User talk:MBisanz

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Deletion of Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994, and possible deletion of Chronological list of Famicom games, 1983-1988

Hello. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, and the article Chronological list of Famicom games, 1989-1994 (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chronological_list_of_Famicom_games,_1989-1994&action=edit&redlink=1) was recently deleted because of its similarity to List of Famicom Games. The major difference between the lists, however, is that the deleted page contained the Japanese-text name of each game; this was considered a trivial loss in the discussion on its deletion, but I can assure you there was no better list available in one place that was so easy to access for an English user. Many of the individual pages for these games do not contain their Japanese-text name equivalent, and will leave people having to stumble through babel-fish or google translate to try and come up with a good guess.

I would also like to point out that the deleted page (and proposed deletion page) contain many facts in the notes column about games that only have redlinks. This is a lot of information to lose should the deleted page not be properly restored or merged with the surviving List of Famicom Games page.

If the page is to remain deleted, please merge the column of Japanese-text names into the article List of Famicom Games. Please also consider doing the same for the proposed deletion of Chronological List of Famicom Games, 1983-1988 (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chronological_list_of_Famicom_games). The loss of both lists would be a real tragedy.

Nesguy (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)nesguy

Hi, yea, I'm sorry but the articles will remain deleted. If you like, I could send you a copy of the pages and you could merge what data you think is appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate that very much, thank you. The source for those articles was a book not available in the United States, and as thus all the information is very hard to track down. Nesguy (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)nesguy

 Done Check your email. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIIS

Just wondering, why did you close as redirect, only 1 person voted for that. didn't seem a consensus for redirect + I doubt people will type in IIIS in Wikipedia anyway? Michellecrisp (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there were only 3 comments in total, and on my decision scale of Keep, No Consensus, Merge, Redirect, and Delete, I felt it better to average the Merge and Delete into a Redirect that relist the AFD to have more people comment. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the response, not a big deal as I would have preferred redirect to keep in any case, but thought there was a case for more people to respond to get more of a consensus. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Air Gear Articles

What was the reason for the deletion of the Air Gear Kings and Roads list? If its possible to re-instate, please do so.

00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Darkmisry (talk)

Darkmisry

The reason is explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings and Roads (Air Gear). In short, the article appears to not have the level of notability as a result of coverage in reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Venus_Project

Would you mind elaborating on your decision? I'm not sure if you overlooked this, but most of the people in favor of a merge seemed to favor a merge to Jacque Fresco rather than Zeitgeist: Addendum. While in my nomination I did suggest Zeitgeist: Addendum, the argument for merging to Jacque Fresco was rather persuasive. Much of The Venus Project is already described there, and I'm not sure if moving that material to Zeitgeist: Addendum makes much sense. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 8 Dec 2008 (UTC)

My basis was that you said ZA first so any Merge comments that didn't specific it, would be pointed towards your suggestion. Also, that it was about 50/50 for redirects to JF and ZA and it seemed like the best option. Granted, it is an editorial decision at this point, so anything can be done. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes again :-)

I understand you have been busy and may overlooked the above/below comment. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoning, however we choose to disagree. In that light, can you post a copy to my sub page. I’ll try working on it, to address all the issues and see if we can get it to stick next time around. Of course, I’ll ask for your opinion before reposting. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done at User:Shoessss/CP MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I let you alone, at least for a little while, now :-) Thanks again. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Afd Closures

Hi MB. I don't think these two closures [1] and [2] reflected consensus or the strength of the arguments, especially when there is a no consensus option. I'm not attached enough to either subject to propose a DRV, but I encourage you to reconsider. Neither outcome is a good reflection of the discussions that took place. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I only closed one deletion and you linked to it twice, and that there was a discernible consensus at the deletion debate. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the second link. There was a clear consensus that there was no consensus to delete either article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

I concur with ChildofMidnight on Memory Alpha - I came here just to ask you to reconsider and haven't looked at the other link. I had never heard of or seen that website but only commented at the AfD after finding sources at both Google books and Google scholar. Even without those it's pretty clear that the website is noteworthy on it's own and the AfD reflected this and is hard to see as a clear delete or keep. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So I took pause, and decided to go back and re-read all the comments at the AFD. And I'm still seeing it as Delete. The Delete comments focusing on the quality of the sourcing are more convincing than the Keep comments focusing on the profile of the site in the internet community. Regards. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking at it again but see it more as a no consensus. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Memory Alpha. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Move protection relating to the IWF malarky

Not paranoid, just realistic! Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ronnie radke article Deletion

hello im extremely outraged that you have delated this article by all means their have been no such thing! you must be literally out of your mind i cant belive this somehow happened.

I do refer to some comment earlyier saying he plays on doing nothing eles and hes stuck in jail and hes just a "former" artist thats 100% absolutely wrong in fact if you want a realiable Source another compliant

just simply head to www.escapethefate.net their offical homepage you'll see interviews from jail from ronnie radke himself with future plans of starting a whole new band with previous member of ETF omar

along with amny other intrseting facts abotu the current band and all its memebesr so regaurdless if hes in jail or not theirs still recsent stuff coming out interview was sometime in october

I mean literally their is tons of infomation to fill this article thats still very appliable i think its Pathetic you'd even consider of dealted this article

and plain to the fact demand that it be restored Immediately

haha honestly you muat be crazy in fact i think todays the day that he even gets out of jail! so really are you kidding me you deatle his article the day he gets out sad

anyways please fix this problemm

Lordchs (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)lordchs

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Radke, the Wikipedia community feels that the individual in question fails to satisfy its criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Therefore the article has been deleted. As it is a very clear cut consensus on the matter, I am declining to restore the article and direct you to deletion review. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciel (Tsukihime) (2nd nomination)

Hi there. You closed this discussion as a keep, but didn't close out the co-nominated article (I know, it's like the only problem w/ Z-Man's script). Anyway, normally I'd close it out for you, but both DGG and I found the co-nom less notable than the main article, and I wanted to be sure that you meant to keep both. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Same close as co-nom. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Punkox

Simply drawing your attention to my comment on the case.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Matthew Gassen

I just want to know the reasons you found for taking the side of deletion, backed by guidelines, over the keep side, backed by policy. Hopefully, we can avoid more work at deletion review if you just answer me here. Tealwisp (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew W. Gassen the community consensus is crystal clear as a delete. Among other things, citing IAR's status as a policy above all other guidelines is a rather unconvincing argument for keeping an article. I'm sorry, but from the discussion it is clear that the lack of coverage in reliable sources makes the subject ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do feel free to take this to WP:DRV as I am quite certain the consensus close is correct. MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, AfD is not a vote, correct? And the last time I checked, policy takes precedence over guidelines. I just want to know if this has all somehow changed, or if you have immunity for some reason. Tealwisp (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. When I close an AFD, I look at the strength of the arguments and the consensus of the community. It is not a vote and I did not base my close on a vote count. I based it on the arguments of sourcing and notability v. IAR and how that fits with the general beliefs of the community. And no, I am not immune from any of the rules on Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know your rationale about taking guidelines over policy. Tealwisp (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you review opinions such as Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact, and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, and WP:BURO, and Wikipedia:Use common sense, that pretty much sums up the communal approach to things. Policies and Guidelines are rules to follow. But saying an article should be kept, when the sourcing and notability fail, merely because of IAR, is an untenable position. I should add the other consensus of the AFD was that the guidelines on notability and sourcing did not prevent the betterment of Wikipedia, which is the situation IAR is designed at. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy the Ride (song)

I had previously merged the contents of that article into Dive Deep, before the edit-warring broke out that forced it to AFD. I've restored that version of Dive Deep, but now I'm uncomfortable about the GFDL and the history. The options I can come up with are to ignore the problem (certainly the simplest), or to bring "Enjoy the Ride" back as a protected redirect. Your choice.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected redirect seems like the best option here. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ... you've got the bit, not me. Thanks.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really need it...

Just curious how to get this to work. What's the "key"..Secret key? Only for admins? (Found the link on your userpage:poor man's checkuser) -[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand needs to give you a personalized key to make it work. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One is missed

One is not blocked yet. Show-me-the-evidence (talk · contribs), the filer is likely a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) and admin, Ice Cold Beer who had been busy blocking socks last Saturday agreed with my opinion that show-me is Lucy.--Caspian blue 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the sock farms.--Caspian blue 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mop jobs

Thanks much for giving me something to use my mop on, but I really feel compelled to spend my time reviewing copyediting style books and training copyeditors, on top of my usual WP maintenance. When that's done, I'll get the mop wet :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush, took me months to get used to closing AFDs. And of course, there is no deadline . MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires only a minute after I submitted by "keep" rationale, and less than 4 days after it was nominated. I was wondering if you had actually considered my rationale, or felt the debate was eligible for early snowball deleting because of the lack of a keep argument after 3 1/2 days? Could you consider re-opening this and letting my keep argument get some consideration? DHowell (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open it for the balance of the time, but I don't see it changing, even based on your comment. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. DHowell (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there were two more "keep" arguments which came after mine, no more "deletes" and no responses to the keep arguments from any of the original editors arguing for delete; how did you decide that there was still a consensus to delete? (I am also questioning two more closings separately below...) DHowell (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of the three Keep comments, one cited It is a very useful list. as the entire rationale for Keeping the article. I weighted that comment very low in my final interpretation. DGG's comment states it is not OR, but qualifies that ordinarily the sources would be of higher quality. Your comment is very detailed and thorough, but at the end of the day, the weight of the Delete comments was stronger. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But how did you decide that the weight of the delete comments were stronger than mine and DGG's? DHowell (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument was based in part on the existence and retention of List of empires; It is not original research unless the same information in List of empires is also original research and while you in good faith put forward that position and others such as being not indiscriminate, the delete comments put forward the opposing viewpoint in good faith and in greater quantity. And it was not a vote count, but a recognition that there was more support for the deletion arguments and less support for the diametrically opposite keep arguments. MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What you describe is the very essense of "no consensus". And policy says we don't delete articles when there is no consensus. I fail to see much of a difference between a "vote count" and "greater quantity" or "more support"—more support for a position does not equal consensus, or even "rough consensus", which is determined with respect to policies and guidelines. DHowell (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take this to DRV, but I do not see any close other than delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done so. DHowell (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Surveillance and Incarceration

MBisanz, thank you for closing the AfD of that article. If you have a moment, could you also look at this AfD for an article that was created as a duplicate of that first article? I was unable to speedy the article at first because the first AfD was unresolved, but now I image it can be either speedied under G4, or just deleted through the AfD. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I apologize for the length of comments you must have had to plod through when closing the first AfD....it should have been a pretty clear-cut discussion, on the verge of a SNOW, but a disruptive user was repeatedly socking so it made it hard to follow everything. Anyway, thank you for your work. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about deletion

You deleted a category talk page, Category talk:Port cities and towns by sea or ocean, citing "CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion". Since this was a talk page of a category which is in use, I want to ask you what the actual content of this page and page history was. __meco (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There was one edit to the page, an IP asking people to send him a private message on a MMORPG game about useful websites and giving his account name at the MMORPG. Failed my advert, purpose of talk page, and releasing private data tests. MBisanz ^talk 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good. __meco (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

I was curious about {{Miami-Dade County, Florida}} for the same reason, especially as that had a useful wikiproject banner rather than just graffiti. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it had nothing on the page, it had been a blank page since July 17, 2007. There was no wikiproject banner on it. MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You had page blanked a nonsense post from an IP. I was going through and cleaning out such pages as they are rather useless to have laying around. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok, thanks, and sorry to trouble you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. :) MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

My mistake was in still having his user page on my watchlist for some reason. He's one of the most arrogant characters I've run into here. He constantly gets blocked and learns nothing from it. However, I've taken his page off my watch list now, and I hope to never, ever have any contact with him again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection

There is clearly an editorial dispute as to whether the transcripts in question fall into the limited exceptions which policy does allow outside of article space. I am particularly disappointed that you should choose to leap straight to a final warning during an editorial dispute. when no admin has issued a previous warning. I shall not re-add the material, because I no longer trust you to behave ethically on this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald

Are you issuing warnings on behalf of, or at the request of, or under the control of Scott MacDonald? DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed first on my watchlist, where the page has been since it was created, and I am certainly not under the control of Scott MacDonald. Scott later mentioned it and I said I would not block anyone, but would investigate and act on my own accord, which I did. If I was acting on his behalf, I would have not warned, but acted otherwise. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to make a clear warning on the talk page (I suggest in the thread where the matter is being discussed) about your likely actions before you start dishing out final warnings to editors with whom you are in disagreement about the interpretation of policy. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi Mbisanz, I've reverted this and warned the person who added it for vandalism, but now having slight doubts cause I'm not a scientist. Would you agree it (reposted several times since May this year) is all just silly penis innuendo? 99% sure but still a bit worried I've been chasing a useful editor away. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It reads like total nonsense to me. And a google search of Tayness basically confirms that. I'd say take it to WP:AN/EW if he does it again. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional governments AfD

Could you explain your rationale for how you decided a consensus to delete List of fictional governments here? DHowell (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Keep comments argued the general points of Lists v. Categories and the value of red-links. The Delete arguments more directly addressed the content of the article and on a whole were weightier than the Keep arguments. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discounting the bare links to policy which don't explain how they apply to this article, and "it's cruft" arguments, we're left with the arguments that the list is too broad, a category is better, and lack of citation to reliable sources. All of these arguments were addressed by the keep arguments and by guidelines, respectively, WP:SALAT (overbroad lists are fixed by splitting, not deletion), WP:CLN (lists should not be deleted simply because a category exists or "is better"), and WP:BEFORE (which says that a good-faith effort to find sources should be attempted before an article is deleted). So how exactly do these arguments outweigh those arguments which directly refute them? DHowell (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry again, but the good faith arguments in favor of deletion, namely WP:NOT and the sourcing issues outweighed the good faith keep arguments. Also, the only delete comment with a discussion thread under it was the sourcing comment, so the delete comments were not directly refute. Please consider DRV if this is not satisfactory. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV here. DHowell (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ghostesses in the Slot Machine

Could you explain why you thought there was a consensus to delete the edit history of Ghostesses in the Slot Machine, even after the nominator eventually agreed with me that a merge would be appropriate? DHowell (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake in closing (clicking the wrong button on the close window), I've fixed it. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had incorrectly assumed this was a repeat of what happened with Imaginationland: The Movie. DHowell (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Paul Robinett‎

Hi. This article underwent AfD in October which you had closed as delete (a decision I disagreed with). It wasn't relisted in DRV (another decision that didn't seem to go with consensus). As I found two more in depth secondary sources, one published since the last deletion [3], I have recreated it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please expand on a deletion reason

I just noticed this in my watchlist:

deleted "Template talk:Foreign exchange" ‎ (Deleted because "Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion. using TW". using TW)

Since Template:Foreign exchange exists, and I don't see a move in the history, I am a little puzzled. Do you know (or can you guess from the deleted content) what the underlying reason was: for a history merge perhaps? (Perhaps it was even a 'db' tag that I placed myself but no longer remember.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a blank page that resulted from a rename of the template and the subsequent removal of the wikiproject category it was in. So it had no useful information or history to preserve and was just a blank page laying around. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Caplan

In this AfD, you have not yet deleted Mike Caplan. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with mirror articles....

I see that the duplicate article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Musical: El desafio (Mexico) was deleted. But its twin still exists at High School Musical: El Desafio, Mexico. Do we need another AfD?? And if you can delete this mirror article based upon the results of the AfD, can I then move High School Musical: El Desafio, Argentina to High School Musical: El Desafio (as the film made more money in international distribution than simply in Argentina), and so simply overwrite the redirect currently at the preferred name? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I did all of that. Right now? MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a confusing mess. And you did real good. Thanks big time! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireGPG

Can you explain your rationale to merge FireGPG? I although I'm aware of silence and consensus, I'm worry that the decision was based only on the arguments of 3 users. Thanks, --Jmundo (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there were five comments, the delete, the keep, and three merges. On my continuum of closings, which runs Keep, No Consensus, Merge, Redirect, Delete, I averaged the keep and delete to a merge since the Delete and two of the Merges argued lack of notability and you argued for the existence of notability. Also, the AFD opened Dec 7th, the last comment was Dec 8th, and I closed Dec 12th. Relisting for more consensus would have occurred if there was new information brought to light near the end of the AFD or if it appeared that commentors were confused about specific facts. MBisanz ^talk 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Holy Family Catholic Church (Williston, Florida)

I am more than a little confused. There are hundreds of individual church articles located within Wikipedia, in addition to similar stubs for schools and related items found in rural areas. In this case, the article deleted is responsible for servicing the majority of Catholics in the entire county...but is not considered noteworthy? It is stated it does not meet guidelines under WP:RS, which I disagree with as numerous sourcing from the organizations own official website validate all material presented. I also would like to question whether the Inherent notability justification also applies, as if it does not then there is a clear conflict between the presence of similar articles throughout Wikipedia that have been present for years and the justification presented here. In addition, consensus did not occur after the relisting of the deletion request by those originally a part of the discussion unless I am misunderstanding the consensus. Aafm (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is a fickle thing. I've written 2 articles on churches from scratch personally. When I went to close this AFD, I mumbled to myself that the community was getting this decision wrong. Then I reminded myself that I was the closer, not a commentor at the AFD. Including the comments after the relisting, it seems several individuals disagree that the church is notable due to a lack of reliable sources. While primary sources can be used in some circumstances, third-party sources are generally required. Also, arguments such as other things exist or that there inherent notability, while good faith arguments, are generally discouraged with an encouragement to address specifically how the article in question meets the reliable sourcing guidelines to attain notability. MBisanz ^talk 10:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD question

Hey MBisanz, since you do a lot of AfD's, I was wondering how you would have looked at this particular one, given all the campaigning, SPAs and likely socks that came out. Thanks for the help, Grsz¹¹ 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have closed as Keep. Even though there were a lot of SPAs and IPs on the page, there were a couple of experienced wikipedians who participated, all of whom said to keep the article. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those few are why I withdrew. Now as for the books, do they have enough notability to stand alone? Grsz¹¹ 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the books. I rarely use group AFDs for that reason. One notable article in a group basically will prevent the deletion of any truly non-notable articles and bias any future AFDs. In particular, combining a Bio and Book is problematic, since they may bring different inclusion criteria into play. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glint (band)

Hi MBisanz. Might I ask for your rationale on this one? Unfortunately this AfD discussion was rife with chatter from an editor or editors with conflict of interest. But taking all of that out, I'm not sure if I see how the "delete" comments were enough to discount the "keep" comments written by me, by Michig, and by Esradekan? This looked like a "no consensus" to me, but admittedly I am biased here, given my opinion on the matter. :) Anyway, thanks in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well once I down-weighted the 4comments from the same IP, and the comment from User:Glint (band) that left you, Michig, and Esradekan. Your comment was a strong comment in favor, but Michig and Esradekan's indicated they felt it barely met the inclusion standards. Combined with the otherwise strong deletion comments (not the nom though, which was weak), it tilted towards delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that your "tilted towards delete" would justify a "no consensus" result in the minds of some admins who close AfDs, but I don't think this one warrants a DRV. Thanks very much for the explanation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally when I think of no consensus I think of situations where there is a near-perfect split over some process matter (eg. Delete per guideline WP:FICT, Keep WP:FICT not a guideline) or when both sides are equally adamant over their WP:AGF belief on a concept and are present in equal weight. Out of interest, I ran the numbers, of the

1,855 AFDs I have closed,

139 were no consensus,

1,172 were delete

228 were keep

154 were redirect

137 were merge

10 were speedy keep

13 were speedy delete

2 were speedy redirect

1 was interwiki redirect

Resulting in:

13 DRVs

3 In progress

7 Deletions endorsed

1 Userfied

1 Keep overturned

1 Keep endorsed

1 Deletion relisted

which works out to a a 99.7% accuracy rate, which I suspect is at least in the ballpark of success for most admins.MBisanz ^talk 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is excellent that you are willing to examine your admin work in this sort of way. I also saw that you recently requested an editor review. I wish that more admins who wade into controversial areas would be as open to feedback and self-examination. It's very commendable. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "no consensus" appears to be original research that is inconsistent with the policy as I understand it. A "no consensus" outcome is appropriate even when there is a very uneven indication of views. When there are good arguments and strong cases on both sides of an AfD, and neither side makes a convincing enough argument that their conclusion is in the best interests of the encyclopedia, a no consensus is the correct outcome. A consensus is a consensus, not majority rule. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Nixon Pryor Roundtree

Hi there. I saw you deleted the Nixon Pryor Roundtree article as result of Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Nixon Pryor Roundtree , but there were two additional articles bundled with the nom that were not deleted: Greatest Hits (Richie Rich album) & Richie Rich Presents - Grabs, Snatches & Takes. --Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Red Coast deletion

MBisanz, in connection with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Coat, you may want to consider Sec tank and The Red Coat (comics). This was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#deletion_rewquest_need_some_deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at AN. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The Red Coat (comics) is an exact copy (repost) of The Red Coat. (Not sure if it technically qualifies as a db-repost as it was posted before the original article was deleted, but it was certainly a duplicate.) And it is mentioned in the AfD. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraskyniv

You've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boraskyniv two days too early and I do not see a consensus to redirect the article. As it currently stands, there is more of a consensus to delete it. So this is not a WP:SNOWBALL case. Therefore, I'm requesting that you overturn your closing and allow the discussion to continue for the full length. --Farix (Talk) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up The Irons

Hello. You closed my above AfD nomination as delete, which I (obviously, given the discussion) have no objection to. However, I've been in contact with the article's creator (User:Uptheironsnc) during the discussion and he thinks he can improve and source it. I'm not entirely sure that it's sourceable, but I'd be happy to give him the opportunity to try - would you mind undeleting it to his userspace so he can have a go? Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done @ User:Uptheironsnc/UTI. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cartographers donating their work and a little time and effort to Wikimedia Commons

Dear Matthew

I would like to try and encourage cartographers to donate their maps to Wikimedia Commons. I have recently donated the Stavanger City Map. I publish a new version on Wikimedia Commons each time there is an important update on the map, including a detailed comment with each new thumbnail. This enables users to have access to the latest material throughout the year. As well as assisting Wikipedia readers and potential travellers with a useful detailed map, there may in the long run be an historical significance here, or some other valuable element that may benefit both Wikimedia Commons, readers and researchers.

Is there any way in which you may be able to help me with this message to other cartographers? Could the Stavanger City Map image be more prevalent so that it would be easier for other cartographers to see how simple it is to contribute their materiel to Wikimedia Commons and to the benefits of assisting others?

I would be grateful for any assistance or advice that you can offer me.

Thank you for all your wonderful work.

Best wishes from Norway, --Kevinpaulscarrott (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done at User talk:Kevinpaulscarrott MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy and helpful reply. If you come across anything else that may be of benifit please feel free to assist. Good luck with all your projects. Best wishes, --Kevinpaulscarrott (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your excellent work in AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Saab Lofton AFD result

Would you reconsider the result? There looks like a consensus to keep, only the nominator seems to disagree.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well a finding of No Consensus means that is no consensus to delete the article and therefore it is being kept. It is slightly less strong than a finding of Keep, but given the few number of participants at the AFD and the large amount of dispute (primarily because of the nominator), I felt the no consensus closing was best since it retained the article while showing there was some amount of dispute that was difficult to parse as a closer. MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GeoGroupTemplate

Thanks for protecting that. I had unwound the anon ip change but was still seeing the manifesto appear. Not sure why. dm (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rationale

• Ashida Kim (AfD discussion)

So how does a lack of any reliable and independent sources, a problem that has been raised in no less than three AFD discussions over a period of more than three years now, and never refuted with actual independent reliable sources, get us a keep? A closing rationale is definitely needed here. Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Basically people disagree over the notability of the subject. It split rather evenly and could have been a no consensus but the Keep comments were in good faith as were the Delete comments. I might suggest further stubbifying the whole "jimmy wales" section of the article though as a bit over the top. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the closure, not here! ☺ People can, the next time that this comes up (and it inevitably will), find it if it is in the closure. See how the 2nd and 3rd discussions were closed. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Miley Cyrus song

You recently put a notice on the Breakout disambiguation's talk page regarding the result of a merger of a Miley Cyrus song to Breakout. I think you meant to put that on Breakout (album), which is the actual page that Miley Cyrus song should be merging with. Not a disambiguation page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, a piped link messed up my close. I managed to fix the afdmergeto template, but missed the afdmergefrom template. Should be right now. Best. MBisanz ^talk 12:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your AfD closes

I'd like to bring up a more general concern I have about your closes, Matthew. It appears that you routinely close AfDs before they have reached the five-day mark. The relevant policy tells us the discussions are to last at least five days. Early closures are supposed to be the exception, such as a "snow" close. I know you are not the only one doing this, but I thought I'd begin with you to find out why this is happening, since, as I noted before, I've found you to be quite willing to communicate about your thinking. If you think the discussions do not usually need to last the full five days, why not try to gain consensus at WT:Deletion policy to change it to "at least four days"? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul, anytime, my early closes generally fall into 3 categories, each of which I do with a different rationale.

1. Closes on days 1, 2, 3, or 4 - These are generally WP:SNOW closes. If I see a good number of users all saying that a certain outcome is going to be the result (good usually meaning more than 4) and no one saying otherwise, it is highly likely that that AFD will close as that result, if only because the longer an AFD goes on, the fewer people who comment. It runs more of a sliding scale as well. If I see 4 people on day 3, I am more likely to close early since I rarely see an AFD turn direction of days 4 or 5. If it is on day 1, I would usually look for 6 or 7 comments all in the same directions as an indicator.

2. Closes on day 5 - The AFD clock resets 24 hours early for some reason. Meaning that some AFDs I may be closing at 4 days and 5 hours, 4 days and 10 hours, etc. Usually if I see an AFD is contentious (ie. there is active discussion still ongoing), I'll let it sit a bit longer. In most other cases however, it has not been edited for a day or two and it is unlikely anyone else will edit it before the full 120 hours have elapsed.

3. Relists before day 10 - Yesterday, of the 150-180 AFDs due to close, 37 were relisted because of lack of comments. Usually these AFDs had 1-3 comments, including the nominator. If the comments were Delete, Delete, Delete and I relisted, and on the first day of the relist, there are two more Deletes, it is highly likely that by day 10 it will still be 5 Deletes. On the other hand, if the comments at the time of relist are Delete, Keep, and the first two comments in after relisting are Keep, Keep, it is likely that the nominator was mistaken or that the article has been changed over the first five days to a retainable point.

Generally if my close is a type 1 and after closing someone asks me to re-open it to let it run through the full time, I do so since their objection negates the WP:SNOW rationale for closure. In closes of type 2 and type 3 I am less likely to re-open it if only because AFDs are already so undercommented on that closing once a visible consensus has settled in encourages people to comment on those AFDs remaining open. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain. With all due respect, even with the elucidation I am finding this troubling. There are indeed good reasons at times to ignore policy, but it ought always be made clear at the time. For your type 1 early closes, it is important to say in the close rationale "WP:SNOW". It might be obvious to the regulars at AfD that this is the reason for the early close, but new editors, and even longtime editors who do not often get involved in deletion discussion, might not understand why the discussion is not proceeding as the policy lays out.

Your type 2 closes: these look very much like type 1 closes that occur on day 5. Your rationale appears to be a WP:SNOW rationale—or I am misunderstanding? You are saying essentially (with apologies for putting it strongly for rhetoric's sake), "I am going to ignore our deletion policy because, based on my experience and judgment, this is heading towards an obvious 'delete' (or 'keep')."

I am sure that most of the time the result would be the same (in individual article cases); however, it is appearing to me that these day-five closes have become routine. (Is this based on "the AfD clock" problem? Is mathbot not functioning properly at WP:OAFD?) When discussions are routinely closed at 4.5 days, soon it is not unusual that they are routinely closed at 4.1 days. (In fact, this seems to be what has happened!) There are valid reasons for our policy saying "at least five days"—often time is required to locate sources (which can happen even after multiple people have !voted "delete"), some editors are active only on weekends, etc.

I am also concerned about the effects upon our deletion process as a whole when it is routinely admins who do not follow policy to the letter who are closing the bulk of the AfDs.

By the way, your type 3 closes appear fine to me.

I welcome your thoughts about this. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I can use WP:SNOW more often, as far as the clock problem, it if rather difficult to exactly figure out what is five days for an AFD, since they are all listed on the same page. User:Werdna is working on a software extension that should eliminate this problem by having MediaWiki calculate the time to close. Although I would be interested in your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISS toolbag. I closed it 8 hours early. Could you imagine any circumstance where there would be a different close? How could I better express such a close? Also to elaborate, I usually look at the sixth entry of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_discussions, which tells me there are 5 days before it. Looking at the fifth entry today, Dec 10th, I am looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canditv. Would that benefit from being open the full 120 hours? Would it be worth having another Keep on that AFD or directing someone to an AFD that has no comments yet? MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A fan of yours?

FYI, I noticed that User:Mbisanzisshatonbyacertaindogcalledfang had blanked your userpage, and, just as I was reaching for the BatPhone, the account was {{hardblocked}}. Good luck with the election and Happy Holidays. --SSBohio 18:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Election? Yea I saw that come through on my RC feed :) Thank for keeping the watch. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The "election" comment stemmed from a hasty misreading of your userpage. I'll amend it to wish you good luck on getting the ArbCom election results you're seeking, even though we're on opposite sides regarding SirFozzie. :-) He's been far too willing to choose the appeal to emotion over core policies in my experience of him. --SSBohio 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Don't worry, I disagreed with lots of people on candidates, even where I thought I would not. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This time of year again

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffolk Coastal Floaters Hang Gliding Club

there seems no consensus for merge...so wondering why you chose that path? Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffolk Coastal Floaters Hang Gliding Club the consensus seems clearly delete.Michellecrisp (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I went on the convincingness of the argument that this non-notable organization was affiliated with a notable entity having an article and could be a plausible search engine term, taking into consideration that 50% of the articles on Wikipedia are redirects to other articles. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

Can you explain why this Image:Tao-te-ching.png was deleted? I did not get any notifications about an imminent deletion. Please respond in my talk. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)