User talk:A Train/Archive XIII

Would you reconsider the close on consensus here? The Deletes were 4 against 2, with Deletes having far deeper analysis in ratio, and every source had been analyzed by different people, and this was the basis for relisting, to have better input and to answer a user's question, which happened. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. None of the editors arguing to delete ever responded to Cunard or CrystalizedCarbon, who were trying to engage in a conversation about the validity of the sources. I underweighted your argument because it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You have a very idiosyncratic style and, generally speaking, your contributions at AfD are extremely difficult to parse. I invite you to renom it if you feel strongly about it. A Train^talk 08:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Now at DRV. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

For posterity: close endorsed at DRV. A Train^talk 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

your close on this AfD just made me chuckle. Not a single vote cast, not even the nom which was me and neutral. A first? And a fitting no consensus close. Guess if anything it did validate that it wasn't a good CSD candidate StarM 02:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I gotta say, in 12 years I don't think I've ever seen an AfD like that one. A Train^talk 08:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, A Train. I feel a little unsure what you meant, in your close of the ANI against Music314812813478, by "The community has decided to assume good faith and not indefinitely block the editor, but the community may do so at any time if the topic ban is violated." Did you mean to say "an uninvolved admin may do so at any time", or in fact that "the community may do so [=block them] at any time"? A block by the community would involve first schlepping the user back to ANI, so maybe not? P. S. Community sanctions can be logged here. (I try to avoid placing them myself, because I have so much trouble with that log format. ;-)) Best, Bishonen | talk 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC).

I forgot to say, thank you very much for your comments at that thread. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC).

Hi Bish, haven't seen you in a good long while. :D Yes, you're right about the implication of what I wrote there -- which I most definitely did not mean. And I also went to bed before logging the restriction. So that's a double on me. It's been a few years since I handled anything at ANI and I was on the lookout for something fairly unambiguous to handle to get my feet wet again. I really appreciate you holding me to a high standard on this one. A Train^talk 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I hope nobody interprets my comment as a break with long-standing precedent and an attempt to create a new process out of thin air -- if anyone does read it that way I will set them straight. My fault. A Train^talk 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article was not very well sourced but obviously passes WP:ARTIST #4b.

With all due respect, regarding "one is a photograph of a table” is not really true because the artist's sculpture was actually behind the table, and not the table itself, and the photograph was no longer a reference in the final version of the article.

Also, the comment made by the User:Biruitorul was quite rude (“we didn't really need another week” or “- come on”) and clear made by someone who is not art expert.. Ed Terano (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed Terano. I'm afraid that you don't understand how the process works at AfD. If you're interested in understanding why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasile Troian was closed as delete, I suggest you have a read of WP:Deletion Process. If you feel strongly about it, you can take it up at Deletion Review.

I would advise you that the decision would undoubtedly be upheld at Deletion Review. First of all, if the article's sources aren't reliable (which you seem to admit), then they cannot demonstrate that the article passes WP:ARTIST. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that one needs to be an art expert to contribute to art-related articles and discussions on Wikipedia, and that is simply false. Best of luck, A Train^talk 14:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello A Train. Thanks for your prompt response and I will consider your advice.

Regarding that someone need to be an art expert to contribute, I regret but my words do not intend to have this meaning. Personally, I'm not an art expert but I could not accept this particular case, without clarifying my opinion. All the best, Ed Terano (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Twinkle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse  : Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.

now , many pages that not created by banned user id deleted because of this user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20170810152638&type=delete&user=GeneralizationsAreBad GeneralizationsAreBad without attention to instructions and without review deleted many old pages that them havent any conflict and problem. please reverted this page and get twinkle access from GAB. you can see this articles that created many years ago and this user with twinkle deleted all of them with twinkle because of newly this pages renames and redirected , from championship to championships or ipc to para :

• IPC Nordic Skiing World Championships
• IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships
• IPC Biathlon and Cross-Country Skiing World Championships
• 2017 Women's European Amateur Boxing Championships
• 2017 Women's European Union Amateur Boxing Championships
• 2017 Women's European Amateur Boxing Championships

redirect from ships to ship (main article havent problem but with twinkle in authumated situation all of them deleted!!!)

• World University Cross Country Championships
• World University Boxing Championships
• World University Squash Championships
• World University Orienteering Championships

please tell to admins and resuscitation all of them.

also he/she destory this article with deleted many of content :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Cross_Country_Championships&action=history

plus in Asian_Cross_Country_Championships : deleted all of page from 1991 Asian Cross Country Championships to 2014 Asian Cross Country Championships. deleted over 10 articles.

in result : Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. thnaks.Batisyana (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Batisyana, I'm afraid I can't quite understand what you're trying to get across to me here. I have never (to my recollection) edited any of the above pages -- is there a reason that you're contacting me, other than the fact that I'm one of the first alphabetical admins? A Train^talk 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping GeneralizationsAreBad to chime in when time permits on the above. A Train^talk 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a sock of an LTA with a long grudge against me. They're upset because I G5'd their page creations and removed links and redirects. GAB^gab 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi A Train. You closed (and then deleted) this AfD for the Sri Lankan cricketer. Please could you tell me who created the article initially and what was the content of it prior to deletion? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Lugnuts. The article was created 5 October 2009 by User:Rashen, who made the majority of the edits to the article. The article was a bio of "a Sri Lankan water polo coach and Investment Banker". Do you want me to reproduce the article as a draft in your userspace? A Train^talk 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, if you can do that, it would be useful. For info, I saw you de-link the article on this page, leading me to the AfD debate (which I'd missed). The cricketer of that name would easily pass the notability requirements based on his bio. Thanks again for your help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the article may have been about a different Sanjaya Fernando; it's a common enough surname in that part of the world. Either way, the draft can now be found at User:Lugnuts/Sanjaya Fernando. Happy editing! A Train^talk 07:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh and do let me know if you want to just delete it again, Lugnuts. A Train^talk 07:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with this. Yes, happy for you to delete that draft. I'll create a stub for the Sri Lankan cricketer later. Apologies in advance if that shows any red-dot notifications when I re-link articles on various pages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, done! A Train^talk 19:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, but a 3–2 vote to delete definitionally isn't a consensus. We either need to get more people involved in these AfDs or simply end the charade and let admins make the decisions. — Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way Bbny-wiki-editor. I thought the AfD was a pretty interesting discussion, and your argument was a good one -- but it was pretty squarely and effectively rebutted. Hope you don't take it personally. I said over in the discussion, I'm more than keen to restore the article if someone could find some better sources at the library. If that happens I'll be the first person in line to help you improve the article. A Train^talk 19:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done it. A Train^talk 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I create a page with Capital letter but I cant move this to PREM KHAN to Prem Khan. please move this.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.177.147 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dina Powell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! A Train, I saw your contributions. Wao! You are doing very good work. I am inspired of you! Keep working. Thanks. Willy-nilly (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks! A Train^talk 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Rhett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. A Train^talk 07:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

By the way, soft delete there was not applicable because of the previous PROD. I'm not saying you should revert that closure though, as it was months ago, but please be careful upon further soft delete enactments. J947^{(c) (m)} 04:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:J947. I am slightly stupefied by how pedantic this comment is. What would be gained from turning down a request for undeletion for this article if a user came back with better sources, as I suggested in the closing comment? Likewise, even if I were wildly out of process here, what on Earth would be gained from reverting the closure? A Train^talk 06:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm just saying that soft deletions are to be treated as PRODs, and that includes the fact that you cannot tag articles with PROD if a former PROD has been reverted. Also, in response to your question, read this part of my notice: 'I'm not saying you should revert that closure though, as it was months ago, but please be careful upon further soft delete enactments'. J947^{(c) (m)} 20:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so if anyone turns up tomorrow with a bundle of excellent sources with which to write a stellar "So Good" article, I'll be sure to inform them that User:J947 says we can't undelete the article. Since you're offering me some free advice, let me give you some: don't let hyper-pedantic readings of the rules get in the way of actually making a good encyclopedia. We're not here to create a Gilliam-esque bureaucracy. A Train^talk 20:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in but that's not how SOFTDELETE works.We can't implement soft-delete on something that has a failed PROD.If you feel dis-satisfied with the so-formed minimal consensus, just use your discretion and relist it! As to your last query, we just politely say them that we are willing to restore the article to draft-space and that they have to main-space it via AfC.(Mine posting here has nothing to do with the specific AfD but rather about the broader question.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're sorry to chime in User:Godric on Leave because you're as wrong as the other guy. I don't know which voodoo priest I upset to bring on this curse of bureaucratic nitpickers. A Train^talk 19:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That was so gracious!Have a good day:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

May I discuss this closure if that's alright with you? I realize these discussions can put admins in a tough spot but I would appreciate some clarifying of your thought process. At the point of closure, deletion was slightly favored 10-7 (I include myself and Mr rnnude); obviously, that alone does not constitute deletion. However, the comments, particularly by Mr rnnude, TimTempleton, and (hopefully) myself not only thoroughly expressed why this incident failed notability requirements but also disproved keep votes. As an admin, you also should give less weight to !votes that state "per sources" or "passes GNG" because we know those are arguments to avoid. I reiterate, I would appreciate a little discussion here and I hope I did not come across as too critical.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey TheGracefulSlick, please don't worry about coming across as critical, I completely see where you're coming from. I agree with you that some of the keep arguments at that AfD were cursory -- but so were some of the delete arguments, particularly some of the ones that showed up towards the end of the discussion. Amongst the users who were really engaged with the discussion and making policy-based arguments I could see no clear consensus. If you want me to write up a longer explanation of my rationale I'd be happy to do so on the AfD talk page; alternatively, if you want to take it to DRV that's entirely your call. A Train^talk 08:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Timtempleton hit it right on the nail: news reports and passing mentions are thrown into the article to create the illusion of diverse and ongoing coverage. GNG is claimed but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and news reports are treated as primary sources. The admin's hands are tied, however, because most editors do not, or do not want to, realize that. I'm considering DRV as an option but I'm also mindful of the fact I'll probably come back with the same exact outcome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm totally sympathetic but -- as you say -- my role in closing is to adjudicate the consensus that is there. I sincerely doubt that DRV would find that I closed improperly, so maybe the best course of action is to re-nominate the article at some point. A Train^talk 15:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, please accept a belated thank you from me. I know you are just doing your bit with the mop but you are actually the first admin to respond to query I had concerning an AfD closure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no thanks necessary, TheGracefulSlick. I see you around a lot and I think you're doing good work for the project. Keep it up. A Train^talk 09:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind editing it to remove any ambiguity - he isn't under a six-month ban, he is under an indefinite ban only appealable after six months - it doesn't expire at that point (the appeal may be declined). Resetting the counter just resets when he can appeal :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just caught my mistake and corrected myself over there. My apologies! A Train^talk 11:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not your fault, most editors would not be a problem, however some wikilawyers would come back in 6 months time and say 'So and so said it was only for six months!'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi A Train, quick question. Is it OK to use company sources for straight-forward statements of fact (i.e. history of the company, major projects they were involved in, subdivisions of the company, employee count, etc.)? From my understanding, WP:PRIMARY allows it as long as editors exercise caution, but I was wondering if you knew a specific policy for companies. Big thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Found something at WP:ORG: "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." I guess this means "yes"? MX (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey MX, yes, you've basically got it. Secondary sources are always preferred. But for truly mundane/uncontroversial stuff like the facts you're asking about, you can use the company's website. The relevant guidance is right over here. A Train^talk 16:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kate_E._Reynolds&diff=804034628&oldid=803915555 yes please. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You got it. Standby one. A Train^talk 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Voila. Happy editing, Scratch. A Train^talk 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have closed the Afd for Skytap so it can be relisted it in a simpler and clearer way, as you requested in the discussion. If it is, you may want to comment again. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for it. Thanks, DGG. A Train^talk 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, A Train. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Cleanup.
Message added 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, A Train. I just noticed you have become a member of WiR. It's a great honour to have such a long-standing Wikipedia editor among us. Your help with Spanish will be useful. You'll find long lists of red links for virtually all the Spanish-speaking countries here. I see you haven't created many articles in the past; perhaps now's the time to start. If you need any help, let me know or keep us informed on the WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ipigott, thanks for the kind welcome. That is a pretty nifty list you've got there. I think I will focus (at least initially) on Cuba and I will keep you appraised of my progress on the WikiProject talk page. Cheers! A Train^talk 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Cuba would be a great start. I have recently written a number of biographies of Cuban women, for example Margarita Lecuona and Luisa Martínez Casado. But there are many more interesting names on the Wikidata redlink list. If you like, we can write some articles together. I also speak Spanish. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott, I'm starting with User:A Train/Teté Puebla. Will crack on this weekend. A Train^talk 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Teté Puebla is live. Picking a new subject in a few days. A Train^talk 10:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott, just thought I'd let you know that Teté Puebla, which I created because of that list you pointed me to, will be on Did You Know at some point this week. I'll be tackling another one in November. Thanks again for running this great project. Cheers! A Train^talk 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You've made good progress on Teté. We'll list her on our Showcase page when the article appears on DYK. Although I help with some of the back office stuff on WiR, the ones running the project are Rosiestep and Victuallers. Other active participants who help with running the project include Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. We all work closely together and are always keen to hear of any suggestions on how the project could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Hear hear (although Ipigott is too modest) Victuallers (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, A Train. Glad to meet you. Women in Red is a pretty flat project... we all run it together... so, happy to have you as part of the team. If you check out the talkpage, you'll see that we are quite "chatty" so drop by anytime with questions, comments, and so forth. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What they said A Train. If you ever need help, just ping me (2 u's no a). I speak Spanish, badly, but read it fairly well. I do lots of articles in the Caribbean and Latin America too, so it's nice to have someone who is interested in expanding our info on that area. SusunW (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you need any reference help, I'll do my best to find the sources. I can reach out to other librarians, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

2 Keep, 2 Redirect, 2 comment. How the result is redirect? --Joseph (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Joseph, I explained further on the talk page. Let me know if that helps you understand or if you still have questions about it. A Train^talk 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Helllo A Train,

I noticed the deletion of the Eugene Youth Symphony article when you removed links to it from the Eugene, Oregon article.

Would you be willing to put a copy of the article in my userspace as a draft? I found about 1 1/2 reliable sources (this) and this, and with a little digging at the city library and the University libraries I suspect there will be enough offline sources to develop it.

Cheers! —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, it's my pleasure. The article is live at User:Grand'mere Eugene/Eugene Youth Symphony. Let me know if I can help with anything else! A Train^talk 12:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your decision and explanation on this page. I respect the decision, but I want to do what I can to revive it properly, including what you mentioned of putting it in my drafts.

It is humorous and ironic that the artist was featured in an article TODAY (where they ARE the main subject) the day after you determined the deletion of the page. Stacked Like Pancakes was featured on Alternative Press. Here is the article. This is inarguably significant.

Is it possible that this, combined with the other credible information provided on the original page, could be a basis for reinstatement for the page? Even if it is broken down and fixed up even further than it was... this article feature on Alt Press is proof of what I mentioned in the discussion: the artist is growing quickly, and there will only be more press to come.

Thanks again. RisingDown360 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, RisingDown360, my best advice is just to be patient. You've got one more source today than you had yesterday, so any argument for having the article is exactly one source stronger. Why not wait 6 or 9 months and come back with a bunch of really good references: profiles of the band (WP:DEPTH) from nationally-recognized sources (WP:RS).

My other advice for you is to edit some stuff that isn't about Stacked Like Pancakes. Wikipedia editors will always look askance at someone who only ever edits one article, and for good reason. If your entire Wikipedia editing experience is one article, you don't have any perspective on how the wider project works, and you're unlikely to be able to be neutral about the topic. If you get the thing that you really want, a Stacked Like Pancakes article permanently on Wikipedia, it's going to be there for anyone and everyone to edit, change, and improve. You need to be cool with that, and the best way to get there is to edit other stuff.

Good luck. A Train^talk 20:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I've changed my !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrafile, as pings aren't working I thought I'd just drop a note by. DrStrauss talk 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up, Doc! Glad to see there are good sources. I'm off to change my position. A Train^talk 20:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Lexers615 Lexers615 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha, okay. Lexers615, please take some friendly advice and start making productive edits to the encyclopedia and stop wasting everyone's time with your various vendettas. A Train^talk 08:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Would you mind posting (on the AFD) the reason you closed the discussion as a keep on the AFD for Cassie Jaye? It was a pretty close discussion and I'd like to know your reading of the consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I've done so over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cassie Jaye. A Train^talk 08:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

On 23 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CD Rev, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Chinese government sponsors a gangsta rap group called CD Rev? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CD Rev. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, CD Rev), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for much for your insight into AfDs, RfCs, and OmGs. Your insight always seems to be spot on, and it's great to have sanity in less than sane situations! Thanks again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Drewmutt! A Train^talk 06:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am confused as to why you reached the decision of no consensus on the AfD for this article. The debate had one vote for redirect, two for delete, and two for keep. Even if I think that JClemens has no argument that it merits a redirect, at the very least, the decision should have been Redirect, as Delete votes imply also being okay with Redirection. However, the Redirect vote would have been the tie breaker that gave it consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Zxcvbnm. I must beg to differ with you. Your interpretation is wrong in a couple of important ways. First off, AfD isn't a vote, it's a discussion with goal of achieving consensus. The idea that any one "vote" at AfD represents a "tie-breaker" is a complete and total misunderstanding of how AfD works; we don't close discussions by counting heads. If that's what the process was, we would just have a bot do it, not an admin. Read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, if you haven't already. Secondly, arguments to redirect are flat out not interchangeable with arguments to delete. I can discuss that further if you want but again, it's all in the Guide to deletion. A Train^talk 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that AfD is not a vote, however in this particular case, the arguments were essentially split along the lines of "this is notable" and "this isn't notable". So ultimately, I don't see what it would break down to if not simply counting heads. And while Delete votes are irrenconciliable with Redirect votes in certain AfDs, in this one I believe that it would be, since it is a sub article of the parent article Holography, so it goes to reason that a redirect would barely be any different than a delete. If it counts for anything, I am fine with redirection as an alternative to deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If your desired outcome is redirection, then Articles for Deletion is not the place to have discussion, the article's talk page is. If you really think I messed this one up, feel free to take it to WP:DRV. A Train^talk 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)