User talk:Ad Orientem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! Please read this before posting here.

If I left you a message on your user talk page or elsewhere, please respond there. If you leave me a message here, this is where I will normally respond. If you want to alert me to your message, you may ping me. (It is not necessary to ping me when leaving messages on my talk page as I am automatically alerted by email.)
If you have a problem or need help with something please leave a message. However, if your issue does not involve me personally, or is time sensitive/urgent, you may wish to request help on one of our noticeboards.
If you are here because you think I made a mistake somewhere, YOU COULD BE RIGHT! I am neither omniscient nor infallible. Let's talk about it.
Please be polite and remember to assume good faith. Also check the potty language at the door. I don't talk to other people that way and I expect the same courtesy in return.
While minor editing is fine, for the sake of continuity of records please don't delete comments on my talk page even if you later conclude you were wrong. If you want to retract a comment, just add a note or you can ~~strike out the text~~.
Private emails are welcome. However, in the interest of transparency; requests for administrator actions should generally be made openly either here or on the relevant noticeboard/talk page discussion. Exceptions where commonsense or policy/guidelines may require discretion, are understood.
Special note to admins: If you think I muffed something feel free to revert or otherwise fix it. Just kindly leave a note.
Experienced editors are free to respond to any queries on this page, especially if the message has been sitting for a while without a response.
Lastly, I'm a part-timer, so bear with me if I don't get back to you instantly.

If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your message with four tildes (~~~~).

Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Revision Deletion Request

Hello @Ad Orientem. I found and reverted an edit that is potentially eligible for RD2 or RD3 redaction. The edit in question has no encyclopedic value and looks to provide false and gross information. Khrincan (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Khrincan

Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minerva Mena

Can you explain the reasoning behind this close? Based on the arguments made (and not the number of votes),the 3 Delete votes said they were Delete because there were no sources. I and the other Keep vote proved otherwise, which also changed the opinion of the nominator. Doesn't that invalidate the reasoning of the Delete voters entirely, considering they never returned to make any alternative deletion argument? Silver seren^C 01:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren On closer examination, I think you are right. I will amend the close accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

Hey, I noticed that you mentioned in the close that merge discussions should continue on the relevant talk pages, that process for formal discussions is being deprecated though so it seems odd for the close of a formal discussion to refer editors to an informal venue. Could you take another look at the close? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon That's a fair point. There is still clearly no consensus, and after two relists I see no reasonable likelihood of that changing. However, I have amended the wording of the close to indicate that a future renomination is possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, hopefully editors will get used to having merge discussions at AfD fairly quickly after the processes are done merging. I think the cool off period makes sense. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

AFD for Nope Your Too Late I Already Died Closure

Good day! Why not re-list the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nope Your Too Late I Already Died (2nd nomination) instead of closing as no-consensus? I also would make an argument that the Keep !votes were largely not based in policy...and I'm not entirely convinced there wasn't some sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting going on, too. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol That one was kinda close. Based on the amount of participation I had doubts that a relist was likely to be helpful. But if you feel another week might end with consensus, I will reopen the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You're probably right, odds are that there won't be a ton of extra discussion, but I think it's worth one extension just in case some more people chime in. Like I said, I don't think the keep votes were really based in policy, so I think there's a good chance that if there is any other engagement it'll result in a more thorough consensus. I'll try to do a source review table in a couple days too if you open it back up. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

,As an aside, would like some feedback if you are willing... I mentioned above that I was concerned that there was sockpuppeting happening. To be specific, I am suspicious about the accounts ~2026-19876-40 (talk · contribs) and Coutureeee (talk · contribs). The temp account only has edits to this AFD. The Coutureeee account only has edits to the AFD and a single minor edit to the Wifiskeleton article, and was created on the same day as the first AFD edit. My hunch is that they are somehow related to one of the two dissenting !vote accounts from this AFD, but it's unclear which one. Am I being paranoid, or is there enough to punch it to SPI or ask a Checkuser to take a look? nf utvol (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol Based on your evidence, I'm assuming these are the same individual. I have struck the most recent of their !votes and left a warning on the newly registered accounts talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lohia family

@ Paul_012 Article has been restored and moved to draft space. It is not to be moved back into mainspace until notability is firmly established. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I've been a bit busy and haven't been able to get to this sooner, but considering that none of the delete !votes addressed any of the presented sources, I don't think it was appropriate to close this as a consensus to delete. While the reliability of one source was contested, the person who raised the point made no comment on the notability of the subject. Had I noticed the comment, I would have had additional points to make, but it doesn't seem that the proponents for deletion would have responded anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Paul 012. I took another look at the AfD and noted the following... Two of the main sources you pointed to (SA Migration and the Japanese IDE are effectively identical, down to most of the wording. The Big Asia is only a paragraph by your own admission. And I was not able to access the Far Eastern Economic Review so I can't evaluate that one. Beyond which, if one includes the OP there are three P&G based comments favoring deletion to one favoring a keep. The article was relisted twice following the last comment (yours), with no further input. I also didn't see any real response to the concerns raised by Svartner. Under the circumstances, I'm afraid that this still looks like a consensus to delete. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For what its worth, this is the abstract of The Far Eastern Economic Review article "Back where we started," via The Wikipedia Library:

Five years ago, a younger generation of Lohias began returning to India. Today, Om Prakash Lohia and Ajai Prakash Lohia - respectively the first and 3rd grandsons of the late H. B. Lohia - are building 2 substantial business groups in India. Om Prakash is essentially replicating on the Subcontinent Indorama's Thai and Indonesian operations. At Indore, in Madhya Pradesh state, Indorama Synthetics has one of India's biggest polyester-spinning plants. In March it completed the 67,000-ton-a-year first stage of a $50-million polyester-fiber and yarn plant at Nagpur, Maharashtra state. Ajai's Uniworth group, a clutch of 3 Indian-listed companies, is moving into fine wool, the suiting material of India's elite, most of whom have their clothes made to measure.

There are several other mentions of the family in news articles, which aren't relevant to the question about the closure as they weren't presented at the AfD, but I'm going to park them here just in case:

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

"Borders are no barrier for plastics mogul" Nikkei Asia (2016):

[Aloke] Lohia's family belongs to the Marwari ethnic group, known for its keen business sense. His father sold agricultural produce and textiles around the world, conducting business in Burma until the 1962 coup forced him to leave the country, and later in Indonesia.
Initially, Lohia and his two brothers assisted their father in his textile business in Indonesia. But as the business grew, their father told them to look for opportunities abroad. The idea was to minimize risks through diversification. One brother went to India, while another stayed in Indonesia. Lohia, the youngest, headed for Thailand in 1988 when he was 29 years old.

"Broker forges link with Indian spinner" Financial Review (1996):

[Ajai Pakash] Lohia, 41, is from the third generation of a Marwari trading family from India's arid Rajasthan state. The Lohias migrated to Burma in the 1940s, got kicked out by General Ne Win's military regime in 1962, and then set up the highly successful Indo-Rama group of polyester textile and chemical manufacturers in Indonesia and Thailand. Ajai Lohia and his brother, Om Prakash Lohia, moved back to India about five years ago, Ajai concentrating on wool and silk textiles and Om Prakash on polyester.

"Formula for success Bangkok Post (2020):

The youngest of three sons, Mr [Aloke] Lohia was sent by his father from Indonesia to Thailand to pursue his own business. One of his brothers was sent to India where the whole family was born, and another stayed in Indonesia.
"He had three sons and he did not need all the three sons in one country," explains Mr Lohia. "I think I'm very lucky in that sense. I've got the best country."
Before moving to Indonesia in the late 1960s, the Lohia family lived in Thailand for 10 years. His father started a lace business in the Thon Buri district of Bangkok in 1955. The business is still in operation but now under the Lohia family.
"The whole family at one point migrated to Indonesia. The reason, I think, was for business, dreams and opportunities," says Mr Lohia. "Indians are very adaptable. They like challenges and they like to find opportunities. My father migrated to Indonesia as he found there were opportunities there for our family."
At the age of 30, Mr Lohia was given a $30-million project and his father gave him $6 million to launch his business career. "I needed to go and meet all the bankers. I decided by myself what business to set up," he recalls. "My father gave me a broad mandate because my other two brothers were in the textile business. He told me not to do textiles. Maybe chemicals or something, but not textiles."
That's one way to mitigate risks, he points out. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket by not putting everybody in one country and not everybody in one business. It was about how to mitigate risk.

In any case, the nominator (and WP:PERNOM !voter)'s argument was "No significant independent coverage," which I believe was weakened by the presented sources, which were not addressed. I already challenged Svartner's WP:JUSTAPOLICY claim of WP:PROMOTIONAL, which I do not think was valid and which they did not explain, and their WP:NEWSORGINDIA was only relevant to some of the sources and not the article content nor the subject's notability. I don't believe these constituted sound policy-and-guideline based arguments.

Anyway, what this AfD suffered from was a lack of follow-up after sources were presented, and I think it would benefit from a talk page ping to the participants following a last relisting. It's not uncommon for participants to forget to watch the AfD pages they comment on after all. Do you see that as an option, or should I ask at DRV instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Good morning Paul 012. Feel free to ping the other participants to the talk page of the AfD. If there is a significant shift in their views I would be open to reconsidering the close. However, I do want to gently note that the discussion was open for three weeks. For good or ill these things are resolved by those who show up during the allotted time frame for the discussion. While I am not firmly opposed to a reconsideration if the other participants are open to that, out of fairness I am limiting this to those who participated in the discussion. I am not (for now) reopening the AfD and I don't want any hectoring. I've been on the losing end of my share of discussions at AfD and elsewhere. Sometimes my disagreements with the outcomes were strongly felt. But that's the way things go in a collegial project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do as suggested. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see my comment in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lohia family. --Altenmann >talk 18:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOL

Hello, how do you evaluate AfDs based on WP:NPOL? Recently, you closed five Keeps and four Deletes as Keep. Another AfD with three Keeps and two Deletes was closed as Delete. An AfD I participated in was closed as Redirect with two Keeps and three Redirects. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Good morning Kelob2678. Thank you for your note. I generally do not insert my own judgement in AfDs. Rather my job is to evaluate the strength of the arguments, per WP:NOTAVOTE. In the first AfD you linked, the actual count was 5K - 3D as the OP switched sides although they rather confusingly failed to strike their nomination. Ultimately I found that there was a consensus among the participants that the subject was in fact notable. In the second AfD I found the examination of the sources leant weight to the view that they were not adequate to ring the WP:N bell. That wasn't cut and dry, but after reading it through a couple times that is where I landed. The last one looks more run of the mill to me. There was a clear consensus that the subject lacked sufficient coverage at the time for an article. A redirect was the logical course because it preserves the page and its history for easy recreation if and when better sourcing is found. Here I do have to acknowledge an error on my part. I closed this as a "soft redirect." I have since been informed that that type of close is not intended for the mainspace. This was subsequently corrected by another admin into a straight redirect. Of the three discussions you have pointed to, I think the first and last are relatively straight forward. The second was a judgement call that another admin might have called a no consensus. But alas, I was the one who did the closing review. I thank you again for your note and your many contributions to the project... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You are correct about the first AfD. Regarding not a vote, I prefer this essay, Wikipedia:Of course it's voting. To me, all three debates look identical, one side says "Keep per NPOL" and another says "Delete per GNG". To close a 5-3 debate as Keep, the NPOL-based argument should be a bit stronger than, or at least equally strong to, the GNG-based argument. To delete 3-2, the NPOL argument should be completely dismissed, which I think is inconsistent. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Request to Consider Undeletion

Dear @Ad Orientem. This is with regard to an article deleted; Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay (police officer).

I politely request you to consider un-deletion. The article in question meets notability criteria in abundant measure and I have used only very reliable sources. Kindly re check the detailed presentations in favour of Keep during the discussions.

Just to give you a context: The person headed India's National body on Drug Law Enforcement, The Narcotics Control Bureau. He headed India's National Academy of Policing, the equivalent of College of Policing in the UK- The National Police Academy. Pls see Serial Number 30, in the list of Directors. Then he headed the State Police in the Indian State of Odisha, with a Population of 42(forty two) million and a force strength of more than 72 battalions(Pls See Serial Number 35 in the list of DGPs in the Wikipedia Entry on Odisha Police). And he is among the handful of officers in India to have headed both federal and state Police forces. I have added very reliable sources only and a good number of them.

Kindly consider the hard work.I am working my humble bit on Law Enforcement across the world and you may like to see the other articles I have created on the topic.

There was more support for Keep rather than Delete( I agree we need not go by a mere vote count); the detailed arguments presented in favour of Keep were quite clear in my humble view.

Thanking you. Postbox 2 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Postbox 2. Thanks for your note. Having reviewed the close (not for the first time), I still think the weight of policy and guideline argument favors deletion. However, out of an abundance of caution, I am going to ask another uninvolved admin to have a second look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Postbox 2 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Postbox 2 Tomorrow is Easter for most people (mine is actually next week). I would not expect a reply before Monday at the earliest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Let us wait. If possible, please consider putting it back so that the AfD discussion stays live for some more time. If there is such an option. Happy Easter in advance, by the way. Postbox 2 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. At your convenience, could you do a 2nd opinion check on my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay (police officer). See also the above request from Postbox 2. Much appreciated... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

ARandomName123

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is COI and AfD. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Recover deleted Odin article as a draft?

Hi, this Odin article started as a draft.

Somebody upgraded it from a draft to an article when it wasn't ready, and it got deleted as a result.

Is there any way to recover the page and all of its history and move it back to the draft space?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odin_(programming_language)

Alec Gargett (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@AlecGargett

Done. See Draft:Odin (programming language). This page is not to be moved back into the mainspace until properly sourced and notability is firmly established. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles