Hi, This article Draft:K. Surendran (politician) was deleted through AFD, Since it is almost one year now the notability has changed and he has been covered by multiple reliable independent sources which makes him notable per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . But This article is create protected, Therefore, AFC reviewers cannot do anything. so please remove Protection . Thanks-- Padavalam🌂 ► 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The article was create-protected to insure that it goes through the normal AFC submission and review process. If an AFC reviewer wishes to promote a draft to a protected title, they know the process. BD2412T 18:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
BD2412, could you move the article back to draft space? It seems Padavalam themselves put it on review and accepted it. This is especially concerning seeing as they had earlier tried to convert the page on the writer K. Surendran to the one on the politician (Special:Diff/972097885), which had to be reverted back as well (Special:Diff/972151356). There's been multiple attempts to create this page after it was deleted at AfD without going through an uninvolved AfC reviewer. Tayi ArajakateTalk 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The entire point of the AfC review process is to determine whether an article is likely to survive an AfD, and move it to mainspace if it does appear likely to survive. Either this article belongs in Wikipedia, or it does not. If not, then it should be nominated for deletion. I think the latter is the appropriate process if there are unresolved questions about the notability of the subject. BD2412T 20:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not very involved in the AfC area so correct me if I'm wrong but a nominator themselves should not be accepting their own nominations, no? Otherwise it would be no different from creating an article directly on the mainspace. This article in particular has been the subject of AfD more than once. See the latest one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.surendran. Tayi ArajakateTalk 20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
AfC is not a mandatory process at all. An editor who is able to create a mainspace article can opt to create a draft and then move it to mainspace. The last deletion discussion to which you point is about gaming the system, not the notability of the subject. The assertion has been made that the subject has gained notability since the last discussion questioning that point, which is a reason to restore to mainspace something that was previously deleted for lack of notability. The test for this is through determining consensus in an AfD. BD2412T 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. The only difference between the creation of the article in the AfD and the former draft is a technical one, as in that one was a draft. Isn't it as much gaming the system if one who is attempting to create the article moves a draft which was previously repeatedly rejected by others, into the mainspace? Tayi ArajakateTalk 20:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, Padavalamkuttanpilla did not create the draft, though. BD2412T 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Malayala Sahityam and DGG: I suspect the above discussion may be of interest to you, given the history of the subject in Wikipedia. The article is now live at K. Surendran (politician), but there are doubts as to whether it should exist. BD2412T 20:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
My main concern here is that Padmavalam has tried to create the article by gaming the system in the past (the above diffs), and has now themselves accepted the draft article on the same, that they worked to expand, which I don't think is appropriate as it by-passes the consensus at the last AfD that was closed only a few days ago. Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Padmavalam did not create the deleted K.surendran, nor did they participate in the deletion discussion; I have no reason to believe that they were aware of it at all. As noted, that discussion centered on issues other than the notability of the subject. It is still, I think, an open question whether the current version shows encyclopedic notability, but I would prefer that we settle that question directly rather than sending this back to draft again. BD2412T 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If the article was notable then someone would have at least brought it up during the AfD. The only person who did bring up the question of notability saw "no reason to overturn the deletion consensus from the AfD a year ago" and I would agree checking the references. From what I can see, the present article only uses 2 sources from a time published after the February 2020 AfD and both of them are similar trivial coverage; they just quote him, are on a topic that isn't him and give no other information about him other than his position in the party's internal structure. Most of the rest of the material in the article is just derived from polling data and his personal information derived from his own website or the party website. Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is an issue that can be resolved on a user talk page. BD2412T 21:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I thought you pinged them to discuss it here. Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I pinged them to make them aware of the situation. It can be discussed elsewhere. BD2412T 21:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you but for one last time, would you say that this would need another AfD because that's the place where notability would usually be discussed? Tayi ArajakateTalk 22:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would consider that the most direct and definitive route to resolve the issue. The question of whether the creation of further drafts should be prohibited without prior consensus can also be discussed there. BD2412T 22:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest something different: returning it to draft for further improvement. I listed in for deletion in 2016 giving essentially 2 reasons First, it faila theautomatic standard of WP:POLITICIAN because he had neve actually been elected to office, but it's a plausible borderline situation because he has almsot been elected several times, including elections later than 2016. The other reason, which I think stronger, is :The article should be returned to draft, in order to let it be improved sufficiently to give it a chance. It's so unclear at the present that it is impossible for someone not already familiar with the subject to decipher what the fuss is about, without reading the references. Upon reading them, including the most recent, I can see why the article is in its present state, because he would seem an exceptionally polarizing figure. The article needs to be rewritten by someone familiar with the sources but without a strong political commitment one way or another . If it's listed for AfD I shall do my best to improve it quickly, but I think someone with better knowledge of India would do it much better. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't move the article out of draftspace, and I am not comfortable moving it back without process. If you want to do so, please feel free. BD2412T 06:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
There is already a discussion going on here regarding this.[1].Please tell your opinion there. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
…for fixing the incoming links to the Post Tribune dab page I created. Much appreciated, and I regret not taking care of that…looks like there were a lot of them.
By the way, not entirely unrelated, you might be interested in a small experiment I'm running, to use AWB to add wikilinks to the titles of newspapers in footnotes, where Wikipedia articles exist. See the bottom of WT:ORE for more on that. I'd welcome input if you are handy with regex, AWB, and the like. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything in Draft:Halloween Ends worth keeping/restoring? I saw the logs and they were deleted 2x. If not, its ok. Starzoner (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There was a fair amount of content, so I have restored it in case anything is of use. Cheers! BD2412T 03:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
One final question. About this page and this, and this have any content in the deleted edits? Starzoner (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The history of Draft:China Rich Girlfriend (film) and Draft:Rich People Problems is each about a paragraph on pre-production, but both were created by a banned/blocked editor, so I would be reluctant to restore it. The Deadshot film draft had one line worth saving from the past. BD2412T 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
A recent discussion made me think, well...maybe there is some validity in the claims that some of our articles/BLPs focus more on material that demonstrates innocence rather than guilt, such as we've seen in the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris BLPs. I am mindful of the push to expose racism by certain admins/editors, but for some unknown reason, I see nothing in the Biden article about his honoring Robert Byrd, and equally problematic is the omission in the Biden article of Byrd's affiliation with the KKK. It could easily be said that Byrd found Jesus because his political career was on the line. Do we have RS to back that up? For starters, we can start with this 2010 WaPo piece, and then look at this more recent CBS report, this MSN report that detracts from the actual association of Biden and Byrd for many years, and focuses more on the mistake that Byrd was a Grand Wizard, when he was actually an Exalted Cyclops of the KKK chapter he led. There was a similar focus distraction by Reuters, and plenty more if you take the time to research it. And let's not forget about the scrubbing of the Kamala Harris BLP which attracted media attention. Interesting, don't you think? Maybe we need to form a NPOV team?[stretch]Atsme💬📧 18:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
There are certain disputes into which I prefer not to pour my efforts. I'm more interested in reducing the tendency towards overblown "gotcha" items at the other end of the spectrum. BD2412T 21:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the Drum Stick article Talk page for a proposed move to Drumsticks. I was unaware of this discussion, which you have since closed. Had I been aware, I would have voted in Support of the move, per WP:COMMONNAME. I also support WP:NCPLURAL§Exceptions as a valid reason for the move. While one could possess a single drumstick, it is rare to encounter them as anything other than in plural... and just there, I referred to drumsticks as "them", a commonality which further adds weight to the argument. I therefore suggest that the discussion closure should be reconsidered. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@DeNoel: Since the discussion was closed nearly two years ago, we are well past the reasonable time limit for reconsideration of the closure. I would suggest initiating a new move request with a more persuasive rationale, to see if the previous consensus has changed. BD2412T 15:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I wanted your viewpoint in regards to exactly that. Hopefully the discussion will get more attention the second time around, with a more definitive outcome than previous. Perhaps if the plural request fails, a better alternative would be to just move it to a compound word: Drum stick → Drumstick ? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, I have read out there that you are reluctant to restore editions of blocked users so I have decided to ask you, if you can do it, to delete again the editions unnecessarily requested by Starzoner in Draft: Untitled Pet Sematary prequel since they do not add anything new to the content created later. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Preferring not to restore them is not the same as preferring to delete them if another admin has deemed it appropriate to restore them. There is no hard and fast rule on this, as it is not impermissible for an article to contain an edit history from a blocked or banned user. I would suggest asking the admin who did the restoration. BD2412T 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
On 20 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Clark M. Blatteis, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! BD2412T 22:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hi BD2412, if you have time, could you help in expanding the Infinity Stones article? I originally split this out from the Infinity Gems article, but this article could use more expansion. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Natg 19: The article from The Verge that I added as a source has a wealth of additional commentary on the stones that can likely be plumbed to expand and further source the article. Cheers! BD2412T 16:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Jacob Safford, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Samuel Austin Kingman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Great - we are down to one! BD2412T 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if the better image would be copyright free as although it probably was published pre 1926 is does not actually indicate the source and I could not find it used in any of the papers. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll look into it. BD2412T 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: I was unable to find a free version of that file. The best I could do is the one to the right, though I don't know if that's better than what is already in the article. BD2412T 04:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough - Sometimes I think they don't put full source details so they can't be used 'freely' - That image looks like the source photo for the current sketch. KylieTastic (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Could I ask you to review the recent unilateral moves involving My Bloody Valentine, My Bloody Valentine (band) and My Bloody Valentine (disambiguation)? I should be able to under the changes using my WP:PAGEMOVER privilege, but (a) I wouldn't want to break something if admin tools are required, and (b) I don't want to risk a war between two experienced users. Reversion or a request to revert would carry more authority if backed up by a mop.
IMO these changes clearly needed a WP:RM. 30-day pageviews: band 38,730, 1981 film 10,293, 2009 film 12,273. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. I agree that a WP:RM is required in this case. Cheers! BD2412T 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no recollection of this, and apparently only made a rather gnomey page move here. BD2412T 15:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allen (Cambridge University cricketer). 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. Störm(talk) 07:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Cheers! BD2412T 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This appears to derive from the article moves at Talk:Tanganyika#Requested_move_22_March_2021, but I am surprised that you didn't examine the consequences before doing the AWB run. Please can you revert?
Done. I am surprised that the category template structure would allow such a result. I tried redirecting the redlinked categories to their appropriate targets, but this was no help. BD2412T 06:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for the prompt and gracious reverts, BD. The country (dis)estab cat headers are old and crude and long overdue for a major update, and I had put it tackling it due to the complexity in making {{Year in country category}}. However, {{Resolve category redirect}} is a bit of a game-changer for this stuff, because it makes change-of name much simpler, which was what turned {{Year in country category}} into a code forest. So I may give it a go soon. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tony Bobulinski, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nothing further with which to expand the draft, so unless someone else steps in to improve it, it will properly be deleted. BD2412T 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure I understand your close of this AfD and if you're referring to barely passing WP:NCRIC or barely passing WP:GNG? WP:NSPORTS clearly describes the SNG as a presumption or prediction that GNG is met and ultimately requires articles to meet WP:GNG - merely meeting a SNG is not enough, this was clearly demonstrated in a 2017 RfC and again in the discussion about WP:SNG (I checked with NewImpartial here to make sure I was right, as they were critical of that RfC for reasons that didn't have to do with sports.) This one clearly fails GNG, and not a single keep !voter demonstrated any sort of source which comes close to passing GNG. Thanks in advance. SportingFlyerT·C 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Of late, AfD has been flooded with articles on cricketers, and these sometimes get relisted over and over again, or linger in the backlog, precisely because admins are reluctant to deal with the drama these seem to invite. I will change this to a "no consensus" close and note that editors suspecting the availability of other sources will at some point need to come through on that. BD2412T 15:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Could you clarify, for my own peace of mind, whether you have anything that a reasonable person would consider a conflict of interest on the topic of Matthew Whitaker? MastCellTalk 03:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
MastCell Since I said almost the same thing as BD2412, I'll save you the rouble of asking me. I do have a conflict of interest, which is that I am a member of a political party opposed to the one in which he is associated with. Do you by any chance have a similar coi? DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Political party affiliation doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. You know that, but are pretending not to, which is sort of a dumb and unserious thing to do. But since you ask, I thought it was common knowledge that I'm a card-carrying anarcho-syndicalist. MastCellTalk 05:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it seems you haven't realized it, I was implying that your original question was exactly analogous, and could have been responded to using the same words you use here. I should have learned years ago that there is no point using irony or subtlety in WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I find it perpetually amusing that when I present the exact same positions reining in excesses of innuendo or salacious focus on articles on political figures from all over the spectrum, the reaction that these efforts receive is narrowly tied to the political affiliation of the subject and the corresponding preferences of the editors doing the reacting. BD2412T 06:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, in Wikipedian context, is achieved by following reliable sources—their emphases and context—wherever they lead, whether they reflect positively or negatively on an article subject. Instead, you're aggressively inserting yourself between reliable sources and the reader, because you're concerned that an accurate reflection of those sources might lead readers to draw what you consider to be the wrong conclusions. Trying to "protect" readers from what reliable sources have to say on a subject isn't neutrality—it's tendentious editing.
You're putting your thumb on the scale in a big way with this nothing-to-see-here-folks routine. In one extreme example, you argued with a straight face that readers cannot be informed that Whitaker was paid $17,000 for his role with WPM, because they might mistakenly conclude that $17,000 is a lot of money. You insisted that if we were to mention Whitaker's fee, we would have to append an editorial note informing readers that $17,000 is chump change. Again, that isn't "neutrality"; that is garden-variety tendentious editing.
Separately, this material is not "salacious", prurient, or gossipy. It's an element of Whitaker's professional life, and one that reliable sources have covered in depth. WP:BLP not only allows, but mandates, the coverage of both positive and negative material in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. My motivation is to write a comprehensive, policy-compliant article, and that by necessity will include substantive discussion of Whitaker's role with WPM. When an experienced editor such as yourself appears heavily invested in blocking accurate, relevant, well-sourced, but potentially unflattering material about a subject, one potential explanation is a conflict of interest. Hence my question, and I accept your answer. MastCellTalk 18:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I do not advocate, and have never advocated, the complete removal of mention of WPM from the article. I agree that it is important that it be mentioned, that the article subject's specific role be described, and that the fact of WPM having engaged in misconduct be noted. My concern (which would be exactly the same if this was an article on a Democratic acting AG) is that we are very careful that this not be used to push unsupported innuendo to the effect that the article subject was aware of or a party to illicit conduct. BD2412T 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Nelson Cobb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks for closing AfD on the Assyrian Academic Society as keep. That outcome is also relevant for some issues related to the recent AfD on the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, that was closed as delete, but closer Spartaz subsequently agreed to the restoration of a redirect, pointing to the Assyrian Academic Society, since that organization was publishing the journal in question, and several users supported the merge as an option in that AfD. In the meanwhile, the redirect was restored, but without edit history. Since you are an administrator, could you restore the edit history of present redirect (Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies), so that basic content on the journal could be merged into the article of the organization that was publishing it. I am approaching you on this issue, since I guess that only administrators can restore edit histories. Sorabino (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. It's only sensible. BD2412T 15:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this edit found a spacing problem missed by my prior AWB edit. Do you have something custom to find this one, or if not, what setting controls this? MB 14:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It's fairly straightforward - I just have a find and replace for " ," --> "," and manually skip or remove the false positives (which mostly come up in articles on coding or mathematical formulae). BD2412T 15:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that the community will not consider this a topic notable enough to sustain a freestanding article. BD2412T 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Well there is already Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as an article. If you think more WP:RS should be included in the draft to prove notability, then do please tell me. I'm sure I could expand the 'impact' section with more sources. IronManCap (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Could you kindly advise how this article can be improved ? Cancermarathon (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, as this is a WP:BLP article, every single statement made about the subject must be supported by a reference from a reliable source that is independent of that person. Also, much of the language sounds promotional, and there are way too many common terms and disambiguation pages linked. I would suggest looking at articles on people that have been designated as good articles in Wikipedia for an example. BD2412T 21:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your feedback. Of Bryan Morel and Bryan Morel Publications what deserves an article according to the terms. I understand you are well versed with this platform. Thanks for your advice. Cancermarathon (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I resolved several redlinks, which were mostly in templates (see [3],[4],[5],[6]). It was hard to tell if any other incoming links were being generated other than through the templates, which are heavily populated, but I checked a fair number of the linked articles and that was the case for the ones that I saw. BD2412T 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. I have noticed that template changes are propagating very slowly at the moment. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that you closed this AfD as no consensus. I missed the last response by Beccaynr in that AfD and didn't reply to that one, but I would ask that you reconsider your close and resist the AfD instead. The additional time you mentioned did not result in a substantive discussion and, IMO, a policy-based keeping the argument remains extremely poor. Relisting the AfD would attract new eyes to it. Thanks, 08:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion had already been in the backlog for two days with no new discussion for four days, aside from one late-coming "Draftify" !vote. Given a numerical count of the opinions expressed, another administrator might have felt justified in closing this as a nearly overwhelming "keep". As it stands, there is no reason to expect that relisting would have yielded such a strong outpouring in favor of deletion that a consensus for that outcome would develop. No discussion is entitled to relisting (particularly where we have a backlog of well over 100 discussions to be cleared). Wait a few months, and if there is no improvement to the article, try again. BD2412T 15:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There will be no relevant improvement in the article because there is no basis for notability. In the paragraph above, and in the close, one of the things that do not seem to be mentioned is the extent to which the various !votes are based on policy. There is of course no point in appealing a non-consensus close to DR, but I shall be indeed be nominating it again. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Some participants in the discussion seemed to feel that the subject's involvement in the Parent in Science movement was a sufficient basis for notability. That topic is not entirely bereft of coverage in sources. If I were voting in the discussion, I probably would not vote to keep the article, but keeping it for some additional time in the hopes that some improvement can be made is not an absurd outcome. BD2412T 05:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. Thank you for closing the Merge and Rename for Northern Virginia FC. Just a question on if the talk page info should be merged to the current talk page as well, or is it only the article info that gets moved? (I don't have much experience with merges, but renames usually keep the talk info on the new talk page.) Since right now, Talk:Evergreen FC with the merge and rename vote still exists while Evergreen FC is set up as a re-direct. Should that talk page discussion be added to Talk:Northern Virginia FC to show the move history? Thanks RedPatch (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I though about it, but don't know that it's necessary. It is able to be found by editors who want to see the discussion. BD2412T 15:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Rox - I have an opening if you're interested in WP:NPP training. If nothing else, it would certainly be entertaining. Atsme💬📧 17:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Been there. Done that. Begged for the right to be removed. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Are you able to recover and provide copies of deleted articles? If so, will you please email me the content of this page?. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 03:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It is what it is. BD2412T 04:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
On 30 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John T. Newton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Captain John T. Newton commanded USS Missouri on the first crossing of the Atlantic by an American steam-powered warship, and was later court-martialed after an accidental fire sank the ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John T. Newton. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John T. Newton), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
