Happy New Year!
	Hello Davewild: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2014)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi,

I have just become aware that my User:Butdavid, was deleted on 16 July, 2010 by Davewild - reason: User request to delete pages in own userspace.

I was not aware that I had requested this.

Is it possible for the deletion to be undone, even at this late stage?

Thank you. :)

Butdavid (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have restored as requested. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really appreciated. Thanks. Butdavid (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Danzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over 6 years ago, back in late 2007 the article for the professional poker player George Danzer was deleted due to a lack of nobility, since that time he has several achievements in the field of poker.

Here are some of them.

• Four Spring Championship of Online Poker titles

http://www.pokerlistings.com/scoop-danzer-buchanan-berg-claim-titles-87884

• A World Championship of Online Poker title

• A World Series of Poker bracelet

also at the 2014_World_Series_of_Poker_results he made the final table in Event #5 this year for a total of eight final tables at the WSOP.

• Now has over $1,500,000 in live tournament winnings.

Thank you for your consideration. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have userfied the article to User:Sirex98/George Danzer, so you can update the article and then move it back into mainspace if you think it meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 19:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave,

I've just received a message from you about an edit that it is claimed I made to your user page. This message was delivered to me by tracing my i.p. address as I hadn't logged into my Wikipedia account at the time. Having seen the edit in question - Revision as of 18:11, 2 June 2014 / 94.197.121.21 - I can see why you would not want that on your page and I would like to assure you that the offending edit was not done by me.

The i.p address in question is not mine and is not the i.p address that I was on when I came to Wikipedia today.

Furthermore, on the date in question I was the only one - to my knowledge - with access to my internet connection, which is password protected, but as stated previously the i.p. address in question is not mine. My i.p. does have the initial 94.197.121 prefix, but the last three digits are not the same.

I will be contact my provider to find out if they can shed some light on how this could have occurred.

Regards, Andrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.dancing.gecko (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message Andrew, it is no major issue with me, if you look at the history of my userpage you will see there has been plenty of vandalism on there over the years and I am quite used to it. I assumed that I came to the notice of whoever did the edit on my userpage after I made this reversion of a similar ip address. Davewild (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to say thank you for all the local election articles you've created. Excellent work! Number 57 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I think you may have spotted the election templates I've been creating for each county. Not all of them have complete lists of elections, so if you could have a look at the ones I've done so far (I'm going alphabetically, and am up to Hampshire) and add any that are missed, that would be fantastic. Cheers, Number 57 19:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, it's appreciated. Yes I had noticed the templates and have been using them where they have been done, as you no doubt saw - in fact it was what prompted me to choose Havant as the next council to do when I saw I on the Hampshire template that basically no-one had done either the main article or any of the individual elections for the council. Yes as I go along I will be sure to add any missing elections that I find to them. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good stuff. With regards to the table of results by year (for example here), I was wondering whether you though that this may be a better way of laying it out (it avoids having double columns that need the colspan=2 function all the way down, plus the colours can be duplicated at the bottom for long tables). Number 57 21:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have tried it out on the Havant page and I do like that table format from the Wigan page better. I didn't like the large difference in column widths the old format made and this format makes it look better. Thanks for the suggestion. Davewild (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave. I've just discovered that Brighton and Hove were separate councils until 1997. I've created separate rows for them on ((East Sussex elections)), but wasn't sure about the timeline for Brighton & Hove council elections. I don't know if you may be able to add years? Cheers, Number 57 21:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem have done so, first election was in 1996, then 1999. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks! Number 57 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave. When closing AfDs as 'redirect' as you did at St. Pius X National School, please remember to apply the appropriate 'R from...' template to the redirect page so that it automatically populates the related cat. In this case it would be the Template:R from school template: ((R from school)) . Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, no problem will do so in future. Davewild (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

elections
Thank you for quality articles on elections around the world, such as Mauritian general election, 2000 and Castle Point Borough Council election, 1999, and interest in our own, for close and keep, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Davewild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project, which will help with spotting AfDs for local elections. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave. I noticed you hadn't edited for a while, and just wondered if you'd given up on the local election articles? I've finally managed to get most of the articles tagged (there are about 3,000 left which I am going to do with AWB), so hopefully no important AfDs would be missed if that's still a concern?

Also, would you mind if I deleted a couple of templates you created (((Eastbourne Council elections)) and ((Carlisle Council elections))), as they've been superceded by the county-level templates (((East Sussex elections)) and ((Cumbrian elections))). Cheers, Number 57 12:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem with deleting the templates. Hope to get back on here soon to do some editing soon. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, cool. Will be good to have you back! Number 57 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great to see you back – Happy Christmas! Number 57 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harlow District Council election, 1998, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrat. 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) 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Refuge Patrick article got deleted as well as my account. Why?-09:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaffytheSpaceHaunter (talk • contribs)

The article Refuge Patrick was deleted because it did not credibly demonstrate the significance of the subject of the article. In order to meet wikipedia's inclusion standards the article would need to meet the relevant notability guideline but did nothing to suggest that it would meet the guideline. The account User:RaffytheHaunter is still available and has not been blocked. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your intervention and page-protection over at Stephen Fry. It was getting impossible to keep the troll at bay! Much appreciated. Orphan Wiki 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, just happened to spot one of the edits on recent changes. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for correcting this for me (Porto Novo). The fact is that I edit for the benefit of Wikipedia yet bullies bully me. If I changed it, nobody would have noticed. It is time for admins to follow your example and do constructive things, rather than to have fun bullying people.

What they say about admins having the mop is Communist propaganda. Admins like to have the gun, which is the blocking tool. It is not a mop. A mop would be to do what you did and to help make things better for WP. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		thank you for a good editWowee Zowee public (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, but it would have been easier if you had just corrected the article yourself and please remember to assume good faith. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noted that you have indef'd this user per your comment on ANI. Might I ask that you consider doing the same to Territory war 3 pwner (talk · contribs) which was confirmed by Checkuser DoRD to be the same person? Although that account has yet to make any edits since their "retirement", it is a sock account that was used previously to continue the same behaviour that got the SPIKE SPIKE BAD account hauled to ANI in the first place. Regards Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I used the wrong template and made a bit of a mess. Have corrected it. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm torn between scokpuppets should be blocked and letting sleeping dogs lie, so have asked DoRD for their opinion as I have very little experience of sockpuppet issues. Davewild (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And DoRD has now blocked Territory war 3 pwner and a couple of other socks. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do I understand you are of the opinion the IP is Badmintonhist? I've got reason to think it is. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, this is the first time I have ever heard of Badmintonhist, but the timing of when the IP started editing, the similarity of topics edited and the negative interest in Roscelese are points that suggest they may be. However I'm no expert on this, my comment at WP:ANI was mainly just to say that the complaint was in the wrong forum. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That's an educational network, I've schoolblocked it. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wyre Forest District Council election, 2003, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrat. 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) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day,

Today I just found that the article o2Jam has been deleted due to it failing the notability guideline. I come here since WP:DELREV mentions that I have to discuss with the admin who deleted this. As a matter of fact, I'm not challenging this deletion, but would like to get feedback on what I should I do, if there's any.

As an ex-o2Jam player, I was surprised, since the game did exist. However, all official servers were closed one by one, with Korean server's the last one. I remembered I read the official announcement on its homepage (in Korean), but it'd take time for me to find that page again, since I can't speak Korean. However, here's my confusion: if a service (i.e. online game) did exist, but then all of the instances have stopped working (i.e. closed), does it become not-notable and deserve to be deleted? (I honestly don't know, so perhaps you could shed some lights on this) I'd say it's normal that the game won't be mention at all after its closure, but that also makes a problem on notability. Thank you. AnTimoATe (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability is not temporary, so if there was significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability when the game did exist then the article would be ok. However at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O2Jam it was decided that such significant coverage was not available.

If you could find such significant coverage then the decision could be reassessed, but that could not be found while the article was being discussed so that is why it was deleted. Davewild (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You Are Deleting History and are a pawn of the government!! Leave a trace or record of the previous page in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.228.250 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was clear that the article should be deleted as the topic is already covered at Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where I see you are already editing. As such the page will not be undeleted and you should discuss on the talk page of Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act any changes you think should be made on that page, not create a separate article on the same topic. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiastan (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: the article author has taken this to deletion review. S/he notified me, not you, though I simply G7-deleted an early version which had been blanked with edit summary "Created by mistake, apologies". JohnCD (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I assume the above notice that was added to the top of my talk page was about the same deletion, as there is no discussion I can see at either WP:AN or WP:AN/I. I think my closure of the AFD was correct, but we will see if others agree at deletion review. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) could use your opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2015

No idea why you brought this to me, not a topic I normally comment on AFDs about, so won't be doing so in this case. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brattleboro_Free_Folk_Festival_(2nd_nomination)

You made a big error unknowingly. Please correct your error of no censensus and delete. Davie2010 illegally removed my comments. As a result his comments should be removed so it would be a reasonably clear delete. Then you should block Davie for removing comments and votes from an AFD.Deepavali 2014 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFDs are closed on the basis of strength of argument based on policy/guidelines not just numbers. The argument by Davey2010, supported by C.Fred, was based on the notability guidelines, while yours (even if it had not been removed) and Dharahara's were not and so were given little weight in my closure. As such there was no consensus on whether an article was merited. Davey2010 posted on your talk page explaining why he removed your comment and LibStar explained that you can't close AFDs as delete. Davewild (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you were not aware of the removal of my comments and vote until I told you. My new question to you is that it is ok and not subject to block if I remove someone's AFD comments? Say it isn't so. You should block Davie2010 for his vandalism and illegal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepavali 2014 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davey2010 posted on your talk page explaining why they removed the comment, giving you the opportunity to to re-add the comment to the AFD. If they had removed the comment in bad faith or not explained why they they removed the comment or did this repeatedly, then it would be worth telling them to stop. That is not the case here, we do not block users when they act in good faith, blocking is to stop disruption/protect the encyclopedia. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but where is the apologies from the moderators for abusing numerology, maths and prasant? how could you delete the pages before that? And where is a clear consensus? few fake persons created accounts and nominated the pages for deletion, but this is pure fraud. And when a proper reference had been added, how could wiki delete the pages? your team had answered to none of my questions. and you are not deleting gabbar is back page... what is this double standard ness, plz clarify in detail?SillyLilies (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not accuse others of fraud or of abuse or being fake persons. This deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasant Maths took place as a standard deletion discussion for wikipedia, with normal wikipedia editors deciding that the article did not meet wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as the main notability guideline.

It can be upsetting to see your contributions deleted but this does happen every day for many articles on wikipedia. There are also articles that have problems that need working on or will at some point also be deleted so pointing to other articles that may have issues is not helpful. Of course it would be great if you could help improve any of these other articles, or you can nominated for deletion articles that cannot be improved. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: WP:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital, I would have thought that an AFD would not be closed as no consensus until it had been relisted at least once. There were only 5 !votes at the page; an extra week could have built a better consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the amount of deletion discussions that need to get relists every day, I judged per WP:RELIST that there had been arguments based on policy that expressed differing positions on notability without consensus, so it was appropriate to close it as no consensus (though I did consider closing it as keep as that argument looked to have the better of the discussion, but decided the delete arguments were strong enough to push it over into no consensus). Relists are not meant to just be a substitute to no consensus, but only where there has been insufficient reasonable views expressed, and 5 views nowadays is not bad for AFD unfortunately. I also note it did get almost 9 days at AFD, not just the minimum 7 days. Davewild (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note to thank you for finding and listing this article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loganair Flight 670. I looked all over and never found the pilots names, now I can add them. Samf4u (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, thanks for the note. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed the musician article for Eco Virtual was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco Virtual, but all three of the articles were deleted despite not being nominated?--DrWho42 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will have to contact User:Shirt58 as they deleted the three Atmospheres articles, I only deleted the Eco Virtual article as per the AFD disucssion. It looks like they cited the WP:A9 speedy deletion criteria as the rationale for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Aiyee, I accidentally edited this apparently after you'd closed it -- so sorry! Should I go undo, or just leave it? Not sure how I missed that it was closed at the time, as I didn't get an edit conflict. valereee (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a real issue either way, but I have removed the comment just to keep everything clear about what the debate was like when I made the closure. Davewild (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello you recently closed the AfD for Mindanao Express. As an uninvolved party in the AfD, I was wondering if the recent indefinite block for Philippine Adventurer for sockpuppetry would have changed the outcome as he was one of the strongest supporters for keeping it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but I think the comments by Slashme and RioHondo were sufficient to maintain it at no consensus. Philippine Adventurer comment was the weakest keep and while without his opinion the numbers are move in favour of deletion, by strength of argument it is still just at no consensus from my reading of the discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dave!

Thanks your your attention at WP:AfD. Wikipedia appreciates your help in relisting debates. However I have clue of why you relisted the debates on the above AfD because consensus seemed to be clear since the subject notability had been established by the multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources provided in the course of the debate. Relisting of such debates seemed to be unnecessary. In the future, do not re-list debates where consensus appears clear. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed the AFD as keep. At the time I relisted the nominator still looked to be arguing for deletion after your changes and comment and another editor was backing them up. Only you and one other editor supported keeping, given that I relisted to see if other editors agreed that the sources you had found were sufficient to establish notability. So I did not see that as being "debates where consensus appears clear".

However given that the other editor has now changed their position to support keeping, the consensus is now clear so I have closed it as keep. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We normally weigh consensus at WP:AfD and that is why the relisting and closing of such debates is often left for sysop or experienced editors. I didn't check the edit history of the AfD before I left a note here and that's why I felt that the debate was relisted after a clear consensus. Thanks for closing the debate. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. On 15 May 2015 you closed the AfD discussion and deleted the article Andrey Davydov with “The result was delete.” and no additional explanation. I am requesting undeletion of this article and user Orange Mike to withdraw his nomination for the following reasons:

1. User Orange Mike stated: “Advertisement for non-notable fringe/crackpot writer, full of self-published works and utter nonsense which has apparently not gained traction sufficient to make him a notable fringe writer. So: both shameless advertisement AND non-notable BLP.” This statement includes: uncivilized form of expressions, false accusations, personal attacks, personal views, statements unsupported by actual facts, no specific explanations. “Advertisement”, “Non-notable”, “shameless advertisement”, etc. are not supported by factual examples and therefore are his personal views. “crackpot writer”, “utter nonsense”, “non-notable BLP”, etc. are personal attacks and groundless accusations.
2. User Joseph2302 stated: “Clearly WP:PROMO, and most references are to his own books, which are primary sources. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO,” but failed to support his personal view as he has not provide any specific factual examples. Moreover, “most references are to his own books, which are primary sources” is a false statement, which proves that the Joseph2302 failed to examine the article and references to academic publications.
3. User John Pack Lambert stated: “Article on a promoter of fringe theories that lacks the quality of sources we require for fringe theorist.” This user and admin Orange Mike are not qualified to comment on biographies of researchers as they appear to be unaware of the fact that unlike Andrey Davydov, “promoters of fringe theories” are not allowed to speak at international academic conferences and are not members of scientific communities.
4. User —Мандичка stated: “if it's true he was granted political asylum because of persecution from the FSB that would general signal notability, but this is highly dubious/silly.“ “is highly dubious/silly” is not supported by factual examples and therefore are personal views. Also, user failed to examine the article and check referenced material that includes confirmation of that Andrey Davydov was granted political asylum in U.S. due to persecution by FSB.
5. All other contributors to the discussion also expressed only their personal views, and not a single comment that was made was supported by factual examples.
6. A publication made on the basis of a Philosophical Congress and held by an academic library is an indication of scientific research. As already stated above, “promoters of fringe theories” are not allowed to speak at academic conferences. The participants failed to notice the following citation, which includes a link to the University of Michigan library http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/003947324 where this publication is available for verification (it is also available at multiple academic libraries (globally) – refer to http://www.worldcat.org/title/chelovek-filosofiia-gumanizm-pervyi-rossiiskii-filosofskii-kongress/): Fedoruk, V. V.; Davydov, A. N. (1998) [Composed 1997]. Corr. of :ru:Российская_академия_образования L. A. Verbitskaya; Assoc. Prof. B. G. Sokolova (eds.). Шань Хай Цзин — Своеобразный Каталог Психо-физической Структуры Человека?. First Russian Philosophical Congress. Human Being – Philosophy – Humanism (in Russian). Vol. Volume VII. Philosophy and Human Problem. St. Petersburg: SPSU Publishing House. pp. 355-357. ISBN 9785288018947. B4231.R6751997. Archived from the original on September 2009. Retrieved 24 September 2014. ((cite conference)): |volume= has extra text (help); Check |editor1= value (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); External link in |conferenceurl= (help); Unknown parameter |conferenceurl= ignored (|conference-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Please undelete the article Andrey Davydov so I could make the following improvements to it:

1. Add 2 references to citation in number 6 above: Шань Хай Цзин — Своеобразный Каталог Психо-физической Структуры Человека? (in Russian). Vol. Human Being – Philosophy – Humanism. First Russian Philosophical Congress. Volume VII. Philosophy and Human Problem. St. Petersburg: SPSU Publishing House. 1997. pp. 355-357. B4231.R6751997. Retrieved 24 September 2014. ((cite book)): |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); |website= ignored (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) AND Davydov, Andrey (1997). "First Russian Philosophical Congress. Human Being – Philosophy – Humanism, Vol. VII: Is Shan Hai Jing The Original Catalog Of Psychophysiological Human Structure?" (Print book: Conference publication). WorldCat (in Russian). Available at multiple libraries (globally): SPSU Publishing House. pp. 355–357. Retrieved 15 May 2015. ((cite web)): Check |archiveurl= value (help)
2. Add the following two files in support of the statement that Andrey Davydov was granted political asylum in the United States due to persecution by the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB, former KGB): File:Andrey_Davydov’s_Declaration_In_Support_Of_Asylum_Application.jpg and File:Andrey_Davydov's_Asylum_Approval.jpg
3. Add the following two references in support of the statement that Andrey Davydov has published articles about the Catalog in Russian magazines owned by Bauer Media Group: Davydov, Andrey (2003). Листая "Каталог Гор И Морей". Oracle (in Russian). Moscow: Bauer Media Group. 12, pp. 18-30. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) AND Davydov, Andrey (2011). Каталог Гор И Морей. Oracle (in Russian). Moscow: Bauer Media Group. 19, pp. 6-30. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
4. Add .jpg files (scans) of 2 articles in 3 above.
5. Add the following reference (the link in which contains a path to full recordings) in support of the statement that between 2005 and 2006 results of Andrey Davydov’s research was presented on television: "Olga Skorbatyuk presenting the discovery of the Catalog of Human Population on Russian Television". Human Population Academy. 2014 [Series of presentations appeared on Russian TV channel Stolitsa and channel Ladies Club Television (Sexual Revolution program) in 2005 and 2006].
6. Add the following quote: "…The most luminous were reports by … A. Davydov about the program that he developed, which opens up the best, but often hidden qualities of a human…" to reference Umorov, Igor (10 July 2002). "Человечеству Отпущено Только Три Года". Archive of Parlamentskaya Gazeta (Newspaper). Sphere of Reason (in Russian). Moscow: Parlamentskaya Gazeta. #129 (1008), para. 4. Retrieved 23 September 2014. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Thank you in advance for your consideration. KateBazilevsky (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Davydov was clear, with no support for keeping the article, and so there was no need for me to add any comment explaining the reason why the debate was closed as delete. AFD's see editors give their opinion based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines on whether articles should be deleted or not and there was nothing unusual in the opinions given for deletion.

I can only assume (given what you have uploaded) you must have a relationship of some sort with the subject of the article from the above so I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest especially the WP:COS section. You should not be creating articles where you have a conflict of interest.

I am also not seeing anything new above that demonstrates the subject of this article meets the main notability guideline - WP:GNG. In order to meet that guideline there must be significant coverage (not just mentions) of the subject from secondary sources (not tied to the subject) such as newspapers, journals or books.

As such I cannot delete the article. You are welcome to take this to WP:Deletion Review if you feel this is incorrect, or you can come back to me if you have not got a conflict of interest and you have new evidence showing why the notability guideline is met. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Andrey Davydov. 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. KateBazilevsky (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Davewild (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Allied Wallet can you restore the full history to both the article and talk page per WP:PRESERVE? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, history of the article restored. There was no deleted history of the talk page. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am the creator of the now deleted 2015 Reclaim Brixton protest article, deleted after discussion here. I cannot see how deletion can be justified given the large number of UK and foreign sources used at the article, including comment articles which clearly establish notability. The deletion discussion was very poor unfortunately and seemed to simply function as a vote. AusLondonder (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing why the discussion was very poor, apart from the final delete opinion, which I did not give much weight to. Consensus was clear that editors saw the article as not meeting the WP:EVENT notability guideline and the WP:NOTNEWS policy, with a quite good participation level compared to many AFDs. As such I don't see how I could have closed the discussion as anything other than for deletion.

I see on the talk page of the AFD that you have already indicated you intend to take it to Deletion Review, which of course you are welcome to do. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two of the editors who voted delete have shown little prior interests in such subjects. One has unsuccessfully mass nominated book articles I created for deletion, the other has reported me to ANI and suggested I be permanently blocked (despite me creating 57 articles), something no one gave much weight to. It seems highly likely they found the discussion via me and voted accordingly. I believe the article met WP:EVENT. It received significant, in-depth coverage including opinion pieces. It meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. There is no evidence it will not meet WP:LASTING.

• The Guardian 1
• The Guardian 2
• The Guardian 3
• Prospect magazine
• The Independent
• New Statesman
• Landlord News
• Channel 4 News

Not to mention the dozens of local, UK and international sources at the article. AusLondonder (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because editors had not contributed to an area before is irrelevant to an AFD discussion. Considering the article I'm not seeing anything that adds to what was already rejected by those who contributed to the AFD, as such I can't unilaterally overturn those views (even if I agreed). I think you should consider the reply on the talk page of the AFD in reply to your comment - Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2015 Reclaim Brixton protest. Otherwise as I said above feel free to take it to Deletion Review, but I would check WP:DRVPURPOSE first. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can I at least access the text of the page you've just deleted somehow? list of games with prerendered backgounds  TVippy  19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have userfied the article to User:TVippy/List of games with prerendered backgrounds as requested. You can't keep it in userspace indefintely, so once you have finished with it you can request it's deletion by adding ((db-u1)) to the page. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happens if I don't delete it? Can I access the stats for the deleted page? When it was created, the number of edits - stuff like that? TVippy  20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the userpage stays around indefinitely, at some point someone will nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and it will be deleted. See WP:STALEDRAFT for details of this.

All of the history of the article is available at the copy in your userspace, so you should be able to find anything you require there. To preserve attribution the history has to be present. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I created the page Alicat Scientific, which you have deleted. Please see my contest of deletion on the page. Also, I am a new editor to Wikipedia and this was my first page, any constructive feedback you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank You!SarahatAlicat (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, When writing about organisations or companies you need to meet the relevant wikipedia notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (you should read the Primary Criteria section in particular on that link). This means that articles must show that companies have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to establish notability.

As written the article gave no indication of it's significance, giving primarily just a list of it's products (which wikipedia would not normally have anyway).

If you think you can rewrite the article to meet the notability guideline then I can restore the article to the draft namespace where you can work on it to improve it, before it is moved back to main article space once ready - see Wikipedia:Drafts. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

00:39, 21 May 2015 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted page OC&C Strategy Consultants (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OC&C Strategy Consultants closed as delete)

Pls delete the nonfree File:OC&C Official Logo 2011.jpg as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you know that when deleting articles, you must start from handling images and then clean the backlinks, which, in cas of nn businesses, are just spam. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have speedy deleted the image per the F5 speedy deletion criteria. Davewild (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For all the terrific work you've done expanding articles, such as the East Dorset Election without hesitation, deviation or repetition (or socialist/centralising bias) you deserve a good beer. All the very best. - Adam37 Talk 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi dear, I just saw that you have deleted an article i created (18:26, 15 May 2015 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted page Maharaja Mohammad Adam Khan XIX (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharaja Mohammad Adam Khan XIX closed as delete) , Well as you know i am a new editor here and i was updating the article , It was not complete but it was deleted without me in the discussion , It was not further discussed and i was searching for more solid references and links but when i saw the article it was already deleted , please can you undone the deletion so that i can update it with accurate and solid reference . Thank You hoping for a positive reply . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rak19 (talk • contribs)

Hi, the article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharaja Mohammad Adam Khan XIX where consensus was that the article did not meet the main notability guideline. These discussions last for at least 7 days (as this one did) and anyone can participate. Can you point me towards some significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to address this concern about failing the notability guideline?

If you can I will happily userfy the article to your userspace where you improve the article and then resubmit it (perhaps through Wikipedia:Articles for creation) once it is ready, the concerns from the above discussion have been addressed with notability demonstrated. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Davewild, Following the AFD discussion about the article “Brooke de Lench”, I noticed that you deleted it. According to this discussion, it appears that the subject is notable indeed and that it should be recreated from scratch. This is what I am attempting to do with this new version in my sandbox. Would you mind taking a look at it and moving it to article space if you think it is OK? Many thanks. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not had time on here for last 24 hours, will have a look this evening. Davewild (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a look and it is a much improved version from the one that was deleted, so would not be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content. As such I have moved it to mainspace and if anyone thinks it should be deleted they can renominate it at AFD.

I had to delete and restore your sandbox in order to avoid a lot of irrelevant history being moved to article space when I moved it. The sandbox is back now just not with the revisions on Brooke de Lench, which are in the history of the new article. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piotrniz (talk · contribs) has asked for a deletion review of Dilemma of determinism. 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. —Cryptic 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Davewild (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment was left post-closing. I've since reverted. This is just a heads up in case you want to respond to the user. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented on the IP's talk page asking them to come here and discuss the AFD, although I don't know if they will see my comment. Davewild (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did you find consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Simanton? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how much I can add to my closure comment "SilverSurfingSerpant is a blocked sockpuppet and as such his view is discounted. As the article has had 7 days to be improved, the argument that it should be given time to improve has little weight. Therefore the delete arguments showing the article fails the two applicable notability guidelines have the consensus here."

Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, the consensus at an AFD is not found just by counting the number of supporters for each side, but the strength of argument for each side must be considered and, after discounting the opinion of the blocked sockpuppet, the numbers and arguments for deletion were clearly stronger and I judged there was a rough consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I disagree. Your comment states: "As the article has had 7 days to be improved, the argument that it should be given time to improve has little weight." That makes it sound like if the article had been improved in the past seven days, then perhaps consensus would have been different and notability established. If that were the case (in an AfD debate), I would have worked on the article in the past seven days. Since it had the potential to be deleted, I did not waste my time to work on it, until after the deletion question was settled. So, I don't understand. The content of the article (whether or not it was improved in the last seven days) is a different question than whether or not the person is notable. That is, the question of whether to keep or delete an article is a different question than the question of what the article content should be. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that sentence what I am saying (without pulling out one editor) is that the argument made at the AFD "Give it time to expand. That's what Wikipedia's for after all", was given little weight in my judgement of the consensus of the discussion, as it did not address the discussion about whether the article could meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You deleted Libcom.org after the deletion discussion. However, apart from the nom, there was only two delete votes and one keep. One of the delete votes was by a blocked sockpuppet, the other was by an editor who appears to be engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me, having unsucessfully nominated a large number of articles I have created for deletion, and constantly voting the opposite to me in discussion which he has shown little prior interest (ie sole keep here. I don't think the discussion should have been closed as delete, at least not yet. AusLondonder (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored the article and relisted the AFD. An IP user had posted on the AFD about the blocked sockpuppet, which I had not spotted when I closed it originally and combined with your comment, think it is best that it is given another seven days so more people can comment. Without that opinion (that I have now struck) it would have been close whether I would have closed the AFD or relisted, so in view of requests I have relisted. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking you this as the admin involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One hour translation. It looks like one or maybe both of the keep !votes there (which may have been a factor in your relisting it) are confirmed or soon-to-be-confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reuvengrish. I'm not sure what is supposed to happen now. Should I tag the bad accounts in the AfD or something? Thx. — Brianhe (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As HelenBay was confirmed as a sockpuppet their comments have already been struck by someone else, just after you posted here. I have added a link on the AFD to the sockpuppet investigation so whoever closes the AFD (not me!) can check it before making the close. In general blocked sockpuppets opinions are struck on AFDs, but as the nominator it was sensible for you not to do this yourself to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So.intense1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Perhaps this edit should be revert deleted? Cheers Ping me with ((u|Jim1138)) and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 07:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have revision deleted both of his edits to Albury, as I think they do meet the criteria. Thanks for suggesting this. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Ping me with ((u|Jim1138)) and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 08:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Davewild, When you closed the Christof May AFD, did you take into account that one of the voters was most likely a sockpuppet of the nominator? -- haminoon (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I did (I saw your comment on the AFD) and even if they were not their argument was poor (and wrong) so would get little to no weight anyway. Taking this into account however I felt that the strength of argument and numbers were both in favour of deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks. -- haminoon (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what the hell you doing for deleting Tiësto's Club Life Vol. 4 - New York City? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDMandfootballaddict (talk • contribs)

The article Club Life: Volume Four New-York City was deleted after this discussion, where the only two editors who commented over the 14 days it was open for discussion argued it should be deleted as it did not meet the WP:NALBUMS notability guideline. The article only had a track listing with no indication that it met the notability guideline. If you think you can write an article that meets the notability guideline, then I would suggest writing a Wikipedia:Drafts and then submitting it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation then it can be reviewed to ensure it does meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Please undelete the subject article you deleted post Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Prabhu (3rd nomination) and move it to User:Dharmadhyaksha/Vasant Prabhu. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 00:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your request I have userfied the article to User:Dharmadhyaksha/Vasant Prabhu so that you can work on it. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As closing admin at the Dodgerfilms AfD, would you be kind enough to offer an opinion of how User:ATinySliver/sandbox/Bobby Crosby (artist) is coming along? Meantime, I'm all kinds of vacillating over what goes in parens next to his name; "artist" isn't supported by the sources. Other potentials: "writer", "comics", and "Blatant Comics". TIA. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a look at your userspace draft possibly (cartoonist) would be best on the name, although Category:American graphic novelists for example seems to have no consistent form.

As to the draft I'm afraid I don't think it addresses the concerns raised at the AFD. Those arguing for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgerfilms felt that the coverage of the two home run catches was not something that could count towards notability due to WP:NOTNEWS concerns for instance and I'm not seeing significant coverage of his work as a graphic novelist. As such I could not support this draft being put into mainspace currently. If you think it is ready you are welcome to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where other editors can see if it addresses the concerns raised at the AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much obliged for the eyes. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I just got back from France after creating my brother Josh Jauncey's wikipedia page, and now it has been deleted. Half the kickboxers he has beat have pages, and he is ranked #4 in the world on the Glory website (which is still the biggest kickboxing Organization in the world at this time. He is also the WKL north american champion and many more,

Is it possible to to reverse this deletion so it can be updated with all his new info? if not what more do i need to reference to make it work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrumply (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Firstly you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and in particular the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#You and your circle section, which explains you should not write about articles where you have a personal connection with the subject of the article, such as a family member.

As such I would first say that per what you say above that you should not be writing an article about Josh Jauncey. Secondly the article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Jauncey where the consensus was that the article did not meet wikipedia's notability guideline for this area - WP:KICKGUIDE and did not receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If someone without a conflict of interest wanted to write an article again about Josh Jauncey they would need to bring forward new evidence to demonstrate the notability guidelines are met. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Davewild! The article for Olivia Crocicchia was deleted back in 2011. This actress has had a few more roles since 2011 (most significantly co-headlining a recent TV movie on Lifetime), so I am toying with the idea with seeing if there's enough notability for her now to "recreate" the article. I may work up a draft over the next week or two. Assuming I find enough sourcing to establish notability, what is the process here? I would definitely run the draft by you before doing anything. Would I need to do anything else?... Thanks in advance!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No there is nothing else you need to do. If you want to run a draft by me before moving it to mainspace you can do so, but there is no requirement to do so. If you can find enough sourcing to establish notability then you can just go ahead and create another article. The only time when you need to get permission to recreate is when the title has been salted, which is not the case here.

I would say that I would userfy the original article so you could use it as a starting point, but the original article was only a list of acting credits sources to IMDB, so would be of practically no use. As long as it is improved, a new version would not be eligible for speedy deletion and would only be vulnerable to someone nominating it again at AFD if they felt the notability guideline(s) was not met, just like any other article. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've seen you close several asteroid stub AfDs recently by making a very bare redirect page. When redirecting these asteroids, could you please propagate the original article's ((DefaultSort)) and categories, so they don't end up in Category:Uncategorized? For reference, see this edit (if you could paste the NASTRO note I've included in that edit too, that would be awesome). Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will try and remember to go back and do this if I decide to close any more of these AFDs. Like most AFD closers I use the User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD tool which automatically does all the redirecting, deleting, adding closing templates etc. after I make the decision on what should be done and so the redirect is just created in the form you saw (and I notice that everyone else who seem to have closed such AFDs are doing the same thing). This will mean going back a revision, bringing back the categories, finding the example from here to find the redirect template and putting that all back on the page. This makes closing AFDs of asteroids as redirects worse than closing a long convoluted AFD discussion in time taken, but if I do any more of these will try and remember to do this. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dave I'm pleading with you to restore the last wiki page for Jason Adelman. I've been on top 5 network shows co starring such as American Dreams and S Ckub 7 and Moesha. I have started in one of most the watched videos Bad Day. I have starred in several films and also started in Must Be the Music which won several awards. The editor sourced all content which was the flag. That was taken care of. I've donated to Wikipedia for the good work they do. I've spent 20 years in film, TV and commercials. Please reinstate. Robot19332 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry I can't just restore the article. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Adelman was unanimous in concluding that the article did not meet the relevant wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (people) - with the only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources being related to the engagement to Karina Smirnoff but on wikipedia notability does not come from relationships. The closing admin's role (me in this case) was to assess the consensus of the discussion based on wikipedia's guidelines and implement it, which in this case was clear.

I would suggest that if you have significant new evidence that was not considered at the discussion, then I could userfy the article so that it could be improved to establish notability. However I should point you towards wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy where it says that you should not write articles about yourself or people you know.

If you feel my decision to delete the article and/or not restore it is incorrect then you can take it to deletion review but you should carefully read the Purpose section on that page before doing so. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David, I'm pleading with you to repost the last Wikipedia of Jason Adelman. His films won awards - Must be the Music where he starred in it, video has 40 million downloads, recurring co star on hit shows such as S Club 7 and American Dreams, started in several movies such as Talisman, guest starred in several hit TV shows such as The Client, acted in movies with legends such as Laura Dern and Mary Steinburgen The Gift, credited on IMDB on several other movies and shows, the list goes on... He also has other accomplishments and accolades. Please undelete Jason Adelman as he has notoriety other than being engaged to Karina Smirnoff. He deserves it and politely asking to honor 20 years in the business. Robot19332 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what I can add to what I said above. Nothing that you say above is new evidence that demonstrates that the relevant wikipedia notability guideline is met. It might me an idea to look at this essay - Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dave, his is Jason Adelman. I just read your response and I wanted to add clarification. I did not nor have any idea how to edit. My article was created by an anonymous user a decade or so ago. I know my agent Raynard Pearson previously of CESD agency and now Work Talent as well as my business manager Lowell Tatkin and my entertainment attorneys at Raines Feldman revised the edit to adhere to your guidelines which added sources which was the topic of discussion. If you would look at my IMDB you will see all of the cited work. One editor argued I had bit parts. That's not true. I had a co starring series recurring role in several shows that were highly rated such as American Dreams. I was involved and starred in Must Be the Music where the movie was based on my character and won several awards. I starred in one of the most successful videos Bad Day. I starred in Talisman where my part was pivotal. I had co starring parts in Back to the future the trilogy with Kirk Cameron and acted in movies with academy award nominees Laura Dern and Mary Steinbergen. I do not see how my relationship and engagement with Karina affects this hard work I have done. I'm sure it adds to my notoriety somehow, but I had a page a decade before that. Please understand my team only cited sources which was the main concern. You can review my accomplishments on IMDB. You can speak to my agent or business manager as I did not add the sources myself (I wouldn't even know how) so I asked them too. Please review the last edited page of myself and you will see my credits lasted two decades and I have a following outside of my engagement. Just like you, I have worked hard my entire life for this and I will do what it takes so you are happy and willing please respond asap on what else you would like me to add so we can post it. I really appreciate it and know you work extremely hard. I wanted to add I have done several TV movies I started in such as playing jenny far the brother in Danielle steel's Star where I had a substantial role in the plot as well as the Client getting murderer by James Cronwell... TRobot19332 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this stage I think if you want to continue you pursuing this you should take it to Deletion Review, I cannot help you any more. You will need to present evidence that the relevant notability guideline can be met and I am sure the conflict of interest policy will be raised as neither you nor people who work with or are related to you should be editing an article about yourself. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain the process and timeframes! CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Davewild (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, may you please explain why this page was deleted? Several sources were added like the National Library of Medicine. Even after a great deal of content was deleted, it was still described as being promotional in content, lacking secondary sources, and failing to meet the notability guideline. CHinds89 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89Reply[reply]

It was deleted because the clear consensus at the deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cultural Competency Organizational Assessment-360 - was that the article did not meet the main notability guideline for wikipedia as it did not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (with concerns about the way the article was written in a promotional way, being a secondary concern). All of the references in the article related to the person who developed the tool and so were not secondary sources.

As you're only contributions have been related to this article and the draft one for the tools developer Draft:Thomas A. LaVeist you should be aware of wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy. If you have any connection with this tool or it's developer you should not be writing articles on wikipedia about them. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, could you temporarily open it back up so that I can save the information for a later date when it meets the notability guideline? CHinds89 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89Reply[reply]

@CHinds89: I have userfied the article to User:CHinds89/The Cultural Competency Organizational Assessment-360 temporarily. Once you are finished either let me know or place ((db-u1)) on the page and it will be deleted. Be aware if you use any of the article off wikipedia you must follow the policy laid down here - Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Davewild (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may delete it. Thank you. CHinds89 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)CHinds89Reply[reply]

Done. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any chance you could put me out of my misery by closing Indigo Publications AfD, June 15? I don't care if it's keep or delete, just want to move on. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, closed as a weak consensus for keeping. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Kadar Brock. 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. DES ^(talk) 21:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, may comment there at some point. Davewild (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...for your kind vote of support over at my RfA. It's greatly appreciated; I hope that I may prove to be worthy of the trust you have placed in me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem and am sure you will do fine. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why NYLXS was deleted after being in wikipedia for more than a decade. The organization is not unlike NYLUG and other organization in wikipea, and it is CERTAINLY active and has a history of politial and social Free Software activities and still teaches. The idea that it is a vanity site (if doesn't even mention any names) or that it you can't find anything on us since 2009 (ummm before that we regularly were written up in the Linux Journal....really have all the old folk left the building?), is both wrong.

If it was a vanity page, It would have been Marco Scuefee, Ruben Safir, Evan Inker, Paul Marino, and others seperately as biographies. I never thought we rose to that level. The organization though is real and does a lot of work.

Ask RMS or Rick Moen if you don't believe me....

In a project that covers every minor star trek episode and is leverage for ever a biography of every minor academia, certainly an organization that has educated thosands on the use of Free Software was allowed its small entry.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYLXS was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYLXS where the consensus was that the article did not meet the relevant wikipedia notability guideline - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - as NYLXS was found to not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article being thought to have been written in a promotional way was a secondary factor. If articles do not meet the notability guidelines they are liable to be nominated for deletion and then deleted.

If you don't have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with the organisation and can find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then you write a new draft article from this coverage and if it does establish notability, we can then move it to the main article space. Davewild (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you but you didn't answer my question.

I'm not sure why NYLXS was deleted after being in wikipedia for more than a decade. The organization is not unlike NYLUG and other organization in wikipea, and it is CERTAINLY active and has a history of politial and social Free Software activities and still teaches

That was my question:

But just to clarify __your__ question http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6243 http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6250 http://archive09.linux.com/?module=comments&func=display&cid=1052654 http://www.infoworld.com/article/2680286/operating-systems/protest-happens-quietly-at-open-source-conference.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2679724/operating-systems/ms-at-open-source-conference-may-cause-protest.html http://installfest.org/2002/03/17/march-17-2002-brooklyn-new-york-nylxs-linux-one-class-installfest/ http://archive09.linux.com/feature/27727 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/19962 http://news.slashdot.org/story/02/07/18/1219257/results-of-the-commerce-depts-drm-workshop

there is a lot more, but I have to say that it is a lot easier to get written about when your stomping around and portesting, and no so much when you do your main job which is to just teach free software, and help GNU users with education and business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 04:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any article on wikipedia can be nominated for deletion at any time, the reason that NYLXS was deleted now was because one editor nominated it for deletion at this time. I have looked at the links you provided above and they are either not secondary sources as they are written by people involved with the organisation, or do not provide significant coverage of NYLXS, they only have mentions of the organisation. In order to pass the notability guideline the organisation needs to have significant coverage (i.e. coverage that focuses on talking about the organisation) from secondary sources (sources that have no connection with the organisation itself). Davewild (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]