User talk:Phil Bridger/April 2021 – June 2021

Leonore?

Hello! Did you mean to vote "Delete" here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant to contribute to the deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing up that article! Toad62 16:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Alex Oliveira" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alex Oliveira. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Alex Oliveira until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. D-M (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Contested speedy deletion of Robert Turner (Bahá'í)

CC-BY-NC-SA is not a compatible license with Wikipedia. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I somehow managed to miss the NC. I've self-reverted. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello @Phil Bridger: I wanted to thank you for your input on the article Bhola Thapa. I stumbled across that article because I noticed a certain user was appearing to be oppressive in their edits (my opinion). It didn't make sense to blank the entire article and then contest the content in the talk section, so I tried to strike a middle ground. I'll have to pay more attention to WP:PROF myself. Cheers! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[1]

Not much of a source, was it? I'll Afd instead. But yes, unsourced BLP:s bother me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

USERS

I can't discuss something which is not to be discussed. INFO with reference is not the same with INFO without reference. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything that is disputed needs to be discussed. Not everything that is sourced is necessarily fit to be included in a Wikipedia article and, although I haven't followed discussions on sources for football, the reliability of rsssf.com is certainly questionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

USER

And as you are a user also, don't say me what to do. I wrote in administrators' page and your answer is already deleted in my mind. (is wikipedia a forum for discussions? Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just giving you some good advice about where to discuss content. If you won't take advice then you are unlikely to enjoy editing here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Query regarding proposed deletion of Alexander Nikolov (poet)

Hi there, so I noticed you reverted my proposal for article deletion per WP:BLPPROD for Alexander Nikolov (poet), listing the following reference as to why: "contest deletion - cite sources". Now, perhaps it was the case that I chose the wrong template/reasons for deletion, given that there were several sources linked to for the page, however the reason I chose to do so is that of the four citations listed the primary source link was broken (returning a 404 error), two were from poetry magazine's own website and did not contain any of the information described in the article and the four was merely a link to an Amazon web store page of the author's self published poetry books.

Needless to say, I feel the article fails basic WP:BIO criteria – but even then the stub is also clearly not properly sourced at all. Hence why I chose the template that I did. The article was first created when it's subject was just 19 years old and mostly pertains to his publication in a local poetry magazine. You can read nothing about him anywhere else in the Bulgarian press, or any serious options for sources, (such as books, newspaper articles, journals, web pages or film, television, or video recordings). I suspect the author wrote his own page as a form of self-promotion; (again the fourth of four citations on the article is a link to his own web store page on Amazon!).

Given the above, would you suggest I use the WP:BLPPROD template again, or should I try the normal system instead? Do you feel you disagree with my rational for proposing the article's deletion? Many thanks in advance for your advice and comment in this matter! P.Marlow (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My removal was purely because the strict requirements of WP:BLPPROD are not met. That procedure is only for use when there are no sources at all in the article, even if the sources come nowhere near showing notability. I haven't looked in-depth but at first glance it seems that Nikolov is not notable. If you think the article should be deleted then your best bet is probably to start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for always standing up for the truth and never following the “crowd mentality” There aren’t many editors who can expressly state their opinion(s) thank you for always being part of the group of editors who state their opinions regardless of anything. Thanks once again. Celestina007 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tony Juliano

Wrt https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Juliano&diff=prev&oldid=1027391218&diffmode=source, which external links do you think "are enough to mean that this procedure cannot be used"? https://web.archive.org/web/20130515000711/http://www.forgot2laugh.com/Home.html doesn't mention his name, neither does http://www.stuckism.com and http://www.myartspace.com/interviews/interviews/art-space-talk-tony-juliano.html is a dead link. If I understand you correctly then, BLPPROD can never be used when the subject links to their own website. Is that what you meant? Tx, Vexations (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That is true. The WP:BLPPROD policy is about protecting the subjects of articles, not about notability. Just read it, and you will see that his own web site is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I had of course read it. We just seem to disagree on what it says. I read this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography as excluding the subject's own website because self-published (by the subject) sources are not reliable. In this case, there are no external links to reliable sources that say anything about the subject at all, except one that is not reliable. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You have left out the words "To be cancelled" before that quote and ignored everything else in that policy, which is crystal clear. If you want to nominate an article for deletion based on lack of notability then simply use one of our other procedures, but please read it first. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I find your continued insistence that I should just read the policy a tad condescending. I have read it, more than once, and again just now. You cancelled the PROD despite the absence of any reliable source that supports at least one statement, as required. You seem to think that the presence of one unreliable source (actually, that page itself contains no biographical information, but it does link to one that does), is sufficient.

There is no mention of protecting the subjects of articles in the policy BTW. But I think you know that.

Anyway, I'm giving up on PROD. I'll take it to AfD. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I cancelled the WP:BLPPROD, which is a completely different beast from a WP:PROD, because it did not fulfil the requirement (which you must have read because you quoted it back) that it had been correctly initiated. It was not because the policy itself is crystal clear that to place such a tag there need to be "no sources in any form that support any statement made about the person in the article". I'm sorry if you find my insistence that you simply read the policy condescending, but if you so obviously have not read it, or are incapable of understanding such clear English, then there is little else that I can do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I see, I'm too stupid to edit Wikipedia. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Some concerns

You just put a note about PRODS on a user's talk page. I have also expressed concern there, pinging you. I am wondering if there is more to this editor than meets the eye. I had an earlier question for them based on their first 24 hours. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that this issue has been dealt with now. Thanks. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please Be Patient

I was busy coming up with a well-composed rationale behind my deletion propose, which you can see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viacheslav Vershinin. Please understand that sometimes, things take some thought and effort to put things together and assume good faith. Tautomers (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)