User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Userfy request[edit]

Hi, You just deleted Michael Idato. Could you please userfy that to me? I think this is close enough a bit of work will get it over the line. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

AFD: List of potentially habitable moons[edit]

I am puzzled by your close at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_potentially_habitable_moons. It was unanimous to get rid of it, except for the sockpuppeting votes of the article creator. That looks like consensus to me.

Initial steps of cleanup has left the article completely unsourced. One source was a Start Trek Fan website, two sources didn't say what the article-creator claimed they said, and the other sources vanished when I removed the hypothetical and unconfirmed moons. The table rows are going to get nuked because I doubt there are reasonable sources referring to Pluto etc as habitable. Many table columns are going to get nuked because (1) they are essentially empty, and (2) things like "habitable zone composition" are unencyclopedic novel/fringe/speculative view of a single source. Googling "habitable zone composition" gives me 39 hits, one of which is that original source, nearly all of the other hits are blatantly copied from Wikipedia, and the hits that aren't blatant copies from Wikipedia are forums and other user-generated content that are almost certainly derived from Wikipedia. There's nothing to salvage there. Alsee (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason why votes deletion on Wikipedia is called a !vote, not a vote, the strength of arguments matters very much in a deletion debate, and arguments that are not directly references to our guidelines are simply not weighted. That being said, you have made a very convincing argument for deletion right now, had you used the same argument during the deletion debate, I would have closed as delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the close is fine, I have found sources now such as [1] NPR, and Space News. The NPR source appears to give a list of possible habitable moons. However, I do think this list may need to be rewritten. Valoem talk contrib 04:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about deleting an article with little discussion[edit]

Hello, you deleted Wang NewOne, which only had comments from myself (article stub creator) and one other person. I would like to hear more about the decision to delete an article with minimal input, as well as ideas on ways to improve the article. Thank you. Yellow Swans (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have userfied your article to User:Yellow Swans/Wang NewOne so you can work on the issues that was brought up in the deletion discussion. The concerns with your article was that it lacks notability, namely, good reliable sources that we can verify that covers your subject in a significant detail. Remember, deletions are not final and you are very much welcome to resubmit this article again once you address the issues with notability. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Page Rui Delgado[edit]

You closed a Wikipedia page for Rui Delgado that I created. I believe I did not do a good job when it comes to adding the reference to prove notability. A lot of the information I have it's using physical newspapers from the Dominican Republic. How can I present this?

I fixed and trimmed most of the information that seemed trivial and unnecessary. It seems I wasn't fast enough in doing so. I would appreciate any help you can give me so I can become a better contributor to Wikipedia. Thanks! Here's the link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rui_Delgado -- Torchbit (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Userfied your page onto User:Torchbit/Rui_Delgado. Feel free to move it back to Rui Delgado whenever you've found adequate sources for the subject. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doombot[edit]

Hi, could you reconsider this closure? I see a consensus not to maintain this as a separate article, whether by merger or deletion. That's because of the three "keep" opinions, two did not address the issue of sources, but merely asserted that these were important fictional characters in-universe, which is not relevant according to our inclusion guidelines. And the third "keep" did cite sources, but did not reply to the question how much these covered the topic. I'd close this as a redirect, with editors then having to determine what to merge.  Sandstein  12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I potentially see that too, I just usually prefer not to get involved in cases like this since it's not a matter related to deletion which is what WP:AFD is designed to handle, as AFD is strictly related to deletion matters, whereas deciding keep vs merge is more of an editorial choice that doesn't require administrator intervention compared to deletion. I mean I could change the article to a redirect right now and you could do it too if you want, even an anon IP editor can do it, but I don't see how that ultimately relates to a process that is designed for article deletion, or even requires me changing the outcome of the closure. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, AfDs can have merge or redirect as an outcome, and in cases such as these, I consider it better to close them with a result that makes clear (as here) the consensus not to keep the article. That gives a clearer direction than just "no consensus", which isn't strictly true here - we have no consensus to delete, but we do have consensus to not keep.  Sandstein  13:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think in the context of XfD's, by default, no consensus will almost always mean there's no consensus to delete since that's what the process is for, and this is definitely not the same thing as a keep close. Even when an AfD is closed as keep, sometimes they get merged if the editorial consensus changes after an AfD, sometimes if AfD is closed as redirect/merge, they get changed back to a separate article later on. This is done without the closing admin's intervention, and it rightly shouldn't need to involve the previous AfD's closing admin since it's not a deletion related matter. I guess in the end we just fundamentally disagree wether if AfD should be used to decide redirect/keep if no deletion consensus exist. I don't agree with the fact that closing admin should decide the editorial fate of the article if no consensus to delete has been determined, since I prefer closing admin's job to be limited in scope as possible to avoid making controversial decisions without consensus, unless the vote to redirect is unanimous or something. That being said, I did change the Doombot page to a redirect, not in the capacity as the closing admin, but as a regular editor. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tora[edit]

Hi Yamamoto Ichiro. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close of this afd. There is no consensus to keep. All keep argument were refuted. Close ten minutes after shaidar's reply give no chance of further discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Two of the deletion !votes are non-valid arguments, you are the only one who made valid arguments but didn't provide much evidence to support your argument. If you want to claim it fails WP:RS you should really expand on that, especially if there is a lot of sources. I could relist it for another week if you wish though. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
A relist would be good. would allow me to reply properly to shaidar. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Rodriguez (pianist)[edit]

Hi you deleted Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) Is there any chance you can help me create a stub for the Article you deleted?StrongWik (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, I moved your article to Draft:Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) so you can work and improve on the article. Whenever you feel the article is ready, feel free to move it back to the article namespace. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, i turned the Article into a stub page. Does that help to restore the Article?StrongWik (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If you can source it properly such that WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC is followed then yes. You want your article to have significant coverage in sources that we consider to be reliable. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I was reading the Wikipedia:NMUSIC and this reference of Kean University about Anthony Rodriguez (pianist) seems to fit the requirement. Here see under Arts and Entertainment The Tower - Kean University - And as the producer of a film's soundtrack which is in the movie database in IMDb Tangy Song Telly Award Film What you think?StrongWik (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (3rd nomination)[edit]

Are you sure that this close was correct? Nobody in the discussion offered any sources that indicate a pass of the general notability guideline, and the position of chevalier in the Ordre national du Mérite is, as I said in the discussion, the rough equivalent of an MBE in the UK, which has always been taken to be at least two levels below the level required for notability. My father was an MBE, but it would be ridiculous to claim notability on this basis, as he was given that position by virtue of local voluntary work. There are well over 100,000 such chevaliers in France. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeating your argument that you have already made does not make it any more or less valid. The point being, in a AfD discussion, you have the burden to prove that the article does not meet the notability standard, Ordre national du Mérite is nowhere on WP:N or WP:BIO. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. It looks like that you are agreeing that being a chevalier in the Ordre national du Mérite doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The claim that it does was the only claim made by those supporting keeping. Nobody provided any evidence that the subject meets any notability guideline other than that, so I don't see how you can claim that there was a policy-based consensus for keeping. Please explain what is invalid in the argument the I made in the discussion, which includes the unanswered claim that there are no "independent reliable sources that actually write anything substantial about Florence Devouard rather than just quote her" to be found. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I was hoping the you would continue this conversation. If you choose not to then I will take this to deletion review, with a recommendation to relist because nearly all of the discussion was about editor behaviour rather than the notability of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The arguments of keep !votes doesn't matter so much if the deletion arguments is a bunch of WP:POLICYWAVE without expanding on the reasoning behind it, if you are claiming failing WP:GNG you should provide clear evidence why that is the case. Also, the deletion !votes on this AfD are casted by SPA's and do not form consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The only WP:POLICYWAVEs were from those arguing for keeping, which stated that the article should be kept without providing any evidence. And I am certainly not an SPA. Please look at my contributions and retract that statement. And your demand for proof that the subject doesn't pass the general notability guideline is impossible to meet for any subject. All that we can do is look for independent reliable sources with significant coverage and say whether we can find any. Nobody in this discussion found any. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is now at deletion review. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Rodan closure[edit]

Re: closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Rodan, you did not state an "informative deletion reason" for the closure per steps outlined in WP:BLPPROD. Can you update? Hmlarson (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD does not apply to WP:AFD, where closure is determined by a consensus in a deletion discussion rather than a WP:PROD tagging, this only applies to WP:BLP articles that was undergoing WP:PROD. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Modified Anthony Rodriguez (pianist)[edit]

Hi!! I think you will like this modification. I removed and changed a few things. I hope this is great for a stub page and as time passes more details will be added. What you think?StrongWik (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay, but you should get a second opinion just in case. As long as you make sure the article does not contain information that would be considered original research, aka. facts that you cannot infer from your sources, you should be fine. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I went there to Wikipedia:Original research to request an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrongWik (talkcontribs) 03:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerning your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Distefano[edit]

You stated in your close that "the sources is somewhat debatable in terms of reliability and a case can be made for either way" however, nobody made an argument that the sources were sufficient, and even if that were the case, all that does is give a presumption of notability; articles can have sourcing and still fail to be notable. Given that your close reflected your opinion of the article rather than a consensus of the discussion, before it's taken to WP:DELREV would you be willing to consider re-closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Distefano to reflect consensus? - Aoidh (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUPERVOTE more closely. No consensus close are considered to be non-prejudicial you can revery my close and relist it for another week if you wish, it's usually a waste of time to go through WP:DELREV for any no consensus without prejudice closes since it's not really considered to be a proper close with an outcome. It's almost always better to relist or re-start a AfD instead. keep results on the other hand should go through WP:DELREV. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll do that, thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

About an article for deletion[edit]

you have recently relisted an afd for a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Is there any way in which we (users) can request admins to share their opinion about a particular afd? 122.177.216.113 (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sharfadin[edit]

Saw you deleted this page. Thanks! Also, please note that a sock puppet (most probably of this farm: [2], [3]) has appeared and recreated this page under "Şerfedîn". If you have spare time, please use your admin tools there as appropriate. --Dorpater (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Katie Rodan[edit]

User:Hmlarson has asked for a deletion review of Katie Rodan. 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 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for rollback[edit]

Dear Ichiro,

I am a 22 year old female User who would like rollback rights to make vandal-fighting a bit quicker and more efficient. I have been an active vandalfighter for sometime now. Thank you for your time and consideration. (Mona778 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Yes check.svg Done Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

fruits[edit]

Apple, Bananas and Oranges for you
Red Apple.jpg 3 Bananas.jpg Orange-Whole-&-Split.jpg
For your contribution to Wikipedia --BenLrove (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg Mona778 (talk) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for placing your trust and confidence in me. (Mona778 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara[edit]

I request that you reconsider your close of the above linked AfD. Firstly, although one participant provided sources, they were not enough to convince the other participants to reconsider their vote, and most of the participants wishing to keep the article offered no proven arguments for the church's notability or otherwise significance. These arguments include assertions that the church was "important" and contained relic(s) that were "enshrined in only a few churches in the world", as one participant remarked. Furthermore, most of the sources presented either were a short mention (or even no mention at all!) and not significant coverage, or self-published and unreliable. Below is an analysis of the sources in the article itself and the sources presented at the AfD:

Presented at AfD[edit]

Extended content

Martha, Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church of the Holy വെട്ടിത്തറ Kodiyeri on 31 86th major at the festival. St. Mary's and Youth Association of the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the trustee shall also be conducted in Wilson PA, the festival committee and office bearers Bibin Jacob, ഷൈൻസൺ, സമാപനവും Arun Varkey said. The Eucharist on Sunday morning, the vicar at 10.30. Paul എരമംഗലത്ത് banners. The devotees of the organizations to be held at 7.45 pm The annual meeting will be inaugurated by the District Sunday School Association പൂത്തൃക്ക Inspector Thomas Peter. On the morning of February 8 കുർബാനയുണ്ട്. On the night procession of 8.30. The festival will be held on Tuesday at 8.45 in the morning, the Eucharist മൂന്നിന്മേൽ Metropolitan, Dr. Parish. Rev. Mathews Mar will be the morning. Following the conclusion of the meeting of the Metropolitan Youth Association will inaugurate the Silver Jubilee to be held at 10.30. 12 കുരിശിങ്കലേക്ക് on the lower orbit, Madurai orchestras across the concert at 7 pm.

Whether this source passes the level of "significant coverage" is arguable, as it only acts as a schedule of the church's activity on one day. Although this may boost a claim of notability, it does not boost it by much.

In article[edit]

(some of the sources were already addressed above)

To sum it all up: only one source weakly contributes to this church's notability, and most of the sources presented and in the article do not even cover the church itself! Per the above, I believe that it fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Esquivalience t 02:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for brining this to my attention, will relist the discussion for further discussion Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Yamamoto Ichiro. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

hixxy page deleted[edit]

Hi, how do i request that a page is un-deleted? You have deleted a page about myself that has been used a viewed by many people to get information about my history and achievements as an artist & DJ - the page was full of correct information as i understood it & i had many other links across the wikipedia site where my artist name is mentioned for other notable works i had done & on other artists pages on here. I'm completely new to this site so i hope i'm using it correct ly to contact you this way. best regard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irhhxy (talkcontribs) 17:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Yamamoto Ichiro.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Yamamoto Ichiro. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rodd Wolff AfD closing[edit]

Hi User:Yamamoto Ichiro: I have a question for you and I don’t ask it to be argumentative or insulting, but as a Wikipedia newbie I just want to understand what the final process was. I was reading at “Wikipedia:Guide to deletion,” which stated "A good administrator will transparently explain how the decision (for Closure) was reached.” When you closed the Rodd Wolff AfD, there was no mention of how the decision was met,or what the process was that you went through. May I ask if you just counted the Delete votes and then closed the AfD, or did you “review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.” I realize as the author of this page I am biased, but the arguments for the Delete votes were extremely weak and ineffective, with no backup support. All Delete argument were completely refuted, I explained in great detail how this subject met the Wikipedia requirements for Notability. Thanks, Zootsuit1941 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not given a reason for this closure because the consensus of the discussion is very self evident here. Just because you have countered their points, does not mean you have refuted their claims, nor does it mean your interpretation of the deletion policy was correct. Now if you truly believe this article can be made to comply with the Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I can restore the article as a draft again so you can work on it. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Yamamoto Ichiro: Based on your above comment it’s obvious to me you only did a vote count and did not read any of the comments in the AfD, as yes many if not all of the Delete claims were refuted, not all by me, several by other editors. I’m reluctant to write more on this since it seems as though you have a closed mind. But here are a few examples. One voter for a Delete by the name of Jergling based his rational on “The only sources that mention him significantly are self-published.” Not only did I refute this but another editor by the name of DGG also refuted it with his comment of “it is not self-published, and I cannot imagine where that view came from.” Another voter for a Delete by the name of Lemongirl942 based her vote on “We require reliable secondary sources and it is very clear that there aren't here.” The two McFarland references in the article are clearly reliable secondary sources, her statement was entirley wrong, there can be no question on that.
As far as my interpretation of the deletion policy not being correct, it is more correct than the nominator's. For example, one of the reasons for his nomination was “he's literally only a background stuntman whose IMDb lists trivial works and, as we know, these people rarely get actual attention…” Another editor by the name of 86.17.222.157 commented “The nominators statement that "these people rarely get actual attention" may be true, but in this particular case this person has got actual attention from the book published by McFarland cited in the article.” And the nominator follows up with “Even then, that one book is still not going to establish notability, ... unless there's literally national and international attention.” “National and international attention?" National and international attention is NOT a Wikipedia requirement! If so, where is that written? So you tell me who has a better interpretation of the deletion policy. Plus I added many more references during the AfD process which the nominator failed to knowledge.
And don’t get me started on the nominator SwisterTwister. He initially tried to get this article deleted with a Proposed deletion (PROD) and the rules for a PROD state “is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles than the articles for deletion process (AfD).” “PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.” Why would this article be an uncontroversial deletion, it was already approved by two othe editors (Robert McClenon and Shadowowl). Also, the PROD requirement states “The article's creator should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion.” This was not done! SwisterTwister was just hoping to have this article deleted without anyone having a chance to object. By the way (and slightly off topic), I’ve noticed on many of the new AfDs that most of them should never have been created, it appears to me that many nominators are being deceitful in their write-ups. For what reasons I don’t know, maybe they get some kind of Wikipedia credit for being having articles deleted?
As far as your comment that you would restore the article again as a draft to make bring the article into comlince with the Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, this article already meets the necessary guidelines. Remember, it was initially accepted by two other editors. And at that time it had only 2 or 3 references as I recall. In this AfD process I have improved the article even more, to the point where it had 15 references when it was finally deleted. As I stated in the AfD (and I recognize I’m not suppose to repeat stuff out of the AfD at this talk page, but I’m going to,
the subject of this article definitely meets or exceeds the notability requirements of Wikipedia based on the following four Notability-for-People sub-topics (i.e., 4 of 6, but you only necessarily need to meet one I believe):
(1) the subject has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions,
(2) the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject,
(3) the subject has received a well-known and significant award or honor, and
(4) the subject has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication
Based on the what happen in the AfD and your poor review of the AfD, I think it would only be a waste of time to put this back as a draft, so I will pass on that offer even though I appreciate you making the offer. Plus I couldn’t put up with any more of the personal insults that I suffered in that AfD process. I’ve learned that Wikipedia editors can be extremely nasty people.
That's my last vent, my apologies for another "Wall of Text," to paraphrase Lemongirl942.  :o) This matter is closed for me. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Katie Rodan[edit]

I created Katie Rodan today (over the redirect), without realising that there had been an AfD last year, for which you were the closing admin. It looks like the AfD was close run. How should I best proceed? Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)