesterday. Last time, there were copy-paste issues leaded to the old version being deleted. I tried Googling the new wording and couldn't find copy-paste issues, but wanted to let you know in case it's substantially the same as before. If you could take a quick look, that'd be great. Thanks! Happy editing Ajpolino (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability of experimental drugs

FYI, per WP:MED, experimental drugs are notable when they have reached phase II of clinical trials. I noticed you've been adding notability tags to a lot of articles, so I wanted to make you aware. Natureium (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Natureium - was not aware of that. Won't add the tags in the future. Since they were all to articles you created, can you easily remove those tags? I appreciate it. Onel5969 TT me 18:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Natureium (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion on Tudor Chirila

Hi! We have modified what we thought was not WP:NPOV and added a bunch of citations for most of the things we've said in our article. We have also put disclaimers in the talk page of the article. I can't wait for you input on the piece we've done and if there's anything else wrong, please let us know so we can further fix it. Thank you for your assistance. Justfun23 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justfun23 - Much better. There are still large portions which are uncited. There is also still a slight POV issue, but not egregious in my opinion. If you can source those items which currently aren't sourced, please do so. Once you do, I'll take another look at it. It also needs a copy edit for grammar, etc. But I can take care of that for you, once you get the citations down. I'll also tone down the remaining pov issues. Onel5969 TT me 00:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

regards to an article

In regards to the article Le Matos, which I created,

I tried to include secondary sources of references in order to establish more notability, is that enough? Or does wikipedia need to get more info for an article to be considered notable? Since this is a relatively new musical act, any help or guidance woyuld be appreciated.

Regards, Alroy656 (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Alroy656

Hi Alroy656 - to show notability you need at least 3 in-depth articles as sources. They need to be from independent, reliable sources. Right now you have two sources (3 articles), neither of which meet Wikipedia's reliability standard. You need to find in-depth references from better sources. Read WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 02:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Reading through, the guidelines in order to get a better understanding on what to put in an articles.

Thanks for the help,

Alroy656 (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Alroy656

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your fine work, both creating new good articles, and in proposing the deletion of bad ones. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Bearian -- Aw, shucks... thanks. And right back at you. Onel5969 TT me 02:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:27:47, 25 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Carlopenco


Dear Onel5969, I admit have ben very sloppy; I hope that in the new version I have given more relevant information on the role of the Italian Philosopher under discussion: (1) I stressed the point that her prominent role in Italian philosophical culture was her works as editor and translator of analytic philosophers (this explains the fact that quotations are not so high; you don't have quotations for editorialships). (2) I listed a series of external links (3) I followed your suggestion of cutting the list of articles (4) I suggest to inclose the name in the list of Italian Philosophers P.S. It is true that being quoted in not enough relevance for notability, but, for a philosopher, being quoted or discussed by the most important philosophers in contemporary philosophical world may be relevant. Carlopenco (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carlopenco - Okay, I agree she's notable. A few things to fix before it can be moved to mainspace. First, in the first sentence I corrected the way to link to another Wikipedia page (called a wikilink), you've done it correctly in other places, so please make sure they are all done like that. Second, you have what are called "raw links" (e.g. Cogito), they either need to be converted into citations (but not to simply the main page of the organization, but to something which validates the assertion made in the article), or simply remove the link and convert to straight text. Also, once you wikilink to something, you shouldn't wikilink again. Finally, make sure the facts in the article are correct, and backed up by sources. For instance, she was not president of that society from 2002-04, but rather from 2000-02. After you make the corrections let me know. Onel5969 TT me 19:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:09:30, 28 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Joannalfred1961


I'm wondering if it would be better for me to request this article for submission instead of trying to do this myself.

Joannalfred1961 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joannalfred1961 - Well, that's really up to you. But it will have to pique an editor's interest. That could take a while. The first thing I'd do is get rid of all the useless links to non-reliable sources in the draft (facebook, myspace, twitter, blogs, etc.). Onel5969 TT me 19:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cornelius Roelans

Hey, you. I am not quite sure I understand your point. If an article about an flemish physician from the Middle Age is "not important enough" then what is? If you are bothered by its lack of sources, the solution is simply to provide ones not delete the entire article. Such policy will prevent any growth of the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Sheva2 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey you. Please read our notability criteria, you can find them at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Being a doctor isn't notable. Being Flemish isn't notable. Living in the middle ages isn't notable. A combination of any of the three is not notable, either. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 12:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Restorations to userspace

Hello. I noticed this. I took a similar action here, here, and here. BrightCom and Government Higher Secondary School Omallur were moved into the mainspace by the samer user as the aforementioned pages were. Both are currently proded. I was considering restoring them to User:DrBanzaiShinobu/BrightCom and User:Adwaithhs/Government Higher Secondary School Omallur respectively or de-prodding them. I always value a second opinion, what do you think? Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, initially I would have said simply deprod them, but as per your revert of my prod on an article (either last week or the week prior to that), and you cited Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring, which made me aware of that discussion. Personally, I feel it's a waste of time to put them back if they clearly don't pass GNG, or are purely promotional. But that was an RFC which came to a conclusion, and a pretty overwhelming consensus. So, knowing about that RFC, I think they should go back to the draftspace. However, the BrightCom one I would leave as a prod and see what happens. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_42&oldid=1146788754"