User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Deletion of Balakrishna Geonka Page

I would like to know why the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkrishan_Goenka was deleted. There was no discussion after the nomination and sudden delete happened even without replying to the talk and discussion. Jbadshah (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me how you became aware of this discussion with a brand new account?

It was deleted because there was consensus among established editors. If you believe the close was incorrect, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review, but please note you'll have to answer the same question I asked. Star Mississippi 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The idea of Wiki is to give everyone equal chance to contribute. I believe and truly like to follow all the guidelines and surely would like to help a friend to file for Deletion Review. Regarding consensus I didn't exactly see anyone further contributing to the talk there which perhaps gave me an impression that necessary debate didn't took place or did I miss to visit any pages where this discussion are taking place. My request is to just perhaps help the new editors understand the problem and help them to be a part of this great platform Jbadshah (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to file for deletion review, but if your "friend" is blocked, that would be proxying for a blocked user, which isn't allowed. You didn't have an account at the time the article was deleted, so please explain how you knew whether or not folks were contributing. I suggest you also read WP:UPE which is part of why your friend was blocked, of which @331dot also advised them. Star Mississippi 01:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

David Eribe

Are you OK tidying up their mess? All those moves are kind of confusing... Girth Summit _(blether) 18:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your continued clean up on that farm @Girth Summit. I hope they get bored soon because whack a sock is getting old. It looks like @Spicy got to these before I got back online, thankfully. If there are any still outstanding that I can't figure out, I'll ping one of you. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 01:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I ran into some of their work yesterday as there were a lot of redirects leftover from page moves. They are pretty persistent and don't seem deterred, I think they will be back. At best, we can protect some page titles. If only they knew that their efforts almost guarantee we'll never have main space articles on their favorite subjects, maybe they'd have second thoughts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz. I protected one of their usual ones, although I think @Wbm1058 ultimately re-created it, which is fine. @Onel5969 got one of the others. Fewer targets will help with whack a mole, hopefully, but I'd love other ideas. Star Mississippi 19:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Nightwolf

I think this should be re-opened. While there were more merge !votes, one of them was merely WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE, with another argument being that he simply is no longer relevant in the series, which is not a reason for a merge. I don't see a consensus here. MoonJet (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither the keep vote came from User: KatoKungLee. Also, complaining twice [1] can be interpreted as being disruptive. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I do see a consensus for a merge here and don't see grounds to reopen it, but you're welcome to take it to deletion review if you believe my close was wrong. cc @Seraphimblade so they're aware of this discussion. Thanks @GlatorNator for the pointer to that conversation. Star Mississippi 13:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Saving Grace animal rescue

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saving Grace animal rescue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Jeff Fynn-Paul draft article

Hi, Star Mississippi!

Thanks for the review of my submitted draft. Your review says the draft was declined, and I would kindly request some more clarification on the following:

1) the review says the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The cited sources are: Leiden University official website, Amazon.com (official website), Centre d'Estudis del Bages official website, globalscholarships.com, EduRank.org. the Spectator official website, Baismag official website, History Reclaimed official website, and 2 official PDF documents (one by Leiden University, and one by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) I would really appreciate more info on which of these sources are not reliable enough and what to improve in particular.

2) the review says the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. It says the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I would appreciate additional insight into the specific parts that could be seen as biased, as well as in terms of sources, ie which of the cited sources are not independent, reliable, or published, and how to improve on that. I would also like to clarify that I am not the author of any of the materials listed as sources in the submitted draft.

Thanks in advance for the reply! Erica2687 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Erica2687. Thanks for your note. Because Fynn-Paul is affiliated with Leiden university, that's not an independent source, and Amazon is never appropriate as a source. You want more sources from those unaffiliated with Leiden or Fynn-Paul. You'll also need to remove all external links from the text. Referencing for Beginners will help with how to correctly cite information from significant, independent reliable sources that help establish academic notability. As far as an advertisement, praise like award winning is puffery which isn't the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. You want to take a tone that's neutrally presenting what he has done, without promoting him or his upcoming book. Let me know if this is helpful? Star Mississippi 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Todd Haimes

On 26 April 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Todd Haimes, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of: Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth

If we compare any award given away with only Nobel Prize, Oscars, Bookers, etc. then that would not be fair at all. As there are many awards and recognitions given away by government bodies recognizing the work done by artists, authors etc. and these hold a lot of importance in that country. There are no fixed guidelines as to which award holds the most important after the Booker Prize for literary work. The deletion of the Wikipedia page: Deshbhakti Ke Pavan Teerth suggested is not fair. Aintabli (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC), has rightly commented that Indian Government has awarded 'Rahul Sankrityayan Award' for the year 2018–19 to this Book. Ministry of Tourism, under the Government of India has awarded this Rahul Sankrityayan Award. No it would not be apt to consider Sahitya Akademi Award as the more "major" option in India. Moreover, the English version of this book: Patriotic Pilgrimage Of India, is available at the National Library of India. Hence meeting the threshold standards (Criteria) also. It is my humble submission to re consider this deletion of the article and also help me to publish the same. Raksha57 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Raksha57. You have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 19 where the community will decide. You could have discussed it here with me prior to doing so, but there is no need to paste the same information in both places. If you need help with editing, please let me know how I can help. Happy to Star Mississippi 02:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, actually i am not fully clear with the rules and regulations at Wikipedia so i had opened the DELETION REVIEW. I had made a genuine page which all of sudden got nominated for deletion. I could not log-in Wikipedia those days as i was not well, I saw my page had been deleted by then. Moreover the reasons specified are correct. Not all get Bookers prize for literary work. Also the English version of this book: Patriotic Pilgrimage Of India, is available at the National Library of India. Hence meeting the threshold standards (Criteria) also. Kindly help me to get this page back please. Raksha57 (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The deletion was endorsed, to say that the community does not believe it is a notable subject. It is possible that someone would be willing to restore it to draft space for you to work on there, but you may not move it to mainspace without addressing the reasons and proving notability. Star Mississippi 22:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Cattle, copyvios

Hi! Thanks for catching that other one! Also for the p-block; I was going to indef if I found one more problem, but you got there first. If you've no objection I'll probably move that page back to Munshiganj, as that's the name it's found under in the various WP:RS I've quickly checked for it. I answered your question about WikiProjects in the AfD, but didn't want to ping any editor to that discussion. Apart from myself, the only active editor I can think of right now with long-term interest in livestock breeds is Steven Walling, whose advice I have sought more than once in the past. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Absolutely go for it on the cattle. There is sourcing under the original name, but I don't know if protocol is breed, region where they're found or...and that editor didn't seem to be on the right track. And I think they're probably trying to edit in good faith, but are either above their head or don't have the English language skills, unfortunately. I'm on a run in those with AfC and p-blocks seem to be more welcoming: learn the ropes, with training wheels. Thanks on the pointer to @Steven Walling who I'll reach out to. Star Mississippi 22:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the ping. How can I help? Steven Walling • talk 02:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look at Special:Contributions/LivBD? They're currently pblocked for problematic editing. Dajal cattle is at AfD - no canvassing issue, it's my own and I'd be happy to withdraw if I'm wrong especially since the redirect is no longer viable per @Justlettersandnumbers' copyright cleanup. I'm not sure what makes for a notable breed. Happy to have these if the encyclopedia should, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 18:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Steven Walling, thanks for responding. What are your thoughts on the notability of individual domestic animal breeds? It's been suggested in the deletion discussion linked by SM that they are not intrinsically notable. That contrasts with my opinion and experience. I pinged you because you're the only still-active editor I could think of who's created many such pages. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close

Hi star! Just reaching out because you're a regular closing admin at AFD. Question. On the May 2 deletion log, there is a discussion for Mohit Parmar. I'm curious. Another admin has speedily deleted that article before the discussion could close. I was considering doing an early closure, but thought it best to 1 ask if that is correct and 2 even if correct, leave for an admin as I am not one. Just out of curiosity, what is the correct procedure here? Is it closed, or should we leave it open in case someone requests undeletion and then we have a consensus for deletion allowing it to be redeleted in future? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like @Explicit and @Bbb23 have deleted the draft and sandbox which were on my watchlist. @Ravensfire mentioned an SPI, but I'm not familiar with this master. I think it was on my watchlist from AfC patrol. I've just closed the AfD which was rendered moot by the speedy. For the future, that's something you can do as a clerk type action since the primary action has already been taken. Star Mississippi 02:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta, @Star Mississippi, I'm pretty sure this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hussan Naqvi. If you look at the history of the deleted page (sorry, MaxnaCarta), you can see it was originally created by Hussan Naqvi, changed to redirect, recreated by ImmjSns, changed to redirect, recreated by Kushang Jindal Agarwal. This is a pretty minor actor that really only has one production to their credit (Mohit Parmar), not much else or there would be more activity on the page from accounts with various styles. There are some common aspects to the edit summaries the accounts use, which helps tie them together. (And if anyone knows how to keep all of the socks in the Indian film/television area straight, please let me know!!!!!!) Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, saw your ping on the Tirishan SPI, I'll try to comment there tomorrow. I *hope* it's more meat than socking, and really hope it's just shared interests, but there feels like something isn't quite right there. Ravensfire (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ravensfire for the context.

I assume you've found MohitParmar1005? It's past my bedtime, so flagging rather than adding to the SPI where I'll inevitably break formatting.

I hope to too on Trishnan, but there seems to be some coordinating going on as well as some pre AfD shenanigans and there are too many versions to play whack a mole on without CU goggles. Not time sensitive, I just knew you had some of the history. Star Mississippi 03:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted that other account, so thank you for the heads up! Trying not to look at my clock, nor my 7:00 am meeting tomorrow morning... Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi thanks very much I thought as much but wanted to check first. Thanks so much MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Jovanovic

I'm surprised to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Jovanovic close as a delete. Mostly because the last time I looked, it seemed like a pile-on, so I didn't think it was the best use of my time and didn't opine.

But as this went to AFD because it was moved to Draft, and back again quickly - shouldn't it go back to draft? This is a young, very active player. Can you draftify? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a pile on, but without looking at the sources, unfortunately, which the delete !votes addressed. The interpersonal sniping at sports AfDs has gotten worse, again, as I'm sure you've seen (as an observer - have no issue ever with your participation).

Always happy to draftify if someone is willing to actively improve and done, but that wasn't clear from the discussion in this case. No need to ping me when you think sourcing has been improved/identified. I trust your judgement in moving it back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 12:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It WAS a pile-on when I reviewed it, with 6 keeps and 1 delete! Thanks for drafifying. Nfitz (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Pitchero

I appreciate it is a difficult task but can you help me understand why you've closed as No Consensus here? None of the sources meet our GNG/NCORP guidelines. Cunard's argument now is that essentially a review of the website is the same thing as a review of the company, which has no support whatsoever in any of our guidelines. Cielquiparle's references fell short and their argument is that sources may be combined (which you'll see on the Talk page of NCORP has been dismissed). I understand there must be consensus but these arguments fail at a fundamental level, which is sources that meet guidelines for establishing notability. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for the delay, I'm only just getting online and briefly.

I think the challenge we have with N:CORP (and it's true on a recent nom I made, not linking so as not to canvas) is we as a community don't have consensus on whether the coverage of Company Y's product/channel (as I've seen it in a newspaper as well as a website) rolls up to company or not. As I vaguely recall, you, Cunard and I had a similar discussion somewhere as well. Your input was definitely stronger in basis than Ciel's, but you and Cunard looked at different sides of the question. I'm willing to relist this, but I honestly think the best course of action is to re-nom down the road (and happy to be quoted for anyone who cites "too soon"). While each of you did back up your input, which was thankfully more helpful than some other input, it wasn't a particularly well attended discussion. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the response. There were two aspects to my rebuttal of sources. The first is that the article relied entirely on information provided by the company and by way of interview with the founders - this fails the test for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. It was only later that Cunard maintained that the selection of quotes from the articles were sufficient but they are not *clearly attributable* to a source unconnected with the company and anyone who reads those articles will come to the same conclusion.

You mention above that as a community we don't have consensus on whether the coverage of Company Y's product/channel rolls up to company or not. I think it is already covered pretty well in the NCORP guidelines which admittedly could be better phrased in parts. It must be remembered that NCORP provides guidelines for companies/organizations *or* products, so where the example in NCORP says "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products" this does not mean that a film featuring the product can be used to establish notability for the company - as per INHERITORG

The first sentence of NCORP says This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. INHERITORG says The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. The guidelines stress that notability isn't transferable. Under the CORPDEPTH section entitled "Significant coverage of the company itself" (which speaks for itself really) it says Sources are not transferable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing coverage of that organization".

I never thought that the arguments put forward by the Keep !voters were (a) showed that the topic meet our criteria for establishing notability or (b) that the argument about blurring the lines between website/product/company had any merit. In any case, for most topics, coverage of the "website" is invariably related to the product. Not the company. So it isn't relevant for this particular topic as it is about a company.

Anyways, thanks for the explanation for the close. No point in reopening unless others participate and as you've pointed out, it has been opened for months and participation has been low. Take care and thanks again. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's funny, I actually used a version of your The guidelines stress that notability isn't transferable. recently. Need to find it again and see how it closed. Just noting I've seen this but am likely offline for the next 24 hours or so, and will come back to you with a fuller answer by Tuesday at the latest. Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the further delay

You mention above that as a community we don't have consensus on whether the coverage of Company Y's product/channel rolls up to company or not. I think it is already covered pretty well in the NCORP guidelines which admittedly could be better phrased in parts. It must be remembered that NCORP provides guidelines for companies/organizations *or* products, so where the example in NCORP says "A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products" this does not mean that a film featuring the product can be used to establish notability for the company - as per INHERITORG

I think this is perhaps close to where I land on us not having consensus. Consensus was determined but either it has changed, wasn't clearly implemented in guidelines, or isn't clearly applied in practice. Or likely all three. I think some of it is a human issue - if you and I are discussing the quality of Chinet coffee cups and news coverage thereof (because it's on my desk-not because of any active discussion or extant article), are we talking about the cups, or the company? I think in most cases, we as a community would write the article on Chinet and possibly discuss the cups therein, but if coverage is about cups -- maybe their robust construction --, does that mean the article should be on the cups because Chinet might not be notable? I think that's your point in it says Sources are not transferable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing coverage of that organization". and I don't disagree that it's written as such, I'm jut not sure it's reality. If a non notable company produces a notable product, to my (editor) brain, that doesn't make sense. If it's only one of the two, the company is notable and not their products, the other way doesn't make sense to me.

FWIW, if I'd seen this AfD as an editor, I'd likely have voted to delete. I just don't see the consensus for it in the discussion.

Hope this is helpful and happy to discuss at any time. I anticipate being online a little more in the next few days. Star Mississippi 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the great discussion! You say Consensus was determined but either it has changed, wasn't clearly implemented in guidelines, or isn't clearly applied in practice.. I take a simple approach. I read the guidelines, that's it. The guidelines are essentially the currently captured consensus. If consensus has changed then the guidelines should be changed. If consensus hasn't been applied in practice then that is down to either a misunderstanding by participants at AfD (which happens frequently lets be honest) or its down to AfD closers who also fail to understand the guidelines and instead are swayed by "interpretations" put forward by participants.

The task faced by closers starts with their understanding of the guidelines and they should weigh each position/argument at AfD against the applicable guidelines.

Lets look at your question about Chinet cups. If the only thing notable about the word Chinet is their association with a product (e.g. paper cups), then that is what the article should be about. In this case, if the only notable thing about Pitchero is their product then ... that is what an article should be about. The current article, about the company, is essentially hijacking the coverage about their product to promote the company - something we take pains to make sure doesn't happen. There is zero "Independent Content" about the company - I think it is true to say that all the participants at AfD acknowledged that.

So the issue that bubbled over at AfD and the one we're left with - is the product notable? And does that notability allow for an article on the company? Well, although that wasn't the focus of the AfD, in my opinion there was at least one source in the Telegraph that met the criteria and there was another that was weaker but still good. So lets agree for the sake of argument that an article focused on the product would meet GNG/NCORP notability.

In that case, would deleting the current article be wrong? Is there a possibility of closing an AfD to say that the main topic/focus fails our notability criteria but if the article is changed it could be allowable? Or is that not what TNT is for? I don't know but in an ideal WP world, this should be an option. TNT with a fuse. Either "fix" the article or it gets deleted.

Is that fair? Well, for me, we've ended up with an article that doesn't talk about what is notable so as I've said above, someone looking up Pitchero will be disappointed that the article doesn't talk about the product. Instead, we've ended up with what is pretty much an investor pitch and PR. Readers are being baited and switched.

I realise that the main issue/question being posed hasn't really been addressed. Does coverage about the product count towards a company's notability. I think you'll probably have guessed my response is "hell no". You mentioned Chinet cups - well if the name "Chinet" is associated solely with a single product and is also the name of the manufacturing company, then when someone thinks of "Chinet" what comes to mind? The company or the cups? Which is notable? Well - whatever the answer, that should be the focus of the article. It can even get more complicated - what happens if "Chinet" is a "brand name" that covers a variety of (lets say) recycled paper products including everything from cups to notepaper to toilet seats but that the manufacturing company is actually called "Acme Ltd". Do we even have guidelines for brands?

Looking forward to your thoughts. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Right back at you re; great discussion. I hadn't thought about the lens of a company hijacking its product(s) notability, but it makes sense. While there are folks who are loyal to the brands on their clothes/phone/etc. there are also many of us who care more about the fit/function, rather than who made it. While I want to know the latest phone, I don't particularly care about the company. I think in this case, and looking at the Telegraph article, the article has the potential to be helpful to the reader.

And yes, TNT with a fuse absolutely needs to be a thing, and not just in this scenario. AfD isn't for clean up, but some of these articles are never going to get cleaned up despite being kept. Where I fall editor wise on companies is do we really need an article on every company? These articles are by and large not going to be maintained or updated, so they're low page view zombies.

Where I absolutely agree with your "hell no" is what I call transactions. Sure it's helpful to say a company came into existence when it merged with company b, but none of that adds up to notability. Zip. But yet so often it "counts". I think 20+ years in, we need an overhaul on N:CORP/ORG as we did with schools five? years ago. What made sense when we were building out an encyclopedia might not make sense now. And it's also what leads to inequity in coverage. We have far more company articles than we need in English language countries whereas global south/non-English europe is underrepresented, but that's a different tangent.

More to come. Star Mississippi 03:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree NCORP/ORG needs an overhaul in terms of explanations in relation to "brands vs products vs websites vs companies" and more examples as to trash references and more examples as to what is meant by "clearly attributable to sources not associated with ..", etc, but in my opinion the NCORP guidelines cover just about everything and if they were actually fully applied we would be able to cut the amount of company article by 50%. Probably maybe more. We know that Wikipedia has become just one more battleground with so many trolls and paid contributors and puppets diverting us from WP's original purpose to prevent propaganda, whether that's political or promotional. WP relies on being somewhat credible. It is very difficult to police the first issue correctly (in my opinion) without being accused of leaning one way or another. But the second? We should be *well* able to keep promotional articles to a minimum. From my experience though, that requires a slightly different approach involving a pool experienced editors with knowledge of the guidelines (whether that's BLP or NCORP or whatever) and not just randomers. Unofficially, that's probably the way it is working in reality anyway - I know I only edit in NCORP related areas these days. There's gotta be a better way I'm sure. Thanks for the great discussion! HighKing⁺⁺ 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

More tomorrow, but this is the discussion I referenced above that I was surprised by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DxO Labs (2nd nomination). It is closed now, so no canvassing issues. There is ORG-lite coverage on some of their products, but nothing to me that smelled like clear keep. Star Mississippi 00:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Macrakis makes a point and while it sounds like a point that isn't really covered by GNG/NCORP, it really is. In fact it is already covered by WP:N. Essentially, Macrakis makes an admission that the company isn't notable but since it serves as a useful collection/bucket for all the company's products (whether they're notable or not), lets go ahead and have an article about the company anyway and include a list of products. So now, we have an article about a topic that even those arguing to Keep acknowledge isn't notable. Kinda farcical isn't it? I can see why some editors think it makes sense but it is the wrong approach. We don't create articles about non-notable topics. The correct approach is that each of the notable topics - which are the individual software products - should have their own articles and perhaps a "List of DxO software" article or something similar if required. All covered by WP:PRODUCT. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Butting in. :) I am not sure @HighKing your interpretation above about having separate articles for each product actually aligns to what WP:PRODUCT says. I just had a robust discussion with another editor about this issue and I thought the same as you until I went back and reread NPRODUCT. My read is it actually states the opposite. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic. Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy. (bolding mine), which to me means we generally should not be creating separate articles with instances like Coca Cola/The Coca-Cola Company being an exception because of the volume and depth of coverage about each. S0091 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi S0091, we welcome your input here at Star's Talk page :-). For me, I can provide an equally valid alternative interpretation. I'd say that the emphasis in the first sentence qualifies the context. Where it says "In cases where the company' is mainly known ....", for me the first test is whether the company is "known" (e.g. notable - we don't have a test for "known"). And when it says This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic, this again refers to a potential clash between two or more "notable" and valid alternatives for a title. I'd also add that the primary/root guideline WP:N is very clear that topics must be notable. Yes, I agree that WP:PRODUCT uses the word "known" as opposed to "notable" in the first sentence and this is therefore unclear and "open to interpretation" but I suppose that part of the "unclear" nature or the guidelines. There have been a couple of related discussion at the WP:NCORP Talk page over the years. For example in 2007 (16 years ago, yikes!) this exact question was asked and no clear direction or response emerged. A more recent discussion from 2020 on "creative" companies is slightly more helpful in my opinion. It asks the question on whether "publishers" can be notable (or other creative companies) and acknowledges that companies don't become notable by having notable products. I don't think you can say a clear consensus emerged to create an exception for "creative" companies but it touches on the same questions being asked and for me it does acknowledge that you simply don't create articles on topics which are not notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look through that creative company discussion because the "robust" discussion I referred to was about film production company. Thanks for linking it. But, yeah, what is "known"; is it intended to mean notable and if so, why not just say "notable"? I am not sure I agree with individual articles about the products, especially if they are all going to be stub-ish or maybe that is where you were coming from with a list type article? And if so, what would the title be? Then there is the mix of company/brand/products especially when the company and brand is the same/similar name (if not the product as well) and sometimes it is unclear reading the sources if they are referring to the brand or the company (or both?). Sheesh!

I do think of you as "the HighKing of NCORP" :) and like Star Mississippi, I have learned a ton from reading your input at AfD discussions. As an AfC reviewer, I often find myself asking "what would HighKing's opinion be if this were at AfD?". You really do take a holistic view whereas I tend to be more siloed so I sometimes miss nuances and contradictions you spot. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think if we're only creating stubs on products, then WP:PRODUCT suggests/advises that they get rolled up. Article titles can reflect the nature of the content. But what we should try to avoid is the temptation to create an article on a company (which fails our notability criteria) for the sole purpose of "makes sense" or "handy categorisation". Of course there are ways to bundle information on related products together. For the previous example, it would make more sense to create an article named "DxO image processing products" or "DxO image processing software". It would be perfectly fine to include a short section about the company.

As for "creative" companies/people, I believe that the line is blurred considerably and the guidelines let us down in many cases. For example, an architect firm named after the founders (e.g. Mary and Joe Architects Inc) which is notable and has books written about their buildings is arguably as much about the architects as the company. Other guidelines recognise this, NCORP should also. And in cases where there's an overlap with other guidelines (e.g. record label companies and NMUSIC or (as in your example) a film production company and NFILM), perhaps NCORP should outline a test for redirection to those categories where the engaged editors have more specialised domain knowledge and really should be in a position to assist in determining notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes @HighKing. Especially with architects. Also in some cases, we have essentially duplicates with the principal and their firms. We know that in 99% of the cases, the named architect is credited whereas it really is the staff collaborating. Recent ones I ran across: Jeanne Gang/Studio Gang, but I know there was another I saw. Star Mississippi 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not butting in at all @S0091 and thanks for your input. I think this goes back to what @HighKing and I were saying above. The guidelines as written are not clear to us -- longterm editors with English-language fluency. It's not that we're actually fully disagreeing with one another, but with our interpretations of the guidelines. And somehow I doubt we're the only ones. I think that's one of the challenges at AfD- until you lay out one of your amazing charts that show whether the sources meet N:CORP and the multiple layers thereof, people think they have the sourcing. And I mean this as established editors, not those with COI who are throwing spaghetti at the wall to get anything to stick. I certainly learned a lot closing the discussions you participate in. With regard to DxO, I'm not even sure we need the product info, but they were merged there as a valid AtD and ... here we are. One day we'll sort this out. We certainly have enough folks trying! Star Mississippi 22:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not directly related to this specific discussion but you and @HighKing: may be interested in WT:NCORP#NCORP and The Oregonian. S0091 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh my. I was involved in one of the early Oregon restaurant AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination) & amusing thread User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_11#Oh,_my) as somehow an AfD about Nazi holocaust memorials didn't go to DRV, but donuts did. I had no idea this was such a broad / recurring issue as they haven't been in the overdue queue when I'm typically closing. Now I want a donut Star Mississippi 02:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_Majeed

According to policy when the votes are close, the voting must be extended one more week to get a better consensus. Why was this AFD closed and not extended? I Have posted my arguments as to why it meets notability and there were also several other Keeps. Let me know what is the official process for requesting an extension on the AFD.Hkkingg (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! The tally, which is not what a close is based on, was not close when you take into account those who were canvassed to the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Flag (Jericho)

Sorry I missed this until it closed. Since notability was the only issue raised, would you consider undeleting the content and redirecting to List of Jericho episodes as an obviously valid but not raised in the discussion ATD? Jclemens (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. I was slightly surprised it wasn't proposed but thought there was maybe a TV article best practices I wasn't aware of.

Related, any thoughts on handling the Talk? There's significant content so not sure if it's worth a full merge to List of... Talk. Star Mississippi 14:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Re: TV Article best practices... I think it's all covered under ATD, which should be made explicit as "If an article is to be deleted for notability issues only, and there is a reasonable redirect target, the article should be redirected to that target rather than deleted." But that's not explicit in policy, no matter how much I believe it aligns with Wikipedia's deletion processes. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untouched (Angel)

Same request, different article. Would you mind undeleting, and redirecting to List of Angel episodes? I just spent a few minutes fixing the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleep Tight (Angel), and suspect this one will be fixable too. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. And re: your response above, I'm going to quote you when I get DRVed with "but redirect wasn't explicitly mentioned" :) Kidding, sort of, because we both know it will happen. But happy to redirect these in lieu of delete at any time. Star Mississippi 18:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You know I'll be there to support you or any other admin who does the right thing--which is what I call "allowing for the possibility that someone will take the time to find enough RSes to restore a standalone article." I found one AV Club reference, won't un-redirect it until I have two solid, RSP-approved ones. I'm kicking myself for missing these on DELSORT. Thanks again! Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated! I know you know this, but I'm saying here explicitly for folks who check - no need to run any of these past me if you find the sourcing. Means factors that led to the close have changed/not a DRV so unredirecting is blessed. Just closed one other a redirect in case you want to put it on your sourcing to do. (You may be watching/have !voted, I haven't had enough coffee so sharing in case):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgment (Angel). The other I saw this morning was a clear keep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Fidelity (Degrassi: The Next Generation)). What I really appreciate that you do on TV and @Nfitz on sports (and TV of late that I've noticed) is rather than a sources handwave. You link/explain. Thank you for making closers' lives easier. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ETA, there's also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene if you have access to Australian sources. Star Mississippi 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I mostly play in Football and Canada - unless something jumps out at me. Which does lead to a surprising number of TV deletions when someone is trying to mass delete a set that includes Canadian shows. My time is limited though - I wish I could fix more, rather than just finding sources - some of which I have a bit more accessibility to Canadian sources. Nfitz (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for adding admin access for Hailey's On It!

I really appreciate it! Now, if there was a way to merge the page history of the page with the draft, that would be great too. I would do it, but I don't have admin privileges. Historyday01 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Did you file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge? That's probably the best way to flag someone to do it. Star Mississippi 12:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that if it was included on Category:Candidates for history merging, then I wouldn't need to do anymore, but I'll submit a request. Historyday01 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly not positive, but probably the best call if no one did it out of your AN:I report. But if I steered you wrong in filing it (cc @Primefac) it's my bad. I'm not as active in the technical areas. Star Mississippi 02:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If a {{histmerge}} tag is used, then it doesn't need to be listed at WP:RFHM. Primefac (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you for clarification. Star Mississippi 14:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Its funny because thanks to the recently completed history merge, I remembered that I had created the page (as a draft) in the first place (back in July 2022), something I had completely forgotten about... Historyday01 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Buried digital treasure. Glad it's all resolved now. Star Mississippi 02:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Historyday01 (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969

Hello, could you please reconsider your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 969? With three “weak keep”, three “redirect and three merge votes (rough count, so may have missed something), there’s no consensus here. The case for redirecting or merging is even weaker when we consider that Timothy’a vote didn’t even attempt to put forward an argument and CastJared’s vote is a simple agreement with Timothy’s - these should have been discounted completely. Ajf773‘s vote completely mischaracterised a source, claiming it was a trivial mention when the article was dedicated to this route.

Thanks for your consideration Garuda3 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that's the case. The issue with the weak keeps was that the depth of sourcing wasn't there beyond MyLondon news source, which you identified. What I would suggest (unless you want to go to DRV, which is of course your right) is that you start the mobility routes with the history, which I preserved. I'm not weighing in on whether it should be in draft or mainspace as my personal experience with your work is that you create it with sufficient sourcing. The community may ultimately disagree, but that's not an indication that you have problematic creations. Let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to starting an article on the mobility routes, however, I am concerned that if the AfD result is allowed to stand then it sets a precedent for deleting other bus route articles even when there are sources present that focus on said routes.

The issue with the weak keeps was that the depth of sourcing wasn't there beyond MyLondon news source, which you identified. While this is a fair viewpoint (though I personally disagree that you need multiple WP:GNG-worthy sources to form an article), it wasn't what was expressed in the discussion. Instead, MyLondon was described incorrectly and discarded, and subsequent redirect voters didn't bother to put forward an argument at all. While gidonb puts forward a good argument, it is very much a merge argument rather than a redirect and there isn't really consensus for it.

I appreciate I am being a bit picky but I'm finding editors are mis-applying guidelines and discarding good sources in order to get articles they don't like deleted.

Would you consider changing to a "no consensus"? I may then look into merging the content (or just linking to the article from other places). Thanks again Garuda3 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

How about you just accept the AfD outcome? Either way it makes no difference. The content history is still there and nobody in the discussion had any objections for it to be reused in an article about mobility buses. Ajf773 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I do see a consensus that this article should not exist as a standalone, but rather the material should be covered elsewhere. The challenge with the depth of sourcing - not including MyLondon- is that you will always find something that says "x bus route exists" "Y bus route travels between points A and B" and that's like some of the coverage that eventually led to the deprecation of N:SCHOOLS and the change in AfD outcomes. Bus routes (and schools) exist, but that isn't enough for them to be documented in a global encyclopedia. We need information that is solidly about the route, unlikely to exist in most cases. I really don't think liking a route or not come into play, the sourcing just isn't there. Again, happy for you to go to DRV if you believe my close was wrong, but I reread this and don't see consensus for anything but a redirect/merge. Star Mississippi 02:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for going over with me, appreciate it. However, as my primary concern is regarding the mistreatment of the MyLondon article and the suggestion that it isn't significant coverage, I have started a deletion review. Garuda3 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The perfect solution. Look forward to see what the community decides. Have a good evening. Star Mississippi 02:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Perchet

Could you provide a little more explanation for how you came to the "no consensus" conclusion? While AfD is not a vote, it isn't obvious to me that the strength of the arguments for keeping is sufficient to overcome the 6 to 3 preference for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good morning. This was a hard one because - as you well know-sports is still unsettled despite the RfC and that showed up in this discussion. Specifically, the discussion below Nfitz' comment at 04:16, 2 May 2023,

Jogurney's at 21:17, 3 May 2023 and your delete !vote shows that we as a community aren't clear on what level of depth is needed. I see it as 6-2 because there's one !keep that I disregarded, but I think there was sufficient unsettled discussion. Do you want me to reopen and relist? I'm happy to. Star Mississippi 14:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate your effort to close that discussion, but I share BilledMammal's confusion about the conclusion. I think the sidebar about whether one or more pieces of SIGCOV are required under NSPORTS or the GNG made it difficult to understand some editors' positions, and I now understand the concepts better than when they were initially raised in that discussion. If you wouldn't mind re-opening, I feel we can at least put any lingering confusion about that issue to rest. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! While I don't see a consensus, I'd love resolution so happy to reopen/list and I've done so.

I really, really hope the community comes to a broader understanding on the policy because the individual discussions turning into a referendum are exhausting all around. Thanks both! Star Mississippi 18:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for re-opening the discussion! Jogurney (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening! I was in the middle of writing a comment here as well that might explain some things, so I'll also post it:

The side discussion with Nfitz was irrelevant to the notability of the subject: only the keep editors even claimed there was one source of SIGCOV, so even if that was sufficient for NSPORT it was not supported by the majority of participants; and even if everyone agreed there was a SIGCOV source, SPORTCRIT #5 is unambiguous (Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability) and so there would also have to have been more than just one editor arguing that further, currently-inaccessible coverage could be presumed to exist on the subject for this to be a solid NC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @JoelleJay. Where I was "swayed" (as much as you can be for an N/C) was that there was a short term window in which paywalled French sources could be accessed, that @Nfitz wasn't looking for years, but weeks. My thought to an N/C was that if those sources didn't eventuate, this could be revisited. To my eyes, this is similar to articles that close as draftify where there's an election/film release/etc in the short term that could change notability.

@Jogurney I think there's grey area still w/r/t NSPORTS2022. I don't oppose it at all, especially when it comes to modern athletes. But project wise, we have issues accessing non English sources even if they do exist. I've seen this more in film vs. athletes, but it's definitely a challenge. (Personally as an editor, I see athletes like the old pokemon argument and I'd rather save the films/museums of the early 20th century rather than the athletes. Just my .02.

Thanks all! Star Mississippi 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, while initially I asked for a delay, shortly before the first close, because I was (and still am) getting error messages from archive.org when I try and search his name; but my keep statement was based on a lack of access to French archives; whether that changes within weeks, or years, I don't know. There's certainly no rule that such articles should be deleted, with one significant source; if anything, we have a guideline to do the opposite, consistent with the closing statement in WP:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#Subproposal 5. Either way, I don't see consensus on either side, so I see no need to reopen the debate. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to bring hundreds of under-sourced footballer biographies into compliance with GNG over the past few years; primarily those who played in leagues which English-language sources ignore. So I agree it is often difficult to find local-language coverage of many footballers who didn't make a significant impact; but it's still possible to find local-language coverage of the footballers who made the biggest impact. If I felt like it wasn't possible to find Portuguese-language coverage of football stars of yesteryear on the internet, I might take a more lenient approach with the journeymen and bench-warmers of today and yesterday. Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we afford these kinds of protections in other AfD areas? That is, do other topics get an exemption based on a claim that some unidentified, inaccessible publication might hypothetically contain SIGCOV, with no evidence to support that this could be the case, and which is furthermore based on presumptions of GNG (playing in Ligue 2) from a former guideline that was deprecated specifically because it was a very poor predictor of coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't close in these areas except when it's obvious, because I have an affinity for museums & historic sites,but I have seen discussions where it's essentially "this is a historic building in country that might not have National Register of Historic Places (US), Listed (UK) but just because we as predominantly English speakers can't access it doesn't mean the sourcing doesn't exist." Someone could easily make the argument that said article is of limited use to en wiki, but we've collectively long crossed that bridge. It's an issue too with academics and working artists where, in the case of the latter, the museums' collections aren't well indexed. That's an issue even with major US museums.

I think those discussions are less contentious because sports are more popular than and inspire more passion than cultural sites. AS someone who is a sports nut & culture vulture, that surprises me at times. Anyway, that's a digression. Just my .02 on whether we afford these protections. Star Mississippi 00:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not Portuguese - he's French. Though I'm not really strong on the archival status of either nation. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Herman Bouwer

Hi Star Mississippi,

Thanks for taking the time to review our submission on Herman Bouwer - I am writing you through my daughter's wiki account.

I need a little help understanding your comments in order to revise the entry.

Herman Bouwer was a scientist whose work has greatly helped the hydrologists who bring groundwater throughout the world for growing crops, in your house, running power plants etc. So his work, and in particular to subsurface water storage, affects everyone. He is not well known outside of the hydrology community, and that is why we (four hydrogeology professionals late in our careers) drafted his page in order to get the word out about him. There is nothing to promote (he's long dead) besides to put him in the encyclopedia where he belongs - his little corner of the museum. His family is aware that we are doing this, but they have not been involved.

Verification. There are no references to cite, besides the citations presented on the things he invented - that is how science works. I can send you screenshots that show how many times each the papers we cited have been referenced by others (Bouwer and Rice 1984 1765 times), but there is not a simple tool that lists all of his papers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=H+Bouwer&btnG= shows a few of his papers. Would linking to google scholar for each citation help?

With regards to promotional, I've looked at other entries for scientists in the popular culture (Einstein, Neil deGrasse Tyson etc.) and they in some ways those entries are more promotional than what we have written. But they are well-known, Herman is not. But I can guarantee you that, as I am writing this, someone, somewhere in world is using one of the methods or tools that he invented. He was a big deal.

So I am a little stumped as to what to do.

Thanks for your time, I appreciate any help you can give me

Mike Milczarek, Tucson, AZ Mikaelam5512 (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there Star, I spotted this on your talk page and I agree with your comments about the draft. I started to clean it up, as it does seem he may be notable per his citation scores, and his research on groundwater seems to have been important contributions to the field. I'll see what I might be able to find as to independent reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Netherzone as always. I was just going to leave a note on @Mikaelam5512's Talk as they're blocked to have a look at your edits, but I'll respond here and put a pointer there. Mike, if you have a look via this link at Netherzone's edits, you can see some of the issues with tone. The tone is written to praise Bouwer, which is not surprising given you're familiar with him and you want to "get the word out about him", but that's not the tone that's appropriate for an article nor is it the goal of Wikipedia. You've documented his writings, but there is no sourcing as to what others have said about Bouwer. The awards are not verifiable so that's where sourcing is missing, among other verification that he's a leading scientist, as you say. We're able to see citations of his work, but I'm not sure it's sufficient yet. Star Mississippi 14:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I spotted this, while looking at the Gary Perchet discussion. Herman Bouwer! He's an effing rock star compared to Gary Perchet. Though I do have stack of hydrogeology textbooks a few feet away from me, so perhaps I'm biased! Article needs a bit more independent coverage - but there is newspaper coverage. 1985 Arizona Republic, 1970 Tampa Tribune, There's a 2013 obituary in Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation (I must have missed that at the time). Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

YES! He's is a rockstar!!!! I improved the draft and it is now in article space, and will continue to improve it. Thank you for these links, I haven't begun to search on Newspapers.com (my WP Library access seems to come and go) or JSTOR. Please jump in if you have the time @Nfitz. Netherzone (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nfitz welcome to this little project that @Netherzone and I seem to have started, although this is the first scientist I recall. Oh and never apologize. Love to hear from anyone especially when it comes to improving an article. I much prefer the lack of deadline of AfD to work on an article because we have time to do it right v rushed.

PS: I think you two are missing in a pun or six about hydrogeology and him being a rock star. :D Star Mississippi 13:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL, I'm obviously too close to the topic, as my pun was inadvertent. There's so many ways one could go - Bouwer was of course most well known for his falling and rising head tests. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What a guy! As I'm reading about him I'm so impressed with his work on water reclamation. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Re-submission of a deleted page

Hi Star. Our page Netskope has been deleted and re-submitted it three weeks on the un-deletion request page. Did you have any visibility on that? Please let us know how to proceed. Kind regards,

EarleofNola (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @EarleofNola

Your request was not considered (cc @Yoshi24517). Because the page was deleted via a discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netskope, it cannot be returned via REFUND and the text you posted would not have been acceptable, regardless. Please disclose your WP:COI per the terms of use and work in draft space. When you submit it, an unconnected reviewer will decide whether the article meets requirements. Is that helpful? Star Mississippi 13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For what its worth, the last request that I believe I got pinged for was because they pasted the entire article on the refund page. That being said, policy still applies. They need to disclose their COI properly and work in draft space instead. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

100%. Just pinged since I was mentioning your actions. Star Mississippi 16:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the ping. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! EarleofNola (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Star! Super helpful EarleofNola (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (film series)

This title is currently a redirect, and you locked the redirect in April 2021. The history of that title shows that there was sockpuppetry, and I assume that is one of the reasons why you locked the redirect, because the expansion of the title into an article was mostly not being done by good-faith editors. For your information, a draft, Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) has been submitted for review. I have declined it and have asked the submitter(s) to discuss at the parent article talk page, Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (film). I am just informing you. I don't really have an opinion, except that consensus should be determined by discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh god that sock farm/bored young editor. Thanks for flagging. I'm on and off line the next two weeks so if consensus develops to mainspace the draft, I'm giving my blessing for the move. Will leave an AfC comment pointing here. Star Mississippi 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock my account please

Hello I am contacting you to ask if its possible to request an unblock of my account. On 28 April 2023, the user 331dot told me that before unblocking my account he have to see at least one draft accepted into the encyclopedia by an Articles for Creation reviewer. I have received the first draft accepted (Oleksandr Zub), please let me know how I can proceed and in the best scenario, if I will get unclock let me know the best way how you want me to do. Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good morning, on your own page use the following template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. and someone will review it. I personally don't think you're ready since another one of the articles you created is looking like it will be deleted and I'm not sure yet you're ready to edit in mainspace. But it's possible that someone else will disagree with my opinion. While waiting to be unblocked, you can continue to edit and improve the drafts to show your familiarity with sourcing, notability requirements. Does that help? Star Mississippi 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning and thank you for your answer. Well when I asked the first time they have told me that they wanted to see at least one draft to be approved. I ensure you thateven if I will get unblock I will continue to create article using the Draft and waiting until sombody from the team will approve it as I don't want repeat any mistakes that I've done in the past. How does sound for you? Today I've opened the appeal ticket and they told me to use this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks as I am not familiar can you please help me or guide me in the right direction? Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

just paste the unblock text above on your Talk and someone will consider your edit history and respond to your request . Star Mississippi 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting case

Just so you know, it appears as though the editor Tonitorrent is a sockpuppet of Iliochori2. The account was setup just a few days ago, and it has only made edits to pages very actively edited by Iliochori2, using almost identical language, updates, and techniques. I just wanted to make you aware of this, as Iliochori2 is current banned from editing in the mainspace. Anwegmann (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing. Thanks for flagging, I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iliochori2 Star Mississippi 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for filing the report. Anwegmann (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Modhalum Kaadhalum

Hi, StarMississipi, I was the author of the second draft of Modhalum Kaadhalum, I won’t submit the draft yet since you said it’s disruptive and could be deleted - other people’s hard work shouldn’t go to waste. Can you give an eval of sources, like Timothy did in our initial AfD discussion so I can update sources and find new ones accordingly. I’ll still keep in drafts, don’t worry about that. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aspiringeditor1. You've caught me as I'm about to log off for the night. I'll come back to you tomorrow with some input. Post deletion is a long process, not four days so encourage you not to rush it. Star Mississippi 03:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi i’ve had a look and i think Tirishan has found most material and i’ve only added a little bit - sources should be somewhat valid and stronger than the last admission + this time the show is a . released streaming series, should i send for review or no? if not can you give a source eval, because i think the article is somewhat ready, i’ve tidied it up and given it a picture as well. ping me with a reply anytime i’ll see it. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Aspiringeditor1. About to go offline again for the evening but will try to look at these tomorrow in further detail. If you believe your edits have addressed the issues raised at the AfD, you can submit it for review. Two issues to be aware of, Times of India is not consistently considered reliable, and issues have been raised with respect to Filmbeat. Are there stronger sources that exist? Star Mississippi 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I feel like in this instance with regard to the serial, Times of India is reliable, considering the article mentioned was an interview with the now-confirmed female lead - this will be brought up if the article is rejected. I myself wouldn’t know about filmibeat in terms of sourcing, that would be Tirishan’s forte - he sourced it, I did initial sourcing for the now-deleted article. In terms of stronger sourcing, I’m afraid not but there’s definitely similarities with this and other serial page sources as well. Look forward to your source evaluation, if you can and thank you in advance. update: did get a ‘disney’ source, but it confirms release and everything i thinkAspiringeditor1 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're good to resubmit then. An editor will review it when they come across it. I'll leave a note on the draft so no one raises a concern about the quick recreation. Star Mississippi 13:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

got the message, thank you. turns out sourcing was the problem i think we’ll have to wait and see - lucky that i came across an official source confirming release and cast. it’s official from their owners Disney Star, so it should be fine. Thank you for your help as well. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of Modhalum Kaadhalum

Hi, thanks for the review of Modhalum Kaadhalum article. I have noticed the debate regarding GNG, and from the debate I believe that this and many other articles have been reviewed unfairly.

1. Ponni, an article has the same, and much less sources attached than my draft page. If Modhalum Kaadhalum fails RPRGM, this should have too.
2. Aaha Kalyanam is a relatively new article that's on the main space. It also has the same sources that was classed as "routine entertainment promo" by Timothy, and should have failed RPRGM based on how Modhalum Kaadhalum was reviewed.
3. Anbe Vaa started airing in 2020, however only has 3 sources attached to it. This has very few sources, so should theoretically be less notable.

In comparison with other articles already available on Wikipedia, I don't think the debate gave a clear rationale for the article's deletion (and my own article's rejection) as many articles already available on Wikipedia contrast the statement. In my opinion, I think the rejection is invalid and articles already available support this.

It would be grateful if you reply with a proper rationale with why my article was rejected, because the debate is not helpful, and almost all Tamil serial articles have the same sources reviewed by Timothy. If you think sources are the issue, I'd request that you review the many other articles currently on the mainspace that should be removed for this reason. Tirishan (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the reasons you put forward are a reason to counter the just-closed discussion that concluded that sourcing is insufficient. Continuing to create multiple drafts under different titles is not the path forward. Is there a reason you removed this disclosure?

If you believe the other articles have sourcing issues, you're free to nominate them as well. You're also welcome to file a Deletion Review if you believe my close is incorrect. Having reread the discussion as well as @TimothyBlue's sourcing, I stand by my close.

@Aspiringeditor1 to come back to your question. We need independent, reliable sources. I know you said at the AfD that you believe promo should count, but the community has decided otherwise. Please focus on one draft and improve it with the best sourcing you can find and then put it through AfC where another editor will review it. If @Tirishan decides to proceed with DRV, both of these can happen in parallel. Star Mississippi 12:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s fine @Star Mississippi, I’ll see what else i can find but Tirishan has found most of it I think. When you’re free, can you put a source eval if possible to see whether sourcing is ok? update: i have got one more credible source though iMDB, but need a source eval when you are freeAspiringeditor1 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aspiringeditor1 fyi - IMDB is generally not considered a good source for articles as most of hte information is user submitted, making it in part user generated content. It's why you'll see it used as an external link, but rarely as a source. Please read WP:CITEIMDB for info. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

noted @Ravensfire, probably best to put it under external links for the draft then? Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not deciding to go through DRV, because technically my point would be that other articles like these that have the same sources are still not deleted (which is not appropriate for a DRV), however I still believe my original point stands.

Indian sources don't really have much information, and TV article sources that were flagged in Timothy's source eval are still accepted and used in almost all serial articles currently on Wikipedia (see Category:Sun TV original programming, Category:2023 Tamil-language television series debuts, and Sandakozhi, the newest serial article on the English Wikipedia). Like all Tamil serial articles, by sourcing this is the best as it can go for an average Indian teledrama. Tirishan (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

To add to Tirishan’s point, if you deleted every other, as well as new Tamil serials off Wikipedia, it limits what information someone wants to know about the serial, as well as making it harder for someone who has just started watching the serial to grasp the idea and plot of the show.

Source-wise we can try as hard as we possibly can, but it’s hard to have them to the same standard as American and British soaps. I did get your message about sourcing for the cast, which I have done but have a tad bit more to do. I get notifications for this somehow, but my two cents. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aspiringeditor1 @Tirishan Just keep trying to find sourcing as you have done in this draft. That's all you can do. Unfortunately there are many articles that don't meet project standards so their existence doesn't necessarily indicate whether this article (or any other) should exist. Star Mississippi 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, heard loud and clear. @Star Mississippi Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

👍 Tirishan (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Halocene Article

There were two votes for redirect and two for keep that is not a consensus. I have recreated the article with the changes that were made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skimel. Brian.butt (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

and the nomination for delete. @Cullen328 has reverted you. You may go to DRV, but if you continue to be disruptive, you'll be blocked. Star Mississippi 13:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I will continue to create articles about this band. I will keep adding sources until I find one that meets approval. Brian.butt (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Brian, please forgive a talk page stalker for jumping in here, but I would advise you not to ignore what Star wrote above. You should not continue to create articles about this band; you've already got Draft:Halocene, so work on that until it's acceptable as a mainspace article. Do not keep creating new pages; that would be disruptive, as Star mentions above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - I agree that you should continue to work on it in draft, and submit it through the AfC process - however, do not remove reviewer's comments, as that is considered disruptive editing. Also, resubmitting without improving the article is only going to get it declined again.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @JohnFromPinckney @Onel5969 for stepping in while I was offline. @Brian.butt working on it in draft is exactly what you should be doing, not disruptively creating it in mainspace simply because you want it to exist. You'll note I'd already flagged this above at #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untouched (Angel) for @Jclemens who may be able to guide you in the kind of sourcing that is necessary for Halocene to potentially have an article. I'd caution you to heed One's advice about not rushing to submit it.There is no reason that an article is needed immediately. Thanks all! Star Mississippi 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems I've been giving lessons on sourcing articles on my talk page lately. Do feel free to drop by and I'd love to teach others how to source things--there's just one of me, and I barely have time to do what I do here, so teaching it is. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi:, I reported to AIV. Resubmitting the draft twice without improvement, attempting to change the redirect after the deletion discussion......Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:PACT and we don't have to keep entertaining this behavior. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @CNMall41. I was offline and missed that chapter. I've protected the redirect for now because it's getting old and that seems less Involved than p-blocking the editor. @Jclemens of course if you find sourcing before the two week window is over, I'll drop it. Star Mississippi 00:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There were changes made. I am not acting in bad faith just trying to jump through the hoops needed to share information about my favorite band. If I was acting in bad faith I wouldn't beer using my real name. Brian.butt (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion @Brian.butt is to go edit about another subject. Let someone unconnected consider writing about the band, if they are in fact notable. Star Mississippi 02:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is you relax a little. Spend less time deleting other people's hard work. Brian.butt (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's enough - please stop complaining about other editors not doing what you want them to do. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have proven notability. I can only assume that star works for fox or thr riaa. Also star's talk pager is full of people's complaints About them deleting articles. Brian.butt (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Acroterion. @Brian.butt you have been advised on how you should handle this. Personal commentary based in exactly zero facts are not welcome, and are why we don't encourage folks to edit about things they're passionate about. It's hard to be neutral. Star Mississippi 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Latin Awards Canada

Hi. I wrote this on the board but I think it is not the place, this is what they answered me:

A delete query was performed with the result of merging (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Awards Canada), since that was the only vote given in the discussion. I would like the article to be re-evaluated. Thanks in advance. —ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check with the deleter Star Mississippi. Requests for Undeletion is not the place to review articles deleted after an AfD discussion. Jay 💬 04:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

as the discussion closed a month ago, I don't see that we can relist it at this time. You're welcome to file a deletion review if you think the close was wrong.

I think the best solution is to work on the material at the target and see if sourcing eventuates to spin it out down the road. Star Mississippi 15:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you help me? Now what's next? ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:ChuchoVCJMuzik/sandbox ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bilal Mahmood

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bilal Mahmood. 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. FlamingMoth (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled Soliman

Hi Star Mississippi. Would you be willing to relist this discussion one more time? There were only two votes, Canadian Paul and TimothyBlue - CP said that he found sufficient sources and listed them (though they seem to be non-accessible to us) and TB just copy-pasted his rationale that he always puts at sportspeople AFDs - that some editors actually pointed out issues with (I've seen you quote that line in a few deletion discussions and it doesn't have anything to do with N.) FWIW, had I noticed CP's sources I probably would have !voted keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for checking in and skipping unnecessary bureaucracy which I know we're both tired of.

I'm not convinced CP's add up depth wise per their note, but willing to give it more time/eyes. Star Mississippi 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

I sincerely apology by my personnal attacks against you during last October. I was wrong and I appreciate your labor over here in wikipedia. Best regards.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You're most welcome @HugoAcosta9. I think all of the articles you worked on were restored to mainspace or @Nfitz's drafts, but let me know if some are still missing or if I can help in any other way going forward. Star Mississippi 01:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There many be one or two that were deleted in AFD, that I never got around to rescuing. Nfitz (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any remaining at my logs, but if you find them, feel free to ping me/consider it done. Star Mississippi 02:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Liz closed one that's still deleted; I can't see any others offhand - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season. Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the relatively minimal participation, the subsequent topic ban of nom, I don't see @Liz having an issue with a draftification and I've done so. The script left the AfC headers, but defer to your soccer knowledge/tenures whether it's required. Liz, if you feel it should go through AfC, let me know. Star Mississippi 17:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)