Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

	The Original Barnstar
	Great stuff all around- particularly at AFD! Keep up the good work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Ah, that's so kind of you! I really appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the talk-page-stalk @AleatoryPonderings:. I echo this sentiment. You have been a pleasure to interact with in all my interactions with you, more specifically in many of the recent AfDs. Thanks AleatoryPonderings. Ktin (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Ktin! It's been great to work with and "meet" you too :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Piling on—nice work! czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Czar, Sorry, didn't see this till now! Thanks so much—it means a lot. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how did you become so big so fast in wikipedia? how did you do all that? they have declined all my requests everywhere please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has had most of edits reversed, has been warned on Talk, has had a draft declined several times but then main-spaced it anyway (since draftified and then Speedy deleted), pestered editors on their Talk pages to help with that same article, asked for Extended confirmed only days after registering as an editor, and most recently applied to be a Pending changes reviewer despite showing no experience to justify that. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Thanks for the detailed explanation. @Alvin kipchumba kosgei: In response to your question, the best way to contribute on Wikipedia is to start slow, developing your own articles bit by bit, being sure to comply with our policies including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Asking for permissions before you have demonstrated a good track record of article development is not likely to be successful. You don't need advanced permissions to contribute to Wikipedia: all you need is a keyboard and some reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wow that is a very detailed explanation of me. okay i will start slow and stop misusing wikipedia thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) i love the art of never giving up could i ask you questions in the future about things that i do not know in wikipediaAlvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, I'd be happy to answer questions. To get a faster response from a wider variety of editors, I'd suggest visiting The Teahouse, which is designed to help editors early in their Wikipedia careers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support154.154.88.131 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am mostly a wikipedian in swahili and i kind of saw that they did not have 'methali' in english proverbs could there be a way to open up a knew sister for wikipedia for showing language expressions not only for proverbs but also for various language expressions that will help a lot of people who are writing or reading essays, articles and even makes them understand it much more better.Alvin kipchumba (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvin kipchumba: I'm a little confused. Are you referring to sw:Methali? It looks like it's an equivalent of the English article proverb. If I'm mistaken, and methali is a specific Swahili proverb, you're free to create the article. A proverb would have to meet WP:GNG in order to remain on Wikipedia. In order to show that your article meets GNG, you'd need to include two or three reliable sources to support specific claims in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ooh yeah! i`ve seen it in english but not in swahili, but dont you think that there should be a seperate side for language expressionsAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Still not sure what you mean. If you think there should be an article titled, for example, List of Swahili proverbs, you are free to create it, provided that you have reliable sources to support the claims made and provided that the list meets WP:LISTN. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do you think the whole of wikipedia should be updatedAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Yes, that's the point of Wikipedia. If you have specific, constructive questions to ask, please ask me or the Teahouse. I am not interested in responding to general, speculative queries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks a lot for your helpAlvin kipchumba (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Hello, I am following up with the issue. We can discuss it on my talk page. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey, if you still remember about the swahili wiktionary i have a problem in it there is no special user access granted such as extended confirmed users , administrators or even burueacats so that means that there is no maintanance in it because you cannot delete articles that are not relevant to swahiliAlvin kipchumba (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin kipchumba, Please stop messaging me. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia or receive advice. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the competitions in wikipedia are true? Alvin kipchumba (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Sierra Chart. I do not think that Sierra Chart fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This is an article about a piece of software, not about a company. A7 does not apply.. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead, if this was an article, or another process such as MfD or XfD as appropriate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DESiegel. I just prodded it. I used {{Db-inc}} because it looked as if the software and the company making it were basically coextensive and functionally identical for notability purposes, but I agree the criterion was not a great fit. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I don't disagree mwith teh Prod. Please remember that the CSDs are construed narrowly and strictly, and if an article or page does not clearly fit a criterion, it should not be tagged with that criterion. There are good reasons why A7 does not apply to software or other creative works, such as books. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dairy in India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nearly half the milk produced in India, whose dairy industry is the largest in the world, comes from buffaloes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dairy in India. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dairy in India), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted—thanks for the clarification. Kyuko (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyuko: No problem! Also, just for future reference: you can prod with Twinkle, which automatically puts {{Old prod}} on the article's talk page. That way, editors in the future won't accidentally prod the article a second time; Twinkle will abort the prod procedure if it finds {{Old prod}} on a talk page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on D. Narcisa de Villar. Always a pleasure to see such well sourced articles in the new pages queue. Have you considered applying for New Page Reviewer permissions? From what I've seen, your content creation and AfD work is excellent, and we could always use more active reviewers :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke: Thanks—you're too kind! Re: NPP, I may apply at some point, but I just applied for and got autopatrolled rights so I was thinking I'd take a bit of a break from applying for things for now. Actually, I'm a little confused as to why my articles are still in the queue—I guess autopatrolling isn't retroactive? In any event, glad you enjoyed my little article :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the articles you created before you were autopatrolled will still show up in the queue. And no pressure regarding NPP—just something to consider if you're so inclined. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, Just wanted to let you know that I've taken the plunge into NPP! Please let me know if you have any helpful hints about how to do the job well :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per "WP:ITSINTERESTING", just saying, if you're interested ;) czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, Definitely interested :) Thanks for the note! Not an area in which I have extensive knowledge, but would love to learn more—giving a stub some love would be a great way to do that. Look forward to crossing paths with you again, at AfD or elsewhere. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

three if you post templates without help please notify the pages creator or help by adding text and information thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginrei (talk • contribs)

@Ginrei: I did notify you that I had nominated Eiga (website) for speedy deletion. Please see this diff. As for adding text or information, my view is that the page qualifies for WP:A7, which means that it does not establish a credible claim of significance based on the information provided in the article. My view remains that it does not establish such a claim. You are welcome to contest my claim on the talk page of the article if you disagree. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosie Carpe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Nouvelle République.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Turner, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well. I saw you prodded an article created by Charles Rapeneau looking at that users page creations, many seems suspect. I PRODDED one, thought you might be interested in taking a look at some, of the others if time allows. Of course, please don't feel obligated. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Ah, didn't realize we were dealing with a serial creation issue. Yeah, I'll take a look in the next while. No chance of WP:G5ing any of these, I suppose? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem CR actually violated their block in creating the articles, more that they were blocked after creating the articles? However, I think they should be uncontroversial deletions all the same. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an error in your edit in respect to Atherton's award of the post nominal FRSA. This relates to being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and has nothing whatsoever do to with the Royal Society which you used as evidence for your edit.83.216.75.225 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on drinking in Philadelphia. 1) I don't think Atlas Obscura is a reliable source, their FAQ states Anyone, anywhere in the world can add to Atlas Obscura. However, they do state all contributions to Atlas Obscura are reviewed by our editorial team.. Still, not the best source, imo. 2) Might be a good idea for us to start using {{in use}} to avoid edit conflicting. 3) How do you feel about converting the 'list of notable fountains' to table form? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:

1. Agreed, but the statement it's sourcing seems readily source-able with something more reliable so it's just a question of finding that.
2. Agree. I'm leaving it be for the moment due to impending off-wiki obligations, so feel free to put it {{In use}}} now.
3. Unsure. What would the table entries be, besides name and date?

AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re to #3: probably 'name', 'date', 'image', 'description', and 'Ref(s). Mostly a way to 1) provide a merge target, if that's how the AFD turns out, and 2) ease of incorporating images, because it seems like we will have more images than can fit into the likely amount of prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Ah, got it. Now agree, especially re: images (seems like there are a lot of nice PD images we can use). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly lots of good images! Do we consider this a RS? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft talk:Philadelphia public drinking fountains

 – Seems better there? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping make edits to Mohamed Gad-el-Hak. It's a weird case, he is definitely a professor with a long list of achievements, but still not super well known outside of his field. Also, the blatant COI and self-promo, while not unusual, seemed to be incorporated into his resume. It's like he was using his own self-written Wikipedia page as an accolade. Very odd! But thank you so much for helping clean it up. I'm going to take another crack at it this weekend if I have time. MrAureliusRTalk! 20:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, MrAureliusR! You're too kind—I hardly did that much … To be honest, I still don't understand what his research is actually about? But always willing to lend a hand with copy-editing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Austin 1889" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Scott 1899"? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renata3, I fixed the problem. It was indeed "Scott 1899". Thanks for pointing that out. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Thanks for the message. I've always wondered: why is there a cutoff at 1932? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: We were trying to find a line between what is politics and what is history. My original proposal was 1980, but that was seen as a too recent cutoff so we went with FDR's election. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Ah, gotcha. Seems as reasonable a date as any. Thanks :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Better Than Working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gadget "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" which is handy to avoid accidental links to disambig pages. – SD0001 (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Aha, thanks! These bot messages have been getting a bit annoying … Congrats again on your great work on dairy in India.

Fwiw, my 2c re: FA worthiness is: some of the sections (mainly the ones about history and culture) read a bit like collections of information without a clear narrative. I'm thinking, for instance, about Dairy_in_India#Early_period and Dairy_in_India#Religion. It would be good if we could find a way to make these read more smoothly/coherently. I guess that would require finding some general background sources about ancient history and religion, respectively, although maybe we could borrow sources/content from related articles.

Tldr: I don't think this should go to FAC immediately. Might help to get some other eyes on it, if there's anyone at WP:INDIA who'd be interested in helping out. I have a number of substantial offwiki obligations coming up soon so, unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to help too much in the next couple months. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the same thoughts. #Early period definitely needs sprucing up (heck, the distinction of what is early vs what is modern itself could be questioned at an FAC!). Some content in #Religion could probably be just dropped given that there is enormous coverage of the matter in Cattle slaughter in India. #Trade, #Processing and the lede are the other places with at least some level of prose issues, that come to mind. – SD0001 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Hmm, yes, I hadn't even thought about the possible WP:OR-ish-ness of the distinction between early and modern. It doesn't seem graceful to change it to like == Ancient history == and == 20th century == , even though that's basically what it is atm, because then the question would be: and what happened to the intervening millennia, pray tell? We might be able to get away with just putting {{Main}} to History of India or one of its many subpages at the top, but it would be cool/look less odd to have at least something between the Vedic period and the 1900s …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! Wanted to wave-by and say hello! Hope all is well! Ktin (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Thanks! Hope you and yours are well too :) Happy autumn. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, All is well here too :) It seems like summer just started and fall is already here. Time sure does fly. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Thanks so much! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing a number of my articles! Juan de Bolas Talk 19:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juan de Bolas: Aw, thanks :) I appreciate it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Your old user page still says that the account's an admin. I'd forgot the Phantom Tollbooth character; time to re-read that excellent book. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlackcurrantTea, Ah, thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the welcome back :) It's good to be editing up a storm once again. I just struck that bit on my old page, as it hasn't been true for … over a decade? Better late correcting it than never, I suppose. Thanks for your note. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The third source is undoubtedly the most reliable but the other two are consistent with it. I rejected other sources that were largely repetitious but more or less consistent. The first source is a website that is a project from the Portuguese Association of Women in Science, so I believe that can also be regarded as reliable.Roundtheworld (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roundtheworld, Thanks! I appreciate your letting me know :) With respect to the first ref, I was probably judging the book by its cover too much, as the website didn't look that "official". My bad on that one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added few verifiable sources to the shakti plastic industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhananjayrv (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhananjayrv: You have added one reliable source, namely [1]. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines for companies, and follow the articles for creation review process for the potential recreation of your article. Please also ensure that the article complies with our manual of style. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your proposals for the deletions of the articles Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 and Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th, I will say the following. I have been through a deletion process before, and merely "let it go" (with the outcome of the deletion process being that the article that I created and put a lot of hard work on got deleted), and this was regardless of the numerous violations of Wikipedia standards that the various critics of that article (and critics of me) made. I have kept a record of this in case I need it. Already, in this case, you have violated core Wikipedia tenets by not first conversing or offering help about the albums or making any suggestions whatsoever. You went straight to a deletion proposal. That is *not* how the process is supposed to start.

I had never heard of the WP:NALBUM protocol before, so I went ahead and consulted it. I can see how the two articles I created might fail at least some of the notability standards articulated therein, but a thorough review has not yet been done with respect to all those standards, and you certainly didn't get into specifics yourself before your *hasty* deletion proposal. I would also like to ask you why you singled out those articles (that I just created earlier today) for deletion, whereas multiple other of the "Live Albums" on that category in her discography would also probably fail those same WP:NALBUM standards seeing as there is no mention of any charting positions for any of them, nor are any reviews posted of them (2 of the standards articulated in the WP:NALBUM protocol), and those articles have been up there for *years*.

Please be helpful and be more specific (step up your game), or I will report you to several other admins and we shall see where that goes.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuakerIlK, I "singled out" the articles because you created them without including any reliable sources, and they showed up on the new pages queue. You are of course free to remove the prod template if you think there are reliable sources that support notability. Yes, perhaps I should have looked for some sources before proposing deletion. But, in fairness, you should also look for reliable sources before you create articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Why didn't you include the issue of reliable sources in your original deletion proposal, especially if that is what your are citing now as your leading rationale? If I make improvements towards these articles in question that mitigate the broad, unspecific rationale you originally provided, are you going to look for *new* reasons to hastily propose deletion again? As to reliability of sources, again, yes, I could easily include "Amazon" as a source as was used on other articles in that area (that have not been challenged or at least deleted) that I specified. Would you care to point me to something *specific* that outlines what a reliable source of information is for this particular subject? Also, these articles in question are *official* releases by a Grammy-nominated (and, adjunctly, a Grammy-winning) singer who also has RIAA-awarded albums (one gold, one platinum), and singles (one gold). They're not just "obscure" albums created by somebody from a shoestring budget without any corporate backing whatsoever.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuakerIlK, A reliable source that would establish notability for an album would be, for instance, a review of it in a mainstream publication. I'm not disputing that Suzanne Vega is notable—of course she is. I'm disputing that these particular albums are notable, because they appear to be obscure live recordings. Not every album by a notable artist is notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED. And WP:NALBUM does explain what I've just said. The first criterion states that an album will be notable if it [h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. And no, I'm not going to hound you by proposing deletion again. I can assure, though, that if you don't add reliable sources to those articles that establish notability for each album in particular, someone else will probably nominate them for deletion for the same reasons I'm citing now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderingsI have already added Amazon as a source for the Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th article, and if you are to get really specific about the reliability of Amazon as a source of information, it is acceptable to refer to it as a source for release dates as per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites ( "As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates." ) Also, among the several criteria listed in the WP:NALBUM criteria, *only one* is necessary for any album to meet that criteria, except in certain specific cases of criteria #5 being the only applicable one. In this particular article, not only is criteria #5 applicable (the album was featured in Sessions at West 54th, but also #1 - it has an official AllMusic rating. Additionally, several other artists have released their Sessions at West 54th albums, if you were to consult Amazon and look. Also, I have *NO IDEA* why you proposed the deletion of Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 in the first place, because in the WP:NALBUM criteria, it *clearly* meets criteria #2 absolutely and unequivocally, and this was stated on her main discography page before I ever even created the article, and the source for it was already provided. Her main discography page links to that article.QuakerIlK (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For nominating a draft for speedy deletion because it duplicates an article, which is neither a speedy deletion reason nor a reason to delete a draft.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, Haha, thanks. What should we do with it, then? Do drafts just stick around indefinitely even if they have corresponding articles in mainspace? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the draft to the article. The article will stay in mainspace indefinitely. If an AFC reviewer accepts the draft, they move the draft to article space, which automatically creates a redirect. If a reviewer finds that there is a draft and there already is an article, either they redirect the draft to the article, or they tag the draft to be merged into the article if it has additional information. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]