User talk:RoySmith/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please take another look

Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Millennium Project

I got your email. I have some thoughts, but I am in the middle of another issue, and it will take some time to address. There's a chnace I will forget to come back, please ping me if I do not respond in a few hours.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I am interning at the Millennium Project and I saw you deleted the article on the Millennium Project. We would very much like to restore that page. Can you please tell me what was wrong with that and if there is anything we should do about the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.72 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barker Wentworth

Only 2 people suggested redirect, how about the consensus for delete, especially after relisting. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, unless there's some good argument why the history should be hidden, and there's a reasonable redirect target, it makes sense to redirect. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Hello, RoySmith,
I noticed you were active at WP:DRV and so I have a question for you. I was trying to educate myself about aspects of the deletion process I was unfamiliar with and came across Category:Candidates for undeletion. It contains all of these similar pages (like User:Rich Farmbrough/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1967)) which were tagged at least a year ago. Either the page was not undeleted or it was undeleted and the tag was not removed, I can't tell. I'm hoping you can shed some light on this and maybe we can get the category cleared out a bit. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. To be honest, I didn't even know that category existed until just now. It looks like template:tempundelete adds pages to the category automatically. I have no idea why Rich Farmbrough has all those pages; pinging him on that. Perhaps they can be deleted? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

These templates should have been removed when the pages where userfied. I will take care of it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

Merge and delete

Re: [1], post-merge redirects are usually required to preserve attribution. – czar 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 28#Medworxx

Rathfelder (talk · contribs) left you a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 28#Medworxx asking you to restore the contents to draft space. I am letting you know here in case you didn't see Rathfelder's message. Cunard (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very muchRathfelder (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been improved a bit by both me and others. The only things which are referenced by press releases are very factual. The most promotional stuff is from Vancouver Coastal Health, and, as far as I can see, this is entirely independent. It is hard to find coverage which is not just a rehearsal of the company's press releases, but as far as i can see the claims they make seem justified. Could you cast a further critical eye over it please?Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Kardashian effect

When I tried to save my vote, I found out that you had already deleted the article. Is it possible to reopen the discussion? Here's what I would have put: "*Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The term has existed for more than seven years [2], is still used today, and will likely be used in the future. There's a decent source used in the article [3]. And more that are not used [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. (Bonus points for sources from many counties: United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Lebanon, Australia) And some guy wrote a book about it [10]. (sig)" Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Had your comment (it's not a vote) been there, I doubt it would have made any difference in my close, but I don't have anything invested in this. Sure, I'll reopen it and let somebody else re-close it once you've added your comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for 4shared

Hi RoySmith,

I was reading the discussions at deletion review and noticed you closed a discussion for 4shared as moot, stating that the page isn't protected. However, the page actually is protected, so your rationale for closing the discussion seems to be in error. Calathan (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Duh, I didn't notice that. And it's only Tuesday. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll back out my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion for Concurrent Average Memory Access Time (C-AMAT)

Hi RoySmith, I found that the "[Average Memory Access Time (C-AMAT)]" page has been deleted recently. Could you please restore it? I plan to improve the quality of the page, making it easier to read as a brief introduction to the topic of "concurrent memory access". Concurrent memory access is a hot topic in computer science because concurrent computing is ubiquitous in today's computing systems in both hardware and software. Also, memory performance is the system performance bottleneck in many situations, rather than the CPU performance. C-AMAT is an important breakthrough in this area, providing an effective way to measure memory performance. Since its publication, C-AMAT has received broad coverage from academic media and tech websites, such as HPC Today [1], Scientific Computing [2], ACM Tech News [3], HPC wire [4], etc. Since not all web users have access to the technical paper or are willing to get into that many details, I believe we should keep this Wikipedia page which provides a high-level brief introduction to C-AMAT. --Yinyanlong (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which page you are referring to. The link you gave isn't valid. Do you have a link to the deletion discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrent average memory access time. There was unanimous consensus during that discussion that the article did not meet our notability requirements, so I'm afraid there's not much I can do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Positive Internet deletion

Hi Roy. Sorry to bother you, but I see you deleted Positive Internet (now a redirect) back in 2014, as a result of this discussion. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore the deleted content into my userspace so I can have a crack at salvaging it? Many thanks in advance. Steve ^T • C 21:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason not to do that, but to be honest, I'm not sure of the right mechanism to move the previous history without trashing the existing redirect and/or damaging the edit history required by our license. I'll investigate what the right process is. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Userfy_deleted_history_of_an_article_without_destroying_the_current_version.3F if you're interested in the technical details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise the fact of the redirect's existence would make this more problematic than the usual userfication. Sorry about that, and many thanks for putting in the extra legwork to figure out what needed to be done. Steve ^T • C 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I learned something, so that's a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba)

In the closing note of the subject AfD you mentioned that "The fundamental debate here is about the quality of the sources, and neither side has made a convincing enough argument to negate the other side." I would like to do it now. Can you relist the AfD for that? Or should I raise 2nd nomination? Just asking procedurally. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The AfD ran for 11 days, and you made numerous contributions to the discussion. It's hard for me to imagine what you might add now which would change the result. It is certainly possible for you to nominate it again, but I suggest reading Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion before you do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I did negate most of the points the "keep" opining editors had put. I now plan to, just like what you say, talk about the quality of each and every reference used in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this vote-stacking?

I have a question about if something at an AFD is vote-stacking and also what can be done since the damage has been done and the consensus is now swayed in a particular direction.

The AFD is this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th nomination) Two of the keep !votes(from Caldorwards4 and Dough4872) are there because tenpoundhammer(who also !voted keep) notified them here[11] and here [12]. These are the only users he notified, but most mall AFDs get such little input that two keep !votes makes a huge difference on the outcome.

Both him and the users he notified are members of wikiproject shopping centers[13] and while I don't want to wade through hundreds of mall AFDs 2 that were actually linked by tenpoundhammer in the current AFD here[14] and here[15] have Dough4872 !voting keep with the only reason being "enclosed malls are notable" which indicates that he would always !vote keep on mall afds and I suspect the same with Caldorwards4. Me5000 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing. You might want to point this out on the AfD page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I left a comment at the AFD. Me5000 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, he denies that he is vote-stacking and he says those people were picked because they participated in past mall AFDs and that he didn't even notice they had !voted keep, so what should I do now? I don't think pursuing him further in the AFD is going to do anything except start an argument. I obviously can't prove for certain that he was vote-stacking, but I can at least prove he has talked to Dough4872 in the past about malls [16] [17] and has requested input from Caldorwards4 numerous times [18][19][20][21][22]. I'm not sure what to make of this because 1. The AFD had just started so I don't see why he would notify anyone and 2. I find it hard to believe the 2 users he notifies just happen to align to his views. Me5000 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you're making more of this than it's worth. Your arguments in the AfD should be about the article. Either it meets our criteria or it doesn't. Who edited it, and who participated in the AfD discussion really aren't that important. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought you suggested to leave the comment in the AFD? Why is it okay to notify two specific people that have no apparent connection to the article other than participating in past mall AFDs? Does that make it okay for me to also notify two people that have participated in past mall AFDs? Me5000 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I remember you. Sorry, not playing that game. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I make too big of a deal out stuff that really doesn't matter here on wikipedia. Please permanently ban me. Me5000 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Procedural errors

RoySmith, after closing Articles for deletion/International Space Elevator Consortium, you put {{Afd-merge from}} on Talk:Space Elevator, but the correct page is Talk:Space elevator (with elevator not capitalized). I could correct this and delete Talk:Space Elevator, but since I was involved I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I have already corrected the capitalization in the tag on International Space Elevator Consortium. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it (I hope I got it correct this time). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika

As per your deletion review closure, could you drop the last version of the article in my userspace and I'll work on it? Thanks. 128.40.171.43 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but do you have an account, or do you just edit using a stable IP? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that I wasn't logged in! Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. User:Bondegezou/Manika (singer) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 9#Manika (singer)

Thank you for taking on the difficult task of reading through and assessing the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 9#Manika (singer).

I found your close disappointing because I think is a consensus to overturn based on the numbers and strengths of the arguments. The "overturn" editors pointed out that the close was a supervote because no one in the AfD supported deletion due to the article's quality. Instead, there was a strong consensus to keep despite the article's imperfections. We also pointed to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

The "endorse" editors on the other hand failed to explain how the close represented the AfD's consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2 but they instead advanced personal opinions about the article and like the closing admin failed to specifically explain how the article was so deficient that a "rewrite from scratch" was necessary.

31% of the editors endorsed the decision, while 69% said "overturn" or "send to AfD". It is disappointing that an admin can close an AfD with a rationale that didn't match a single argument in the AfD. And then get it upheld at DRV with only 31% support.

My questions:

Why do you think there was no consensus in the discussion? How did the "endorse" editors explain that the "delete" close was an accurate assessment of the AfD's consensus?
What do you mean by: "If we were about process wonkery, I would probaby have closed this differently"? Would you have closed as "overturn" or "relist" instead?

Please reclose the DRV as "no consensus". If you refuse to do that, at the very least please strike this part of your close: "the old text can be userfied to anybody who's willing to own doing the rewrite". The closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manika (singer) wrote: "the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over ... you need to rewrite the article from scratch".

That means that {{db-repost}} can be applied to any article that is not "rewritten from scratch" since your DRV close effectively endorsed the AfD close. I ask that you append a note to your DRV close that the article does not have to be "rewritten from scratch". The article has already been cleaned up by Ritchie333 and Bondegezou. It would be wasteful to just throw out their hard work. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The world has moved on. You should too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your dismissive response is uncalled for. I can only conclude that you cannot justify your close per Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability so can only resort to making deflecting comments. Why are you closing discussions if you are unable to treat people with respect when they have reasonable concerns about your close? "The world has moved on. You should too." does not answer my questions.

Here is my expansion and cleanup of User:Bondegezou/Manika (singer). The closing admin said "the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over". I removed some material but I did not "blow up the article", which conflicts with the AfD close. I'd rather not take this revised draft back to DRV so am asking you to review it so it can be restored to mainspace.

Cunard (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard: From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 9: "The close allows for an immediate recreation." Chase (talk | contributions) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you, Chasewc91 (talk · contribs). I was worried that the article would be speedy deleted under {{db-repost}} since I did not "the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over. I only cleaned it up and expanded it. This conflicts with the DRV close, which endorsed the AfD, and also requires a "rewrite".

Since RoySmith has so little respect for me that he first dismisses and then ignores me, I will proceed with returning the article to mainspace at Manika (singer). I have no other option but to take it back to DRV, which I do not want to do. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

aPink

To have the conversation take place in a more stable location, I've copy-pasted everything to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Apink concert tours. Please continue the discussion there. Also, see User_talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#Script_gone_wild.3F. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD Discussions and an Inherent Dilemna of Wikipedia

Greetings Roy Smith. I read your closing of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robot (dance) with interest. The article I mentioned with what I considered to be an analogous/comparable outcome was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_night_buses_in_London (2nd_nomination), which was not closed out as carefully or coherently as your work @ Robot dance. In both cases a mass of people made weak fan-like/enthusiast calls for keeping as opposed to well-reasoned Wikipedia concept calls for deletion. There seems to be an inherent tension between the democratic-like concensus of Wikipedia and decisions based on reason and evidence. Would you agree with this? My own conclusion is to stay away from editing and, especially, proposing AfD, articles and groupings of articles that attract groups of enthusiasts and fans--such as recent urban dances and music. Sorry for putting the long links in this paragraph, but I couldn't get the linking tool to work. Regards, Tapered (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. To address the simple part first, I've fixed up the links in your message, as an example of what they're supposed to look like. As for the fandom aspect, you are entirely correct. The concept of consensus, as we use it, is a tricky one, and I think you've summed up the inherent tension quite well. It's not supposed to be a vote, but at the same time, it is supposed to represent the collective will of the community. I've been closing AfDs for 10 years, and I still haven't quite figured it out :-)

Figured out my mistaken on linking. Alt titles for Article Titles and http addresses have different mechanics. I'm nowhere near as energetic or prolific as yourself, but DUH, should figured dat out long timego. Cheers! Tapered (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, glad you got that figured out. Let me know if you need any other help. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some Pasta for You!

All-Africa Games sports

Thank you for your comment in the Deletion review page of All-Africa Games sports the discuss had continue in the Requests for undeletion page here and as you suggested, I had start to write a new draft of the article in my sandbox here you can see it. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Relist

Hey. There is something about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 24‎ that you should know: When you close a DRV as "relist", you should do the actual relisting. Fleet Command (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The closure was not relist, is was "vacate closure". There is an obvious difference. If you wish to make further comments at the discussion you may now do so before it is reclosed. BethNaught (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have no interest in this kind of word play. A DRV discussion has four outcomes: Endorse, overturn [to something], relist and allow recreation. When the DRV is closed as relist, with or without this actual words used, the closing admin should relist the discussion. If the closing admin don't do it, either it will languish (because new participants can't find it) or another admin eventually does it.

Ignore me if you wish. I won't reply here anymore. Either of the outcomes are okay with me. Fleet Command (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. Like I said, I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of how TfD works. If there's some additional step that needs to happen to relist it properly, please go ahead and do so. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizal Ismail

No objection to your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizal Ismail, but could you at least userfy the article for User:Arteyu, given the large number of substantial articles that I found? --Bejnar (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection, but third-party requests are a little unusual. @Arteyu:, is that OK with you? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@RoySmith: @Bejnar:Hi, it would be nice if you userfy the page and I strongly reckon that Faizal Ismail is notable but things are different now since I am no more an active wikipedia editor and hence couldn't commit to the expansion of the article. Maybe you could userfy the deleted page to Bejnar instead? I will try help him out when I have time. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 02:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's at User:Bejnar/Faizal Ismail. My apologies for taking so long. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I'm going to be sans computer in a week for a spell lasting at least until 17 November. So it will be a while before I start work on it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

UNEECI article

Hi. I had missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Pupils and Students Union of Côte d'Ivoire before it got closed, having been out of wikipedia for a while. Is it possible to undelete it? UNEECI was major political organization in Cote d'Ivoire; see

https://books.google.com/books?id=6DrDYERtdicC&pg=PA65
"In order to continue to receive their scholarships, some two- thirds of the students in Senegal and France in fact joined UNEECI (Zolberg 1969, 307-13)." (https://books.google.com/books?id=8SIOAQAAMAAJ)
"section UNEECI la plus importante de Côte d'Ivoire et de France, celle de l'université d'Abidjan" (https://books.google.com/books?id=KOOFpwViYfwC&pg=PA355)
"L'Union Nationale des Élèves et Étudiants de Côte d'Ivoire (UNEECI), première organisation syndicale, n'a pas échappé à la répression du Parti Démocratique de Côte d'Ivoire (PDCI) au pouvoir depuis l'indépendance." (https://books.google.com/books?id=cdYPCwUyriwC&pg=PA101)
"Ces étudiants ne seront libérés qu'en janvier 1962 et, entre-temps, Houphouët-Boigny a encouragé la fondation d'un autre mouvement estudiantin, l'Union Nationale des Élèves et Étudiants de Côte d'Ivoire (UNEECI), destinée à supplanter la " (https://books.google.com/books?id=k8eWZNcEahoC&pg=PA84)
"À la différence de l'Uneeci qui se voulait autonome, le Meeci, créé en 1968 à la suite de la dissolution de celle-ci, s'affirme et s'affiche comme une section du parti unique qui lui apporte l'appui institutionnel de l'État. " (https://books.google.com/books?id=pOs30e_XsykC&pg=PA50)
"Laurent est candidat à la présidence de l'UNEECI. La colère du président de la République, président également du PDCI-RDA, engendrera la dissolution immédiate de l'UNEECI sans" (https://books.google.com/books?id=h9EuAQAAIAAJ)
"le régime a dissous en 1968, l'Union nationale des élèves et étudiants de Côte d'Ivoire (UNEECI) et mis en place" (https://books.google.com/books?id=LdGkZnGnx6UC&pg=PA184)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9m8OQP0Ne_wC&pg=PA22

etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Soman, and thanks for your note. @SwisterTwister: @DGG: @NewYorkActuary: @Sandstein: @Onel5969: @Bejnar: Looking at the AfD again, the general feeling seems to be that most participants were open to keeping this article if sufficient WP:RS could be located. Unfortunately, I don't read French, so I'm unable to give the sources you cite above a useful evaluation. Perhaps you could provide English translations for the passages you cite? I've pinged all the other participants in the AfD. If, after looking at your new sources, there is some support for your request, I'd be willing to vacate my close and relist the discussion. But, please understand that I'm not making any promises. My role in the AfD is essentially clerical; it's really up to the people who participated to evaluate the new sources and decide if this will change their position. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I do read French, and these sources do indicate that the organization had a certain political and social significance. But they generally mention it only briefly or in passing, in the context of the discussion of broader developments in politics or education. As it is, it seems to me that the organization certainly bears mention in relevant articles about Côte d'Ivoire, but that we do not have sufficient material to base an article on. Sandstein 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I argued or keeping as the principal national students organization in that country, and i consider that in such cases the GNG requirements should be interpreted liberally; I would al o interpret the guideline as liberally as possible for all organizations in Africa, in order to avoid WP:Cultural bias due to the the difficulties of sourcing in that region. Reading the sources, I therefore would certainly consider then significant mention. However, I do not see how the article could have been kept on the basis of the discussion there. ince thesourcesmentioned above are additional to the ones in thearticle, I think it would beappropriate to undelete on that basis and have a new discussion at afd. In fact, I think they are sufficient ot allow recreation of anarticle including them in any event. Itwould greatly help to have some additional sources from newspapers in that region. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For example, one of the sources clearly say that 2/3 of all Ivorian students in France and Senegal (these were the two major academic centres for Francophone West Africa at the time) were members of UNEECI at one point, which should be enough to clear notability criteria for an organization. Moreover the President of the Republic, as mentioned in several of the sources, intervened to ban the organization (which clearly would not happen to any minor grouping). --Soman (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a common Anglo-centric mistake õn Wikipedia to assume that university student association are local and frivolous (i.e. college fraternities a la US). In West Africa students formed movements, that were key players in the political and social life in the years around and after independence. From the sources above, all book sources, that emerges quite clearly. --Soman (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoa there, Soman! As a participant in the original discussion, I can testify that no one there was treating the subject organization as "frivolous". The main issue was, and continues to be, whether the organization was sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article.
Before I state my main points, I'll engage in a respectful quibble with User:DGG. It is technically true that the organization was "national", but it is also true that, at the time the organization existed, the Ivory Coast had only one university, located in the capital city of Abidjan. And so, although it might be semantically correct to call it "national", it really wasn't. Other than having some of its members study abroad, I've seen nothing to suggest that the organization had any activities whatsoever outside of Abidjan.

Soman, you state in your post that West African students "were key players in the political ... life". This is an enormous overgeneralization. I certainly agree that the student organizations saw themselves as key players, but our decisions here must look to evidence that they actually were key players. And I don't see that evidence here. Allow me to state a brief outline of this organization's history -- <<-- Newly-independent African nation establishes a university and encourages the forming of a student organization. Said organization holds a few meetings and some of its members study abroad. Organization makes public statements that are critical of the government. Organization gets banned by government. -->> Have I left out anything substantial? From an earlier post, I presume that you will argue that the very act of being banned is the notable thing here. But it isn't. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I'll pose two questions. First, is it true that, in the years following independence, virtually every sub-Saharan African nation established a national university and a student union? And second, is it true that many (perhaps most) of them got banned at one time or another for making statements critical of the government? I think that the answers to both of these questions is "yes", in which case there was nothing particularly notable about the instant organization.

I find myself in agreement with Sandstein -- the place for information about the subject organization is in a broader article. What this encyclopedia really needs is an article on the "History of student organizations in the Ivory Coast". That article could describe the pre-independence organization, the UNEECI, the MEECI and could merge in the information already found at the FESCI article. And Soman, you seem like the perfect person to write that article, I wish you a hearty "Happy Editing", and my position remains "delete". NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think some context is needed here. "some of its members study abroad" underestimates the fact that (as you mention) university education for Ivorians was largely done in France and Senegal at the time, and that UNEECI has the majority of students there as affiliates. So we have an organizations 1) founded on the initiative of a national government 2) Organized the majority of students in France and Senegal, apart from being active inside the country as well and 3) developed in a different political direction and was banned by the president of the Republic. If this had been a non-African country, those 3 facts would have qualified for notability a long way. Moreover, this organization was not limited to university students, it organized school students as well. --Soman (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And do read from https://books.google.com/books?id=KOOFpwViYfwC&pg=PA355 , "Ses adversaires, bien sûr, étaient soit des cadres importants de l'UNEECI soit des idoles de la jeunesse ivoirienne". --Soman (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The place for the limited information available in reliable sources about the subject organization is in a broader article. Which information amounts to a couple of sentences, or maybe a paragraph. Doing that will place what we can verify in proper context. --Bejnar (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Block

I think that this block was particularly poor. You've taken an editor with 60k+ edits and zero previous blocks and blocked them with no warning whatsoever.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As you logged out immediately following the block and are unavaible to discuss an unblock, and as SwisterTwister agreed to stop reverting the close thereby making the block moot, I have unblocked the them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Logged out only in the sense of lost connectivity while on the train, but that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Akira Hiramoto deletion closure request

Objectivity disclaimer: I am an active administrator of the Prison School unofficial wikia and an active editor at the Wikia domain, I have linked to my Wikia identity under the handle Speedit.

I would like this page to be delisted from the deletion process and its deletion discussion be closed as the subject in question is a notable manga artist. The article was a WP:COPYRIGHT violation (the initial reason for nomination) but this has been cleared up and I approve of the current article in its stub form (which will hopefully be expanded with original information in time).

NB: You may view the relevant editing process by viewing all the relevant edits including and succeeding this one here.

I nominated this previously fully plaigarised article for deletion, but this was a mistake as it was a WP:COPYRIGHT violation and WP:COPYPASTE. So I removed the AfD tag and added a WP:COPYVIO tag. Another user cleared up the violation conclusively in this time, allowing the article to continue as a stub without deletion.

I appreciate that this was a mistake owing to not being familiar with the correct process for the removal of plaigarised content. As the initiator of this deletion process, I hopefully should be able to request that the article has a right to exist so long as it is not a copyright violation. Which the original article was because of CC-BY-SA requiring that the article be defined as a full mirror/copy with a defined source.

Akira Hiramoto in himself is the author of a long-running gag manga and he's been serialised with the likes of CLAMP for decades - Prison School's Volume 17 (ANN source) & Volume 18 (ANN source) became a top 10 manga in volume sales in Japan owing to the anime adaptation. Notability under WP:BIO is sufficiently met in my opinion, albeit being a less famous than other mangaka due to the seinen and niche nature of his works. Speeditor talk 20:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. The best thing I can suggest at this point would be to make your argument on the AfD page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks you for your reply. I didn't really think Akira Hiramoto was beyond the scope of Wikipedia when I saw the article, I was just annoyed at seeing someone brazenly copy an article I wrote verbatim and pass it off as theirs. I'll be summarizing my points supporting the existence of the article in its current form as per your advice. Speeditor talk 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Spyware AFD

Hi,

I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Spyware (2nd nomination) as delete and deleted both Microsoft Spyware and Talk:Microsoft Spyware. However, I specifically requested in the nomination that the talk page Talk:Microsoft Spyware be kept. Could you please restore that page? (I can take care of moving the talk page and the expansion page to draft space or userspace.)

Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored and moved it to User:RJaguar3/Microsoft Spyware. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! RJaguar3 | u | t 19:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking explanation of Deletion Review

Sir, I noted today that the Deletion Review of Manas Madrecha has been closed by you as an admin, but I did not find any closing note, with no explanation, but mere tag of G11, which had evidently been contested in the discussion. Could you be kind to present one?AlwaysHappy (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have updated my close to provide additional explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello RoySmith:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent work on deletion review and in particular your excellent, neutral assessment of "List of cases of police brutality in the United States." Keep up the good work! —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Editnotices/Page/Draft:Ibrahima Dramé

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman

Hi, I really think that if you close a hotly contested debate like this, a more extensive rationale is needed than just the standard "The result is...". Closing this "keep" is not as self-evident as you seem to think. If I hadn't participated myself in this debate, I would have closed it "no consensus" at best and more likely "delete", given the powerful NOPAGE argument that was not countered by any of the keep !votes. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Upon reflection, I'm not convinced I closed it correctly, so I've backed out my close and relisted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That was much more than I asked for! Appreciate it, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work in relisting AfD discussions, which helps to keep matters in order. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd prefer a cup of tea. Earl grey is nice. Lemon, no milk, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-Muslim view of Ali deletion

Hi. May I ask about your rationale for closing the deletion debate for this article, given it had just been relisted for lack of consensus (mostly 'keep' votes), and the only new vote after the relisting was a 'delete' vote? Thanks. LjL (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I didn't notice the recent relist. I've backed out my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. LjL (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Center (Brooklyn)

Hi, I was about to start an article for the Gateway Center in Brooklyn, and came across its deletion discussion. I'm curious as to why it was deleted, and if it can be resurrected if notability is established. I already have a draft in my sandbox. Tdorante10 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no prohibition against you recreating the article, as long as the new version addresses the issues raised in the AfD. @Me5000: @[email protected]: @Bearian: @VMS Mosaic: @Onel5969: @Kraxler: the participants in the original AfD may have opionions on whether your current draft does that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tdorante10 (and thanks for the ping RoySmith) - As RoySmith said, there's no prohibition against re-creating the article, as long as notability can be established. That said, once an article has been through AfD and been deleted, there is more attention paid to the sourcing. In other words, if an article is borderline in terms of notability, the fact that it was deleted would usually count against it. I just glanced at your sandbox, it it has quite a few references, but I won't have the time to check them out for a few days. If in doubt, you could submit it through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the good work and for the ping. The new article appears to meet the Heymann Standard. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD for Dream House, etc.

Roy, per ADMINACCT, can you please provide an explanation for denying a consensus "keep" close in the above-referenced AfD? There was a 6–3 majority in favor of keeping it, and linked evidence of significant coverage of the subject was provided in the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually I count 4 on the delete side, but it's really not about head counts. I saw some reasonable arguments on both sides. I also saw some bad arguments on both sides. But, fundamentally, I didn't see any real meeting of mind here. And, I really don't lose any sleep worrying about the difference between a consensus to keep and NC. The article gets kept either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your reasoning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24#Alex Gilbert

Hi RoySmith. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24#Alex Gilbert as "deletion endorsed". There was a subsequent DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Draft:Alex Gilbert that was closed as "No consensus to allow recreation. Please don't renominate unless something significant changes."

Would you take a look at this request and list of sources by DmitryPopovRU at User talk:Cunard#Alex Gilbert and give DmitryPopovRU your advice? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but no, I'm not going to invest the time to read through a long list of references for an article which has already been shot down twice at DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan

Hi RoySmith. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your rationale a little for your closing of this AfD as keep, given the large number of SPAs (6 of the 10 keep !votes, including one user that has been subsequently blocked as the sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor) and the contentious history of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing for longevity-related articles. While I obviously see no consensus to delete, I do think that the AfD would have benefited from being relisted to gain broader community input, or at least being closed as "no consensus". Thanks. Canadian Paul 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The only distinction that really matters is delete vs. not delete. I suppose this could have been closed as NC, but I just don't see that it's worth arguing the distinction between NC and Keep. Either way, the article is kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. Delete vs. non-delete is the least important distinction; the actual number of votes only matters when there are many strong arguments for both sides. Much more important is the strength of the arguments and their relation to policy, which none of the SPAs really engage. Thus I feel that keeping the discussion open to get more outside input would have been valuable; otherwise the type of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing that characterizes the problems surrounding these articles is encouraged. Would you consider reverting your close and relisting the article so that the ultimate result can be more representative of community consensus? Canadian Paul 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think you misunderstood my comment (which is to say, I phrased it poorly). When I said, The only distinction that really matters is delete vs. not delete, I didn't mean people's !votes, I meant the final outcome. In other words, I'll put a lot of effort into deciding if I'm going to close something as delete vs. anything else. But, when it comes down to deciding if I should close something as keep vs. NC, I don't see that as such a critical decision, and thus put less effort into that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the close to NC. Thank you for your enquiry. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. I was considering a DRV, but on closer inspection I think that would just be a waste of everyone's time. If people want to nominate it again years in the future, they can now see that there was no consensus and then make their decision from there. I don't see these supercentenarian articles as inherently non-notable (I even worked on bringing three to GA status through proper sourcing), but I do feel that there are many who don't merit a stand-alone article. If a few borderline cases have their own article though, it's not the end of the world. Canadian Paul 18:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If somebody wants to renominate it years in the future, it really doesn't matter what this close was. Community norms change over time. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete the article's twin, List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I saw consensus for that. Do me a favor; ping all the participants in the original AfD, ask them to chime in here, and if nobody objects in a day or two, I'll consider that part of the original consensus and delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No probalo. @Sideways713: @Chunky Rice: @FuriouslySerene: @Pincrete: @166.137.96.95: @Wikimandia: @Blaze The Movie Fan: @Matt294069: @JayJay: --Monochrome_Monitor 20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do support deletion of that article. I don't see how this is useful for Wikipedia. Maybe it's useful for some website that has statics, but that's not what Wikipedia is for unless it's notable. And since actors/directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time it's not. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion; the grouping doesn't work any better with directors than actors. Sideways713 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion.Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also supporting deletion Matt294069 is coming 23:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

While you're all here, shouldn't this be deleted as well? It's an analogous grouping for television and similarly arbitrary. @Sideways713: @Chunky Rice: @FuriouslySerene: @Pincrete: @166.137.96.95: @Wikimandia: @Blaze The Movie Fan: @Matt294069: @JayJay: List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television --Monochrome_Monitor 09:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion for both per same reasons. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion, just for the record. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? Please use AFD. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon further consideration (prodded by Thincat's comment), I've opened AfDs for these two. Perhaps I'm being overly bureaucratic, but it's cleaner this way. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Would probably support deletion of both, but I endorse Thincat's stance and RoySmith's action that this needs to be AfD'd.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)