I have observed that you are making repeated deletion nominations without performing WP:BEFORE, as is required by the deletion policy. This wastes a lot of time and effort for all the other wikipedians who monitor and participate in the deletion process. Please, please read these policies before making further nominations. You are required to show a basic understanding of the policy and process in order to participate. You can gain this understanding by reading the WP:Guide to deletion. Please especially look at WPLBEFORE C: 1., which states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Every article you have nominated has a wealth of information available online, and could be improved. The encyclopedia will be enhanced much more effectively by fixing the problems one finds than by starting a totally unnecessary debate on whether the article should even have the right to exist, which in the case of these articles, is going to be true. Please consider putting your efforts into improving the articles. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacona. I'm going to nominate potential articles that do not use proper sourcing with entries that speak mostly to their career, or as evidenced by my first AfD, create discussion around borderline articles. For Ian Holliday, he is the vice-president of a major university, and while this may purely be semantics of the comment, one of the four sources cited was a CV. (Mind you, that the article was also created with said CV, which I'm supposed to assume is in good faith? Doubtful.) The only piece I could seem to add would include some books that he wrote, which felt like I was promoting this person's career, the exact opposite of Wikipedia is a platform for.

Adrian Di Marco could be housed by the TechnologyOne article. There is no reason that he needs his own article when 75% of his own SIGCOV is related to TechnologyOne, which is the burden of having a notably long career with one notable entity. That is not our burden to hold. The page is also held up with it's own noted COI, of which the editor was kind enough to disclose themselves.

It seems that you were able to find this wealth of information, that despite these discussions being open to the entire community, you are the only one to disagree with me this heavily. While I am reviewing WP:BEFORE again at your recommendation to avoid this conversation later on, I would heavily recommend you review WP:NOT. You seem to think my opinions regarding CEO's/investments are disruptive and that makes me question your own motives. Your tone is extremely condescending across multiple AfD conversations, consider thinking about your words before you type. Constructive criticism is always welcome considering Wikipedia is an open platform and we all have room to learn, rudeness because we've interpreted these guidelines differently is not. Thirty4 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to reply to all of the above, but a few highlights...when you run across a reference to a cv in an article, you absolutely should remove it, it shouldn't be there! If you read the policy, deletion is not for articles that can be improved. So improve them, don't put them on AfD.... I don't think your opinions are disruptive, but nominating articles for deletion when they meet Notability guidelines is disruptive, because many, many editors will have to spend time logging, sorting, evaluating etc. Another, separate comment...discounting foreign language sources as if they don't exist is WP:BIAS. Sources don't have to be online and in English to be WP:RS. I'm sorry if I seem rude, but your nominations seem to indicate that you have not read the policies, and have made little if any attempt to follow them (again, see BEFORE). I see your relatively new, and apologize if I'm coming on a little strong, but I would strongly encourage you to participate in a lot of AfD's before nominating multiple articles for deletion. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see how my explanation on the AfD may have triggered this response, although implying that I have a bias against foreign language sources is a very clear assumption about my motives, despite what you've said. The sources note the exact same thing his CV does - his job at HKU considering one article is comments he made about the policy of forcing students to go to the mainland for exchanges, and the next article is an apology for that statement. I ask that you stop assuming and start following the same rational you're asking me to follow. Thirty4 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that the first question is not "are there sources in the article?" but "do sources exist?" and you'll do great. Read and follow WP:BEFORE with each nomination, and remember that offline sources, sources behind paywalls and foreign language sources are wonderful. It's not about whether the article is in great shape, but whether it is notable. Wikipedia does have many, many articles that should be deleted and would be better for their removal! These, however, aren't among them. I would like to encourage you to continue to participate in AfD. You will learn a lot about how to become a better editor. I'd suggest spending just a bit of time monitoring WP:ANI....you'll recognize certain contributors the encyclopedia would be better off without. Perhaps I was a little over-negative, maybe I was triggered by one of these.... Anyway, thanks for your efforts and happy editing! Jacona (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought you might like "this tool". I used it and found one editor who had voted delete 500 straight times. It's not a perfect tool, but it can be helpful. Enjoy.
• On Ian Holliday. He is the author/editor of a number of books on Myanmar (aka Burma), some of which are mentioned in Bibliographies of other works, and has resulted in numerous mentions of him across several continents as an expert on the subject.Jacona (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten the password to this account & have moved to this one here. 30Four (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]