User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2024/September

Unrelated discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Hi - I thought better to continue this here, rather than clog up the AfD discussion. I think I probably use the word "keep" in this coversation in a very broad sense beyond just being a signifier of notability. To me the effect of a procedural "keep" or "close" is still the same, in the specific instance of closure, in that the article still remains. That is, the effect of anything other than a closure for delete is keep. Actions following from the proceedural close/keep really depend on the circumstance, but a renomination following that original closure is going to need to address the initial closure when bringing it back to AfD. Even Keep can in some circumstances not necessarily produce a definitive outcome ... for example, a two sentence politician stub (eg a member of a parliament in the 15th C) kept at AfD a few years previously, purely on the basis of NPOL's presumed notability, could in my opinion reasonably be brought back to AfD on the basis that searching shows there are no actual sources to maintain an article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to move the discussion, thanks.

My point is that a "keep" (not procedural) result from an AfD is different than a "procedural close" because the keep is a decision to specifically keep, while a "procedural close" is a decision to close the nomination without making a decision on the article itself. The difference is the process of renomination. We'd expect the procedural issue to be fixed and then re-nominated for a "procedural close". But for a keep, the decision has been made and the article shouldn't be re-nominated ... at least, not any time soon. If we call "procedural close" instead "procedural keep", it implies there is a prejudice against addressing the procedural issue and re-opening the AfD. Without a formal definition of this term (there is WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE, there is not WP:PROCEDURALKEEP, and our AfD uses the latter) then the AfD process is obscured and uninviting. -- mikeblas (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree whatsoever in terms of process; we've just used the word keep in slighly broader/narrower terms. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of megaprojects in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hisar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! -- mikeblas (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice on your mass AfD nomination

While I appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia, your first mass nomination of these "List of events at [stadium]" pages failed simply because it was a mass nomination. That happens to most mass nominations. It's unfair, but that's how it is.

You then went ahead and renominated all of the pages individually, on the same day. This is basically equivalent to a mass nomination, in that it overloads the AfD queue and results in very little input from !voters.

Here's a technique I learned from an experienced editor: 1. Nominate one or two of the articles individually. This way, you can properly argue why each article is not notable, and editors have enough time to search for and assess sources. 2. Once those discussions are closed as delete, then mass nominate the rest, citing the individual noms as precedent.

Hopefully this results in more productive AfD discussions and uses editor time more efficiently. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 09:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)