User talk:Sarahj2107/Archive 12

Hi Sarah

Deletion of CARS24.com . It was an informative page, why have you taken it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konarktyagi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Konarktyagi: The page was deleted because it was written in an overly promotional way. Please read the guidelines on advertising and promotional edits which will give you an idea of what is and isn't acceptable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tyrome Tripoli

Hi Sarah, I would like to ask since you were the administrator who closed the deletion debate on Tyrome Tripoli as delete why I was not informed by libstar who initiated it that it was happening. If you look the group here is one whict often votes to delete as a group which cannot be proven but it is not proper to supress argumentation this should be reopened so that I can have the chance snd proper amount of time to make my case, Again I was not informed as is customary to do so and sinister not toMasterknighted (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Masterknighted:. You will have to ask libstar why they didn't inform you as I don't know their reasons. I may be wrong but I think I remember this coming up before and it was determined that it was not a requirement to inform the page creator when an article is brought to AfD. The delete arguments were policy based and consensus was reached, so I closed as delete. I can't reopen the AfD at this point. If you have evidence that would prove notability and address the concerns raised at the deletion discussion then you can bring it to Deletion review. I would advise against making any accusations of conspiracy among the editors who voted and deliberately not informing you unless you have evidence and diffs to back those claims up. Making accusations of that nature without evidence is considered a personal attack and it could end badly for you. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

agreed. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine I will find another route just note that this occurance of not informling an editor has come up with this editor before and if not verboten is simply unfair, Thanks for hearing this out 1Masterknighted (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There would be numerous other editors who did not notify the article creator upon deletion. I trust you will be consistent and also notify them as well. there is no Wikipedia rule that article creators must be notified, therefore no rules have been broken. You obviously are not happy that this article has been deleted and if you feel this has been an error please take it to deletion review. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sarah you will notice the incivility on my talk page. "Editorial terrorism " is hardly a way to express one's concerns. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that is not acceptable. Masterknighted if you continue with this behaviour, including personal attacks and unfounded accusations, you will be blocked form editing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I used that term... just as a point of reference a society even Wikipedia cannot function without the rule of law, to try a case in a forum or court and not inform the involved parties is a break of that order. Masterknighted (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I could not find the deletion review thank you for leading me to it. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tyrome Tripoli. 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. Masterknighted (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And hopefully in the spirit of honor I informed everyone that I did this. Thank you for participating in this process and I realized my initial reaction was misguided as you did not know I had not been informed (as if I was taken back by your actions which under the circumstances are totally plausible), thanks again and I just reacted out of my perception as per having been as I experienced the proceedings blind-sighted and this editor realizes that his personal view of things is not shared by allMasterknighted (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Sarahj2107

• I want your argument why you deleted my article, none of the users who vote for the "elimination" gave a base because its elleccion end, hope prompt response from you. 10:42a.m., 27 August 2016 (UTC) Oscar Castillo (Talk)
  • I hope valid answers and references to points of each statement for the elimination of the article, otherwise you will have to restore an item Alberto Ctllo or I send a request for professional people are responsible and you can give me a better answer. 10:51a.m., 27 August 2016 (UTC) Oscar Castillo (Talk)

• @OscarC12: You know I had a nice long detailed explanation for my deletion written out in response to your first message, but after reading your follow up I'm going to keep this brief because I don't like being threatened. I deleted the article because that is what I determine the consensus of the discussion to be. The people who !voted delete gave valid policy based reasons. Your arguments were not enough to sway consensus. I will not be restoring the article. If you disagree then you can take it to WP:deletion review. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I do not know what you had psychological problems to feel threatened but your personal life "Psychology" does not interest me. In both I mentioned article have no argumentation valid sorry you do not have a little intelligence to know that is more valid than I argue that used by OTRS user, but of course that will appeal to WP: deletion review, Thanks for not having a more realistic response. 11:20a.m., 27 August 2016 (UTC) Oscar Castillo (Talk)

• I have no psychological problems, you basically said if I don't respond in the way you want then I have to restore the article or you will report me. To me that is threatening. And now you are making personal attacks. Perhaps it's your poor English that is causing confusion but either way I think I'm done here. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) OscarC12, the reason the article was deleted was because a group of editors decided it did not meet the proper notability guidelines. Sarahj2107 simply performed the deletion; this discussion is the reason it was deleted. If you disagree, bring it up at WP:DELREV; continuing the argument here will prove to be fruitless. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Complaints. As the only consistent person in wikipedia. Greetings. 11:48a.m., 27 August 2016 (UTC) Oscar Castillo (Talk)

I also suggest you read WP:NPA. Your comments here are out of line. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 18:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

He's escalated it to DRV. —Cryptic 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Pradipta Kumar Roy

Hello sarah, why did you delete the article pradipta kumar roy??? He is the first indian to be inducted into the taekwondo hall of fame. if an article about jimmy jagtiani (founder of the now suspended taekwondo federartion of india) can be on wiki, so can an article on pradipta kumar roy.

yours sincerely, sarkarrishavsarma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.115.21 (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The page had previously been deleted following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradipta Kumar Roy. During that discussion, the consensus was that he didn't meet the Notability guidlines. As the recent recreation was not substantially different that the version previously deleted, and didn't address the notability concerns raised, it was deleted again without further discussion. Just because other articles exist on similar topics doesn't mean we can have an article on this one at this time. Each article is judged on its own merit. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Come vote (again)

Hi. I am sorry to bother you, and I really hate having to stoop to this level. But since they did, so am I. They even told me to do it. So here I am (I don't know how to 'ping' someone).

I noticed that you took part in one of the numerous times that Side to Side was voted on or redirected. Well, a 3 day old voting decision isn't enough for them. They are back, and wanting a page and have a vote going on. They have Side to Side (song) running and a name change request was sent back to the talk page for a vote.

If you care to voice your opinion (again), feel free to click. Your previous decision does not count towards the current vote. This one is primarily about changing the name, but I feel that since it was currently voted to redirect, that the primary voting reason should be about whether to have a page or not. Either way, voices need to be heard (again).

Kellymoat (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Kellymoat: Hello, to ping someone you can just type {{ping|The username comes here}} and that will send him a ping. Typing a username also sends him a ping like [[User:The Username comes here]] will send a ping too! Thanks. Read more at WP:PING VarunFEB2003 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Siddharth Dambal page

Sir Sarahj2107 may i know why the page Siddharth Dambal was deleted. It is based on an individual and nothing wrong in the article. And if after changes the page can be okayed please let me know what changes I should make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.74.192 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have left a note about this at User talk:Siddsworld#Siddharth Dambal. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for MCskill ThaPreacha

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MCskill ThaPreacha. 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. MustaphaNG (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC) MustaphaNG (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

Whoops on the warning. I think what happened was I tagged the page as you blocked them and put the blocked notice on their page. When I went to tag it, it was an attack on Junior5a. Sorry for the mixup! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, these things happen. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Hari Vasudev' page

I noticed that you deleted the Hari Vasudev Wikipedia page, any particular reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.175.150 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Vasudev. If you think I made a mistake in closing the discussion you can take it to WP:Deletion review. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude or anything but what exactly qualifies you to go around deleting Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.175.150 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I passed Request for Admin and as such the community trusts me to be able to determine consensus at deletion discussions and carry out the physical task of deleting pages determined not to meet the relevant policies and guidlines. In this case I did not decide myself to delete the page, I just carry out the task the community had determined at the discussion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. Sorry if I took my anger out on you a bit, I had initially thought that you yourself had an issue with the page. Thanks for clarifying. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.175.150 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Famous Dex

Why did you delete Famous Dex's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.230.113 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The page was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Dex, where I determined consensus to be delete. The people who !voted to delete brought up policy based concerns, citing WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. The people who !voted to keep didn't cite any policies or convincingly refute the concerns raised by the nominator. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Sarahj2107. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki page images

Was going through the Wikipedia pages you've created, did you yourself take the images in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.153.154 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I found most of them on Wikimedia Commons. The only exceptions are the images of The Hermitage and the grey heron in the Shiman River article, which I did take myself. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of CupcakKe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CupcakKe

This has been deleted and locked by admins long time ago. But a lot has changed since then. CupcakKe currently has her own issue of Fader Magazine. A very well known magazine usually making issues with high profile celebrities. You can check her interview and see it for yourself.

http://www.thefader.com/2016/09/28/cupcakke-elizabeth-harris-interview

Not sure how wikipedia works but I saw your name next to deletion and messaged you! I'd be happy if you could help. Is it possible for you to remove the protection? Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.159.231.227 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CupcakKe deletion discussion back in May but it has been recreated and deleted twice more since then by two different admins. TomStar81 carried out the most recent deletion and is the one who protected the page, so you might want to talk to him if you want it unprotected.

Most of the people who commented in the deletion discussion cited WP:TOOSOON and stated that she will likely be notable in the future. However, the link you have provided above is not enough on its own to prove notability, and with a quick Google search I'm not seeing any other significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. If you think this person is now notable, I suggest working on the article in the WP:Drafts space. Once enough suitable sources have been added to meet the notability criteria, the protection can be removed and the article moved to main space. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

...Or not. A look at the deleted contributions for Akvoj, Ushi1212, Slurpers, and 1flyguyrob suggest a group of people with a vested interest in keeping the article here are creating burner accounts to that effect. Not sure if this is enough yet to qualify for WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, but it is an unsettling development. Given this I think the article ought to be kept on lockdown for the foreseeable future. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked at the history of all the deleted versions and the users who were creating them. Looking at those SPAs, I agree that this should be kept locked for now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ng Ga Kuen

Hi. You deleted the page for Ng Ga Kuen style of Kung Fu. You mentioned you didn't find anything in your research to justify it being notable. You also deleted Ark Wong's page. I will be restoring that page. Information might be hard to come by to the uninitiated, but this style is 250 years old, it wasn't "made up", it was one of the first taught to non-chinese in America, it was studied by Bruce Lee and Dan Inosanto and it is one of the arts that make up Jeet Kune Do. Ed Parker also used some Ng Ga Kuen for his Kenpo Karate, and Jimmy Woo, of Kung Fu San Soo, is a student of Ark Wong, with both systems being related. Ark Wong has been covered in an article by Black Belt Magazine, he is in their Hall of Fame. Wong and Ng Ga Kuen have been covered several times in Inside Kung Fu Magazine, even appearing on the cover. Justin Wong, the owner of said publication, also studied Ng Ga Kuen under Ark Wong and still teaches the style in seminars. Ark Wong, whose name is synonymous with Ng Ga Kuen, is in the Inside Kung Fu hall of fame. After Wong's passing, the style is very much alive and well in the hands of Seming Ma, Wong's grandson. Several styles who have an article covering them in Wikipedia wouldn't meet the criteria you mentioned, yet they exist. Some of those articles are barely a paragraph long and others correspond to styles that are presumed to be extinct. Please restore the article. Good day.NGK-Lion (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi NGK-Lion, I deleted Ng Ga Kuen because that was the consensus decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ng Ga Kuen. I personally have not looked into the notability of this subject, the editors who commented at the deletion discussion did and they decided there was no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to prove notability. The things you have mentioned above do not count towards notability by themselves, there also needs to be sources. Just because other styles have articles here doesn't mean this one should as well (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), or that those other articles will not also be deleted at some point if they also fail notability. The Ng Ga Kuen article cannot be restored unless significant coverage in reliable, independent sources are found to prove notability.

I didn't delete the Ark Yuey Wong page, Sphilbrick did. This page was deleted because it was a copyright violation, and can definitely not be retorted. If you attempt to create a new article for Ark Yuey Wong it needs to be written in your own words, not copy and pasted from somewhere else. It also needs to have multiple reliable sources covering the subject in detail in order to prove notability, which it didn't previously. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sarah is correct, Wikipedia respects copyright and will not permit copyright violations to stand.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I read this so-called consensus, and it reads as no better than a forum discussion of a subject by people who are quite obviously ignorant of the subject at hand who couldn't be bothered to investigate thoroughly. I am unfortunately already all too familiar with Wikipedia's hierarchy problem and it's administrator's problems with articles and edits made by anyone who's not an admin, and I know I could jump through all the hoops you deemed necessary and would still be denied, as I have put considerable work in the past only to be rebuked and insulted by admins. The Ng Ga Kuen article was sourced. It's notability is equal if not greater than most styles already covered. I won't be putting in hard work only for people unfamiliar with the subject of martial arts to delete it on a whim. Sadly, this is the reason why Wikipedia is, and shall ever be, an unreliable source for information, a beautiful idea made impossible by a flawed system. NGK-Lion (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The article was not sourced at all, not one single source. I have no opinion one way or another about the subject; if it's notable, great create an article, if not then it's going to be deleted. And as an admin I have no sense of hierarchy, nor do I care if the article creator is an admin or not. I follow the guidelines and policies, and I close deletion discussion based on the consensus reached. The bottom line is, this subject is not notable and no amount of protesting or complaining about how the system is flawed is going to change that. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Newpedia Foundation

You have recently deleted the Newpedia Foundation page on the basis of Sections A7 and G11. But for your kind information, A7 is an exception to educational institutions. And Newpedia Foundation is an educational institution. And It is not promotional. So it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namaneinstein (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Namaneinstein: It was deleted under A7 as an organisation. It is not a school, college or university which is what the exception applies to. It was also clearly promotional so G11 applies. I will warn you that if you continue to create innapropriate pages or use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Article about Doğan Hasol

Hi there,

My name is Burçin from Istanbul/Turkey. I am trying to add an article about Doğan Hasol. He is a notable architect. Hasmimarlik (HAS Architects) is his company. Anyway, did I do something wrong? Why did you delete the article?

He has an article in Turkish Wikipedia and want to add in english one. https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do%C4%9Fan_Hasol Also he has a blog www.doganhasol.net You can google him also.

Can you please help? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasmimarlik (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hasmimarlik, your article was deleted because it was a biography of a living person (BLP) with no references. Wikipedia is really strict about BLPs and if they don't have at least one reliable reference to verify the content they can be proposed for deletion using WP:BLPPROD. If no reliable reference is added within 7 days, it will then be deleted. That is what happened here. The article can be recreated but you need to provide reliable, independent references. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

GFI Software

Hi, could you please copy for me contents of the "Further reading" section of this deleted article (if possible)? I thought I stored these references on my HDD, apparently not... Pavlor (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pavlor, this is everything from the further reading section:

• Marshall, Patrick (1998-07-06). "GFI´s FaxMaker for Exchange 5.5 gains better modem support". InfoWorld. Vol. 20, no. 27. IDG. p. 50D. ISSN 0199-6649.
• Mitchell, Lori (1999-08-02). "Mail Essentials 2.0 monitors incoming mail". InfoWorld. Vol. 21, no. 31. IDG. pp. 50, 52–53. ISSN 0199-6649.
• Iwanchuk, Russ (2001-06-12). "No more letter bombs, Mail essentials for Exchange 3.5". PC Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 11. Ziff Davis. pp. 152–154, 155, 156. ISSN 0888-8507.
• Morton, Dan (2003-06-16). "Return to Sender Leading mail scanners rev their engines". InfoWorld. Vol. 25, no. 24. IDG. pp. 28–32. ISSN 0199-6649.
• Snyder, Joel (2003-09-15). "We throw real traffic at 16 anti-spam tools". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 37. pp. 1, 39–40, 42, 44. ISSN 0887-7661.
• Ellison, Craig (2003-12-30). "Vulnerability scanners identify network insecurities, GFI LANguard Network Security Scanner 3.3". PC Magazine. Vol. 22, no. 23. Ziff Davis. pp. 124, 126, 130. ISSN 0888-8507.
• Sarrel, Matthew D. (2006-03-21). "SMB Boot Camp, Hack Thyself". PC Magazine. Vol. 25, no. 5. Ziff Davis. p. 108. ISSN 0888-8507.
• Leyden, John (2009-11-06). "Controversial email blocklist SORBS sold". The Register. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
• Raison, André von (2014-07-05). "Laut Wall Street Journal wurde die Göppinger TeamViewer GmbH für rund 1,1 Milliarden Dollar an eine Kapitalbeteiligungsgesellschaft verkauft". iX magazine (in German). Retrieved 2016-10-04.

Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Pavlor (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancope (2nd nomination)

Your closing does not provide any explanation for the deletion.  Is it possible that you think that "redirect" is the same as "delete and redirect"?  Is the deletion rationale WP:DEL8?  Is it WP:DEL14?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:. Consensus was that the article should not be kept but some people wanted a redirect, therefore I closed as delete and redirect. The reasons for deleting, which you can see yourself if you read the discussion, were failure to meet notability guidlines. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a strong consensus at the previous AfD that the topic was notable, and many sources listed.  "Failure to meet the notability" guidelines is not by itself an argument for deletion, and this point was part of the discussion.  I believe you would agree that administrators have a responsibility to discount !votes that are not policy based.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The previous discussion was four years ago and had only one !vote other than the nominator. "Failure to meet the notability guidelines" is absolutely a valid reason to delete, it happens all the time at AfD. I did base my close on the reading of policy based !vote and discount ones that weren't, including yours which was nonsensical and not based on the accurate reading of any policy or guideline. I don't see much point in further discussing this here so if you think I closed incorrectly, take it to WP:DRV. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

According to this link, you have a total experience at AfD of six AfDs, the first starting 1 September 2016, and two of those six have not closed.  You have a 100% history of !voting to delete. 

Arguing that "it happens all the time at AfD" is not arguing from policy, rather this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, as what happens from time to time at AfD may or may not be policy based.

Your post represented the previous AfD, as having "only one !vote other than the nominator".  This is a misrepresentation, or perhaps indicates a lack of experience, because this "nominator" is unusual in not being a "delete" !vote. 

I can't tell that you have opened WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.  If I've quoted or interpreted those policies and guidelines "inaccurately", please cite specific examples of inaccuracy.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:. If you click this link (set to last 500) and then click "Next 500 AfD's" at the top of the table, you will see more of my AfD !voting going all the way back to 2012. You will also notice that the page says "The remaining 346 pages had no discernible vote by this user". The reason your link only shows 6 !votes is because, out of the last 200 AfD's I commented on all but 6 were to close, which obviously will not show up on the table or in the stats as a !vote. Do you honestly think I would have passed RfA with no experience at AfD at all, especially when it's an area I said I wanted to work in? By the way, I would be careful about throwing stones if I were you because your own AfD stats leave a lot to be desired.

My statement that "it happens all the time at AfD" was to support the fact that "Failure to meet the notability guidelines" is a valid reason to delete that has been accepted by the community, as proven by its frequent use.

My comment on the previous AfD was to point out that, apart from the nominator, only one other person commented. An AfD with so little participation cannot produce "a strong consensus" of anything. It was also 4 years ago; policies and guidlines have changed since then.

WP:INSIGNIFICANCE is an essay that you yourself have written and it has no bearing on my close of the AfD. I am under no obligation to read it or to do what it says.

As I said before, this discussion is going nowhere and there is no point in continuing it here. If you think I closed the AfD wrong, take it to WP:DRV. If you think I am so incompetent or inexperienced that I should not be closing AfDs at all, take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, please leave me alone. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wang SIcong

FYI there are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on this guy. What made you think there was no assertion of importance? The article asserted him as the son of China's richest man. That shoudl have merited some followup. Google is your friend. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Being the son of someone rich is not an assertion of importance. Notability is not inherited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know those things. Try doing some research on him and you might be surprised. He was the subject of an editorial in Xinhua. Maybe you have heard of Xinhua? small outfit that is the state news agency of China.104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This was the state of the article when I tagged it for speedy deletion. Zero claim of notability. I am under no obligation to search for sources for an article like that before tagging for speedy deletion. By the way, I'm not liking your attitude both here and on the AfD; I suggest you tone it done a bit before you cross the line into uncivil. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my attitude. As far as I know, genuine discussions of content and policy are not considered to be uncivil. In that light, I merely want to point out that the policy says "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." "Improved" implies checking. As Last word on that from me, have a nice day.104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of "the half beard guy"

Hi, when I first entered my father (Don Miller) into Wikipedia, it was my first contribution. I am still learning. The complaints were that it lacked notability and references, and basically came so fast that it was still a "rough draft". It was true, I had no references at the time, but I did add several of them later. As far as notability, He has been featured on the radio several times, has been featured on TV, and in newspaper articles. Today I went to add the fact that Chicago WGN TV channel 9 came to his house and taped an interview. It will air at 5PM CST today. I wanted to add that information and relevant reference, as well as other references and information that I had not yet entered. I would appreciate if you would please restore the page so that I may make these improvement, and so that the page can then be re-evaluated. Our Chicago Cubs baseball team is currently competing to go to the World Series so his crusade is particularly relevant at his time. Thank you, Karl Miller Karl.miller (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Karl.miller, I'm sorry the article had to be deleted; I know the deletion process can be hard if you're new here and you don't know how things work. I can't restore the article because the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The half-beard guy was to delete. The editors there agreed that he was only notable for one event and that there was not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. If you think I closed the AfD incorrectly, or if you have substantial new evidence to prove notability, you can appeal the deletion at WP:Deletion review. I would caution you against writing about someone you have a close connection to though, and you should read the guidelines on conflict of interest. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

William Mersey

William Mersey (who has provided much info on his father, Robert Mersey, in his blog, Dollar Bill's Psycho Roundup) was written about in The Daily News earlier this month. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/escort-website-boss-fined-3-5m-not-paying-income-taxes-article-1.2817858 This article accurately details his ownership of a porno web site, the $6.5 million he amassed, the fine of $3.5 million he must pay, and the fact that he is awaiting sentencing. Everything in my draft version of William Mersey was factual. Every detail I added to Robert Mersey was found in William Mersey's recent blog post on Pam Sawyer (his step mom).

All Facts! ALL SUPPORTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigoonie (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Emigoonie, Wikipedia has very strict rules about Biographies of living people. We cannot have entirely negative biographies, especially when they are completely unsourced, as was the case with the draft I deleted. Please note that blog posts are not considered reliable and cannot be used to support such claims. I strongly suggest you drop this matter or you will be blocked. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Luke Allen-Gale

Hi Sarah,

I am trying to complete an up to date and substantial wikipedia page for Luke Allen-Gale. I can see you have deleted and edited my first contributions (which took me well over an hour to complete) because you have viewed it as "promotional." I am trying to update the page with all the relevant information requested by those searching for him and on recommendation from him and his team.

Would you mind lifting your edits? This is something I am working directly with Luke, his agents and his lawyers on.

Best

A ArktikNightingale (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi ArktikNightingale, I'm sorry but your edits were too promotional in tone for Wikipedia. I understand that the information needs updated but please remember that this is an encyclopedia and there is a certain tone to the language used. The kind of thing you might read on an official website or profiles/Bios on other sites is not suitable here. The link you added to his agent details also makes it look like you are trying to promote him. Also, everything added really should be supported by a reliable source in order to comply with the biographies of living people policy. There was only one source in the article before your edits, and it wasn't the best, but I have now added some more.

If you are working directly with the subject of the article, his agents and his lawyers then you have a conflict of interest and you should not be editing the article at all. I suggest you read the conflict of interest guidelines. If you are being payed to edit this article you will need to declare that and should read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I would suggest you refrain for further edits to the article and instead make requests for changes to the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ArktikNightingale (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for getting back to me. I attempted to amend my original edit to suit your recommendation of wikipedia's guidelines and removed the link to his agency (Which is the reliable source of his voiceover, video game and theatre credits). I'm still unclear as to why my edits to his TV and Film credits were removed as these were like for like in language and layout to those on many other actor's pages on wikipedia and supported by the IMDB link someone else had already put on the page. Having corrected the edits to be a close in nature as possible to every other actor's page on here, I then attempted to save and was prevented from doing so immediately as it appeared the page had been frozen under conflict from another party which I'm guessing you may have flagged. So I have gone ahead to wikipedia to directly try and over throw the block which I hope means you will no longer be troubled by this. Thanks for your help and input with getting this right, it has been much appreciated.

Best

ArktikNightingale if you received a notice about a conflict while editing the article it was because I was editing it at the same time; it's a limitation in the software. I haven't put any block on you editing it, I am just advising against it.

I just reverted your whole edit to the page rather than picking and choosing certain parts to remove, this is why the credits where removed. Also, it's OK to have a link to IMDb at the bottom of the page but it isn't considered a reliable source because anyone can edit it.

When I have more time tomorrow I will try to update and improve the article to bring in more in line with other actor pages. I will also try to find some more reliable sources so the tag at the top can be removed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of 10Fund

Hello, There was absolutely no promotion in the article. It was clear information about the company that the world should know. Also, please highlight the exact violations so that I can remove the content which may sound promotional. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anup1mohan (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anup1mohan:, the article was clearly promotional. The very first sentence contained the words "...a revolutionary Venture Capital firm from China...". Another example for the lead is "It aims to be a next generation Industry based investor with a spirited belief." The whole article was filled with that type of language. The page has now been protected as this is the third time it was deleted as unambiguous advertising. If it is recreated now it will need to be accepted via the article for creation process. However, I strongly advise you to read WP:SPAM and WP:NOTADVERTISING before writing anything else. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107:, Alright. Thanks for your help, appreciate it.

Thanks

For stepping in here and in other Afds. Lourdes 12:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, at least two of those overturns were unneeded, the delete consensus was at best shaky and needed more time to be discussed. It looks like a load of trolls over enthusiastic individuals have got their way here. Jeni ^(talk) 15:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jeni: I didn't "overturn" anything. I closed a number of relisted AfDs before the further 7 days were up, as is alowed per WP:relist, because I felt there was strong enough concensus to close and therefore no need for further discussion. And I don't appreciate being called a troll or "over enthusiastic" for bringing a legitimate concern to an editor's attention. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: I assure you work on that has been much appreciated, thank you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)There was a clear consensus for a delete in the AfD shown above, and the article was already relisted once, so does not need to be relisted again to be honest, unless it has swiftly moved to the bottom of the pile in the Deletion sorting area. Class455 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirt Bike Maniacs (2nd nomination) as well? --Izno (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This one didn't really need relisted either but I think I will leave it for now. There's only a couple of !votes and it won't do any harm to leave it open for a few more days. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reg : InApp

Sarah,

I believe you were the final administrator that deleted and handled the proceedings for the page InApp. A new wiki page is available for InApp, but its title Inapp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inapp. Since only administrators can now edit InApp - could you help in clubbing both these wikis ?

Thanks in advance.

09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Bibinparukoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibinparukoor (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A gentle reminder @Sarahj2107 !

Bibinparukoor (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Bibinparukoor

I have been on a technology-free holiday for the past week, which is why I haven't responded sooner. I can see this article has been moved and is now being dealt with at AfD. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason behind deleting Page List of One Day International Matches

Hi Sarah,

May I know the reason behind deleting Page List of One Day International Matches

Regards Sdm2211 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sdm2211, the page was deleted following discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twenty20 International cricket matches, where it was listed along with List of Twenty20 International cricket matches and List of Test cricket matches. Concenssus at the discussion was that all three articles should be deleted. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452

Hi Sarah, what was the page for EAL 3452 deleted? I didn't think a consensus had been reached. Joseph Zadeh (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph Zadeh: After reading the discussion and giving weight to policy-based arguments, I determined there to be a clear consensus to delete. If you think I closed incorrectly then you can take it to WP:Deletion review. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Considering that Mike Pence is now the Vice President Elect, I think this article is more relevant and notable now, so I submitted it for review. Joseph Zadeh (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Black Metaphor

Hi, I am the creator of Black Metaphor wiki. I'm coming here first because I nominated the deletion but now I want the page back because I created the page and the sources were credible. The page needed to be protected from one editor that changed the article from being written due to policy. I have a correct draft and will provide the credible resources. Let me know what the process is to get the page back up due to uncontroversial deletion. Thank you.Peacemvmt1 (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peacemvmt1, you do not appear to have nominated it for deletion, DBrown SPS did (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Metaphor (2nd nomination)). Multiple editors !voted in the discussion and the consensus was it should be deleted due to lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. Because of this, it is not an uncontroversial deletion and I cannot recreate the article. To recreate the page you need to write it in the Draft space, or in your user space and submit it via articles for creation. You need to provide multiple independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in detail, and you need to address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion. If you do this and it is accepted, it can be moved to main space again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I created the article and added the speedy recovery tag to the article. I also nominated it in a deletion discussion. But, I read the comments. I understand the concerns, in Black Metaphor's case the interviews were requested he did not pay for exposure. Here are three notable resources from this year. 1)http://www.okayplayer.com/tag/black-metaphor 2)http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/isaiah-rashad-i-mean-prod-by-black-metaphor-new-song.1971022.html 3)http://www.allmusic.com/artist/black-metaphor-mn0003018056 Credible sources will continue will continue to be added as he is a credible music producer in the music industry. Article was written form a 3rd party perspective and had reliable sources as per wikipedia policy. One user edited the article with grammar errors to be insufficient. This page is how his fans view his producer credits and this page would be helpful as a reference for him. He has a youtube launch coming up it is important to get the article back up. Please review and let me know if there is a faster way to get the article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemvmt1 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peacemvmt1, unless you are admitting to editing under another username, you did not nominate it for deletion; Any addition and removal of speedy deletion tags prior to the AfD are irrelevant. None of those links cover the subject in significant detail so they cannot be used to prove notability. Having a Wikipedia page is not a right and having a youtube launch coming up does not strengthen your case. It just makes it look more like you are trying to create an article for promotional purposes. I'm sorry but this person does not meet the notability guidelines and there is no way the article will be recreated anytime soon. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, Black Metaphor has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So saying that the links do not cover the subject in significant detail does not mean he is not notable.

His mention is not trivial in many of the 3rd party resources listed in the original article. The sources are from credible news organizations and are not self published articles. The sources date back to 2012, the older the more reliable. So it is not too new or breaking news according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

His notability is not temporary. For example, he is mentioned as a notable music producer in these sources including 1)http://www.beatmakingvideos.com/Video/hhs1987-presents-behind-beats-black-metaphor-black-metaphor-interview The mentioned credits include Jeezy wiki is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Jeezy and Rick Ross wiki is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross.

2)http://thesource.com/2013/07/02/producer-black-metaphor-on-the-games-ali-bomaye/ You will notice that some of the same sources are listed under Jeezy and Rick Ross as credible resources including HipHopDX, XXL, hotnewhiphop and more.

I mentioned Youtube for the purposes of notability not promotion. The original article was written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article according to, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Lastly, here is a source that lists Black Metaphor as speaker of notability at a speaking event earlier this year and it also lists his music production credits again: https://beatcampatl2016.sched.org/speaker/black_metaphor.1vefb531.

After this explanation please explain to me how Black Metaphor does not follow the notability policy. Thanks for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemvmt1 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the deletion discussion here with you. If you have significant new evidence to prove notability, that was not addressed in the deletion discussion, then you can try your luck at WP:Deletion review. However, I am not seeing anything that would get the article restored. The links you provided are either not independent or do not cover the subject in detail and the fact that he is doing anything on youtube has no bearing on notability as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Black Metaphor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Black Metaphor. 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. Peacemvmt1 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why was deleted page 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group G?

Hello, Sarahj2107. Why did you delete page 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group G? This was normal page. Please, revert it. GAV80 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like when you deleted the redirect Israel at the 2018 FIFA World Cup per the AfD, you accidentally deleted the target page as well. Smartyllama (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's working now. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I used the closeAfD script and didn't realise this one had been deleted as well. It has now been restored. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Akaki Tsilosani

Dear Sarahj2107. The article about the transplant surgeon Akaki Tsilosani was deleted. The article I created met with Wikipedia criterias for personalities. Some users suggested that it contained copyviolation of the website of International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, but actually it was the list of publications (i.e. bibliography) of Dr. A. Tsilosani, a member of ISHRS. Bibliography can not be regarded as copyvio. It must be the same every time, everywhere. Please explain arguments why you deleted the article. The article fully meets Wikipedia rules:

• Dr. Tsilosani is famous surgeon, well respected among fellow surgeons worldwide.
• Is a member of almost all respected hair transplant organizations: ISHRS, AAHRS, AAAM, GeoPRAS
• There are lots of sources in internet in different languages.
• The article exists in 2 different languages in Wikipedia: Russian and Georgian Wikipedia.
• Dr. Tsilosani's books & researches are published in 3 and more languages internationally.
• Has 5 Patents in the field of hair transplantation.

I sincerely hope the article will be restored. Thank you in advance! Zetalion (talk) 12 May 2024

Hi Zetalion, the article was deleted because that was the consensus at the deletion discussion. There were concerns that it didn't meet notability guidelines but more importantly it was a copyright violation. It was not just the bibiolgraphy; the entire article was copied word for word. For legal reasons Wikipedia has to take copyright very seriously. If something is not published under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License or equivalent then it cannot be posted here. It cannot be restored. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Oooops!

I edit conflicted with you while protecting Elutic. Do you want me to restore your one week protection?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: No, that's ok. If it starts up again after your protection ends it can always be reprotected. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This article

Hello Sarahj2107, actually i don"t know how to relist an AFD discuss. Please can you do that on this article Mayorkun to hear from more census thanks --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD is the easist way to relist at AfD. If you use it make sure you are familiar with WP:Relist first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks Sarahj2107 --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Sarahj2107.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)