User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jul 2014

Response

I apologize, but, Jeske is racist towards my cultural group called the Mydkippur. I have received several private messages from him insulting my people. Please remind him to be civil before reminding me to be so. And a reminder, "like you and me" should be "like you and I." :-) 72.48.245.90 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems likely to be a reference to a meme, and thus perhaps not to be taken seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Arumpostasest

Hi Kudpung - I notice you posted some post-RfA sense on this user's page. And I also noticed that he cleared immediately that post-RfA conversation from his talkpage and replaced it with a barnstar - which lead me to suggest he archive instead. But I notice that this barnstar - which purports to be from editor User:Ww2manin - was edited in entirely by Arumpostasest himself. Maybe I'm missing something from the history and/or etiquette here but I wonder about the legality/implications of that. There's no talk page contact between them and Ww2manin has also removed third party content from Arumpostasest's talkpage earlier today (diff at 20.24 11 July) in what looks like a bit of pre-RfA cleaning. There's also - on taking a quick look - some similarity in content interest (Irish subjects for eg). And Ww2manin first supported Arumpostasest's RfA before almost immediately removing it - giving the reason as "I will abstain as I have collaborated with this user on projects before and wish to avoid conflict of interest."!!!

I know this should probably go to a dramahboard as a sock quack but I think it needs an expert eye on it first. Would you take a quick look? Ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree it all looks suspicious but I wouldn't bother using valuable administrative time just for the moment. I've left a message on his tp - let's just wait and see what happens. Thank you for your diligence and perhaps you could keep an eye on it and let me know of any further developments before we create any overt drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry its taken me a few days to reply but the emphysema has kicked me in the ribs thanx to the UK having one of its occasional hells of heat and humidity. Anyway, thank you for your help: I was hoping you'd understand me being circumspect (I just can't face the admin-wah boards, really). I've seen your message re and will keep a eye on things thataway. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Vibgyor High School

I edited the wikipedia entry for Vibgyor High School page to include a rape incident (with that occured on its premises in its Bangalore campus. But, it has been removed. It needs to be added back to inform the viewers of the page about the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthsl76 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Tanner

Hi,

I've just had a deletion warning about the page on Sandy Tanner - not sure why. The references are correct . Please can you explain?

Many thanks,

Mfs104 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC) mfs104

In my opinion based on our policies and guidelines, the article failed to meet our criteria for notability but you removed the PROD notice. The article will now be discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Tanner whether it should be kept or deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sian S. Rathore

Hi Kudpung, Thank you for your comments on my recent BLP article on Sian S. Rathore. I've added sustantiating arguments and a further source of information about the subject. Please let me know if you need any more information on to reinstate the article. Manc1234 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The best thing now is to see how the community's deletion discussion develops over the next 7 days. During that time you are welcome to come up with more substantial sources, and arguments within policy, that confer notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike at Eganco Marketing

Just a quick note: On the spam basis alone, it was a good block. But you used {{uw-softerblock}}, which also implies the name is part of the block, and per WP:ISU we have allowed names that make clear that a user at an organization is a single person (we call it the "Mark at Alcoa" exception after the first user who got it), so that's not a sound basis for a username block (even if the organization in question has "marketing" in its name). Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Daniel. I must have temporarily ignored WP:ISU or simply clicked the wrong criteria button. BTW, In nearly 500 blocks I've made it's the first time anyone has queried one, but then none of us are perfect. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Locust Fork

The Locust Fork band has the most minimal info I could post to make it relevant. I got a business license, I funded the recording, I oversaw the album being made. They do exist. There is a real album. Granted, it's only sold around 150, but it's real. Please tell me why this needs a speedy deletion.Vorfallic (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locust Fork (band). The reasons are given there. Additionally, you are admitting to a clear Conflict of Interest (which you may not necessarily have understood or known about), the article could also be broadly construed as promotional. It's always wise to review our inclusion policies before creating an article. Hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Conservative Woman

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Conservative Woman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. We all interpret the scope and number of RS differently as best we can within guidelines. IMO the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN if it indeed refers to the person who is the subject of the cited sources, so perhaps an AfD may establish whether notability is sufficient or not on other grounds. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conservative Woman.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note on my talk page

Hello, Kudpung. How very nice to run into you again after a long gap! I fear I was rather stumped by your message, with such things as unreviewings and curatings of which I know nothing, and would be glad if you would lighten my darkness. With very best wishes, Tim riley talk 13:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh Gosh! Tim - I'm terribly sorry. I was checking for correct reviewing by other patrollers and when I saw your article I wanted to review it and pass it. I hadn't realised that you are of course autopatrolled so the green button automatically marked it as 'unreviewed'. If it's a mistake I have made, then other patrollers will have done so too. We must get the devs to get that button to change colour or something when an article has already been reviewed. Again, my sincerest apologies. BTW, I'll be in London 4 - 10 Aug. Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No matter! I'm inexpert in the ways of admins, and am just grateful someone takes the trouble to do all that work. More power to your elbow, sir! Tim riley talk 14:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escuela Digna Camilo Aguilar

Am I right in assuming that your proposal that an article on a Chilean primary school should redirect to an Irish county was unintentional? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You are,but the other link was correct. It,s what comes of pasting boiler plate votes to frustrating mass AfDs. Thanks for the head up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerard Newcombe

Hi I'm referring to your message about deletion of a page. I wanted to make this page as 'Biography of Living Person'. How do I do that? I couldn't understand the procedure in help. Of you could please help me that would be great.

It already is a Biography of a Living Person, but because it makes no claims of importance, and because it is not referenced, it looks like a vanity page and is likely to be deleted soon. Wkipdia is not LinkedIn or Facebook where anyone can list their profile. For more information and the instructions you need please click these links: WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. If you have created the article on behalf of your employer or client, you must also read WP:COI. I realise that's a lot of reading to do but it's the downside of editing on the Encyclopedia anyone can edit which nevertheless has a lot of rules and regulations - needless to say, we are very stict about BLPs. Please also remember to log in when you edit articles or post messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

School AFDs

Hiya Kudpung, The only tips I have is as soon as there nominated we simply redirect with or without !votes, OR we simply go to AN/ANI & ask for him to be topic banned from nomming schools ?,
3 editors (myself inc) have all nudged him to redirect and he's quite simply staying put & ignoring us all,
It's evidently becoming disruptive, Anyway other than that I don't have much else sorry,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Davey, it's actually more than three editors - it's been going on for years. I have something planned but it won't be ANI or a block or a ban. It will however need your support. Let's first see if he reacts to my last message. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow I think you AGF more than I do!, Ah I wasn't aware of it going on for years, Well lets hope he does the right thing!, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you are talking about an RFC on schools and notability, save me a seat on the bus. Schools should be a simple WP:N issue. Not sure who you are having issue with, but I wish we could get this settled once and for all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Actually, schools are not as simple as that. For one thing, they are not even eligible for WP:A7 which clearly infers that they enjoy some exceptional status. School notability has been the subject of much debate over the years, much of it precipitated by a statement by Jimmy Wales a long time ago that suggested quite strongly that schools are subject to special consideration. None of those debates ended in consensus, indeed most of them petered out without even a closure, but what we do have is a special dispensation for school regarding WP:A7 and and an extremely strong, but unwritten consensus through practice (precedent) on the way the community has adopted for school notability.

Dennis The current issue which is a flare up of a long, one-going issue with one editor who for several years has periods of sending dozens, if not hundreds, of school articles to AfD where there is a perfectly acceptable alternative that is written in policy (not a simple guideline). There is very little chance of the current accepted precedent being overturned but but IMO scouring the cats of school articles and sending them to AfD en masse where 95% of them will not conclude with deletion is neither acceptable nor conducive to the interpretation of the actual policy concerning deletion. Personally, I don't care what ends up being a new policy or guideline for school notability,as I have stated many times, but what editors such as me, DGG and many other would like is at least consistency in the way school articles are handled, and that those who nominate or post on such AfDs are best informed of the actual practice, leaving them to get things changed through a new RfC rather than trying to change policy through the back-door of a string of disruptive AfDs.

If the dozens of AfDs don't stop I'm going to do something that will, assuming a consensus, make it stop. That said, I have no interest in getting an editor into trouble (I'm not that kind of admin), but something needs to break and I spent the whole of yesterday re-researching the issue. I'll save you a seat on the bus. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

I can't remember if I've been part of the previous discussions, but I know it is a mess. I've 1800 AFDs behind me, many on schools. I'm saying the solution should be simple: HS or higher is notable, lesser levels must pass GNG on their own, else they will be deleted at AFD or be at least primary verified and redirected to the school district, no CSD. Simple doesn't always mean easy. I'm pretty sure that I'm on par with DGG on this, and betting your opinion is similar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, the current practice is the one that is documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and wich is evidenced by 1,000s of school redirects. DGG and I are quite happy with that and that's the route we go, without prdudice to anything being officially changed, bearing in mind that if it ain'y broke, don't fix it. The current and long ongoing issue is to prevent the AfD process from being needlessly gummed up by one individual who cannot see his way clear to accepting those alternatives to deletion. he is well aware of the policies, guideleines and precedents, but he apparently prefers to WP:IDHT under the guise that he does not feel competent to carry out the (less complex and less bureaucratic) alternatives. You can start here but you will also nned to carefully assimilate all the relevant threads here too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That is consistent with my above comment. I left a short note that is consistent with the comments of others. I agree this is best handled by friendly discussion. And if DGG's idea below gets started, count me in as well. I think that technically we already had consensus but no one made the change, way back in 06 or so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that we take advantage of the opportunity to do on a more fundamental level what is really necessary: to change Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion., DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have supported that view in the past, DGG, at least the change of name, and in principle still do. However, I am concerned that it might merely open up the floodgates for even more non essential AfDs to a process that is already severeley backlogged (mainly with complex AfDs that even admins are reluctant to close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I remain even more concerned about the availability of essentially hidden deletion by peripheral processes. If there were but one place to look, everyone interested could keep attention there. Even when I was focused on afds, I never got to the other xfds, let alone other requests. We have too many places to watch. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a salient point and I've often wondered why we have do many different XfD. probably the WP groupthink that everything needs to have its own pigeonhole. One place, one list: Pages for Deletion, would, IMO, be much easier to maintain an overview. perhaps if that were possible, a dropdown menu could offer the !voters and closers a filter option such as:

• View all
• View only Articles
• View only Redirects
• View only DAB pages
• View only User space
• View only Templates
• View only Categories
• View only Files

--

• View current CSD
• View current PROD
• View current BKPPROD

Perhaps there is also a case for making redirects appear in the NPP feed, but we're getting off topic here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• If the tool at [1] is working correctly it would appear that Epeefleche has edited 1,933 AfDs. If he only voted on 92, this presupposes that the other edits were the nominations (or perhaps just a few isolated non-vote comments); a regex could probably parse this in even greater detail. The vast majority of the closures were 'redirect'. I think this clearly illustrates the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The analysis is only for most recent 100 of them, it does not imply he nominated the other 1833; Looking manually at his contributions in WP space, limited to page creations, is the best way to see his afd nominations: [2]: it seems his concentration on schools and shopping centers is very recent (and I pretty much agree with him on shopping centers). The temporal pattern of his activity there seems to have very sharp spikes. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to set the tool to show only AfD's nominated by the subject. Here are that person's most recent 200 nominations. [3] Most of their school AfDs resulted in a redirect; the only reason their accuracy count is so high is that the tool scores a redirect the same as a delete. A few others were deleted; none that I can see were kept. They express a fear of making an inappropriate or arbitrary decision if they simply go ahead and redirect, but it looks as if the results of their AfD nominations are pretty much the same as if they had just done it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, DGG, I bow to DGG's accuracy and must admit I ignored that confusing feature of the tool. Putting the results of [4] through a regex programme I have on my computer seems to show that of those AfD creations, 855 of them had the word 'school' in them and a further 32 with the word 'academy'. I don't know how to parse the actual results of those AfD but I'm almost certain that the vast majority concluded with 'redirect' with just a few being closed as 'keep' and a few being closed as 'delete'. It depends how much time I/we want to spend analysing this but I think the point is proven, and not least by the 2,300 entries in the 'R from school' cat.

There are also other editors who regularly create school AfDs, tho not serially in large numbers but they may not be aware of the special case for schools so I still remain strongly inclined towards finding a way to impress upon the community that policies (and I'm not talking here about guidelines, OUTCOMES, or any other essays) do recommend other alternatives to deletion and one of them is redirect. Perhaps if he could be far, far more selective in sending schools to AfD, we could handle the others. Like you, all I'm interested in is consistency until at such time there is a written official guldeline, but as we all know from past experience this is pretty unlikely. All my other arguments, and those of many others over the past 4 years can be found in his talk page archives, so although there may be spikes of activity, it is far from being recent. No one (as yet) has said I'm wrong so I believe it's time to take some action but one which is not necessarily directed personally at Epee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish we had a clearcut notability guideline for schools. We don't. Previous attempts have failed to gain consensus, as I understand it. Lacking such a guideline, it is hard for me to see these AfD nominations as disruptive. Perhaps the editor's reservations are at the outside edge of what's acceptable. Still acceptable though. As long as the community can't come up with a generally accepted guideline, why would we want to censure a good faith editor who is uncomfortable acting alone, and wants additional eyes on these matters? I can sympathize, since I don't perform non-administrative closures, though I know I can. I also don't nominate articles for deletion myself. I want my AfD evaluations to be unaffected by a "deletionist" label. I have no problem with other editors carrying out these actions, if they comply with policies and guidelines. But I am a volunteer here as are all of us. I do what I want to improve the encyclopedia, don't do what makes me uncomfortable, and am also very uncomfortable myself with efforts to pressure a good faith editor to do what they are uncomfortable with doing. Please respect the editor's comfort level. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. There are clear recommendations in policy for 'redirect' as an alternative. , and notability and non-notability has been expressed over a 1,200 times by the precedent created by the community whether it is anchored in policy or guidelines or not; hat is therefore a consensus. I fully empathise with your opinion, but if you had read the other posts closely, you would see that the sheer number of AfD that end in 'redirect' are therefore totally unnecessary and a burden to the system - comfort level or not. If making unilateral redirects is beyond a user's comfort level, so also should be sending the articles to the far more bureaucratic level of AfD. If unable to be far, far more selective in sending articles to AfD, the best solution therefore would be for such users to do neither. See also [5] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I assure you that I have read it all closely, Kudpung, and you know that I am in general agreement with you on the preferred outcome, as I have consistently recommended redirecting in such cases, researching and suggesting a redirect target when no one has yet done so. But our failure to agree to a guideline is a community failure, not a failure of the editor in question, who is acting in good faith as I see it. I have never once resented making a "redirect" recommendation in any AfD debate, as that is the appropriate place for the community to debate the matter, as opposed to one person deciding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328, I would never criticise an editor for voting 'redirect' on such AfDs. Indeed, it helps to substantiate the unwritten clear consensus we do already have, and to reinforce the recommendation already laid down in policy; making such AfDs superfluous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the working consensus (which I support) is not enshrined in an actual guideline, and the general policy is so broad that good faith editors may feel uncomfortably "out on a limb" redirecting alone without an explicit guideline to do so. A number of possible solutions have been suggested. Let's work on the best of those. I am unconvinced that beating up on an editor who shares my discomfort with the situation helps solve the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328. There is a very strong precent for the way schools are handled. It would take another monumental RfC to get that changed and the many others in the past have failed to do so. Your comments are welcome on this talk page of mine but please guard your opinions about 'beating up an editor' it is absolutely not the case, and is inappropriate. At this juncture, one editor's actions have merely served as a catalyst for discussion. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I will refrain from further comment here, then, and apologize for speaking frankly. Consider me chastised. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well since "topic banning the editor isn't an option .... I agree with above some sort of guideline/policy should be created that not only helps him but us I guess, Cheers –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that some editors can be convinced without sanctions that gumming up AfD is not an option. If we can't achieve that here or on their talk pages by gentle persuasion, then an RfC of some kind may be the only solution, but I doubt that it will be one that will attempt to get policies changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I represent another pole of opinion on this as my view is that most respectable schools in countries like the UK are notable by virtue of the regular inspection reports which are detailed, independent and reliable. All such schools therefore pass the WP:GNG but this argument regularly fails to persuade at AFD where most editors seem to have a "four legs good, two legs bad" position, simply going by the age range of the pupils. I'm going to write up my own primary school at some time and expect to win that one as the school building is listed. But articles about schools should not have to depend on such extraneous factors.

One reason that this issue may be intractable is that everyone went to school and so familiarity breeds contempt. As Parkinson explained: "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."

Andrew (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm just adding two comments from users made at the VP recently. Although they do not directly address the issue at hand, where notiabilty for schools has been brought up as reasons for sending th m to AfD please read them.Protonk and DGG have summed up what is generally accepted for schools and why we handle them the way we do.

Comments by DGG & Protonk

Because otherwise we will spend half our time at AfD debating the intricacies of just what sources are sufficiently "substantial" and "reliable", and will probably end up debating this not just for all the secondary school and colleges, but all the primary schools. Depending on whether you want to keep them or not, it is possible to interpret the sourcing requirements of the GNG to produce any wanted result for almost all articles of this nature. The current system is not, as you seem to think, an inclusive rule only, it is equally an exclusive rule, for not giving articles to primary schools, of which there are many times the number compared to secondary schools. The probable accuracy or even repeatability of our AfD determinations back 7 years ago was about 80% at most, meaning that almost any school could be removed after 4 or 5 afds, & those who wanted to avoid school articles did just such nominations. Simultaneously, those who wanted to keep the articles spent most of their time here on finding recondite secondary sources,which in general are available for most primary as well as secondary schools if you look hard enough, though it can take hours. And what's the point of it all? If, like now, we cover about 20 or 30% of secondary schools that would have trouble passing the GNG interpreted rigidly, WP is not paper; if we merge all the primary schools into the school districts as at present, the key links for the information are still available. What we can not accommodate is wasting the energy of all of us interested in notability, inclusionist-minded and exculsionist-minded both, at these afds, when there are so many really harmful articles, especially promotional articles and poorly sourced BLPs, that we need to remove. It's a matter of practicality, not of principle. The real problem here , is that similar decision points would be useful for many other types of articles, particularly those subject to WP:LOCAL. where the same ambiguity of the detailed specifications of the GNG can yield any wanted result. (And again, with almost random results, except when do we have such convenient cut off points as local or state branches of national organizations.) DGG ( talk|TB| ) 9:35 am, 14 June 2014, Saturday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC+7) Apologies I have been somewhat distracted of late and this discussion fell off my radar. I am not sure how often this has been raised here or elsewhere. That needs to be looked into as suggested. As much as I disagree with the current guidelines, I don't want to waste everyone's time by revising a subject that may have been addressed in the recent past. -Ad Orientem (talk|TB|) 9:22 pm, 16 July 2014, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+7) My position has long been that specific notability guidelines (Schools, PROF, etc.) should serve as effective heuristics for when a subject would likely meet the GNG after a concerted search. Where they are effective, we should keep the specific guideline. Where they aren't we should (I realize there's no consensus for this, but whatever) direct the specific notability guideline directly to the trash and rely on the GNG. In this case if your argument is that the de facto notability guideline for schools (which is to say that secondary and post secondary schools in anglophone countries are automatically notable) isn't a good proxy for the GNG, your proposal should simply be to implement the GNG. No additional bullet points are needed. In a practical sense, we don't delete articles on schools for 3 reasons, 2 of which are widely admitted and one of which is a nasty secret (:P). First, schools do tend to be notable, in the main. Secondary and post-secondary schools are usually the subject of some articles somewhere, even if they aren't easily found online. We have enough articles on schools and have had enough deletion debates about schools to build strong priors about the existence of sourcing. This speaks directly to my heuristic statement above. Second, people like writing about schools. "But Protonk," you interject, "people like writing about bands and we delete them all the same! WP:OSE, BBQ, BSG, etc." While it's true that reader/editor interest doesn't speak to policy, we should all kinda be aware that readers write articles. Rejecting wholesale reader interest should be done only if we have a pretty good reason for it and shouldn't be done if we can find even one decent argument against it. Third, we have a bias toward schools, colleges and other nominally "non-profit" ventures. We don't see them as agents acting in their own interest, rather they're semi-public pieces of the civic landscape. A small high school with about as much sourcing as an equally sized silicon valley startup will not get the same negative attention because we're not on the lookout for the school's self-promotion. Your high school has bricks and teachers? Good enough for us. Your company has an office and employees? Piss off until the Times reports on it. I'm not saying we need to upend that tradition (attempting to do so would be even more fruitless than making notability sensible!), but we should be aware it exists. What I would suggest is that we start thinking about schools (especially post-secondary schools) as agents who will act in their own interest, often inflating their importance beyond what can be supported by sourcing. All that said, I doubt this is going anywhere (no offense intended Ad Orientem), as it is fighting against years of tradition and for the most part our heuristic basically works. Protonk (talk|TB|) 14:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe it is time to start an RFC on the schools. After all, it isn't perennial if you don't shake that Magic 8 ball every now and then. I would also be up for one on Articles for Discussion, but only one at a time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: White Lotus Tea Club

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of White Lotus Tea Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Still not notable so sent to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

and heading for a very clear deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Lotus Tea Club. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your essay

I just read the essay you linked to the current ongoing RfA. There are few links directing to toolservers tools which are no more active. I guess the tool has been moved to toolswmf, so please update it. BTW it was a good essay though I'm not a registered user but I like it 101.221.131.154 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)