User talk:RoySmith

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies
Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward)

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

DRV

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:10, Monday, November 18, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

The Weight of Chains 2

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

DRV

I saw the discussion on reddit about it and created an account to ask for restoration. Isn't the actual issue relevant?

My apologies if I sound hard-nosed about this, but reviews of userspace drafts have a long history at DRV, and the XfD in question here was really open-and-shut. Not to mention that, I came here to start a DRV because I read about it on reddit, just isn't a valid reason to drag people through a week-long battle about something that's been discussed ad-nauseum already. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Why have you deleted the article Filip Bandžak because the discussion has not finished? I know that the articles can be restored and I want to expand it with the requested secondary sources (reviews and recordings. What is the procedure to restore an article?Borgatya (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filip Bandžak had been open for 25 days. That's about three times longer than these discussions usually take. I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Filip Bandžak. You can work on it there. But, please, read the AfD carefully so you understand the objections people raised. The sources you add will need to address those concerns before it can be moved back into mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete We... Our War's page?

They were happy with it. So, please bring it back. OK? -VinMannie

The AfD was unanimous. I'm not sure there's anything I can do here. Also, I'm wondering who you mean by "They were happy with it"? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the band was happy with it. And, my tablet died, so I couldn't edit it. -VinMannie

That's what I suspected. Since you appear to have some connection with the band, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user previously informally stated [1] that he or she is a paid editor on this article, and was asked to read and follow WP:PAID on 13 August, and again today. Meters (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Carrie Morgridge

It's pretty clear to me that the other four "contributors" who chose Delete on this subject didn't do any work whatsoever -- rather, they probably looked at the latest version (which was in sorry shape with shoddy references as often happens), decided after a quick perusal that they didn't like this person, and presto -- voted delete. None of their comments suggested that they had done any real investigating. When I checked, I found plenty of sources. One contributor who looked over my sources decided they weren't "substantial" or "trivial" without making much of an argument about why. On this basis, you deleted the article. Isn't the job of a closing admin to evaluate the quality of the arguments? Do you really think you made the right decision here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say here. This didn't seem like a complicated discussion to close, and you're essentially arguing that everybody else is wrong. @K.e.coffman: @SwisterTwister: @Kierzek: @Johnpacklambert: @DGG: pinging the participants in the AfD, who may have some other suggestions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the nominator and the four 'delete' votes did not seem to do any real work here in terms of investigating. If I am wrong with my keep vote, please say why. And how about pinging Moonriddengirl and E.M.Gregory and postdlf and Jaaron95 who voted Keep on the previous AfD discussion? To me, it's a no-brainer that Carrie Morgridge belongs in Wikipedia because of a plethora of solid sources, so when a subject like this gets deleted, maybe rules like the WP:GNG no longer apply.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: @E.M.Gregory: @Postdlf: @Jaaron95: pinging additional people, per request, but to be honest, you haven't given me anything to go on beyond asserting that you were right and everybody else was wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer. Just as we make the rules, we can interpret them however the consensus wishes, and we can on a case-by-case basis make whatever exception to any rule for which there is consensus.-- see WP:COI This applies even to most policy, but GNG is not even policy: it is one part of WP:N, and WP:N is only a guideline. The actual policy standing behind it is WP:NOT--and we can even make excepts even to things specifically mentioned there.

And even the statement of GNG says specifically that passing it does not guarantee an article. More specifically, the provision in the GNG requiring substantial sources has some key words, "substantial", "reliable" "independent", all of which need interpretation, and most AfDs are disputes about those interpretations. The only effective meaning of them in any given case is what the consensus thinks it is. The WP decision making process is very far from ensuring consistency. DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reopen Note that this article was closed as keep in an AFD that ran just a year ago. And that Nom failed to mention that it was keep when bringing it back to AFD, Not only is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but bringing an article back to AFD that fast ought to have taken some pretty strong reason to overturn the previous keep. Last year, I preferred, redirect, but I can see that in the intervening year major new sources have appeared. Moreover, this very brief discussion does not appear to have been listed in any topicical lists of AFDs. And then there is the problem that the discussion lasted only a week included editors (SwisterTwister) who are notorious for aggressively careless iVoting. This really does need to be reopened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- my suggestion to the OP would be to try to establish whether Morgridge Family Foundation is a notable entity. All the coverage that I saw of Ms Morgridge was related to the foundation; and she did not appear to me to have individual notability. If the foundation is determined to be notable, then Ms Morgridge and her work could be discussed there. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, that is an opinion, not a policy-based standard. The standard is the existence of substantive, secondary sources. My opinion that Todd Palin lacks "individual notability" is irrelevant; he has the coverage, so he gets an article. Just as Carrie Morgridge does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me Carrie Morgridge is a subject in her own right when she writes her own book, gets a lion's share of the attention in this Denver Post article. Her philanthropic work is generous, focused and smart, and has a HUGE positive impact. How many other people give away tens of millions of $$$ to worthwhile causes? Here the NY Times posts Carrie's photo, interviews her not her husband, not a foundation spokesperson. In this article, she's (not John) receives an award for her philanthropy. Wikipedia has an article on the Morgridge College of Education. Here's a major article in the NY Times focused on Carrie Morgridge. Another in-depth article here -- she's a biggie in the world of philanthropy -- so for me this deletion makes little sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks everybody for your input. There's enough here to make me think this needs more discussion, and my talk page isn't the best place for that :-) So, I'm going to back out my AfD close and relist it for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admire open-minded people. I'll accept however this turns out and not write anything more, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this collegial courtesy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Natalie Claro

user: metaphorical analysis I'm not sure if this is the correct action for me. I'm here to ask why was the article Natalie Claro was deleted. It was my understanding that the determination would be based on facts and WP:GNG and not an actual argument, or where the argument comes from. Yes, it is my first article. Not easy to find a subject when Wikipedia is already flooded with articles. I chose a subject that met the criteria. I understand Notability, but I'm confused by the guidelines because I don't see where it indicates a person should be international or national. I also referenced other article similar to the subject I chose and those articles seem to be in place with no issues, so I would never believe my article would be deleted. I'm not taking this personally rather I am just trying to understand the process. Why can some Articles remain with nearly no valid citations, and this one be deleted? I would like to request the article to be reopened with the opportunity for more research and findings to support the article.Metaphorical analysis (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you beyond what people wrote in the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand. I followed the guidelines for the article. From what I have read the article met the guidelines. How is this determined by an AFD if the comments made were somewhat based on opinions and assumptions? Not only were the guidelines met, but the number of views the article received each day were quite high for someone they are saying is not notable. I'm just searching for the definite reasoning on your part for deletion based on your own decision and not the comments of others. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't validate the guidelines met. Article was based on two independent sources- Tampa Bay Times (independent story on the subject), Jamsphere International Publication (independent story ok subject) and two mentions. One in a section of the Tampa Bay Times, and another mention in Creative Loafing Newspaper. And notability is proven just by the hits alone received on the page see: Natalie Claro Pageviews Metaphorical analysis (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules are all about sources. Pageviews don't even begin to come into it. In fact, after all the years I've been here, I don't even know where to go to find page view statistics; it's just that unimportant. Like I said in the AfD, once I filtered out the comments from people who had obvious WP:COI issues, or were clearly WP:CANVASSed to come here in an effort to sway the outcome, there was not a single person left who was making a credible argument, based on our policies, to keep the article. If you still believe I acted improperly here, your next step would be to ask for a deletion review. You are welcome to do that, but to be honest, I don't think you're going to have any success there. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't think you acted improperly. I just don't understand that the article has proper resources, and I don't see how the discussion took note to that. it leads me to believe much is just based on opinion of the guidelines. Thank you for your time in responding Metaphorical analysis (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mariposa Trust

You closed the del rev on this on the 22nd but the article is still present behind my temp restore. As it was originally my afd that was challenged I do not want to be the one to re-delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataCore Software Deletion Review

I know this is a controversial matter, but I just find it very unfortunate that so many people seem to be messing with the page. The page has been up on the main space since 2011, so surely there has to be a previous version that it can be restored to rather than deleting this notable company despite COI or SPA's. It was considered notable back in 2011 and now, 2016 there are so many more references about the company including 2 Forbes articles and multiple NY Times articles. I also noticed that the AFc reviewer that initially declined the draft in place has been brought before Administrators Noticeboard WP:AIN. Any way to restore a previous draft in place with a protection? I don't see anyone really working on the draft, everyone just seemed to have a main goal of getting the article deleted. Just wanted to get your thoughts/opinion on next steps. Greatly appreciated. 2601:58B:100:4B0B:54C0:AD46:B84D:BA68 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]