The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 106 · Archive 107 · Archive 108 →

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 48 LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remove only link, not the whole name. Zarif1511 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PROIV. 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. (You were involved in the immediately prior XfD but may wish to follow or comment on the prior one) Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djm-leighpark, to clarify, are you asking for a review of my close of AfD1, or someone else's close of AfD2? Just so I know whether to wade into the fray or not. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The review is specifically about the procedure of AfD2. However a key irregularity in my view was the raising of it immediately after your close; especially with discussion or notification of yourself, and this is a key part of my concern. To a degree that AfD seems to challenge your closure without going via the DRV process. It is also the case comments at the DRV may indirectly (and perhaps good faith unknowingly) challenge your closure and drift into AfD1. So my suggestion is to monitor as a minimum, and become more involved if appropriate. It may be as closure of AfD1 you have a viewpoint, but you may feel better to stand back and observe how this goes. Thankyou. 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Given it's not about my close of AfD1 I might give the discussion a miss for now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

While browsing came across deletion of article Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. I have not seen that article previously and deletion discussion has been closed by admin means most likely due for deletion, I suppose so.

But in the same deletion discussion a user seem admitting 'renamed to 'Sufi shrine' it would also need to be rewritten from scratch'. Indirectly does that mean is there a possibility to draftify?

No doubt we can begin an article from scratch but if draftifing is possible some article history could be retained for credit purposes if not the entire content.

I am unaware of WP procedures in such respect so looking forward to your inputs.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Holiest sites in Sufi Islam

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. 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. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

Hello, Daniel,

I was doing some work tracking down some Indonesian IP editors that have been at work on some articles after a bunch of sockpuppets were blocked and came across this article. It has an AFD tag that links to an AFD you just closed so I don't know whether this article should have been deleted as well. It was confusing as the article under discussion was moved to a number of different titles both before and during the AFD discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, definitely should have been, that content is identical to another article I deleted per the AfD. I've deleted this one also. Thanks for the heads-up, Daniel (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I just deleted Kepaksian Sekala Brak which was tagged for speedy deletion. How many more of these articles are there?! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fuck Joe Biden. 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. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close this AFD as Draftify instead of Keep (or No consensus)? I presented reliable sources that show that the event is already notable and thus the article should have stayed in mainspace. Iffy★Chat -- 08:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC) As this draftification has been contested and reverted, I'm taking it to DRV to settle the matter. Iffy★Chat -- 09:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:2021 Erste Bank Open. 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. Iffy★Chat -- 09:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

Hello Daniel. I see there used to be an article for the musician Jason van Wyk which was ultimately deleted by you due to bot and sockpuppet interference. I'd like to create a new article for this person. When doing so Wikipedia is asking that I reach out to you before I proceed. I've finished writing the article and I feel its ready to go up. Are you happy if I proceed? Thank you Wynniethecat (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wynniethecat, apologies for the delay in replying, I have been travelling past week or so. Happy for you to recreate the article if it addresses the concerns in the AfD. You may wish to consider submitting it via the WP:AFC process for a second opinion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel. Thank you kindly. I hope your travelling has been a lovely experience. Thanks for the WP:AFC recommendation, I'll certainly look into that. I think the article ticks all the boxes now and should be good to go, the previous iteration was quite a mess from what I could tell. I've even managed to track down some printed articles and have archived them on archive.org for added source-value. Wynniethecat (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your good faith close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Obviously there has been intense drama over that and elsewhere. I do believe my !merge suggestion was reasonable and positive, as were the procedural keep. And it should probably been kept as procedurally kept sooner with failure to abide by WP:BEFORE which was though out to avoid this thought of drama. What looked like a slandering of the school as A boringly routine secondary school by Qwirkle at Special:Diff/1054690037 seems like a slander of the people and pupils of the school, though while I AGF that is what was meant that is what happened. I suggest a DRV is needed to see if this should have been closed earlier as a procedural keep. In all events at some point I will require access to the article. Thankyou. 04:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) [reply]

I was thinking merging the article would be a good alternative to deletion myself. That said, two people from India confirmed that there aren't any Indian language sources. So it's clearly not notable. Given that, there's zero point in procedurally keeping it. Since it will just be re-nominated and deleted eventually. I'm sure everyone involved doesn't want to needlessly be put through this again in two months just so we reconfirm that deleting it was the right outcome. 1 person out of 27 voters saying something that sounds slandering about the school's students isn't a good rational to over turn it to keep either. Especially considering it's pretty well established that the school isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no such thing as Indian language: and is anyone ever prepared to stake their total wealth on their being no sources? The are multiple Languages of India, with per Jharkhand#Languages indicating for that state Hindi is the primary language with Angika, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Bhumij, Ho, Kharia, Kurukh, Khortha, Kurmali, Magahi, Maithili, Mundari, Nagpuri, Odia, Santali and Urdu in use also. My main concern is the consequence of failure to support the instruction BEFORE B#5 to respect the essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion especially when the previous close was admin close and that admin was not seemlngly consulted prior to raising. The AfD nom. here has already apologised for the disruption at ANI so effectively is safe from further action. However a deleteion review on the process that happened is reasonable, as I don't want to see that happening in future. Anyway at this point its over to the very good faith Daniel to choose to comment or not. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I assume a source in all those languages would be an "Indian language source." Like Mundari is an Indian language. So is Nagpuri. Listing every single possible language that's spoken in India just for the extra clarity is obtuse and unnecessary. Other then that, AfDs aren't about people staking their total wealth on their being no sources. One of the main issues people who thought the article should be kept had was that no one from India had given their opinion about it. It's ridiculous to now discount those opinions just because they didn't align with the result you wanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Djm-leighpark: thanks for you note. At this point I don't believe there was sufficient consensus to push forward with your suggested merge, and in addition to Adamant1's comments, due to the nature of this discussion I don't feel comfortable with taking a unilateral action to undelete and merge, or undelete and redirect, or undelete and draftify/userfy. I am regrettably going to have to point you to DRV to seek relief, should that be your desired outcome. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel. Thankyou for that well considered answer. I see myself raising a DRV as probabley, but there will likely be a delay before I do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Back in July, you were involved in the deletion of an article on Romana Didulo, a QAnon conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed queen of Canada. Earlier this week, Didulo directed her 70k Telegram followers to begin killing anyone involved in vaccinating minors. This has since been covered by Vice and Yahoo News, as well as AntiHate.ca. Would this reach notability guidelines for page creation? I'm new, so thanks for any advice. --Xarm Endris (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xarm, thanks for the message. Pinging the editors who were involved in !voting to delete the article, 力 (talk · contribs) and Bearcat (talk · contribs) - what do you reckon? Daniel (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Yahoo News nor AntiHate.ca are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, so they don't help a whit in boosting Romana Didulo's notability over where it wasn't in July — and what she already had as of July was one Vice article, so suddenly having two Vice articles isn't the magic ticket. Notability is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who can exceed two"; it tests the sources for their depth, their quality and whether the context of what they're covering the person for would pass the ten year test for enduring significance or not, and does not just automatically keep everybody who's technically sourceable as existing. The only notability criteria she could be measured against are WP:NPOL, which she fails by virtue of not actually holding any real or notable political office, or WP:PERP, which she fails by not having actually been convicted of anything that would qualify as an enduringly significant crime — so if there's no hard notability claim and instead you're going for "notable because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just two Vice articles and a profile on the self-published website of an advocacy organization to get there. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Bearcat (talk · contribs)! That makes a lot of sense - a bit of news coverage does not equal notability. I'm happy to shelve this topic until something actually happens. Until then, thank you for your guidance, and please feel free to archive this discussion. --Xarm Endris (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have written several articles for Fortune 500 companies and would've voted Strong Keep had I seen the page was up for deletion; Fortune 500 companies are by definition notable solely due to their size, regardless of how secretive and relatively low profile they may be (and there is some stuff out there to add to an article about them).

You don't have an archive of what was there to restore, do you? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DemocraticLuntz, I have restored the article for you to work on in draftspace, at Draft:Performance Food Group. Feel free to restore to mainspace when you think it's ready after your improvements. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct to point out my transgression. This was the first time I have been involved in a deletion discussion and did not understand the procedures. Again thanks, and I have deleted my Facebook post. Pommerenke (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

Hi, Spoke to you about this previously, and seeing signpost newsletter triggered this. My concern relates to Bokaro Steel City#Education and subpage List of schools, colleges and universities in Bokaro, which I wish to improve (with a possible renaame/re-purpose of the subpage to something beyond a list). Given the recent drama around the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and fallout I can understand a concern to userfy, wuich I think you have indicated you would need me to take to DRV. As perhaps the key loss in ARS Public School were the sources which were generally applicable to education in Bokaro Steel City in general as an alternative could you please supply me with a list of sources from the deleted ARS Public School article including any lost through multiple revisions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djm-leighpark, sorry for the delayed response, have been tied up most of weekend. Will get to this tomorrow my time. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Take your time. This isn't time critical for me. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djm-leighpark, all sources from the article below:

• "Introduction". ARS Public School. Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
• "Details of School Affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education". Central Board of Secondary Education. Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 14 October 2017.
• John, Tony (24 Nov 2007). "A R S Public School Bokaro, Jharkhand - Admissions to 2017-2018 Academic Year". India Study Channel. Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 14 October 2017.
• Shekhar, Shashank (4 June 2016). "10 aspirants for every Class XI berth - Bihar & Bengal students throng Bokaro". The Telegraph (Calcutta). Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
• Shekhar, Shashank (12 June 2013). "Class XI rush in Bokaron - More than 50000 students vie for 3000 much sought-after seats". The Telegraph (Calcutta). Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
• Official website

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it absurd that you should target a page based even partially on the subject being a Christian or a conspiracy theorist. This seems to be an unfair bias. There were plenty of independent sources on this page, many mainstream newspapers and other media. Granted some were examples of the subjects online work, but David Bass is a public figure as presented, with a large following for around a decade. 2A00:23C6:3EAB:A801:8139:A272:A06B:EC58 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Let me echo what Joe said here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a valuable comment (and compliment). Drmies (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - as there was little participation in this AFD, do you consider it a soft delete? If so, I request that the article be restored and the discussion reopened. There are reviews of her work in the NY Times and Kirkus, so she probably satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pburka - yes, and yes. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened by your decision to delete the article. I do not agree with your reasons but you have evaluated how you thought appropriate. The article will be recreated in other languages ​​in Italian and other languages. In the future, consider better what to include in the encyclopedia. Also someone deleted my final comment. Best regards --Peter39c (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my place to "consider better what to include in the encyclopedia". I just go with the consensus of editors, which clearly didn't agree with you. Daniel (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel. Can you explain your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998) to me? The first six !votes were all made when the article was in poor condition. After that, I significantly expanded/cleaned up the article here, and so I do not think it needed to be draftified. To me, I think the discussion should have been closed as a "no consensus", as we have four keeps (me, Editorofthewiki, Paulmcdonald, gidonb) versus four draftify !votes (GPL93, KingSkyLord, JoelleJay, Stifle) and one neutral (Cbl62). Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your improvements were still challenged, by GPL93 (a view supported by JoelleJay and Stifle). !vote-counting is disingenuous in this situation. I am still happy with my close; you can seek relief at WP:DRV if desired. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kyle Murphy (American football, born 1998). 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. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel! After the deletion review and permission granted for recreation and me being the nominator, I am willing to work on the article of Korean Air Flight 2033 in draftspace. Thanks! Username006 (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username006: All done for you, at Draft:Korean Air Flight 2033. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Time to improve on it. Username006 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you recently closed the AfD discussion for Liana Kerzner, upon reviewing the discussion, I don't believe enough discussion was generated to justify the consensus and I for one would actually argue for a keep on the AfD. I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to reopen discussion or simply just merge until the subject proves more notable. I also question the nominator's intentions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaffeinAddict, having been relisted once, that means 14 days went by - ample time for contributions. There is a clear consensus in that discussion, and I disagree with any statements to the contrary; if you wish to dispute the outcome, that will need to be done at WP:DRV. The article can always be un-merged if the article subject's notability changes significantly in the future. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]