I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Thanks for reviewing Grupo paranga, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Jackmcbarn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Article has a lot of issues other than the COI, so it needs further review (and quite possibly tagging for deletion)

To reply, leave a comment on Jackmcbarn's talk page.

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Thanks for reviewing Evans Sylvestre, Largoplazo.

Unfortunately Josu4u has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I think someone needs to review this, whether it meets speedy deletion or not.

To reply, leave a comment on Josu4u's talk page.


brooooooooooooooooooo, I took 1-2 total hours on that page instead of doing the homework.


I appreciate towards your efforts in Wikipedia, I am Sorry for what I have done.
Pakelectrical talk 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Oversighters are advised on the case of that IP user, they will perform block when necessary. Please note that per WP:OV we should remain as discreet as possible. Posting information about such abuse on publicly accessible, highly-viewed noticeboards is not necessarily good idea. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tymon.r: Understood, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Immediate draftifying of the article Blitz ClubEdit

Hello Largoplazo, I can't understand at all why you immediately draftified the article I just created. The article has been translated from the German Wikipedia article and the contents formulated there are very accurately supported by 47 reliable and serious sources so far, such as mostly specialist journals, newspapers and news magazines. During the research I took great care and followed the corresponding sources: each single sentence or section in the article is supported by sources, and what is written there is the opinion of the corresponding technical literature. Can you please tell me where exactly you see promotion here? Since the relevance of the article is clearly proven by the numerous reliable sources, an immediate deletion of the article or a postponement to draft - obviously before the sources have even been looked at - is incomprehensible to me. Please explain to me what exactly is bothering you about the article, so that I can improve it and it can be put back in. Rio65trio (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rio65trio: I appreciate your interest in contributing, and it looks like the club is a suitable topic. But the entire tone of the article is "This place is amazing" and it tries constantly to impress and marvel the reader with its subject.
From your comments above, it appears you believe "promotional" means "false", and that if everything in the article is sourced, it can't be promotional. Not at all. An entertainment and nightlife magazine may carry an article on a club that is 100% true and verifiable, and yet by far won't be suitable for publication in an encyclopedia. Even if praise and admiration and vague, subjective words like "renown" and "prestige" can be found in reliable sources, Wikipedia doesn't that enthusiasm as though it were Wikipedia's own.
I've taken promotional tone and language out of numerous articles, but after I started to do that with this article, I felt I would have a hard time doing that while leaving a still-cohesive article. That's pretty much the standard for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G11. My afterthought was that with effort, you or others might whip it into shape, but that, in the meantime, it really is too much of a puff piece on the place to be included for now in main article space.
I do think I already covered the above in the note I left on your page. If you follow the links I've given you, they should give you a great understanding of what I'm talking about. Largoplazo (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


You might want to see User talk: Doug Weller talk 13:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Request notability tag reviewEdit

Hello Largoplazo. You left a notability tag on Paper Mayhem. No issues with the tag when you left it—the article was in sad shape while I was putting it together and I should have used a sandbox. Anyway, besides the few Paper Mayhem sources I used for coverage which don't really count for notability, I wanted to see if I've addressed your concerns with the secondary sources I've added since then. Thanks for your time. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of them contribute to notability. All the sources with links (which leaves just one) have no more than passing mentions (albeit in some cases several of them, sometimes by different people in the same source), generally consisting of "that was a great magazine" and "David Webber did an amazing job with that magazine" and "I miss that magazine". There's nothing approaching the significant coverage in any of them, let alone in multiple sources, that notability calls for. Largoplazo (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Airborne84: I forgot to ping. Largoplazo (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I felt that the passage by the editor in chief of Dragon Magazine Roger E. Moore that Paper Mayhem was the "'best established and ... most informative' of the various play-by-mail magazines available at the time, providing 'game reviews, playtesting notes, announcements, new releases, playing hints, and more' in every issue" was significant in establishing this as the most notable of the play-by-mail periodicals of the period. But you felt this does not sufficiently contribute to notability even given his stature and scope of his comments? --Airborne84 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
On the latest reading, I see how Moore's comments could be taken into consideration. That would make two. Even so .... As with any AFD nomination I make, I'm always prepared to find out that others have found sources that I didn't encounter. In this case, the first respondent gave me to realize that it would have been worth my while to check a newspaper archive for this sort of thing, and as a matter of principle I'm sorry I didn't—but I'm about to comment there that all of the sources that person listed have no more than bare mentions of the publication. I'll do my own search later today, though, because it happens that I've recently subscribed to newspapers.com, so I can. Largoplazo (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and I'd be interested in what you turn up. As a side note, I acquired a number of hard and digital copy Paper Mayhem and other older gamer magazines working on another project and discovered how hugely important Paper Mayhem was then and still is now. I decided to make the article and continue improving it along with some other projects. I recently considered enlisting the help of a reference librarian, given the subject matter. I understand you're working on principle here, but you've got an editor working diligently on a tough project that, with all indications (given the editors' comments), was notable and influential, I'd suggest that deleting it may not be the best thing for Wikipedia. I likely would not return to it, and I don't know if anyone else would. Thanks again for your note and I am interested to see what you come up with. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for reviewEdit

Hello Largoplazo, I hope you are well.

This is Aanuarif, I am also a contributor to Wikipedia. I created a page for popular Norwegian model Fariba Rahimi [1] with strong references. However, it was nominated for deletion by some editor for God knows what reason. I have added more links to establish notability. Can you please help me avoid the deletion by reviewing it? I would be grateful. Aanuarif (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Aanuarif. Notability isn't determined based only on the sources in an article, as the definition of notability as the word is used here is based on factors that are independent of whether an article has even been created here. However, here's my review of the 11 sources listed at this moment:
  • Reference 1 isn't really coverage, just a bare profile of her such as news publications commonly store in a database for retrieval when there is a story.
  • Reference 2, with the hashtag "#MYSTORY", is an interview in which the subject is telling her story. These aren't considered coverage that's independent of the subject, as is required when evaluating a source for its contribution to a subject's notability.
  • Reference 3 is her talking about herself.
  • Reference 4 is giving an error.
  • Reference 5 I can't read because it's behind a paywall.
  • Reference 6 is a blog entry posted by the subject. Not independent coverage.
  • References 7 and 8 are the subject being given space on trondheim24.no to spread her own message. Not independent coverage.
  • Reference 9 is behind a paywall. What little I can see doesn't mention her.
  • Reference 10 is a modeling credit, not coverage.
  • Reference 11 is behind a paywall so I can't read it.
In conclusion, none of the sources you provided that I can see contribute to a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Fariba Rahimi

List of national capitalsEdit

Hello. Per your suggestion, I have taken my disagreement with your decision to undo the edits that I made to List of national capitals to it's talk page. I would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion here. Thank you. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: i try to fix it a little bit