Ganesha811

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woke Mind Virus

I would like to contest your decision to hold with the minority and merge the Woke Mind Virus page. I believe consensus was emerging for a Keep, and that at the very least more time should have been given for that one. I do not know what the process is to appeal such a move, but I think your merge move was premature if not incorrect. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I appreciated your reasoned arguments in favor of keep, but after re-reading the linked policies and considering the !votes for deletion as well as those explicitly for merge, I felt that a merger which retained large parts of the material reflected the overall consensus. If you wish to see the decision reversed, you are able to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I'm happy to discuss it more and explain my reasoning in further detail if you'd prefer to talk it through first. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you feel the Keep !vote arguments were not sufficient to satisfy a Keep of the article. I think the reliable sources demonstrate a strong case for this subject to have its own page and not just to be a small sub-section lost in the large Woke page, and it seemed that the largest share of the consensus on the AfD agreed with that sentiment, so I am not sure of your reading of the "consensus" as apparent on the AfD discussion. I will contest it, yes, if we cannot resolve this here. I think keeping the AfD open for a little while longer would have made sense too, and I think that the AfD was closed prematurely even if you disagree on what the apparent consensus in support of Keep was. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not a vote, as you know, and in any case the numbers were not particularly lopsided here. The sources cited by you and others to indicate the term should have a standalone page did not appear to all be reliable or in-depth coverage of the term, rather than mere mentions, as was pointed out in the discussion. I thought the most considered Keep arguments were effectively countered by others, while the arguments in favor of merger were not. There was clearly no consensus for wholesale deletion. A merge today does not mean that the article could not be recreated as a standalone in the future, provided that the necessary secondary sourcing focusing on that term in-depth comes into existence or is located. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not a vote as you mentioned, but rather are based on WP policy. One of my comments had directly addressed the "reliable or in-depth coverage of the term, rather than mere mentions" point you are mentioning. There are in fact numerous (at least half a dozen or so) reliable sources which write about both woke and woke mind virus as independent terms with their own unique coverage that I was able to find with very little research. A more exhaustive search quite readily finds many more, perhaps a dozen or more (many of which were cited on the article itself if reviewed). I addressed this in a response to one editor named "buidhe" I believe in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woke Mind Virus with a Rolling Stone, Snopes, and The Wallstreet Journal piece directly cited. A fleeting mention of WP:NOPAGE was offered as counter, but no rebuttal was made of the sources provided. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Arora Akanksha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arora Akanksha is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arora Akanksha (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Second Thoughts Band (10:54, 6 May 2024)

Hello. Ive just joined. How Do I publish what ive written? --Second Thoughts Band (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You could submit an article via WP:AfC - Articles for Creation. It will be reviewed and commented on by an experienced editor. However, I should caution you that writing about an organization you are involved in, such as a band, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia (see WP:COI editing). It's also a violation of the WP:Username policy to have a name which represents a group (such as a band) rather than an individual. I recommend you start fresh with a new account or request a WP:Username change. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Lallonier (12:43, 6 May 2024)

Hi, I'm in the process of drafting an article with other students. Is there anyways for them to have access to the draft I have created to edit alongside me?

Thank you for your help, --Lallonier (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Draft articles should be public - pretty much everything on Wikipedia is. If you create an article in Draft space, they will be able to access it via the same link you do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Woke Mind Virus

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Woke Mind Virus. 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.Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is my first time doing a deletion review by the way so I am not sure if I have "properly" notified you or linked to the correct page. My apologies in advance if I have posted in error. Thanks.Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 3 is where it can be found to save you some time if that is instead where I should have linked. I appreciate your demeanor and polite attitude throughout this process. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course - we'll see where other folks wind up, but I also appreciate your thoughtful question and responses. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Annabel RL on Tabnine (02:46, 9 May 2024)

Hello, you are my mentor. How do I handle a topic without really knowing what they’re talking about. Thank you, Your student Annabel RL. --Annabel RL (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Is there a specific situation/topic you had in mind? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, Ganesha. I just got Interstate 85 in North Carolina promoted to GA status. Can you tell me how I can nominate it for DYK status? I'm a little confused and would like some guidance. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And I mean by adding a citation for the source, without using the citation template. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You can just write out the citation (and link it) in prose, like this:

Source: ...Filosofova came in, formally dressed to go to a party afterward. One of the nihilists commented nastily, "If she comes dressed like a doll to a serious meeting like this, it must mean she has nothing to do," to which Filosofova replied "Clothes do not make the woman."

Page 77, from Ruthchild, Rochelle G. (2009). "Reframing public and private space in mid-nineteenth century Russia : the triumvirate of Anna Filosofova, Nadezhda Stasova, and Mariia Trubnikova". In Worobec, Christine D. (ed.). The human tradition in imperial Russia. The human tradition around the world. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-3737-8

If you have any issues, let me know and I can pop by and try and fix it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from 29zervg (18:50, 14 May 2024)

If i edit something and the information is wrong do i get in trouble? --29zervg (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's unintentional, no, though your edit may be reverted. If you deliberately vandalize or add false information to Wikipedia, you will be warned, and eventually banned. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Um0klinst (19:35, 15 May 2024)

hi, if I have made edits and added new content to an article, but failed to add citations and another editor removed the new content and archived it, how do I get the archived content. --Um0klinst (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Every article has a page history which you can look at to find previously extant text. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Maria Trubnikova

Congratulations, Ganesha811! The article you nominated, Maria Trubnikova, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baalveer 3

Why delete and redirect? There was no argument in the AfD that the article had any problems except for notability/citations, and leaving the history intact under the redirect allows non admins to view the previous poor work in history and improve upon it. Please amend your close to just 'redirect' per WP:DGFA and restore the history under the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The article had a notability issue, as you say, and arguments in favor of keep were well-countered by those in favor of deletion. The consensus was in favor of deletion, but a navigational redirect would be useful - hence delete and redirect. I don't see guidance on WP:DGFA indicating that this course was incorrect. Could you explain your thinking in more detail? If the material is desired for incorporation, I can put it in a sandbox, but I didn't see arguments for Merge in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The main guidance in WP:DGFA not followed here is the bolded point #4: When in doubt, don't delete. Deletion to the point where something is not available to non-admins is absolutely indicated when something is hoax, copyvio, defamatory, or other BLP concerns. For things that are simply unreferenced and/or insufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability, outright deletion may well still be indicated when there is no redirect target. But in this case, we have an identified redirect target, a related topic, into which some of the material could conceivably be merged.

Here's the kicker: You don't need to see a preponderance of !votes for an outcome to assess that as consensus. As an admin, you're charged to do the best thing for the encyclopedia on the basis of policy-based opinions provided by the AfD participants. In this case, it is clear that the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated, but it is also abundantly clear that there is a related topic into which the content may be merged: probably not, but at some point in the future an editor not participating in the AfD might want to expand the target article with content from the redirection. As you no doubt recall, primary sourced statements from a non-notable article can clearly be re-used in a notable article, as long as that article is not primarily composed of such statements.

By redirecting the article without deleting it, you provide a de facto deletion--the article is gone, redirected to the notable topic--while still allowing a potential future editor to use that non-notable material still present in history for either re-creating a separate article or merging content into the target article. This values appropriately the good-faith contributions of the editors who worked on the inadequate version by leaving it in history, but not visible to readers, and does not take up any additional database space to do so.

Does that adequately explain why a straight redirect rather than a delete-and-redirect is a more policy-based outcome for a non-notable topic with an identified redirect (and possibly merge) target? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, and will bear it in mind in the future, but I'm not convinced that "redirect" is more policy-based than "delete and redirect", rather than simply being more convenient for editors. To put it simply, I wasn't in doubt in this case. However, no reason here not to make the content available for possible incorporation, as you say, so I've created User:Ganesha811/Baalveer3 and will drop a note on the talk page. Thanks for raising the issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Tupou VI

Hello, sorry to bother you. You were the first one to review the article Tupou VI. I have edited the article since and would like you to review it if you have time. If you can't that's ok. History6042 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time right now, but good luck with a new GA nomination! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. History6042 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Institute for Legislative Analysis Deletion

Good Evening, I am writing to let you know this is now the second time the Institute for Legislative Analysis page has been deleted. I am both requesting both its un-deletion and a review by admin into the past deletion actions on the basis of WP:COI.

Upon the original flagging of the page for deletion (roughly two weeks ago) I made a long list of edits in an attempt to appease those seeking the deletion for WP:ORGCRITE. I added these additional four sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands; https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2453025/nikki-haley-tops-limited-government-score-card/; https://marylandmatters.org/2023/06/14/political-notes-a-new-scorecard-gop-claims-vindication-in-poll-and-perezs-new-post/.

Despite the additions and edits made, these individuals still sought to delete ILA alleging it is not a notable organization. To be clear, any objective and rational review of the ILA’s work and influence confirms it is a major player in conservative politics. ILA’s CEO was recently named one of the 500 most influential people in public policy due to ILA’s work - https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/05/02/washington-dcs-500-most-influential-people-of-2024/?__cf_chl_tk=6efEngfVVSbtKjs3ytmihacmdrBsnFaeLcmivLKBr_E-1717299913-0.0.1.1-9001.

Plus, if that was all not enough, I learned a couple of days ago that the ILA is closely followed by Members of Congress. In fact, over two dozen U.S. Representatives posted about a recent ILA report in the last 48 hours alone. Upon reviewing a couple lawmaker posts, I learned that the ILA is actually an entity of the Conservative Partnership Institute – the most powerful MAGA org tied to President Trump and Mark Meadows. Therefore, I thought I could finally without a doubt put the entire debate to rest - there are countless articles that demonstrate the notability of CPI, including an extensive one from the New York Times. This solved every possible concern those seeking to delete ILA could have. I was in the process of adding additional documentation to the ILA page (such as financial disclosures on CPI and ILA with same address, members of Congress acknowledgement, etc.). However, before I could make the updates to the ILA page, it was deleted for yet the 2^nd time.

Since the ILA is one of the top players in conservative politics I could not understand why the page was coming under such attack for deletion. Therefore, I started looking at the profiles of those seeking its deletion. Interestingly, they appear to be philosophically progressive. While I am unsure if there is a political motivation behind their advocacy to delete the page, I think it is fair to say they probably do not have much understanding of conservative politics, especially compared to someone myself who closely follows conservative non-profits.

But perhaps even more interesting, when doing additional research into ILA’s financials, I found out that the American Conservative Union has filed a lawsuit against the ILA claiming multiple counts of “unfair competition in the marketplace”. Apparently, both of the orgs produce scorecards. And it just so happens that these deletion flags came around the same time as the filing of the lawsuit.

Thank you for your help in this matter and work to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Accusing other Wikipedians of acting out of political motivations, or implying that they are being paid by a rival organization, is not something that should be done lightly. I suggest you retract those remarks unless you have actual evidence of a COI. The page did not come "under attack" - it simply has been found to be non-notable. If you wish to contest that decision, WP:Deletion review is available, but I should warn you that you are not likely to have much success there in this case. I would also note that if ILA is a sub-organization of Conservative Partnership Institute (and you have reliable sources discussing the connection), why not just add a sentence or two to our article on CPI and create a redirect? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)