User talk:Kurykh/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 17    Archive 18    Archive 19 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karinkuzhi

Please archive the deleted article to WP:HOAXLIST, thanks. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toneshifterz re-booted?

According to its AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toneshifterz, this article was to be deleted. I think its been re-booted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisH17

Hi there, a new user, ChrisH17, would like to talk to you in regards to a deleted article. However, it seems he's not autoconfirmed and therefore not able to contact you directly. Would you be able to reach out to them at User talk:ChrisH17? Thanks, —Non-Dropframe talk 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Kishore Buxani Page

I am humbly requesting your re-inclusion of the recently deleted page Kishore Buxani. The sources were updated as the original reason for deletion was the sources were using articles from the International Times and were not. The sources were from Asia One news, The Straits Times and Singapore Business Times. All sources are verifiable at multiple sources online although we only used 1 per article in order to not have duplicate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcohon (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason for deletion. Reread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buxani more closely; the problem was that notability was not and cannot be established. The responsibility is yours to demonstrate notability through the presentation of sufficient qualifying sources. Read the relevant notability guidelines for what is needed to address the problems raised in the AfD. --Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akber Rashid page

Hello, just noticed the Akber Rashid page were deleted and merely wanted to get some information for the decision, any information would be greatly appreciated, Thank you. Theartiz (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akber Rashid. --Kurykh (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Judgeship of Rayagada, Orissa

The page was all about an important branch of state Judiciary in Odisha which has been feeding information for research scholars. I should have given a chance to delete/edit only the parts which violated Wikipedia guidelines. Can I request for a revision. Hpsatapathy (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no undeletion of the article until all of the arguments raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgeship of Rayagada, Orissa are sufficiently addressed. Also, please do not recreate the article until said arguments are sufficiently addressed. --Kurykh (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that while deleting the page Judgeship of Rayagada, Orissa the editor got biased rather than a wiki-like fair discussion . It hurts to learn that I was not given a chance to address the issues, if any. Hpsatapathy (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ingvar Jónsson

I am bringing this up here since, Wikipedia:Deletion review requests that users bring the issue up first at the user talk page of the user that closed said debate. It is pretty clear to me that closing the Ingvar Jónsson deletion request as delete on the grounds that was the conseus is an mistake and in violation of WP:ROUGH CONSEUS.

From WP:ROUGH CONSEUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."

If you search for the quote that the nominator brought up from the Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA page, and exclude deletion requests with "-delete" then you will see that the quote comes from said page and is not specified in any page that is (marked as) an guideline or policy. Sure, Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA is specified under WP:NHOCKEY, but that is only "for lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below". It does not have any effect as an guideline directly for ice hockey players. This of course makes the vote from Yosemiter fallacious, and his comment that the nominator made WP:NHOCKEY/LA is just irrelevant.

WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS even states that: "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." Likewise the false statement that the article fails the notability criteria, has two sources (articles are not really gone even though they are deleted) that disapproves that claim, then from the same principle those arguments are not relevant.

Some of the argument are just fallacious, like the vote from 18abruce, where he states that the IIHF article is not an article about Ingvar and that Iceland has never participated in the world championship. The reason for why it is fallacious is that even the title of the IIHF article is "Iron Ingvar" and even the statement that Iceland has competed in said competition 17 times is specified just under the title, as well as in the article itself. Your browser should not have any issues in finding the words "world championship" in said article.

I could go on and mention other votes, but really, there is no point in doing so because my point should already be pretty clear by now.--Snaevar (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is clear: clearly incorrect. People are not saying delete because their arguments are contrary to the notability guidelines, but because they disagree on your interpretation of the guidelines. You provided links; they have dismissed those links for the reasons stated in the discussion. You made various arguments; they have been answered (side note: just because the page isn't guideline or policy doesn't mean automatic disregard). You are effectively asking me to toss out opinions because you don't like their conclusions, not because they are necessarily wrong on the facts or guidelines.
You also misapplied WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. The arguments in question all relate to notability, with its attendant guidelines by which all articles are measured. The opinions referenced in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS often refer to arguments dismissed under WP:ANA, not to those which you happen to disagree with and therefore deem to be mere opinion.
Do not confuse genuine disagreement with "fallaciousness." I do not find the delete arguments to deviate from Wikipedia policies and guidelines enough to discount them or change the consensus of the discussion, and I stand by my decision. --Kurykh (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Azmara Club Cruises

Dear Kurykh, I want to reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azamara Club Cruises, I believe that the article was unfairly deleted, The article was about a cruise line, I believe that instead of deleting it, we add more sources to it, I hope you can reply and talk about restoring the page.

Thank you - Angelgreat (talk) 13:43, 27, February 2017 (UTC)

The outcome of the AfD was fair given the weeklong discussion, the lack of dissent in that discussion, and the fact that you have not provided any sources that would meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP to merit keeping the article. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I stand by my decision. --Kurykh (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a close

First, just a general thanks for all the work that you do closing AfDs. My question oddly enough isn't going to be one of the "why did you delete my articles?" but about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar M. Alcaraz, which you closed as no consensus. There hadn't been a delete !vote since the first relist, and even those were not opposed to the existence if it could be created neutrally, which I think my stubifying of the article did. It's not that big of a deal since no consensus defaults to keep, but I do think a full keep closure is more accurate from my reading (though I'm obviously biased). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: The main issue at hand, as you pointed out in the AfD itself, was notability. There was no consensus on that issue. The neutrality or stubifying of the article is immaterial. --Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, I still disagree because based on nose count it was 4:2/4:3 counting the nominator with each of the four who !voted keep agreeing that notability had been met. Its not something I'm willing to go to DRV over because that seems like it would be beating a dead horse for the same practical result. If the issue is with sourcing I do think the systemic bias concern of the 1970s Philippines should be a factor when assessing the GNG and ANYBIO claims that were made. If its a good faith disagreement here between the two of us, that's fine. Just wanted to raise the issue. Again, thanks for all the work you do with AfDs :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying a close

You recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul De'. I was the only person to vote Keep on that, and I had provided my rationale for the same. I thought that WP:PROF#C5 was a valid enough criteria that the subject met, but you thought otherwise. Could you please tell me why? Jupitus Smart 06:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: On reconsideration, I think you have a point. I have reopened and relisted the AfD to solicit comments on your analysis. Thanks for bringing this up. --Kurykh (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for re-considering. This was my first Afd vote or nomination whose result had gone against my vote. I will try and improve the article, if it can be improved, and probably I can at least ensure that the article is not deleted. Jupitus Smart 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination)

The Keeps/Delists seemed to be about 50/50. Would welcome your reasons for closing as "Delete". Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. At least two of the keep !votes were based on arguments along the lines of "presenting balance." Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHT WRONGS and is therefore not a valid reason for retention. --Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a vote, was thinking that there wasn't an overwhelming consensus one way or the other and in those cases I thought the decision was supposed to be for the status quo. If two of the Keeps in the discussion were about "balance" and that was disallowed or faulty then at least one of the deletes cited a completely faulty understanding of WP policy & guidelines. Be that as it may, why shouldn't the pertinent content about Achom's various wine-investment/fraud-convictions be merged into Investment wine? Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, not "overwhelming consensus." You laid out arguments on your interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and people had evaluated them and agreed or disagreed. Also, there is no obligation to merge when the consensus of the discussion is to delete; WP:BEFORE does not turn AfD into an emergency room or a salvage yard. --Kurykh (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think at least some of the content should have or could have been merged into Investment wine, but, what is, is. Shearonink (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on a close

Just more of a clarification than anything, but could you explain how you would decide between no consensus vs. keep at your Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emigma_(software) close? It seemed pretty much everyone commenting agreed on the idea of keeping it in terms of notability (if just passing) with the issue of needed article pruning aside. This isn't a request for a reassessment or anything, but I'm just curious where you saw the no consensus in terms of the question of deleting as the close confused me a bit. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to include the nominator in that determination. It's hard to say "pretty much everyone commenting" and leave out the nominator when there are only three !votes to analyze (including that of the nominator's). --Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close

Hi -- I'd like to ask you please to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination) -- the views there were evenly balanced and in my opinion the result should have been 'no consensus'. thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response in the above Frederick Achom thread. --Kurykh (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would like to note that the delete votes cited Wikipedia practice and Wikipedia policy. The close was correct. Collect (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Keep votes also cited practice and guidelines - maybe not all of them but then again neither did all of the Delete votes, some of which cited errant understanding of WP guidelines and non-existent WP guidelines. In any case i doubt anything posted here will change the closing admin's mind but I do think at least some of the information should have been retained and merged into Investment wine. Shearonink (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Namrata Purohit

Hi this was regarding closing of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namrata Purohit in my opinion the five delete votes excluding mine as a nominator were well explained the article also sounds promotional and out the four keep votes the creator of the page added a keep vote.I was hoping if you could reconsider keeping the discussion open and relisting it so other editors could weigh in .Thank you FITINDIA (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions should not be relisted more than twice and I thought the keep !votes raised good points (as did the delete ones). This falls well in the realm of no consensus. --Kurykh (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FITINDIA (talk)

AfD 2014 New Zealand Open Grand Prix

First of all, sorry if this is rather irrelevant message, because AfD discussion is closed and you took the final action so I tried to write here first.

Is there any way for 2014 New Zealand Open Grand Prix to be restored? From what I see in the AfD discussion, it seems like those who do not really understand badminton "bashed" the discussion and created consensus based on their judgement. Other badminton tournaments and some other sports (even in Olympic events such as one) usually references to one page about the tournament and that's fine.

I can also explain why Google News won't display any articles, because it is uncommon for mainstream press to use 'Grand Prix', a tournament level in badminton but also a name of racing championship. I can also contribute some significant coverage from NZ Herald (here) and Indonesia's BeritaSatu (here).

Thanks in advance Griff88 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you consult WP:ATA, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rehashing the debate will not get the deletion overturned. If you think your sources can surmount the problems raised in the AfD (and I don't think they do), then you can head to WP:DRV. --Kurykh (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Sugarboy

Good Day, Wikipedia:Deletion review stated i bring this to you.. Sugarboy article you recently deleted, ever since the article got deleted i have been on research cause i strongly believe this article meet's WP:GNG I found 1 link which i stated on debate from OkayAfrica [1] now i found more The Nation (Nigeria) [2] and i believe they are more out their so all i need is sometime.--Obari2Kay (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find those sources first, not just say they're out there. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. --Kurykh (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Stefan Ćertić

Hello, Would you be so kind to consider un-deletion of the article as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stefan_%C4%86erti%C4%87 There are multiple persons and administrator willing to help improving an article. The debate was closed before attracting enough people on rescue list, and some of the arguments for deletion was poor, copy-paste without getting into the subject. Instead, suggestion is "Improve Notability" tag as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_-_Rescue_list. Edwmgs (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're misunderstanding what the problem is. Notability has to be preexisting out in the world for a Wikipedia article to exist; you can't simply "improve notability" on Wikipedia. The consensus in the AfD is that he is not sufficiently notable in the real world to merit an article here. You can try to demonstrate that he is notable, but as you can see in WP:AFD, WP:AFC, and WP:RSL, you have not yet done so. Things might change, sources might come up, but this isn't a problem that can be solved by improving the quality of the article. The main problem isn't the quality of an article (though it was a secondary one); it's whether the article should exist in the first place. The community's answer on that concern is no. --Kurykh (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, however, most of sources are added after the debate started and opinions showed. You deleted an article as a result of what it was when debate started, not what it become during the debate. (please check the differences). What do we do in such cases? Edwmgs (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more clear, the community arguments are said before the article sources are fixed and references added. Therefore we should measure the article as it is at the moment of deletion, not at the beginning of debate. Now we have a community that is willing to help improve article even further(as discussed on rescue list). Thanks. Edwmgs (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're still misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not with the content of the article itself. Notability arguments are drawn from independent searches on the Internet by the commenters in the AfD; the state of the article is irrelevant. You can edit the article all you want and it will still be deleted for because the subject lacks sufficient notability. There needs to be qualifying sources out there on the Internet already existing for the article to exist. You need to reread all the links you gave me, check WP:GNG and WP:PROF and all the advice that you've been given, and provide a list of all the links that will back up your position. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate notability. Until that happens, the article will stay deleted. --Kurykh (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close: Amos Nondi

Hi Kurykh, can you add your rationale to the closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Nondi/ Hmlarson (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is that the consensus is in favor in deletion. You have made your arguments (which were in line with policy), and others have made contrary arguments (which were also in line with policy). The community did not accept your arguments. --Kurykh (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisting: Tourism in Ahmedabad

I hope you don't mind me saying so but I believe this relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Ahmedabad, with your added comment "Delete or redirect?" was a mistake, in that it could be seen as a non-neutral relisting by an administrator, narrowing down the list of viable !votes going forward, since keep also remains a perfectly valid option. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Candy

Hi there

I just saw in my watchlist that Mind Candy has been deleted. I was unaware of the AfD listing, so I'm late to this.

The arguments in support of the deletion are twofold:

  1. WP:PROMO
  2. WP:NOTABILITY

I cannot comment on the former because the article has been deleted. However, with regards to the latter, a quick look at Google News shows multiple references - thousands - to the company from authoritative sources including the Financial Times, the Telegraph, Business Insider, Bloomberg, The Guardian, and so on... dating back at least to 2011, and as recent as yesterday.

Whatever the issues around self-promotion, the subject is clearly notable. The correct procedure, I believe, would be to keep the article but remove the promotional material. I would gladly undertake the work to resolve the promotion issues, if you were to undelete the article.

Regards, FunkyCanute (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkyCanute: The article has been restored and userfied at User:FunkyCanute/Mind Candy. Please make your changes and submit for review as appropriate. --Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Request

Hi Kurykh. Is there any chance you can move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/page=Claudio Encarnacion Montero (2nd nomination) to some more standard AfD page title (this may also necessitating moving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudio Encarnacion Montero (2nd nomination) as well) so that it will get picked up if Claudio Encarnacion Montero is created yet again and then taken to WP:AfD, again – this is not the kind of move I want to make myself, as I feel it's probably the kind of thing that only an Admin should do... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall:  Done --Kurykh (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

Is it possible you can move 2nd Battalion 9th Marines to 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines? This will keep all battalion of the Marine Corps in the same format. Thank you. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldMarine: Is there a reason why you can't do this yourself or that WP:RM is unavailable to assist? I'm not unwilling to do this, but I fell like I might be missing something here. --Kurykh (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to move it, it would not let me for some reason and a message appeared to contact an admin to accomplish the move. I do not know why the message appeared. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine:  Done --Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Phoenix World Championships

I commented to the moderators who deleted Rising Phoenix World Championships. Rising Phoenix World Championships was unjustly deleted and restored, so both 2015 and 2016 Rising Phoenix World Championships should be un-deleted. Rising Phoenix is Ms. Olympia by another title. AHC300 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AHC300:  Done in accordance with WP:SOFTDELETE. Next time, you may also request undeletion at WP:UNDELETE. --Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016

Can I get a userfication of that plus talk page? Valoem talk contrib 01:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem:  Done; see User:Valoem/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016. Talk page was not userfied because it only includes wikiproject templates, which are inappropriate in userspace. --Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Marie Wayne

Hi, as this was a soft delete can you please restore this to draftspace for improvement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:  Done --Kurykh (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted my reality factory page

Undo the delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npzman (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, politeness goes a long way.
Second of all, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Factory and address the concerns raised in that discussion. --Kurykh (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran House of Volleyball

Hi, I find your terse closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran House of Volleyball to be uninformative as to your reasoning, and therefore unhelpful. Closers are supposed to provide reasoning and help solidify a consensus. Yours seems to be just an uninformed !vote. The article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion; I think it likely struck someone as a bit grandiose in name, therefore possibly a hoax, but the hoax was disproven by photographs and other evidence. From what was presented in the AFD, I think your decision to delete was wrong. But hey, that's just my two cents.

Anyhow, could you please provide the deleted article (with full edit history) to my userspace, as I am interested in developing it if I can? Thanks for your consideration. --doncram 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: To address the individual AfD itself, I have reconsidered it a second time and decided to reopen the AfD and relist it for another week, since it does seem like a consensus to delete has not completely solidified. To address your more general comment about the role of closing admins, the point of the closing admin is to evaluate whether there is consensus to delete or to engage in other action, not to cast a supervote that runs roughshod over other editors, which is what you are effectively asking me to do. I do provide reasoning to emphasize why I completely discount certain arguments or in very close cases, but not to debate with rationales that are acceptable within Wikipedia policy. That is the job of the community. --Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "District Legal Services Authority, Rayagada"

The page District Legal Services Authority, Rayagada is all about an important functionary of state judiciary. I feel I should be given a chance to address all issues, if any, before deletion.Hpsatapathy (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had three weeks to do so but instead did nothing. If you have any new arguments or ability to demonstrate notability of the article's subject, then please do so here. --Kurykh (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kurykh.The page is a compilation of reliable data relating to an important branch of district judiciary. The notability of the article can be considered from the point that the institution has been instrumental in implementing the unique concept of Lok Adalat and Legal Aid. I have taken all possible efforts to present the article from a neutral point of view and also keeping in mind the five pillars of en-Wikipedia. However, if any substance is likely to show that it is presented in an advertising manner, It must be edited/removed. I shall take every endeavour to upkeep the unique features of en-wikipedia provided the page is reverted from deletion. So I hope my request for undeletion be considered in the greater interest of the world class encyclopedia. Hpsatapathy (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate the notability of the subject; you can't just simply tell me that the subject is important. I urge you to please thoroughly review WP:GNG and other notability guidelines to understand the problem that you are currently facing. --Kurykh (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right. The institution is an offspring of the concept of "Lok Adalat" and "Legal aid". These two terms are innovatives of Indian judicial system. As such, the subject is all the time covering Significant coverage in all the available media of society. Law books and other secondary independent sources including judgments of Apex Court are reliable sources for the topic. The subject has been predominantly discussed in the legal world all the time. I am confident, given a chance, I would elaborately reflect the entire content within the framework of wiki-guidelines. So the article deserves a revert from deletion provided you think positive and look forward.Hpsatapathy (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say there WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Show me those sources by giving links. You can try rewriting your article at Draft:District Legal Services Authority, Rayagada, follow the instructions in WP:DRAFTS, and see what you can come up with, but I can't just simply take you at your word. You're going to need concrete proof of notability. --Kurykh (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the deleted version to Draft:District Legal Services Authority, Rayagada. Please follow all applicable policies and guidelines, especially WP:GNG and WP:V, and submit your article for review and approval with WP:AFC after you are done. --Kurykh (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workpop Deletion

Hello. I recently found that you had deleted the page for workpop. I went through multiple revisions and submissions to get that approved previously and would be happy to make any necessary edits to the page so that it is allowed. I noticed one of the reasons that it was disapproved was for using multiple articles about the same event. Previously I was told that I should have as many credible articles as possible. Happy to remove any that may feel like "duplicates" and repost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdogsoccer8 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please first address the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workpop. You may do so by first obtaining the requisite sources. --Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Pop

Any chance you can recover the content from the deleted article and moving it to Draft:Anca Pop? I need only the section Career. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Love on the Brain:  Done. Please note that the previous existing draft was deleted because it contained copyrighted material lifted from an external website in the Early Life section. Do NOT reinclude that material in the draft. --Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Outbreak Presents

Dear Kurykh, I recently edited the page Outbreak Presents, which was flagged for deletion due to questionable notability and perceived publicity material. I tried cleaning up the article to make it sound more encyclopedic and included more neutral media contributions as references. However, I recently noticed the page was deleted. Over the last couple weeks, I've stumbled across various articles that highlight Outbreak Presents. Furthermore, its involvement with South by Southwest has helped etch its name into media. Based on what I've gleaned from Wikipedia:Notability, I think there may be a better chance of it meeting Wikipedia standards with the inclusion of these references. Would you possibly consider restoring the page to allow for some tonal grooming and improved citations?--Abe7494 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (PST)

I have restored the article to Draft:Outbreak Presents. Please make the necessary changes to conform with notability requirements and submit to WP:AFC for review. --Kurykh (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Inflatables

Hi Kuryhk. Thanks for relisting this one but you can actually close it out. I put a notice that I would like to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For closing AFD discussions regularly and without elements of any minimal drama!Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 10:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song)

I relisted it then you closed it minutes later (it happened a week ago). The question I'm asking is: what shall we do with it? J947 01:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: I would do nothing at this point. While your relist should have happened (and I could have undid the closure if this was brought up earlier), I think the no consensus closure can still be defended given where the discussion stood. --Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G6 deletion

I saw you deleted Baroness Young (disambiguation) as WP:G6. I've restored this (along with other changes to the arrangement of pages) because only DABs which disambiguate one page or no pages is eligible under that criterion, and the deleted page had three individual articles listed. In the future, please either decline these G6 cases, or PROD, or AFD them. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publish deleted page

Page "Nathan Floyd" deleted before I inserted constructive edits. DEL request was disputed. Concerned not in good faith, because the following edits happened with no explanation given: (1) deleted image (2) deleted parts of info section & removed formatting (3) deleted 19 references. Please explain or discuss, before editing. Asking for permission to republish with constructive edits. Strategy 007 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Floyd must be addressed before any further action will be contemplated. --Kurykh (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Panetta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hello. I responded to editors who asked to delete James J. Leonard Jr. and no one responded to my questions. I will be requesting deletion review based on no real discussion. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_J._Leonard_Jr. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you the IP that commented? Then John Pack Lambert had already responded to your question, not to mention that Captain Raju presumably saw your comment and still !voted delete. --Kurykh (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I disagree with the stated reasons because from the way that I see it notability was fulfilled.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you please take a look at the article/topic and tell me how exactly it fails notability? Because I looked over notability standards every time the delete editors and yourself claimed it and I just do not see where that applies. The article fit notability or at least the topic of the article fits notability. If we cannot resolve this please let me know so that I can submit it for deletion review. Thank you.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My job is only to evaluate the status of the discussion and close based on that. If you're looking for a place to start, try WP:GNG and its requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Kurykh (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have nominated the article for undeletion. Can you please temporary undelete so that other admins can see the article while it is in deletion review? Also. If result is to keep it deleted, I would like to keep the page in my sandbox or somewhere else because I anticipate more future activity from this subject including being on TV again this summer and I'd like a copy of the article for future resubmission/submission.?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for James J. Leonard Jr.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James J. Leonard Jr.. 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. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurock article deletion

I see that the Wiki on Eurock has been deleted, its talk page had been closed, and all the references closed. This is very disappointing. There was no - zero - discussion on the discussion page, except for the nomination for deletion from user Boleyn. I don't know why Boleyn had a grudge against Eurock, possibly some personal history of which I'm not aware. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem like good policy to let one user with an agenda to go around deleting well-researched and well-referenced articles with MULTIPLE links in and out. Just sayin'. Rcarlberg (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurock indicates that she wasn't alone in her assessment. --Kurykh (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

opinion

I see you are in AFD sometimes. I do not have AFD experience. For my own education, do think think Sarah Oppenheimer does not meet WP:ARTIST? The references seem to be brief mentions. Any university professor would have more mentions, even local doctors. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any doubts regarding notability, then AfD would be the way to test that out, right? Alternately, the talk page and WP:PROD are good routes to take if you don't want to send it to AfD. --Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

005

Will you draftify what resided at 005 prior to the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/005 to Draft:005? Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks & Resorts featured list

Greetings. I am attempting to get the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article upgraded to featured list status here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1, and given that you were involved with the featured list status upgrade process for the List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines article, which is an article with similar traits, your input will be valuable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Humour

Please undelete Wikipedia:WikiProject Humour as a plausible search term. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy? --Kurykh (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Banim

Given my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Banim about not having had the time yet to research this properly, and being concerned about all that I'm seeing with some quick searches, I'd have assumed that the decision would have been a relist. Can you do that so I can have a chance to review properly? Sorry, I was out of town for a few weeks, and am swamped dealing with real world work backlog ... I was hoping to dig in during the upcoming Ēostre feasting. Nfitz (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One must provide actual sources to assert notability rather than simply say that it might be out there. This is especially true when the consensus is going against you. Bluntly put, I can't simply take you at your word; you have to show your work. I stand by my closure.
If you want to resurrect the article, please provide sources that qualify under WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. This can be done without the article, as notability is unrelated to the state of the article. You can just list them here or take it to WP:DRV if you so wish. --Kurykh (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, need to show sources and do the work. Need time to do the work though, and when I'm burning both ends of the candle at the office trying to catch up, need a weekend to have a chance to do work. Hence the request for the relist, rather than a keep. It could be done without the article, but the information in the article is crucial to researching properly - I don't even have a list of teams he played for any more. (though in this case, it was around long enough, there's probably various copies floating around the fringes of the web ...). Still, seems like a decent enough request, given WP:TIND. Nfitz (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a more suitable alternative, I have restored the article at Draft:Jody Banim. After making the necessary edits, please submit it to WP:AFC for approval before moving it back to mainspace. --Kurykh (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suspect the result will me be just asking for deletion, unless I can find something interesting. But now I can search easier. Hopefully my library card still works ... Nfitz (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too-terse AFD closures

I commented strongly here, not long ago, about your closure without explanation at AFD on Tehran House of Volleyball, and I appreciate that you did revert your closure, and explain here (since archived). Thank you for that.

But I now see your closure "the result was delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamboanga Golf and Country Club (2nd nomination) and I think there have been others. You might well see how User:Sandstein just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America. It went against my !vote, as Sandstein's closures often do, but I appreciate that the decision was explained. You and Sandstein may be very similar in philosophy on the inclusionist-to-exclusionist scale; i am further to the inclusionist direction. I ping them and hope they might comment, too.

It hurts the community, IMHO, for there to be unilateral decisions taken on community matters, on an arbitrary or likely-perceived-to-be-arbitrary basis. It hurts the general AFD processes, for there to be no explanation given, undermining others' right/interest to understand and learn, or perhaps to dispute. I'm not saying that it is the case, but it can appear you are trying unfairly to fend off reviews of your decisions by giving no purchase to disagreement, no evidence of what your true reasoning is.

I am not checking now, but I think guidelines for AFD closure do suggest that you should explain your reasoning.

In exceptional cases, a terse statement might be generally understood to be an understatement, like a polite way to implement a "snow" close without rudely spelling out the obvious, already expressed by multiple participants. That would be conveyed partly by a closer's own reputation for providing good decisions, with good explanations, and the terseness conveying that what they don't want to spell out is truly obvious. In your closures that I have seen, I do not see the AFD outcomes as obvious at all, and it is rubbing me the wrong way that you are acting as if your reputation and your wisdom warrant your not explaining. --doncram 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bud in here unasked, but I can't resist (okay, I'm not really sorry either - but people seem to prefer that one says that even if they don't mean it). On one hand User:doncram I agree with you. Too many complex divided AFD discussions get closed without an explanation. On the other hand - a terse statement seems fine if there's no other alternative than the decision. In this case, after 2 weeks there's 3 people saying it's not notable, and they can't find anything that would establish notability. And you provide a single blog entry - which is quickly dismissed as not suitable to esablish notability. No one challenged that position, so it seems quite reasonable that 2 days later, the only possible result is delete (or another relist I suppose ... but 16 days already). (also everyone has ignored, that you generally need more than 1 significant reliable source to establish notability). It's not like there's anything in the discussion that's possibly subject to debate. Even by an inclusionista like me. Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, thank you for commenting. About the Zamboanga golf club, I happened to think that source (which i think was published, then later reproduced in the blog) was of very substantial merit that was incorrectly dismissed. It would have been nice at least to see some comment about that source by the closer. And in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehran House of Volleyball, while my "Keep" vote was the sole one vs. three "delete" or "weak delete" votes (counting the nomination itself), I happened to think it was by far the stronger argument and that the AFD could/should only then be closed "Keep" or "no consensus", when Kurykh closed it first. I could be over-estimating the value of my own opinion. However now I am not too happy to observe that Kurykh re-imposed the delete decision there later, after one more "delete" vote, with mere "the result was delete", failing to acknowledge that it was not obvious to all. Is that a message?
I am biased towards seeing my own views as reasonable, and I did not provide any examples not involving myself where Kurykh has seemed to disregard legitimate views of others. I acknowledge that two ambiguous examples don't "prove" anything. This is not a systematic review; this is my trying to give some feedback about perceptions which, at the moment, I feel is justified, and which I hope that Kurykh will consider. --doncram 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The role of the closing admin is to evaluate whether there is consensus. It is emphatically not to opine on the validity or invalidity of commenters' arguments (unless they are clearly out of line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines), which is what you are pretty much asking me to do. The role of supporting or rebutting arguments, especially on notability issues, lies with AfD participants, not the closing admin. It is entirely possible to have two competing arguments that are correct, but the community demonstrably sides with one. Arguments with such support need no embellishment from the closing admin. One does not need to see "per consensus" after every single closure. Comments should be added in more ambiguous circumstances, but the examples of my closures are not it.
As pointed out by Nfitz, your examples are comparing apples and oranges. The one closed by Sandstein is a complicated AfD; if I was closing it, even I would add a comment. However, the one closed by me was far more straightforward. Your one keep comment does not and should not run roughshod over those who commented delete unless it was completely revelatory (it was not). You may think your argument is strong; others did not. As a closing admin, I have no right to disregard the views of commenters advocating deletion, just like I have a right to disregard your view. You were simply outnumbered by equally valid arguments. Perhaps instead of wondering why you keep getting stiffed by my AfD closures, try considering why people disagreed with your arguments in both the Teheran House of Volleyball and the Zamboanga Golf AfDs. --Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You and Nfitz have answered perfectly well, and I agree my view/experience can just be an outlier based on non-representative cases. I'm perfectly comfortable with my participation in AFDs, too; those two cases where I happened to say what I thought based on what I found at the time, are not necessarily representative for me, either. We all have different experiences that inform our outlooks, and what may resonate for each of us will naturally differ. Anyhow, okay, thanks for responding fully. --doncram 03:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Campoverdi

Hi there! I noticed you requested to have Alejandra Campoverdi deleted and I wanted to know the reason for your request. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz08 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandra Campoverdi. --Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kurykh/Archive_18&oldid=1143123809"