User talk:Daniel/Archive/104

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 103 · Archive 104 · Archive 105 →

Requesting Undeleting of M. Ravi IPS

Hi Daniel,

I would like to request you to undelete Mr. Ravi's article. Ravi is the current AGDP - Special Task Force for Tamil Nadu. He is by no mean an ordinary police officer. He has been the most popular cop during last years pandemic lockdown.

He has been an inspiration to so many civil services aspirants. He has been conferred with the Presidential medal twice.

https://www.indianbureaucracy.com/m-ravi-ips-posted-as-adgp-special-task-force-erode-tn/

49.37.211.237 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 49.37.211.237, I cannot find what article you are talking about. What is the exact title of the article? Daniel (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Re-Instatement of Dylan Matthew

Hello Daniel,

I would like to request the page Dylan Matthew be re-instated. I'm happy to make any requested edits and link to other Wikipedia pages that Dylan Matthew is mentioned in. He's the biggest male vocalist in dance music currently and has charted multiple times on Billboard. He's currently over 3 million monthly listeners on Spotify. He certainly meets the musician guidelines, but I'm happy to solve any issues with the page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyphyHyphyJoyJoy (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HyphyHyphyJoyJoy, this was deleted as a result of the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Matthew. Therefore I cannot undelete it. I recommend you contact the person who started that discussion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reinspect Tagore Almeida

Hello Daniel, Tagore Almeida page is been deleted without justification. If you could restore the page, there could be good more contribution expected. Initially, when the page was contested for deletion, there was a brief discussion with the person who put the deletion tag, and then he removed the tag, then suddenly after months the tag was re-installed by the same person and without proper discussion, Tagore Almeida page was deleted.

Please check and do the needful. Iwritingoes (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iwritingoes, this was a soft-deletion, so I see that it has already been undeleted per the procedure. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You doing good work. Iwritingoes (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hi. I made a number of closes today as had some downtime and wanted to help clear the backlog having taken an interest in researching closing. I've reversed one (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_F._Bauer) due to a complaint. Hopefully the rest are fine and that's the only one I screwed up, but am happy to reverse more if necessary. Hopefully overall my closes were more of a help than a hindrance. Also left this message on Black Kite's page. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoricalAccountings, I did notice this, and was about to send you a message but thought better of it. Only thing I'd recommend would be to avoid closing anything as "no consensus"...it's technically not allowed per policy (?), although if you're nailing them I doubt anyone would say anything. If you stick to clear "keep"/"merge"/"redirect" (as in, consensus is obvious to literally anyone), you may avoid any potential issues. That's what I did as a non-admin just to play it safe :) Let me know if you need any other information. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel. I reversed another one on request. I'm still learning but hopefully nailed most of them and will reverse any I didn't. Thanks too for this advice. Can I also draw you attention to this please?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mztourist&oldid=1005941850#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_F._Bauer
I object to the accusation (it's not true, I don't have hard feelings about previous AFDs - one already closed as keep by Black Kite, the other still open but mostly Keep votes) but am happy to let the matter drop. However not sure what to do if this user keeps saying these things or nominates more of my articles for AFD now to retaliate.
Thought it best to mention it now just in case, but otherwise I for one am happy to let it drop. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Nothing to worry about from my perspective. Maybe just give the other editor a clear berth for a little while, Wikipedia isn't that big that sometimes you will come across the same editor a couple of times in quick succession, but you can generally make a conscious effort to avoid anyone you wish to. No point in adding further fuel to the flame. Daniel (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I didn't want to be a tattle tale, but wasn't sure how to proceed. I don't even have a problem with previous afd nominations - I stated my case and that's all I can do, plus it gave me the opportunity to improve the articles and add more sources. I hold no grudge and didn't even mind the nom. But I didn't appreciate the accusations here about closures (I hadn't even noticed the username and none of them were their noms or articles) and if they continue to nom my articles for AFD now I might get suspicious and come back to you for advice. Otherwise, I'm dropping it. Thanks for taking the time.
FYI most closures I made were keep votes, but I checked back since we talked and half a dozen were closed as no consensus. I've now reversed and relisted those ones. Thanks again, -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your help! HistoricalAccountings (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gringalet

I am quite disappointed by and object to your decision to delete. 1. The reviews exist and that is suppose to be sufficient, not the article "proving" notability based on its current state. A foreign language film got a review in Variety in the 1950s and there are other reviews and we can point to where they are. 2. The vote was close but you don't opt for no consensus? ("but right now, based off the state of the article, I find the "delete" majority (as narrow as it is) to be more compelling.") It is not supposed to be a straight vote; it is supposed to be about votes aligned to policy. You find the copy-paste imdb mirror articles argument, which JPL makes in nearly every film-related AfD and doesn't even apply to this article, more compelling than my going behind a paywall and transcribing an English-language review? And the majority of delete votes came in before I got found the review in arguably the most widely circulated and certainly one of them most important film periodicals in the world. Please relist or change to the logical no consensus with a note for a renomination to wait for a few months whole I get the book. If you don't do change to no consensus, userify. I will get the book that has the reviews that we all know about and translate the reviews from Spanish into English the best I can (with detailed citations if those are provided), and we'll see what we have then. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39, I am happy there is a consensus to delete so will not be relisting or changing the result to no consensus. I will userfy when I get a chance to. Daniel (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your not addressing my points speaks volumes. How disappointing. Take your time in userifying--the nearest copy of the book is 600 miles from me and it'll take weeks to arrive. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree, as noted above. The article has already been userfied. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can I learn someting from you?

Greetings. Seeing you undid my changes to Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems

so.. what did I do wrong? I never edited anything before just wanted to add something that was missing.. can you help me with this, please? I expected some kind of reason or something

I checked: Wikipedia:Editing_policy and indeed.. it doesn't have to be perfect but I just wanted to help out.

thanks, bye

Andreas 94.157.207.248 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas, I don't think I was the one who undid your change. My only edit to this page was to remove this link, because the article it linked to was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaseya Network Monitor. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Arco-flagellation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arco-flagellation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Arco-flagellation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of James Merry (actor)

Hi, a page I created in 2010 has been deleted. It is about British actor James Merry.

I have looked at the deletion discussion and found it to be inaccurate. Please can you advise how I get the page reinstated? Thank you. Frankcable (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankcable: Because a consensus existed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Merry (actor), the correct place to request a review is at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE

Hi, I read your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Mallouk and I've been thinking some very similar things recently about the BLPREQUESTDELETE policy. It seems to be causing pretty major and often fractious problems at AfD on at least a weekly basis, in ways that suggest to me that the policy is not representative of consensus. Just over the last month I've seen discussions that made it clear that people had wildly varying ideas of how to interpret BLPREQUESTDELETE, from the Suzanne Mallouk discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Annaïse Heglar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Lerman. At the Suzanne Mallouk AfD, you wrote (I know you will be blanking that discussion so I hope it's OK for me to quote from the page, please feel free to revert/blank this if not) From a personal perspective I would love to see Wikipedia adjust its requirements for inclusion where a subject does request deletion, to have a higher threshold of notability/reliable sources/etc. than normal - that potentially this article would not meet. I can certainly imagine there would be some level of counter-argument to that view from the community, but I think it might be an interesting discussion to have at some point in the future. I have been thinking something very similar: for a while I've considered opening a discussion to see if we can find an alternative consensus. But I think you are absolutely right to anticipate passionate counter-arguments, especially (as another user recently pointed out to me) since the community has pushed back hard against anything that smells like the Right to be forgotten. But when a policy isn't working we should try to fix it, so I'm wondering if you might have any suggestions about how to go about constructing a proposal like that in a way that has a decent chance of aligning the policy better with whatever consensus may be out there. Thanks for any thoughts you might have! - Astrophobe (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Astrophobe, thanks for your message. I have some thoughts on this, which I want to do justice...so I'll reply on Monday (Sunday afternoon US) if that is OK? Will be an easier environment for me to spend some time expressing my thoughts next week. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rush at all, I know it's a complicated question and I'll be very glad to hear your thoughts whenever you have time! Have a good weekend. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ravi IPS Page deletion

You have been bent on getting Mr. Ravi IPS's page deleted. You have belittled all his achievements. You also mentioned the award seems to be awarded at least in part merely for long routine service. Then why do we have a wikipedia page for the award alone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Police_Medal - This award page that we are talking about interestingly has Mr. Ravi's name mentioned under the state of Tamilnadu.

Citations - Articles and news have mentioned him as the ADGP and not Ravi.

A.Abraham.A (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the response at User_talk:RationalPuff#M._Ravi_IPS_Page_deletion, this is spot-on the mark. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spears

Just letting you know that you forgot to protect the redirect (you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Spears with the decision of redirect and protect). —Lowellian (reply) 11:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Lowellian for picking that up. All fixed now, Daniel (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hi again Daniel. Remember that issue that I raised a couple of weeks ago? Well, the same person nominated two more (have tagged you on pages). I understand articles may get nominated from time to time, but I feel more is going on here. Can they be closed and brought back to afd by someone else if they feel it's necessary or do they have to run their course now? Could the editor be told to leave reviewing my articles for another page reviwer in future? Can I take this further if it continues or can anything more be done? Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoricalAccountings, firstly, can totally understand how frustrating this would be. I had it happen once to me an age ago and it wasn't especially pleasant. To be perfectly open here, I'm not especially keen to wade into this - not because I don't think it's an issue (I personally do), but more because I've only just returned from what feels like a good five or so years away from solid editing/community involvement on the project. I am still not comfortable wading into complex (or even mid-range complex, as this is) governance issues for a little while yet, and have been just doing some quiet gnoming around the place to slowly reintegrate.
My best practical suggestion is maybe to pick an administrator who is active at AfD and has the demonstrated ability and tenacity to jump in and help resolve this for the better of all? Once upon a time I would have been a good person to go to, but right now I'm still trying to get back in touch with community values and processes, and I just don't feel comfortable jumping into this right now. Sorry.
Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The only other admin I've really dealt with is Diannaa, regarding copyright stuff, and I've seen Black Kite on AFDs too - should I approach them or can you recommend someone else? -- HistoricalAccountings (talk)
Black Kite is good. Sandstein also excellent. Feel free to blame me for sending you their way :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy?

What exactly is the privacy concern here? There's nothing in that AFD that warrants a WP:CBLANK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "the article appears to have been created by the person in question themself" was totally unsubstantiated. If it can be proven, I'm happy for the discussion to be unblanked. Until it is, it is unfair to have that comment there, especially as the deletion discussion is linked from the deletion log. Because it is in the nomination statement, to the average reader it would appear to carry added gravitas. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

46th issue of Hurricane Herald newsletter

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 46

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Trell (application)

Dear Admin, Sorry, I am late but I was about to add 4-5 links in the AFD discussion & reply to another editor about the secondary source concern but the page got deleted before that only. I insist you please undelete the page and allow me to add links. Even in the discussion hardly one or two-editor participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofstar (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonofstar, because of the low participation rate, this has been done. Daniel (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Tanikella

Hey how are you? The article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teja_Tanikella) was deleted, As I've given links and are legit. Please undelete the Article. Thank you.

Please find the sources: [removed list of sources copied from AfD] -- TejaTanikella (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TejaTanikella, the article was deleted per the consensus of Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teja Tanikella. The article therefore cannot be undeleted. If you believe the close was in error, please read the content at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose and then, if you still believe it was in error, submit a review request there. Daniel (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Travel

Observed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass Travel. Only spotted this when the deletion triggered a hit on my watch list. Refund to draft or at least userfication requested as may be able to improve this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djm-leighpark, of course that can happen. Userfied to User:Djm-leighpark/Compass Travel. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ADDA52

Dear Sir, I am not sure where to ask so requesting you. Your edits are giving me good vibes. I am trying to create a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDA52 but people are deleting it under the g4 tag of 2017, this is not identical to any old page. I am writing about new 2020 sources related to its ban in states and world poker partnership. I believe if the page is notable it should be created else BIG NO. Help me to understand if I am wrong. I also discussed with one more admin and he tried to help me but he might become easy after that. Please check my talk page and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shirt58#ADDA52. I am waiting for your guidance.1друг (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1друг, I encourage you to ask your question and for assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Bus

Hi Daniel, Hope all is well, You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Bus as delete - Was wondering if it could be userfyed to User:Davey2010/The Green Bus so can source and improve ?, Obviously would have it reviewed before it would ever return to mainsapce, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 20:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey2010, should be all done. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, Many thanks I appreciate you doing this, Take care and stay safe, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor TV Afghanistan

Hey there, you recently closed this discussion as a delete. I'm curious how you reached that conclusion? Only three people (including the nominator) chimed in, and all seemed to be saying different things: the nominator brought it to AfD less to delete the article than to look for someone "with better language familiarity [to] rescue this article", one commentator weighed in favor of deletion, and the third (me) noted that the reason for deletion was squarely at odds with the notability guidelines. I would have thought the article would be relisted, or, barring that, closed as "no consensus." Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, fair point regarding the input levels. I believe Wikipedia's seen a significant downturn in recent years regarding activity, which to be honest is making finding consensus slightly harder at times due to the lower participation levels. In this particular case, agree with your comments. I will relist it for another 7 days. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, and resolution. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Quantum Technologies

Hi Daniel, I hope you are doing well. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Quantum Technologies as delete. Are you able to share how this conclusion was reached? There were 4 comments for Delete (including the nominator) suggesting that the page did not provide sources that were independent and the company was not notable enough for an article. Since the nomination, there has been an effort to add more sources to the article to improve notability but it does not seem this was taken into account. A few examples of sources added (on top of the original 16 sources submitted as a part of the draft article which was accepted on Feb 17,2021) IEEE Spectrum, Nature and Gizmodo. Another point worth considering is that other companies with similar notability have Wikipedia articles, such as IonQ or Rigetti, and these articles have not been deleted. Is it possible to relist the article given the new sources and comparisons to existing articles for similar companies? Thank you! JamesHunton (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesHunton, in this situation a clear consensus of editors exist for deletion so I cannot overturn and relist, sorry. The consensus of these editors was a different assessment of the sourcing to the assessment you provided. With regards to your final sentence, probably the most important thing to note is at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x?.
This is out of my hands and I have no scope to take any action you would like, so I will have to direct you to Wikipedia:Deletion review to establish a consensus to undelete.
Cheers,
Daniel (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 25#Vivien Keszthelyi

That was and is, as you say, a bit of a mess. I really don't think there was a possible completely correct answer for the closure there, but I really have to say that your detailed and very sensible closing statement is as close as we can possibly get to that. Well done. ~ mazca talk 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mazca, appreciate the kind words. I'm just thankful I won't be closing any subsequent AfD! :) Daniel (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it was a very good effort to help resolve a difficult situation. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG, appreciated your wisdom-filled words during the discussion as always. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't envy you being the person to evaluate that review. I don't often get involved in such extensive discussions, especially at DRV, though I suspect this particular one was a fairly unusual occurrence in how it unraveled, to say the least. I think you made a reasonable effort to find a fair balance across all the views expressed when closing though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle, I look forward to getting my bowl of popcorn ready for reading the next round of this, I reckon it's going to be entertaining! Daniel (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel! Help me please understand the basis of your decision.

  1. Tell me please why do you believe that the AfD was improper(ly closed), according to relevant guidelines, and why do you believe a DR was justified.
  2. Tell me please why do you believe that the Deletion review was crearted according to relevant guidelines. It it was not, is shall have been closed as invalid. (Also I'd appreciate if you'd share why have you chosen to ignore my questions about the validity, which is very relevant in deciding the result.)
  3. Tell me please whether do you agree with the behaviour that most of the "deletion-side" participants in the (original) AfD and DR process chosen to ignore any content related discussion, to provide any relevant input as to why the article shall be deleted. Tell me how do you believe the next AfD will look like when they continue this behaviour?
  4. Tell me please what do you think about S Marshall and others calling 10+ years experienced editors "sockpuppets".
  5. Please tell me what do you expect to be the outcome of re-listing the AfD?

I am not sure how much time have you spent examining that "mess", but it feels like you have made a few shortcuts. I'd appreciate if you answered my questions (preferably after really considering the answer) and in the case if you may think that the process was in fact not according to policies you'd revert your decision. And I also sympathise with you falling into this pit of snakes. Thank you. --grin ✎ 18:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take massive umbrage with the suggestion that I took shortcuts here. Answered in order:
  1. The Deletion Review was improperly closed due to the fact that a) it should not have been closed by a non-administrator but more importantly b) it did not appropriately weigh the strengths of each of the arguments appropriately versus policy.
  2. The Deletion Review was entirely valid. You will note that the majority of administrators and those with experience in such matters did not believe it was "invalid". To be technical, it would meet both points 1 and 5 of the "Purpose" listing.
  3. Behaviour, on user talk pages especially, during the debate is not of concern in my role closing the debate. I provided some rough parameters around this issue in my close for the upcoming debate, but ultimately it is not my decision.
  4. Refer to point 4.
  5. I expect a far better quality debate, focusing on policy based arguments on both sides, and a closure by an administrator who evaluates policy-based arguments that have been made extensively. Where consensus lies, I honestly do not care.
I would encourage you to take a step back and think about how your approach is serving you, in a situation where many other participants are showing calmness and measure. I understand you are involved and therefore emotionally invested, and I also understand that you are hurt due to how you perceive the behaviour of others towards yourself. However, I honestly think you are doing/will be doing your cause and your goal more harm than good if you maintain this level of combativeness. I am pinging the above three editors, Mazca, DGG, Bungle (ironically, all three advocated for different positions in the Deletion Review, yet none showed the level of angst that you have in your message above), as I intend to disengage from this discussion before I become riled up at your attempts at lawyering my good-faithed effort to find a resolution in a difficult set of circumstances. Daniel (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel: The purpose of my questions were to underline that my repeated requests of acting according to referenced policies and guidelines were all ignored. I have quoted - in due course - WP:NMOTORSPORT, WP:DEL-REASON, WP:NEGOTIATION and WP:CON, WP:GF, WP:ATD, WP:NOENG; also quoted WP:DRV (where neither 1 nor 5 applies nor was any discussion about this, but applies "don't" section 1, 5 and especially 8), and of course WP:APPNOTE, all of those promptly ignored. Within the discussion it has been mentioned that even the original reason for deleting the article wasn't possibly proper, this wasn't responed either (and this was used as basis for deletion, which was used as a basis for DR). The whole DR was about an AfD which has been shown to be baseless (by consensus). The DR first section contained unfounded accusations of the editors in the AfD and I'd expect to either ask for proof from S Marshall to prove that the accusations are right or the admin dismiss the DR as without merit.
By closing it this way have shown me that it is acceptable to accuse editors as "sockpuppets" (easily proven false, by the way), it is okay to dismiss appropriate notificatin as "meatpuppets", it is okay to open a DR if you don't like the AfD result, it is okay when the discussion participants ignore requests to show facts which support their statements, it is okay to delete an article when it meets the relevant guidelines but some familar people insist anyway and, most importantly, it is okay to trump editors by seniority and connections (most prominently represented in UCoC section 3.2: "Abuse of power, privilege or influence"). This is my real problem in a largish nutshell.
I apologise for my "shortcuts" comment if you have indeed read through all the discussions in the AfD, the Talk page and the Deletion Review; my assumption was based on your action and explanation which seemed to ignore the raised points therein and I assumed good faith on your side which means that you haven't purposefully ignored them but have not checked them. Also, somewhat irrelevant point is that you may have misjudged my type of involvement: I am not really interested in either the topic or the specific subject but I am very much involved when observing wrong Wikipedia processes (especially not following the core values), bad habits I experience in debates and communication (or lack thereof) and the quite shameful way of reasoning when someone quotes policies but ignores other policies or don't care to explain why they think that the first applies but the second isn't. I also realise that I am "fighting" against decades of bad habits here, and it probably shows. It isn't against you or any specific persons, but it is against misconduct. --grin ✎ 14:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grin: I am unsure about the decision to extend the deletion review to here. Similarly, I also don't wholly support Daniel's specific assessment that a new AfD should be necessary (as I clearly noted in the DR) or that the closure was incorrect. However, with that said, Daniel made a tough decision, not only in closing the DR but choosing to get involved to do so. I would suggest that, should a new AfD surface, this energy should be spent in formulating a defense of your (and clearly, many others') views on the article's retention. Many editors can reach their own conclusions about your points raised, though I would imagine Daniel (like me) would sooner now step back. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: Thanks. For the record I think your conduct was proper (none of the points WP:BADNAC applies) and right and I strongly disagree in admin superiority (as administrators shall administrate, using their tools according to WP:ADMIN instead of being judges in decisions about content; disclaimer: I am possibly everything from admin to checkuser on multiple projects). -- grin ✎ 14:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problems here were not of Daniel's making, and his closure makes the very best attempt to solve this issue. There are multiple problems here, but all are individually m inor:
  • This probably shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin, but given the discussion in isolation I just can't really fault Bungle for doing this. It looks like an unambiguous keep on the face of it, and you have to really dig into the history to make it controversial. But it clearly is.
  • The way the DRV was started was potentially assuming a bit too much bad faith. There may have been one or several suspicious COI accounts in there, but the method the article was brought to DRV ended up almost inevitably marking numerous intermittent but totally well-intentioned editors with a "potential bad-faith paid editor" brush.
  • Despite all this meta-drama I still haven't really assessed the sources in the article, which I probably will do if and when it reappears at AfD - I'd have to do a fair amount of translation and source assessment to see what's what, as I'm not familiar with most things Hungarian. We've ended up getting seriously caught up in something several steps removed from anything genuinely useful to the encyclopedia - I just don't think it's a huge problem if there's a slightly borderline article on a racing driver, and now we're discussing a discussion of a discussion about it.
Despite its overall relatively low importance, this now needs to be resolved to avoid it being a continued drain on everyone's time. I think Daniel's proposal in the closure is the best of a selection of bad options in terms of actually doing that. ~ mazca talk 23:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazca: Thanks, and please feel free to ask for help from your fellow Hungarian (speaking) editors of your choice (even me if you choose), since we should assume good faith, being here for 10-18 years now. Please ping me on the aricle talk page if you need any assitance. -- grin ✎ 14:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The option you chose in the Del Rev close was the safest and most conservative. Once a debate on anything gets too acrimonious, and people become involved, the best course is usually to stop it and do it over, hoping people will learn from the previous round , and will be able to focus on the key issues. Your explanations there were excellent, as are your comments above. Mazca is of course correct that the question of whether to keep or delete the actual article is not critical to Wikipedia . Almost all borderline articles could be rationally kept or deleted, though thee is a need to keep decisions of similar subject at least somewhat consistent. The true difficulty in bios comes once we decide to keep them, ensuring the contents is in perspective and making the article encyclopedic. But, as he says, we do have to decide one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'll have to make that decision without an AfD nomination from me. The sources are either independent, or reliable, or list a noteworthy accomplishment, but none of them do all three. However, a thorough, written assessment of those sources would take me several hours, and then after making it I'd be repeatedly pinged and summoned to deal with the ridiculous quantity of text these editors produce when challenged. I'd be asked "What's unreliable about this website?" several dozen times, when it's as obvious as a coalpile in a ballroom to someone who understands en.wiki's notability criteria. Unless someone else nominates it, this is going to be retained through sheer exhaustion.—S Marshall T/C 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S Marshall:, totally understand - I feel a lot of people are exhausted by this whole thing. "Coalpile in a ballroom" is one I am adding to my backpack of fantastic phrases I have picked up from editing this website! Daniel (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of Tom Willett

Thank you for removing the links to the subject, but you should not be removing the entries themselves. I caught a few of them and restored the entries. Would you mind adding the rest back? If you can't, please ping me and I will attempt to. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz: On it now. Give me 10-15 and hopefully I'll have it fixed by then. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I fixed two (in addition to your four) and there was one that was correctly removed. The rest were just delinkings. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Xanadu Quantum Technologies

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xanadu Quantum Technologies. 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. JamesHunton (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion (specific or general)

Hi again Daniel.

Could I get your opinion on an AFD please? (Not the same issue I discussed with you before but it is one of those AFDs.) If the vote to delete outweighs other responses and there's hardly any keeps, but the article has since been updated/sources improved, does the closer always delete because that's what the votes say or do they weigh the opinions of the lone keep?

For example if there's 4 deletes that just say "not notable" but without making strong case other than surface arguments, 1 redirect, and then 1 keep that's improved the article and added sources, plus cited reasons article meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG (and reasons it could meet more, such as WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR) - would the deletes automatically outweigh the keep in a case like this even if the lone keep provided more detailed arguments and improved the article? I know it's not meant to be a vote, but if there's more deletes does that automatically make that the likely outcome or could a keep or no consensus still occur here?

The specific case I'm referring to is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Davenport_(actor) but if you don't want to weigh in specifically on that I understand but would still be interested in your general opinion on an example like this.

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoricalAccountings: If the numerous "delete" !votes directly address the reasons provided to "keep", then ultimately the closer will probably deem that on the issue of policy raised by the "keep" !voter(s), the consensus is that the policy leans towards delete for that specific application. However, if the "delete" !voters make arguments which aren't grounded in policy, and the "keep" !voter(s) do, this should be weighed appropriately. No two debates are alike, obviously, so these are very generic comments. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. Appreciate it! -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel/Archive/104"