User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 21

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is my archive for threads from 2013 that broadly relate to deletion.

Gibensu

The article is complete nonsense. Google Translate is by no means totally reliable, but it seems to do the trick here.

"Gibensu, consisting of two people in Turkey, almost 9 year based on friendship, best friends, which is the acronym for this group. Gibensu'nun the expansion; Gibensu'nun have Gi Mystery,-Bensu Bengi Water is the abbreviation for the.

HISTORY

This friendship is based on the year of 2009. And the way a friendship will stay alive all the time yaşansada problems. Despite the Mystery of people trying to get together eliminated. And continue to deal with them. In addition, this friendship Adana, Tarsus and Mersin are renowned for."

But if you think this is an article that Wikipedia needs then fair enough. TheClown90 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheClown90, just because I declined a speedy deletion and filed the article for translation doesn't mean I consider it to be an article we need, rather it is an article that isn't in English, and I posted it on the translation noticeboard. Oh and by the way neither A1 or A3 are tags to be used in the first few minutes of an articles creation as they risk driving away the editor before they've had a chance to expand the article they started. ϢereSpielChequers 22:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheetal Prashad Pal

It has to be a credible assertion of importance. Given that no hits for Sheetal Prashad Pal come up on a Google search, I deemed it not credible without further evidence. Anyone can create a page saying someone is "prominent" but without any evidence of prominence, the claim can't be considered credible and the article should be deleted. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed need to be a credible assertion, but the test for that does not involve Google searches. If you've tried to source an article and failed then it is best to prod it, a prod rationale of "I've looked using Google and can't find anything" will usually result in deletion, if anyone challenges that prod then an AFD would almost guarantee deletion - though with people of that era and part of the world there may well be offline sources which would establish notability. So if an article says someone is a prominent X and X is something for which there probably are prominent people who are notable then A7 does not apply. Please remember that speedy deletion only bypasses AFD for some tightly defined circumstances, and if you find yourself looking for sources then it is unlikely that speedy deletion will apply. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK,I've got it. All that is required for an assertion to be credible is for the creator of the article to claim that someone is prominent. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty close, but remember that sometimes they are claiming them to be prominent for something that is of itself not notable; and sometimes the claim is simply not credible. So however prominent someone says a particular pet dog is it is only credibly prominent if it is known for something else - like being the First Dog. And while logic tells us that there must be (or have been) one girl in this world who is the most beautiful girl in the world, any such claim lacks credibility unless you also have something like they are a Miss World, top of some magazine's hottest babe's list or endorsed by the Gods. So we delete per A7 "My girlfriend is the most beautiful girl in the world" type articles every day. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A favour?

Could you (being uninvolved) please look into Luis Moreno Fernández? I've replaced a prod BLP previously and it's gone again, without what I consider as a reliable source as a ref. Two external links are to the same profile, which I don't consider independent. I reckon the subject's notable, but I can't get replies when I've explained what's needed. I'm feeling like giving 24, but don't think I ought to... Peridon (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the BLPprod came in to prevent unsourced negative stuff, and that's the stuff I try to delete. The editor in this case seem to be having trouble understanding neutral sourcing, but it's worth giving them a bit of slack. The risk we have on this one is that the bio will be biased towards the subject as the sources are probably under their control. One of the two fields involved is alien to me and the other I consciously try to avoid, but perhaps Google scholar could help? ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lucien Jayasuriya

Hi, you kindly ruled that my effort on Lucian jayasuriya (misspelled as Lucien Jayasuriya by me as not being one for speedy deletion. however on looking at the talk page of the user asking for AFD it appears to be labelled a sock puppet. Is this afd valid or will it be removed? should I participate in the debate on the afd page if the person asking was a sock puppet? Many thanks for your assistance Liannalianna (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the sockpuppetry seems to be primarily about copyright violations, if it was dubious AFDs then I'd suggest waiting for the AFD to be closed, but in these circumstances you are best off joining the discussion. If you are in a position to get hold of some off line or Sinhalese sources that cover other important things that he has been up to then that would be a very useful contribution. Just add them to the article and then explain what you've done in the AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Green for speedy deletion

Thanks WereSpielChequers, I think I've put the wrong template there. Article for deletion is right template. Thanks again --FreemesM ^(talk) 11:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

CSD templates

Could you check the edit history before you tag user talk pages with templates? I tagged Dhriti Pati Sarkar with WP:CSD#G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhriti Pati Sarkar) before Mike Rosoft contested and replaced it with a WP:CSD#A7. Thanks. Funny ^Pika! 14:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange. What seems to have happened was that you tagged it both A7 and G4. You then removed the A7 with a blank edit summary and Mike replaced the G4 with A7 with an edit summary "Different person with the same name" and I declined the A7. Not ideal on my part but considering the edit summaries somewhat understandable. ϢereSpielChequers 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on BLPs

Sorry to bother you. I noticed you were online and know you're an admin - I hope you don't mind me asking you a question in case you knew the answer. Since all content which is not sourced on BLP must be deleted immediately and without discussion according to WP:BLP, what happens if the article has no sources whatsoever and was created before BLP PROD came along? Would good practice be to blank the page, tag for speedy deletion under no content, and contact the contributor(s) to discuss the article or what exactly? The precise article in question is Robert Tepper. In his case I can't actually find anything reliable on him at all... Thanks for the help in advance. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jay, the key phrase here is "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This can leave people wondering, how can something neutral be contentious? Some people emphasis the last part of that phrase, others the first part. My understanding of it is that whether you regard someone being Gay as negative, positive or just neutral, it is rather more likely to be contentious than them being a basketball player. As an example I recently went through a bunch of articles that contained the word fist, and in several cases blanked unsourced stuff that was contentious. I'm not bothered with players of some Irish game where they can hit the ball with their fist, but if sportsmen start hitting each other they should have a reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful reply. Since "challenged or likely to be challenged" and "or just questionable" seems to be a very low threshold which allows a more liberal or less liberal enactment by what the editor challenges and does not challenge, questions and does not question, I usually take the more stringent approach and remove most unsourced content on BLPs, especially if it has been around for a while and the author does not intend to add sources. But let's say that I do challenge and question everything in the BLP which is unsourced - should I blank the page first, and CSD or leave the bare minimum (.... is a journalist working for the BBC born XXXX) which is very unlikely to be contentious and then search for sources before deciding what to do? Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect we are at opposite extremes as to the interpretation of that. I was involved in the big cleanup of unreferenced BLPs that took place a couple of years ago when BLPprod came in, a number of people put a lot of time into getting our sixty thousand known and an unknown number of unidentified unreferenced BLPs upto the new de facto minimum. My experience of that trawl was that it was a huge distraction, and that very few of those articles were contentious or inaccurate, just unsourced. Hence far more useful to trawl for potentially contentious stuff - I've recently been looking at articles containing the word fist and blanked a number of unsourced BLP violations. I'm conscious of a number of searches that are worth doing, Mafiosi being one I decided to leave to people who edit anonymously and can't be tracked down. The community rejected the blanking and CSDing of uncontentious unreferenced BLPs in favour of the BLPprod compromise. Blanking is fine for G10s and copyvio but in doing so for old unsourced stuff, especially stuff written before current sourcing standards came in, you will be getting rid of a lot of accurate material. If you try to source things and fail then prod or AFD is rarely contentious, and if something has already been up for years then another week is unlikely to make a difference. It seems to me that you want to take a very strict, conservative position on BLP information, and to treat almost any uncited or poorly cited personal information as contentious. If you are going to do that my recommendation would be to do so in the context of a search for things that are contentious. I'm very conservative in my approach to BLP information that is really contentious and whilst I'm well aware from the number of things that have sourced and replaced that in the vast majority of such cases I am removing accurate information that would easily be sourced, people really don't give you grief if you are being very cautious and conservative re BLP info that is genuinely contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 06:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. Yes, I think I am indeed advocating quite a strict interpretation. I do think that consensus allows such an interpretation: "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." I also do always remember this from our founder: [1]. Since ultimately it would be OK to remove anything uncited (I could "challenge" just about anything) I see BLPs as requiring a more rapid response and BoD (or lack of benefit of doubt whatever way you see it) tending always towards questioning and removing the information. I do also fully accept and respect your interpretation to be less stringent with things as being contentious. In particular I thank you answering my original question about removal of all content followed by CSD and will be sure only to go ahead with it where all the content is very contentious and so would completely fail WP:BLP. I also will take your excellent advice on directing my efforts at BLPs which contain the most contentious details as a better use of my time! Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

CSD declined of Janome

So I'm really just looking for some consistency here. the Janome page seems to be written by PR people, with no secondary sources. I wasn't able to find any with a cursory google search. a fair number of press releases and blogs, but no secondary sources. The same with the other ones I nominated last night. The stub I created for Juki was intended to add to that, and it was CSD'd on these grounds. At the same time, there is no way I will do something I see as untoward like summarize things from the Juki website or use PR language like "industry leading". But Juki machines are quite widely used within the apparel manufacturing industry, to the point where "industry leading" would not exactly be a stretch. When Juki was successfully CSD'd, i nominated the other sewing machine manufacturer pages that i thought had similar problem. in part i'm looking for consistency in application of these policies. I do think that our coverage of these topics is sorely lacking. Interested in any thoughts or suggestions you might have. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi UseTheCommandLine, as a community I don't think we are entirely consistent in the way we treat new articles. Individuals are usually consistent with themselves but not necessarily with each other, I'm quite strict and literal when I interpret the speedy deletion criteria, there are other admins who will stretch the speedy deletion criteria to delete articles that they re confident will get deleted by AFD. But in this case you simply tagged the article as A7, and that doesn't reflect the work you did to try and source it. If you had prodded it or AFD'd it with a rationale of "Says its industry leading but I couldn't find a secondary source using Google" then it would be unlikely to survive unless someone with access to relevant offline sources weighed in to save it- I suspect that it is the sort of company that might be underreported on the Internet. As for Juki I don't see any assertion of importance or significance other than it is a Japanese manufacturer of sewing machines. Personally I would have given it rather longer than half an hour, but if I'd seen that CSD tag I wouldn't have declined it. If Juki had won particular awards, had innovative or leading products or anything else that lead to secondary coverage then IMHO it should survive CSD and probably AFD, but such sources might well be in Japanese or offline in women's magazines.

As for improving our coverage in that area, you could check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. Currently it is inactive, but there are many inactive WikProjects that have people watchlisting them who will look in if someone starts posting there, and even if it is inactive it might have some sources listed that you could check out. You could also try ja:Wikipedia:大使館 which if I've got it right is the Japanese wiki's embassy - a query there might find a Japanese source for a Japanese company. Hope that helps ϢereSpielChequers 21:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Veljko Batrović

Yep, now meets WP:NFOOTBALL - I have added a better source, cleaned up a bit and updated, and tagged for improvement. GiantSnowman 11:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Giant Snowman. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A1

Hi, I notice you declined the speedy on Vivestad. However, I cannot identify the subject of the article - you added categories related to wooden churches, but before you placed them, if I had had to guess at the subject, I would have said a village, rather than the church itself, but it could be anything, a period of time, a town, a county, a church, even an architectural style.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you try What links here? As often, a useful way to track stuff down. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I just did, which gives List of villages in Vestfold, which definitely suggests the article is not about the church.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep but it gives a pretty big clue as to where it is. The commons page for the image links to the monument database for Norway. The Norwegian Wiki also has an article for the village which could be translated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi, I'm not really familiar with this aspect of the 'pedia but does this edit need to be revdel'd? If so, please and thanks Jebus989^✰ 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, good spot. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User 39.50.153.21 (talk) continued to make similar edits and got blocked for it, so I've zapped the others too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Score one for the status quo I guess. It's too bad that we didn't effectively communicate the usability aspect in the RfC summary, user experience principles of least surprise, etc. BLPPROD "has sharp edges" and it's too bad we are having such a time reforming it to make more sense (same criteria for add/remove, same duration as PROD, etc). I think SmokeyJoe's comment is the most compelling... when a user as experienced as him is surprised that the duration is 10 days, we definitely have a problem worth fixing.

This is one of a long string of absolutely worthwhile RfCs that has suffered due to poor construction and summary. I almost wonder if we need an RfC incubator! Gigs (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Simplification is a good thing and one that a clear majority of participants in that RFC support. But I don't remember many simplification debates before, other I suppose than a fairly successful one to not have more CSD criteria unless people can point to multiple recent AFDs that would uncontentiously have been resolved by having such a criteria. Evolving towards simplification is not going to be easy. But from this stance it looks like it might be easier than say reforming RFA. I think we are getting consensus to move the orphan template off of articles, and at least at special newpages feed we are moving to uncategorised as a maintenance thing that isn't put in article space. Perhaps what we need is a list of simplification proposals so we can work on the ones that fail to get consensus and see if we can accommodate opponents next time we propose them. ϢereSpielChequers 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeay good result! Now perhaps we can think of some other simplifications to propose? ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

NPP

"It would be really useful to NoIndex all unpatrolled articles, and not mark articles tagged for deletion as patrolled but as "tagged for deletion". Sadly the WMF had technical problems with this when they tested it and withdrew it from the new form of newpages" - interesting. I wasn't sure. More interesting is that the new NewPages Feed and the Curation Toolbar were not created by consensus or popular demand from the community. I was expecting new pages to be unindexed until they were patrolled and I still believe this to be essential. Some while ago the Foundation announced that its development work on NPP was complete and they would no longer be supporting it. As far as I understand, any changes or improvements to to it would then have to filed through Bugzilla. In view of a growing list of feature suggestions, this raises the question of whether the people at Bugzilla would effect such suggestions without a community consensus.. The problem is that RfC is such a long and tiresome process for getting anything done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง(talk) 02:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Drafts

The way the WMF appears to be taking over this AfC intiative gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable about AFC in many ways, some of which you'd agree with me on. But having been involved in more than my share of WMF "initiatives" I'm going to try and stay out of this particular one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)