User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2012/02

Død Beverte

Hello good sir! I was simply curious if you would be able to re-evaluate and close WP:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination) at this time. BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just coming to make the same request. I think it's been up long enough that either it has consensus or it isn't going to get it. I'm WP:INVOLVED as I've advised the main page creator on ways to improve it and its sister article, Dethcentrik, so I definitely can't close myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather someone else closed it; the fact that I closed it once already and then reopened it might caused me to be biased. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I will leave a good remark on your Administration review page, as admittance of bias is not easy BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion of POCOS project page

Hello, I do not quite understand why the POCOS project wikipedia article had to be deleted. The page summarised an ongoing project which makes a difference in the field of digital preservation. It definitely listed more sources than the articles on digital preservation I had a look at and which still reside in wikipedia. Quite disappointing - the last workshop on preservation games featured Ian Livingstone and Daniel Pinchbeck which are both on wikipedia. If you have a policy apply it consistently - otherwise delete all in the digital preservation domain with the same arguments - this is really disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.24.245 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the discussion which led to its deletion. If you have sources that are independent, reliable, and have significant coverage of the subject, then please list them below and I will consider restoring the article. Also, if you think other similar articles should be deleted, then feel free to nominate them for deletion at Articles for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and soliciting !votes

Hi King. You closed an AfD some time ago that appears to have been plagued with sockpuppetry and the solicitation of !votes outside of wikipedia.

The AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi.

You can see the solicitation, by Jigsawnovich, here.

In addition, Bachemosbat -- who !voted Keep at that AfD, and left the longest comment -- has just been determined to be a sockpuppet of Jigsawnovich, and blocked indef.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You are digging up an AFD that was closed in August of 2010? There were no delete votes outside of the nominator and it wouldn't have been possible to discredit the keep !vote of Bachemosbat since he wasn't confirmed as a sock until today. And you can't honestly expect an administrator to comb the internet to discover that there was some solicitation. I find nothing wrong with this closure and I find it ridiculous that you are bringing it up unless you have a valid reason to think the article should be deleted. Under that situation you should have renominated the article for deletion and proven you had a reason. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummm ... this is just an FYI. Who ever asked that the result of the AfD be reversed (I didn't even explore, let alone take a position, as to what the correct result would be at the AfD, ignoring sock input)? Or suggested that anyone should have known about this before? Are you having a bad day?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ShixxNOTE

Hello!

You've closed a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShixxNOTE discussion with no consensus outcome and no explanatory notes. Could you please explain your rationale for no consensus? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite your responses to each of the "keep" !voters, the "keep" !votes kept coming, which does not look at all like a consensus to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty weird to me, as on the keep side were the author of software with arguments strictly limited to those in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the author of two previous versions of the article (speedy deleted before I came to Wikipedia) and previously uninvolved Northamerica1000 with "very weak keep". On the "delete" side there were two previously uninvolved users (me and Future Perfect at Sunrise. Argument-wise, two 50-words-long sources hardly can be considered as "significant coverage", as well as accusations that I have some bias. Clear win for "delete" side IMHO. Or am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only two "delete" !votes, which is WP:NOQUORUM. If those "keep" !voters had not !voted at all, I could have discretionarily close it as either soft delete or no consensus WP:NPASR, so it doesn't make sense to delete the article now that there is actually an argument for keeping. It's a law of statistics: the more eyes that look at something, the easier it will be to decide on an outcome. In order to delete an article, especially in an AfD with few !votes, it is not enough for the "delete" arguments to be slightly more powerful, because there is a significant probability that the consensus would have been "keep" had more people !voted. It has to be decisively leaning "delete," which this discussion is not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarification! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azim Wardak

Hi KoH. I'm trying to figure out what my options are after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azim Wardak. I have to say I'm really disappointed in the close since, imo, neither of the 'keep' arguments were even remotely grounded in policy. You say that I'm free to renominate it instantly. Does that mean starting a new AfD? If so wouldn't it make more sense to just relist the current debate? It also strikes me as somewhat likely that a new AfD would be met with "Speedy keep: this was closed 48 hours ago". Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In general, it is considered bad for an AfD to be relisted too many times (i.e. more than twice). The reason for "no consensus WP:NPASR" closes is that often people just lose interest in a debate, and for someone to renominate it is a way of saying "I'm still interested in getting the article deleted." Going through this allows some fresh eyes to see the AfD and comment on it. In your renomination, be sure to mention that I specifically said that it is OK to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you a lot for "No consensus" result. I read your arguments. Law of statistic and all others. So again I really want to thank you for keeping ShixxNOTE article on Wikipedia. Kind regards. Sirola (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

EF443

Got some hits today - can you provide any color in the filter notes section of what its trying to catch (or why it's an issue). Thanks.  7  00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the filter is intended for. Someone else created it a while ago, and the only edit I made was to disable "disallow" because I didn't understand the purpose of the filter. You should ask Timotheus Canens, who created the filter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - saw you were the last editor but didn't dig further.  7  04:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

I note that you relist some AfDs to get further discussion. One of the recent ones had a delete !vote. Is the nomination and one other editor who agrees insufficient in terms of policy/guidelines to close an Afd? I would prefer that an AfD is closed as delete after the seven days if only one other editor added a delete !vote. It would mean that there are three editors who agree with deletion (the third being the closing admin. Saves on editing time. Thoughts?? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the closing admin, by definition, is not supposed to !vote. There is a good system of checks and balances at AfD, and we should not ruin it in the name of efficiency. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

TigerHeat article deletion...

Hi, there. I am the writer of the article that was recently deleted called "TigerHeat." I was recently communicating with a Martijn Hoestra (can't remmeber his exact last name). I found him by reading the deletion log entry for my article. I had asked him a 2nd question regarding my article, and he never responded. He also is no longer listed as a deleting administrator like he was last week so I don't know how to contact him.

I just had a simple question. If an article is deleted, is that a "done deal"? My article was deleted for lack of reliable sources. I do have a new source to add and have updated the links (some were no longer working), but I don't want to waste my time if the article is officially gone. Advice?

Cheers, George TigerHeat (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to restore deleted articles. What you need to show is that the organization meets the notability guidelines, i.e. there must be significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. "Significant coverage" means more than a few passing mentions, "reliable source" is explained here, and "secondary source" means published by someone unaffiliated with the organization. If you can find some sources that meet the criteria described above, please post some links to them below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I will update my sources and get back with you. I appreciate the help.

--George TigerHeat (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

dropping a note to you

I owe you a note to let you know I've indirectly referenced something I believe that you have said, at WT:Deletion review#Do appeals of AfD redirect closures (without an edit-history deletion) require DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Hi King of Hearts. This is a reminder to, when you relist pages at XfD, link to the discussion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 7 for example and our discussion in February 2011, User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/02#DRV. Thank you for all the good work you do at AfD and DRV. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been linking to the new XfDs recently (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 25 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 16). The above must have been a rare oversight on your part as you've been linking to new XfDs in your other closes. My above reminder probably wasn't necessary. Cunard (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)