User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh/2017/February
Speedy deletion declined: Hans Hulsbosch
[edit]Hello Wiki-Coffee, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hans Hulsbosch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Hulsbosch has won most of the national and international advertising and design awards. is an assertion of importance sufficient to avoid A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: Did you bother checking the references... Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a concern about the DailyTelegraph.com.au? No opinion as to whether the article would survive AFD, but if we are discussing the quality of the references it is not an A7. ϢereSpielChequers 06:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: Not so much quality as to if they actually link to something. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, wp:Linkrot is a big problem, this is what the article looked like in 2010 I suspect that many of those links could be recovered if you went to the Wayback_Machine, the risk is that some people simply remove deadlinks not realising how important they are for tracking down references. I'm hoping that eventually we can get a bot that links to the Wayback machine automatically as links go dead. We already have 144,000 articles with the {{Dead link}} template, and that's just for articles where people have unsuccessfully tried to find where the page has moved to or been archived. The number of articles where one or more references no longer work must be far greater - and hugely increased this week with the US government sites being Trumped. But speedy deletion or indeed deletion is not the solution to old articles effected by linkrot, especially when at least one reference still worked. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: I have not studied wp:Linkrot or its effects so much here on Wikipedia so your information is awesome, I will look into it. I also didn't note the date the article was created and assumed it was created recently with deliberate dead link placement. Well this is a learning experience, thank you. And furthermore, a bot would be very useful which automatically detects dead links however the implemention would be very difficult especially if the process was to be completely automated. Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of these issues. Wiki-Coffee Talk 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, this place can be a tad complicated at times. Would you mind removing or striking your speedy deletion note to User:Philologists? Also please be careful when you tag someone's edit as vandalism. Rollback is for blatant vandalism, not for disputes as to whether Chairs are Chairmen or Chairwomen. There's an upset probable newbie at User_talk:66.31.155.91. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:
Done With regard to User_talk:66.31.155.91 I had thought that he'd changed a description referring to the male in the article deliberately from chairman to chairwoman. I will have to look more at context next time, thank you for drawing my attention to it. Wiki-Coffee Talk 01:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:
- No problem, this place can be a tad complicated at times. Would you mind removing or striking your speedy deletion note to User:Philologists? Also please be careful when you tag someone's edit as vandalism. Rollback is for blatant vandalism, not for disputes as to whether Chairs are Chairmen or Chairwomen. There's an upset probable newbie at User_talk:66.31.155.91. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: I have not studied wp:Linkrot or its effects so much here on Wikipedia so your information is awesome, I will look into it. I also didn't note the date the article was created and assumed it was created recently with deliberate dead link placement. Well this is a learning experience, thank you. And furthermore, a bot would be very useful which automatically detects dead links however the implemention would be very difficult especially if the process was to be completely automated. Again, thank you for taking the time to inform me of these issues. Wiki-Coffee Talk 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, wp:Linkrot is a big problem, this is what the article looked like in 2010 I suspect that many of those links could be recovered if you went to the Wayback_Machine, the risk is that some people simply remove deadlinks not realising how important they are for tracking down references. I'm hoping that eventually we can get a bot that links to the Wayback machine automatically as links go dead. We already have 144,000 articles with the {{Dead link}} template, and that's just for articles where people have unsuccessfully tried to find where the page has moved to or been archived. The number of articles where one or more references no longer work must be far greater - and hugely increased this week with the US government sites being Trumped. But speedy deletion or indeed deletion is not the solution to old articles effected by linkrot, especially when at least one reference still worked. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: Not so much quality as to if they actually link to something. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a concern about the DailyTelegraph.com.au? No opinion as to whether the article would survive AFD, but if we are discussing the quality of the references it is not an A7. ϢereSpielChequers 06:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Julio Sadorra. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- As an additional note, as a non-admin you should almost never be closing deletion discussions seven hours after the discussion is started. Please see WP:NAC. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The consenus has already been established through Wikipedia Project Chess which determined chess players who are Grandmasters are notable. The closure was due to that fact that I did and still do believe that consensus has already been established on the issue of notability in which is the issue raised by the nominator. Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how AFD works. Unless a nomination has been made in clear bad faith, is clearly a bad nomination, or has been withdrawn, a discussion must run a minimum of 7 days. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Well it is a bad notmination if the nominator has indicated an unfounded issue of notability which has already been established by consensus on Wikipedia. The rational or logic is not subjective so why are you needing to issue a warning for a bad closure when in fact it had grounded rationale. Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The issue was also raised in a recent sockpuppet investigation which found no issue with this closure of the AfD discussion by a CU/Admin so perhaps this issue in of itself is worth gaining a consensus on? Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac:I would also contend that the nominators comment "Very small 2 lines article" constitutes a bad nomination Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Point 1: I made a poor choice of words in my above statement. There is a difference between a "poor" nomination (something like this case), and a "bad" nomination (where it's just a blank AFD, or gibberish, or doesn't say why the AFD has been started.
- Point 2: The SPI was referring to the Dallas Dance AFD (and it wasn't being closed either, just semi-protected to avoid further vandalism). Additionally, the user that started the Sadorra AFD is not a confirmed sock.
- Point 3: See point 1. Just because it's not an in-depth essay on why they feel the page doesn't meet the notability requirements does not mean it should be procedurally closed. It's not pretty, but they have stated why they feel it should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: It was an SPI against me seperate from the one you mentioned made by a sockpuppet and referenced my AfD closure within it. Furthermore, the foundation argument by the nominator is that the article is not notable however, notability has already been established by consensus thus why would it or should it need further discussion. The nominations basis is already resolved by consensus so why must another vote be needed? The fact that the base principle(s) of the nomination are established by existing consensus amounts to it making it a bad or poor nomination. Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Furthermore, if your personal policy on determining the validity of an AfD closure is that even if prior consensus is reached on notability one may continue to nominate articles based on an already established notability by consensus then any person would be able to persist in creating AfD about an already established issue in disregard for any consensus that has already been reached. This would eliminate the purpose of consensus being any form of binding decision on Wikipedia at all and ultimately mean that AfD or any discussion requiring a vote in of themselves are useless. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Claiming that "every X is notable" because previous discussions have found other instances of X to be notable, or worse, because some WikiProject established a local consensus that all instances of X are notable, is hardly convincing - in fact, it's listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions due to the problems with this approach, see WP:ITSA. Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. This is not Primefac's private policy. Huon (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: It is not a case if every X is notable. It is an issue as to an X+Y. In this case Y has gained consensus by a body of experts who are specialist In Y’s to be notable. It is not to say that X by itself is notable however, X+Y is. This article was nominated for lacking notability, yet that notability has already been established by the experts in the field of the articles subject. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- How exactly is "chess players who are Grandmasters are notable" not a case of "every X is notable", for X being "chess Grandmaster"? If WikiProject Pokemon had formed a consensus that every individual Pokemon is notable, would you agree they are a body of experts who are specialists in the notability of Pokemon, and their consensus should preclude deletion discussions for all articles on individual Pokemon? What makes WikiProject Chess and chess Grandmasters any different? Huon (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Huon: It is not a case if every X is notable. It is an issue as to an X+Y. In this case Y has gained consensus by a body of experts who are specialist In Y’s to be notable. It is not to say that X by itself is notable however, X+Y is. This article was nominated for lacking notability, yet that notability has already been established by the experts in the field of the articles subject. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Claiming that "every X is notable" because previous discussions have found other instances of X to be notable, or worse, because some WikiProject established a local consensus that all instances of X are notable, is hardly convincing - in fact, it's listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions due to the problems with this approach, see WP:ITSA. Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. This is not Primefac's private policy. Huon (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Furthermore, if your personal policy on determining the validity of an AfD closure is that even if prior consensus is reached on notability one may continue to nominate articles based on an already established notability by consensus then any person would be able to persist in creating AfD about an already established issue in disregard for any consensus that has already been reached. This would eliminate the purpose of consensus being any form of binding decision on Wikipedia at all and ultimately mean that AfD or any discussion requiring a vote in of themselves are useless. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: It was an SPI against me seperate from the one you mentioned made by a sockpuppet and referenced my AfD closure within it. Furthermore, the foundation argument by the nominator is that the article is not notable however, notability has already been established by consensus thus why would it or should it need further discussion. The nominations basis is already resolved by consensus so why must another vote be needed? The fact that the base principle(s) of the nomination are established by existing consensus amounts to it making it a bad or poor nomination. Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how AFD works. Unless a nomination has been made in clear bad faith, is clearly a bad nomination, or has been withdrawn, a discussion must run a minimum of 7 days. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The consenus has already been established through Wikipedia Project Chess which determined chess players who are Grandmasters are notable. The closure was due to that fact that I did and still do believe that consensus has already been established on the issue of notability in which is the issue raised by the nominator. Wiki-Coffee Talk 17:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is no harm in leaving an AFD open for the required length of time. One point to note, the "grandmaster-designation-demonstrates-notability" is not an actual guideline (an example of which is WP:PROF), but rather a preference from a WikiProject specifically interested in that subject. Consensus at AFD can overturn local WikiProject consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- "How exactly is "chess players who are Grandmasters are notable" I have no idea because I am not a researcher nor expert in chess however, those who are seem to believe the title makes somebody notable for reasons they have already discussed and determined. Thus if this assertion has already been reached and an AfD is opened from a potential sock-puppet who has bought into question an already determined notability then why shouldn’t it be closed? Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- We find ourselves at an impasse, because the nominator is a sock (now blocked) and the discussion has been closed. This makes the question of "all are Grandmasters notable" a rather moot point for the moment. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I was aware that the person was a potential sockpuppet as I had found that page from another sockpuppet investigation. The reasons for closing that discussion as I said are due to valid reasons that the nominator made a bad or poor nomination for deletion. I would like it if you could strike out your warning and we can help each other on some articles if you want. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- For future reference, you should go to SPI before speedy closing. As mentioned, having an AFD (even a spurious one) open for a few extra minutes is not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I was aware that the person was a potential sockpuppet as I had found that page from another sockpuppet investigation. The reasons for closing that discussion as I said are due to valid reasons that the nominator made a bad or poor nomination for deletion. I would like it if you could strike out your warning and we can help each other on some articles if you want. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- We find ourselves at an impasse, because the nominator is a sock (now blocked) and the discussion has been closed. This makes the question of "all are Grandmasters notable" a rather moot point for the moment. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
SPI
[edit]Someone has opened an SPI against us claiming that your account is a sockpuppet of mine. I have made a incident report at WP:ANI because it is obvious someone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia at my AfD. CatcherStorm talk 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC) CatcherStorm talk 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @CatcherStorm: Wait what? Somebody has openened a sockpuppet saying I am you. What is the link if you don't mind to both the ANI and SPI. Maybe I would like to be you for a day but I am sure we are not the same person? This has made me laugh. Wiki-Coffee Talk 14:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can take your lecture based on your less than three thousand edits and stick it. The notion that someone recognizing you for something equating with notability is laughable. Notability (with some clearly defined exceptions, none of which are the current idiot occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue recognizing the subject) comes from people writing about that recognition. If you are ignorant of what notability means and so lazy you cannot write your own rationale for your vote, AFC is probably not for you. Yes I'm rude, so please do us both a favor and don't bother replying. I only accept input based on knowledge. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)