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)


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. (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. (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. (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. (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is now at deletion review. (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? (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


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)


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)