User talk:Cardiffbear88

Welcome!

Hello, Cardiffbear88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	For all the great citation needed statements you have been fixing with https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en/leaderboard.html ! Super glad you are finding the tool useful! Sadads (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thank you!

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Quays you added a ivote (as they are called). As a nominator, you have already indicated your choice. It's not common practice to say again what it is unless it's changed and in that case it's normal to lead one's edit with something like 'comment' or 'note'Djflem (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem Thanks for your feedback. In this case the article had substantially changed with multiple new sources after the AfD nomination, and I made it very clear that I was adding to my original nomination rather than voting twice. Please remember I’m a newbie and not familiar with some of this detail - I’m just trying to learn the process to tidy up a huge backlog and be helpful. WP:AGF Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just a fat-finger blip on mobile! PamD 00:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel Cirta, I commented there about excessive commenting. It is going off-topic, so let's discuss elsewhere; here or at my Talk page is okay. I do get annoyed by deletion nominators, especially, commenting in response to every other comment which does not perfectly agree with their stated opinion. And your commenting in reply to my comments, especially the one dismissing everything i said because I pointed to a very relevant photo, is indeed a tad irritating.

About your expertise in AFDs, which you must have because you are lecturing me there about it, well, what about indenting replies? Do you have a systematic practice of never indenting? I indented one or two of your comments there already to improve readability, but you didn't notice or otherwise just disregard normal practice in your further comments. This is a real question to you: Do you understand that in Wikipedia discussions, that indenting is normal to help the discussion stay organized? Or do you have some point to make about how Wikipedia's discussion page technology is weird/bad (I would agree, but it is what we have). --Doncram (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram thanks for the message. Firstly, on indenting, I thought I was but obviously not. But thanks for calling out the new and inexperienced editor.

Secondly, please assume good faith. I genuinely don’t have an opinion on whether these articles stay or go but I’m working hard to improve the backlog of terrible articles whilst trying to stay polite on the AfD forums, which seem designed to get people’s backs up and become a place everyone shouts each other down. My only interest is to improve the encyclopaedia. I read your user page with interest and am inclined to agree that WP has a horrible bullying culture. I don’t think I’ll be editing much longer personally, but good luck with you and your quest for perfect indentations. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touche', your reply makes me laugh. :) Maybe/probably i am/was acting a bit jerkish. I actually didn't really understand you were a new editor; I think there is another editor with "Cardiff" in their name; i hope/believe i have helped newish editors more than ever driving them away. I do hope you will stay around. --Doncram (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And okay, i do see you are contributing significantly on the side of AFDs towards removing unsuitable articles. Do you know about the wp:AFDSTATS tool? It's an imperfect tool but interesting. See stats about your AFD performance: AFD stats for Cardiffbear88.

Corresponding stats about me take longer to load, and show me to be, i suppose, an wp:inclusionist (as opposed to be wp:deletionist or wp:exclusionist). I do recognize that the other side is needed, but when i consider participating on AFDs I usually prefer to look for ways to save articles that can be saved, particularly about historic places or other places. Sometimes i get out of my depth in other AFD topics. Otherwise, i mostly work on positive articles about U.S. National Register-listed or other historic places. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram thanks for the link to AfD stats - really interesting! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Your AfD nominations looked manually done to me. Are you aware of TWINKLE, a tool that helps automate a number of tedious tasks such as creating an AfD? Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool thank you! I will give it a go next time...Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie sheds a bit of light on your engagement there, and I'd probably have explained this earlier if I'd realised.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic 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." It does not say - and isn't generally interpreted as "...that every editor has access to" or "are freely available on the internet". The sources have to exist - you do not personally have to be able to see them (general you, not specific you). This comes up much more often than it used to with newspaper coverage in particular, as more newspapers institute paywalls and/or deindex their articles from Google in the belief that it's costing them ad money. There are states of Australia where there are now no newspapers that don't have a 100% restricted paywall.

This means that if you don't have access to key sources (and I'm not directed this at you specifically but more as a general rule), you're probably not in a position to assess notability in a conversation with someone who does. If you want to have an opinion anyway, fine, nobody is likely to care very much. But if you're going to insistently argue with people who do have access to the sources, don't be surprised when they get the shits with you and start to wonder what you're playing at. That is a really good time to just stand back.

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a great way to get access to many databases. It's also not the only way - your local, state or national libraries might have access to e-resources that can be very useful. (Also, if you're a university student, you're set - and some expand their e-resources access to alumni.) I have access to a worldwide news database through the National Library of Australia that's extremely useful in assessing notability (newspapers.com is incredibly thorough for North America but only has bits and pieces elsewhere) and you may find you've got something similar through one of your own libraries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added reliable sources as requested. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblepack (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see WP:BLPPROD as external links count as references prior to the prod so BLPPROD should not go ahead in those circumstances even if the external links are unreliable such as IMDb. This has been confirmed many times in RFCs, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AllMusic is a reliable source. This is the list of reliable and unreliable music sources here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about the situation for a little while. I am assuming that you are acting in good faith, but despite your good faith efforts, you have not been able to find sources that others are finding easily. Therefore, you have been recommending for deletion articles that are clearly about notable topics (although those articles currently are poorly sourced). This has happened more than once in recent days. This means that you should work on other areas of the encyclopedia, rather than AfD. This is not something to feel bad about; there are plenty of other things to do at Wikipedia. All the best, and happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ssilvers I will take your feedback on board but note that you have only contributed to 2 of my 30+ current nominations. On both occasions, you managed to find sources, which is great, and have been added to the article on the second occasion, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t complete WP:BEFORE. I will take your feedback on board but continue to nominate articles for deletion as I see fit. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a quick look at some of your recent edits, I see that you are adding a References section to articles underneath the External links section. But References should go above External links. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I dePRODed Grace McKeaney as I found some refs to show she satisfies WP:WRITER #3, as she has written multiple episodes of both Roseanne and St. Elsewhere. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dorothy West (actress) caught my eye. She allegedly appeared in 123 films all between 1908-1916. In The Guerrilla she was the female lead apparently. That was a 15-minute 1 reel film, and we have it sourced to IMDb and a cite that basically compiles the credits for silent films. It looks like Love Finds a Way a 5-minute film may be more representative of West's work. She is listed 13th of 13 cast members and had the role of "Lady-In-Waiting". Lacking a name for a part often means it is non-notable, Into the Woods notwithstanding. That film article has the same two sources as the other. West lived from 1891 to 1980. IMDb says she was also a writer, although I have yet to see evidence of that. There was a writer named Dorothy West, but she was born in 1907. I did fond this [1] BFI article about the work of Grace Elliot, where the author draws on IMDb as a source, instead of seeking primary sources, which is its own issue. She has a photo of "Dorthy West giving an interview" as herself. What remains unanswered is is this the same Dorothy West. Could that even be a picture of a 49-year-old woman? I am thinking this is another Dorothy West but do not know. It is not the writer I mentioned above, she was African-American. Still, if West stopped appearing in film in 1916, appearing as herself in 1931 seems odd. If someone lived for 64 years after appearing in films we need to be able to say something on it I would think. Then there is tis source [2] which uses the photo that Wikipedia has of the writer on an article about the film actresses. Then there is this website [3] which has what it claims is a picture of Dorothy West with Dorothy Peterson. That is Mae West. Here [4] is a book that includes a brief summary of the Golden Super, a film we do not have an entry for. This is The Moving Picture World Vol. 28. It was published in 1916, and seems to be an attempt to catalog all films being made. On futher investigation it was a trade journal of the motion picture industry. I am not sure that counts as a 3rd party source for film roles. It does not look substantial to me. Even my good search for "Dorthy West" with actress added showed up more mentions of the author than the actress, and no indication that anyone took any notice when she died. I might go to the trouble of nominating it, but I am limited to one nomination a day, and that would have to be late today or even tomorrow. I will see about this, but it is an article I seenot having enough sourcing to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another pet peeve of mine, editors who created cast lists and just linked every single entry. In the case of Subway Express a 1931 film, I have deleted 8 links that went no where and now 2 links that went in one case to a maybe semi-legendary woman who fought in the American revolution and another to a musician who was born 7 years after the film was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have to have multiple sources acknowledging one's existence for them to have a Wikipedia page, and not just an IMDB page. The notability guidelines are faulty, and that's a huge issue when it comes to documenting actors. --2601:199:4181:E00:6544:D7B2:88E2:98E9 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not really sure what your point is? IMDb is not a reliable source, and so the article is not sourced with any reliable sources. This is against Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living people WP:BLP. If you can find any additional reliable sources to the article, please do so and the proposed deletion tag can then be removed. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Lemport was only in 3 films. Of the two listed with the article, only maybe one was a significant role. I am so tired of the constant bpush back, and in the case of Dorothy West the unchallenged false link, that I think I will just do nothing. You might want to take a look though. The only source listed in the unreliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll take a look! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cardiffbear88, I am just getting into AfD and am trying to learn more about patrolling new pages before I think about applying to patrol myself. I have thoroughly read the page on WP:Notability (people), but I am still unsure where to draw the line on "significant coverage", and I am a little unsure of how deep "intellectual independence" runs. I was wondering if you could answer some questions or point me to someone who could answer them.

I have recently commented on two of your AfD proposals that with additional links I think were both not significant coverage, and I recommended deleting the articles. Do you think extra e.g. TV guide pages can ever count as significant coverage, combine with imdb, and make a subject notable? or does this type of source almost always have insignificant coverage?

And how deep does Intellectual Independence run? If IMDB and TV Guide are both in the TV entertainment business, is that intellectually independent? What about if they both make TV shows? What about if they both make the same kind of TV shows? Etc. I'm sure it always depends on the situation, but a guide or some examples on this topic would be a nice thing to add to the notability page (same with the above question).

Thanks for any help, or for pointing me towards help, Ikjbagl (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl hi, thanks for getting in touch. Generally I would say that, in the case of actors for example - significant coverage might include substantial mentions in reviews (at least a sentence or two, not just a name check), interviews in major publications (not just blogs), news reports, that sort of thing. WP:SIGCOV gives a really good overview.

We generally don’t accept IMDb as anyone can edit it, so it’s not a reliable source. Other sources like TV listings might be useful to confirm facts, such as a transmission date or a plot point, but it isn’t normally significant coverage. The notability policy above should say a bit more about this difference between verification and notability.

For independence, this is more about who wrote something rather than the subject matter. Going back to the actors example, we are actively looking for coverage written by knowledgable people, and edited independently - so TV websites, newspapers’ TV columnist, etc are ideal. The problem is where an actor or director could potentially edit the sources themselves and so produce a potentially biased source - things like IMDb, blogs, press releases, an agent’s website etc.

And finally, especially in AfD, you cannot possibly check every single source on the internet when contributing to AfD - you just have to make sure that WP:BEFORE is covered. I nominate articles for AfD quite often whilst going through a particular backlog, and quite often I’ll get a torrent of slurs saying that I can’t possibly have bothered even Googling the name, just because an editor has found a particularly obscure source, or they’ve done newspaper clippings or whatever. At this point I try and be gracious, point out that, yes, I did complete WP:BEFORE!

I hope this helps, but don’t be afraid to reach out again if you need any more guidance. Happy editing! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha - from Wikipedian to Wikipedian, I couldn't help but laugh at: "We generally don’t accept IMDb as anyone can edit it, so it’s not a reliable source." The irony is kicking me in the teeth!

Section D of WP:BEFORE seems to be what I was looking for, thank you! Ikjbagl (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikjbagl I know what you mean! However, Wikipedia has far more robust policies for independent editing and accuracy that IMDb does... Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88 Oh absolutely, but try explaining that to someone who has never edited Wikipedia! Cheers, thanks for the tips. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you had submitted a Deletion on Mateusz Molęda. I'm sorry that I did not learn of this until now. I wanted to add my vote to say 'Yes' on deletion. Where can I add my 'Yes' vote to delete, or has a decision already been made? Hope you're safe & well, & cheers, DJRafe (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJRafe, thanks for getting in touch. The article was initially nominated under WP:PROD, which is meant for uncontroversial deletions and means that any editor can object, and that article can’t be nominated under WP:PROD a second time. This means it’s no longer nominated for deletion.

If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, you could nominate under WP:AFD instead, which takes the article to a 7-day discussion based on current policy. I don’t believe that this is necessary as there have been lots of sources added since nomination, but if you do and would like assistance nominating, just let me know. Thanks and happy editing! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Joost Rietdijk with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think IMDB is not a reliable source, and seem to have a reputation of deleting pages related to television/film industry persons just because only one source was cited, when in reality finding sources related to the person(s) was hard.

I'd like to see Wikipedia open a tribunal into whether or not your page deletion nominations were fair or not.

--2601:199:4181:E00:8023:8C3F:EB92:D2BD (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my standards, but the standards of Wikipedia. You may want to read WP:CITEIMDB and WP:BLP. IMDb is not a reliable source on its own and, in the absence of reliable sources, articles about living people must be deleted if there are no reliable sources.

If you still believe this is unfair, I would encourage you to appeal through a deletion review, but only if you think there has been a procedural error, not just because you disagree with Wikipedia’s policies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting a ton of pages for voice actors notable in the anime & animation communities. Some of the deletions are unfair as the editors can't find much reliable sources regarding them. --2601:199:4181:E00:C03D:3168:207B:634 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is never a unilateral action, it is agreed by the community and carried out by an administrator, based on Wikipedia policy. If you believe that there has been a mistake, see WP:REFUND about the circumstances when you can challenge a deletion. However, if you’re struggling to find reliable sources, then it sounds like deletion was the right move, as all articles on Wikipedia need reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cardiffbear88. I'm thinking of removing the PROD from this article, but wanted to reach out first. You mention only his tv directing--I agree that that alone would not make him notable. I think he's most notable for his film contributions, as he wrote or directed more than a couple of notable, well-received, cult, etc., films. Notability isn't inherited, but I think he is notable enough on his own. I know a lot these film articles pose problems, as it's hard to separate the notability of the films from the people who create them--and I'm not implying that this pertains to you. And the film and music categories have always been plagued by articles about non-notable people, films, albums. I agree with most of your AFDs, but remember disagreeing on Tom Richmond.

I recall a Los Angeles Times article about Cisco Pike and its cult audience, specifically, which I'll try to find. Anyway, hope you are staying safe and sane. Caro7200 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Caro7200 - thanks for getting in touch. I’m of course always happy to have my mind changed if sources can be found! I did look against some of his film credits as well but didn’t notice anything substantial - happy to take a look at any other sources you might have? I’ll have another search against some of his film credits as well. PS - that Tom Richmond discussion, I’ve just looked through it again, I’m glad I didn’t get involved in that one! I’m really happy when people find sources, honestly, I’m not hellbent on deleting articles... thanks for your support. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve found a couple of sources which I’ve added in and I’ll remove the PROD. Don’t know how I missed the Cisco Pike source, I think I mainly concentrated on his TV credits. Thanks for the nudge! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for doing that. I will take another look as well. Have a good day. Caro7200 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Warren Zapol, which you proposed for deletion. it now has a reference.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I have deprodded David Thomas (bass) (which I moved). I confess that I was surprised. An article with versions in several languages, with notable people mentioned, just cries for references, not deletion, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the two entries below, perhaps be more conservative with proposals to delete. I guess that a simple search might often result in the one or two refs required which you could add, instead of giving readers the feeling that something is wrong with the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now one more, Jill Crossland. Where did you look? I believe you could have found the same solid references that I found in a minute, and could could have added one, instead of absorbing editors' time. Next time you see Wigmore Hall mentioned you know she's notable, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt what sources did you find? A Hyperion Records biography is not a secondary source, as you should know. I completed WP:BEFORE in full and did not find any substantial, reliable, secondary sources. Yes, there’s lots of fluff, primary sources, but nothing that acts as a reliable source. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion is regarded as serious by Classical music, as you might know, even works" analysis. I'm on my way out, so of no help right now, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt of course I know that Hyperion Records is a major label - but it’s a primary source. It’s a biography written by the artist, or their agent, or record company, and is not independent. We need significant, independent coverage to indicate notability. It sounds as though you need to thoroughly read WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:RS before contributing any further to this article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to read what you tell me I need to, nor know what you say I should. I write articles about people alive and dead, and never had a sourcing problem. I saw this article now for the first time, and think a deletion nomination for something looking this harmless - not extravagant claims as far as I see - is a waste of everyody's time. Forgive me a spontaneous effort to the rescue, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt if you have no desire to read and follow Wikipedia’s most important policies, then you should not be editing at all. Or at least not complaining when someone calls you out on your poor sourcing. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What in "I saw this article now for the first time" did you not understand? What not in the word harmless. Any problems with the sourcing of Kafka? English is not my first language, we may have a problem there. - See, she is a woman making music, so, as a musician, I don't like to see "her" deleted. If she was a man offering cure for COVID 19, I'd understand the need for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt I also notice about that Warren Zapol above is still not appropriately sourced. One primary source does not indicate notability, as you should know. I’m afraid to say it’s more complicated than finding any old fluff on Google and adding it in. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Patrick Damphier with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources of any kind other than the subject’s own website. Do you know of any other reliable sources or is this just another form of Wiki-bureaucracy? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more than 10 years, the above article was a BLP. At 10:21 today, I added an inline source verifying the article's content. Despite the addition of the source, you re-inserted a "BLP sources" tag eight minutes later. Can you please explain why? Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Cbl62. Firstly, thanks for deprodding and adding a source. This has greatly improved the article, and as there is a reliable source it definitely isn’t suitable for either PROD or BLP Unsourced. However, one source normally isn’t enough on its own, which is why I added BLP Sources. This acknowledges that whilst there is a source, further sources would be beneficial. I hope that answers your question. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing two different prods. The prod applicable in the current circumstances is "onesource" rather than "BLP sources". Do you disagree? Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It took less time to simply add another source. Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 Either tag, “One Source” or “BLP Sources”, are applicable in this case. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for shedding light on the process of adding a tag other than one for deletion with the Paul The Trombonist article. I am still learning, even though I’ve had my account for six years, loosely editing and created a few articles regarding D. S. Bradford, of whom I am a fan and have an interest in writing about. I was comparing other independent artists while looking at reliable sources and noticed that some of the same sources exist for both, but the article regarding Bradford seems to be targeted by a particular editor for deletion, in spite of vast improvements to the article. I’m still figuring out the order of things and moved the draft in order to see how it appears on related lists and categories and was met with some hostility. There is no malice or attempt to be promotional, as I only seek to add value to Wikipedia. There may be a need to tag the article as needing more reliable sources and not deleted outright as more sources are gathered during this period. Is there a way to look into this matter with a fresh set of eyes, as a respectful person with impartial compassion? Thank you. THBAO (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi THBAO thanks for dropping me a message. Sure I’ll take a look for you. At first glance, it seems that lots of the sources would come under either WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE - gig listings in particular are a big no-no. At AfD particularly, quality of sources matters more than quantity. Also don’t forget that AfD is not about the quality of the article at the moment, but editors assessment of notability and sources - again, this is heavily subjective, but try to find the most solid and reliable sources you can. I will have a look and see what I can find. Good luck! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, Cardiffbear88. As someone who is always open to constructive criticism and assuring that things are correct and fair, would it be acceptable to ask for some specific pointers as to which sources shouldn't be included (along with the gig ones you mentioned above)? That way, we can get the article up to par with keeping pertinent sources and trimming the fat a little with the ones that might not be so great and continue to build upon this in the future as more developments occur throughout the lifetime? Thank you. THBAO (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THBAO of course - have a read through WP:RS and that should hopefully give you a good outline. Generally, specialist websites are fine - blogs probably not. Websites by the subject, YouTube, social media etc are considered primary sources. The best things to aim for are anything where there is a good editorial process and preferably multiple staff - newspapers, magazines, reputable news websites, books with a publisher, peer-reviewed journals etc. Hope this helps! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction with regards to WP:RS. To be clear, while removing the sources (gig listings, for example), should the statements within the article for which those references are for also be removed since the references will no longer be there to support the statements? THBAO (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THBAO I fear I’m probably not the right person for policy on this I’m afraid! It all comes down to the differences between notability - WP:N - and verifiability - WP:V. With deletion, we’re looking at the overall subject’s notability - using reliable secondary sources - which applies to the whole subject. Notability can only be proven by using reliable, secondary sources under WP:RS. This doesn’t mean that certain basic facts, at a specific sentence-by-sentence level, can’t be verified by a primary source, if it’s appropriate, but Wikipedia doesn’t accept pages that only use primary sources. So if a reputable newspaper or website has a gig listing and it helps to verify a specific fact - then great - but that same source isn’t an indicator of notability. I hope that helps! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that. I am on a quest to hunt down the offline sources for this subject as well as searching for broadcasts that may exist in an archive. The article has now been tagged as being nominated for speedy deletion. Looking at this, it seems that the same two people involved in the last AfD discussion are also on this one. Not sure why. Maybe there’s contempt for the subject, but that’s not me to speculate upon. The article might be better if it were kept and tagged with needing more sources, yeah? That way, it can be improved upon more so than it already has. THBAO (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THBAO I think it’s highly unlikely it will go to speedy deletion because there have been multiple keeps. If you are genuinely confident you can find offline sources, then mention this in the AfD debate and say that you wish the article to be put into draft space - this will give you time (6 months minimum) to find the sources and add them. If you do this, make sure you’re confident that the sourcing will stand up before reintroducing into the main space. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m the author of the Hannie Rouweler article you suggest deleting. She is a notable Flemish poet and publisher. While her work has some recognition in Ireland (anthologised in the book Turning Tides of Irish translations of Dutch/Flemish writers) most is in Flemish. I have sources but I have a sick wife and no time to address this in the allotted 7 days. Here are sources: https://www.nederlandsepoezie.org/dichters/r/rouweler.html https://www.leusderkrant.nl/nieuws/lokaal/85759/pozie-uitgeverij-demer-viert-tienjarig-bestaan-461455 https://miombopublishing.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/hannie-rouwelers-passionate-defense-of-poetry/amp/ https://personalitiesofinspiration.wordpress.com/2018/04/22/hannie-rouweler-a-literary-arts-projects-internationalist-april-2018-special-blog-article/amp/ David A. Victor (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• David A. Victor Thanks for getting in touch. Firstly I’m sorry to hear about your wife, wishing her and you all the best. I’ve added the first two sources in, thanks for sending them to me. I’ve not added the last two as Wordpress sites are generally considered not to be WP:RS. When you have more time I’d encourage you to find more sources but I’ve removed the tag for deletion for now. All the best. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It may take me a while to get to this but I will do so when I get the chance. David A. Victor (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added List of Diggnation Episodes to the requests for undeletion, as I believe your suggestion was misguided and unnecessary. You may see the request here if needed: WP:Requests_for_undeletion#List_of_Diggnation_episodes - Looking at your edit history, it would appear you submit a lot of deletion requests, and quite a few of those seem also unnecessary at first glance. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your approach, as your account currently seems more deletionist than may be considered reasonable. -- AtomCrusher (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AtomCrusher I will not apologise for nominating an unsourced fancruft article for deletion. You are of course fully within policy to request undeletion, but if it remains poorly sourced then it will be nominated for deletion again. The number of nominations I make is immaterial, the vast majority (80-85%) are accepted by the community and that helps to remove some of the most poorly sourced articles that plague Wikipedia. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is unsourced, request citations by adding the relevant template. Nomination for deletion is the last suggested option per WP:NOCITE. It prevents potentially useful articles from being improved upon. Your other reasoning is personal opinion, and is problematic. AtomCrusher (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember the tags that were on the page, but from memory I believe there had been a notability tag on the page for several years. Leaving unsourced material on Wikipedia is a breach of policy, not opinion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello—You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21) which was closed as delete on 25 April 2020. A user re-created the article on 26 July 2020. The re-created article is identical to the article deleted 25 April and still does not address the WP guidelines in the AFD. I nominated the re-created article for deletion. Would you mind weighing in on the discussion? Thanks. AldezD (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#serious issue with another user that may involve you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initially agreed with your prod of Seamen's Haven and then reconsidered. The one in Port Alberni isn't notable, but the concept as a whole appears to be. If I replaced the existing article with this draft and moved the page to "Seamen's haven" to make it about the concept, would you be OK with that? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AleatoryPonderings sounds like a great idea, and the draft looks great, thanks! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jo Gibb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Gibb 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. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you as the editor who previously PRODed the article a month ago. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan2055 Thanks for the ping, I’ll make a comment now Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recon (app), 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aileen Richards".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --SqueePs10 ^Talk_{My edits} 23:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "100 Welsh Women".

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "100 Welsh Women".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Bakaya, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cerebellum was:

Material by Gore does not count towards notability - we need substantial coverage of her in reliable, independent sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Penny Gore and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Penny Gore, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cerebellum (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cerebellum (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "100 Welsh Women".

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cardiffbear88. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Penny Gore, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]