User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 25

Hi, no problems with you deleting this, but I put a couple of transcriptions from 19th-century newspapers on the talkpage that I haven't otherwise kept. Any chance of retrieving them for me? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andreas Philopater:  Done. See User:Andreas Philopater/William Adlam. The content may not copyrighted at this time due to being 199 years old. U.S. copyright law states that copyright for works created prior to January 1, 1978 lasts for the life of the author "plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship".^[1] It's a little of a grey area, because the authors' names are not stated in the works. However, per U.S. Fair use doctrine, provision of the information appears to be legitimate since it is for "nonprofit educational purposes", the content is comprised of a small portion of works, and it is unlikely to affect the market value of the works.^[2] Per all of this, after you save the content, I would prefer to delete the userfied content, and also per WP:NOTWEBHOST. When you've saved the work, please place {{Db-g7}} atop the page. Thanks. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. These are from newspapers published in the UK, where the applicable term for unsigned contributions would be 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made available to the public. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater: Despite all of the above, since the article was deleted, and per WP:NOTWEBHOST, I still want to delete the userfied page after you have saved its content. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See tag etc. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

N Deleted. Thank you for your prompt reply and response. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Review the election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2015. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

• Thanks Hafspajen, and the same for you and yours. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

• Thanks MQS, and back at you! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Victuallers (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

• And the same to you and yours, Victuallers. Happy New Year! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject Bacon, I'm wishing you a very happy New Year's Eve and a great 2015! May your new year be filled with positive experiences, great wiki contributions, and of course, well-smoked thin-cut bacon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SuperHamster: I love that bacon-smiley face montage image, but I'm biased since I created it... NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, well, at least you know your image is being put to use! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My greetings for a great 2015 to one of the greatest WP editor! Cavarrone 08:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Cavarrone, and for your ongoing Wikipedia contributions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

• Thanks Tokyogirl79, and Happy New Year to you and yours. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too. Haven't seen you at RfD much lately. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi SimonTrew: I've been spending a decent amount of time at AfD. Happy New Year! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 10:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

• ...and a Happy New year to you Davey2010. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Northamerica1000,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 12:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

• Nahnah4: Happy 2015 to you too. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

• Thanks, and have a great New Year, MelbourneStar. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year too! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks WhisperToMe, and have a great 2015. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Wishing you happiness and good health throughout the coming year. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and Happy New Year! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the greetings, and the same to you!! Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Funandtrvl, and have a great 2015. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice wake-up notice. Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're welcome, and have a great 2015 Yoninah. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, same to you! GiantSnowman 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and have a great 2015. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Happy New Year to you too! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks OccultZone, and the same to you and yours. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Northamerica1000,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

And thank you for making Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much 7&6=thirteen, and happy 2015. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz ^Talk — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Thanks Redtigerxyz, and a happy 2015 to you. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Hawk cheese - but that article really is a same. Can I count on you in put that in a bit of a better shape? Before it makes its appearance in the Signpost? Here some sources. It’s my most dreaded would-you-rather question. Which would you rather give up, forever: cheese or sex?Hafspajen (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I may or may not improve the article. A good place to recommend article improvements, post sources to, etc. is at WP:TAFINOM. At this time, I can't guarantee that I will work on all article requests posted on my talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!... which are, my goodness, a lot!! Enjoy your boba. You deserve another hundred bobas, but I don't want to spam your page! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Bananasoldier, and hope you're having a nice New Year. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and the New Year's greeting. I wish you a happy and prosperous New Year. I have been offline in recent days due to a minor medical issue so I am off to a slow start this year. Also, real life tasks and activities have cut my time on Wikipedia since Thanksgiving week, though not as much as the period since Christmas. I expect to have more time for Wikipedia as soon as later this week. I plan to do more content work over the next few months but I will continue to do some anti-vandalism reviews as well. Donner60 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Donner60: Get well soon, and thanks again for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Furthermore, your work in countering vandalism is much appreciated. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We had unanimity in favor of merging, so this should be closed rather than relisted. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Postdlf: The nominator states in a comment, "it could be merged into the Cultural Festival (India) page that Postdlf has mentioned", (italic emphasis mine) but does not explicitly state to merge, and has not withdrawn or struck the nomination. As such, I hesitate to close this as a merge. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The nominator also stated in their comment, "Right now it appears to be a free-for-all." To me, this (and the above) is not congruent with a strong merge sentiment. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Northamerica1000, I am reaching out as you appear to be one of the few active members from the list of participants at WikiProject Companies and I am looking for an editor/editors to look over a draft for the Verizon Communications article. I am an employee of Verizon and I don't make any direct edits to Verizon related articles myself, but from time to time I have put forward drafts to offer updates and additional encyclopedic information. Would you be able help me with a draft I have offered for a suggested new section?

The proposed draft is to add a section regarding the company's "Corporate responsibility", which is not included in the article at present. The draft is in my userspace and I have left a more detailed request on the Verizon Talk page, here. If you would be able to spare the time, can you look at my draft and move it into the article if it looks good to you? I am open to any suggestions or questions.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi VZBob: Sorry, but I am going to pass on becoming involved. This is in part due to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline, in which Wikipedia's position regarding the matter is that "COI editing is strongly discouraged". If the content is published to the Verizon Communications article, I strongly recommend placing Template:Connected contributor on the article's talk page, using the Declared parameter. I notice that you placed a {{Request edit}} template on the article's talk page with commentary regarding this matter, so hopefully another user will address the matter. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Northamerica1000, I understand that you'd prefer not to assist, and I appreciate your suggestion to add a connected contributor template to the Verizon Communications Talk page. I'll make sure to do that. VZBob (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Happy New Year! How are you? I was wondering if you could help me use some of the references I've scouted out in talk:dishwashing liquid. Regardless, thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananasoldier (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Bananasoldier: I may get around to it. I have performed a few edits to the article, but nothing substantial yet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Northamerica1000. You relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (3rd nomination). You participated in the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination). I'm letting you know in case you want to participate in the current AfD. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, and I'll consider it. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Northamerica1000. I just tried performing my first close of an AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oroville Fire Department (California), for Oroville Fire Department, as "Keep" given the nominator eventually voted "Keep" and there was no opposition. Could you possibly please review it?

• For one thing, the Old AFD Multi box that I added at top of Talk:Oroville Fire Department fails to link to the AFD discussion. I can't see what I missed in setting that up. Can you?

Oh, I see I hadn't noticed inclusion of "(California)" in the AFD name, which is different than the article name. The article was moved/renamed on January 11, during the AFD. Hmm, do I need to do anything at the redirect Talk page, or otherwise change anything, given the discrepancy between article name vs. AFD-reported article name?

• Also, should I have closed it as "Speedy Keep", as I did close it before 7 days? I believe it was okay/good to close early, given apparent consensus of all 2 participants, right?

Your comments welcome. Thanks in advance, --doncram 00:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Doncram: No worries. Here's a rundown of some minor adjustments I performed:

• On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oroville Fire Department (California) page:

1. Moved the section header below the closing comment. The closing comment always goes at the very top of the discussion (just underneath Template:Afd top)
2. Changed the close to "speedy keep" per your comment above. This was an appropriate close per Wikipedia:Speedy keep – Applicability, point #1. Nobody in the discussion opined to delete, and the nominator withdrew.
3. Added (Non-administrator closure.) to the closing comment. Non-admin disclosure is recommended at this same linked page (in this point #3), wherein it states "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision." A different way to do this is with Template:Nac, by adding {{subst:nac}}.

• You placed the oldafdfull template on the correct page, on the talk page of the article's present location.

1. I moved the oldafdfull template below the Wikiproject templates, as per Administrator AfD close instructions, section "Carrying out the AfD close", subsection "Keep".

– That's it. Cheers, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for explaining! Wow, I didn't expect so many separate points, this is more complex than I always thought it would be. I am taking note of these several points including tip to use that "subst:nac" shortcut. Thanks, cheers, :) --doncram 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Doncram: No problem. FYI, the article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oroville Fire Department. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You deleted it, but it remains. I emailed oversight hours ago. They just replied saying thanks and the team has suppressed the information. It remains. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi AF: try purging your cache and reloading the page. It should be gone. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked oversight to remove the username entirely. Maybe I wasn't clear with them or you. Sorry. Actually, I'm not sure they can even do that, but I think so. Also, maybe it isn't even needed because there the account is blocked and Wikipedia is a big place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AF: Per Wikipedia:FAQ#How do I change my username/delete my account?, "A username cannot be deleted". However, it wouldn't surprise me if WMF has a way to wipe the user name entirely. Per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing#Vanishing from Wikipedia, the user name can be changed, in which a bureaucrat performs this, which will also change the name in the revision history of articles contributed to. However, after the page in question was deleted, there are no contributions present for that user now. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

	Some TAFI for you!
	Thanks for your contribs to Dishwashing liquid! Bananasoldier (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, dishwashing liquid is 1286 characters away from DYK prose qualification. Also, how do we know when we've met consensus on the move proposal? Bananasoldier (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Blood Nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin Kings. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Resolved. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I originally created this page. I tried to find it today, but find it was deleted.

I have now found the archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article. The debate apparently began on 3 December 2014 and was terminated on 17 December 2014. This seems to be far too peremptory. I had no chance of responding to any of the points made, as I would have liked to do -- I was not even aware of the debate taking place.

I would be glad if the article can be reinstated, and I shall be happy to respond to the points to the best of my knowledge. Ankababel (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Ankababel: A problem is that per the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, the journal was found to not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Regarding the duration of the deletion discussion, they are actually often closed after seven days, so the duration of time, as per Wikipedia's standards, was not particularly short, especially since the discussion was relisted for an additional week. I'm not allowed to reinstate the article in these circumstances. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Hello NorthAmerica: thank you for the explanation. I would not say that I have been inconvenienced, but I am concerned that some of the points made in the discussion were inaccurate. I would be sorry if the deletion was actually carried out on spurious grounds, as seems to have been the case. Only a small number of users participated in the deletion discussion, and they do not seem to have taken the trouble to properly research the matter. Is there a procedure for reviewing the decision?Ankababel (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ankababel: I'm familiar with User:Randykitty and User:DGG, both of whom contributed to the discussion and both of whom are trusted administrators on Wikipedia. The closest guideline relative to the subject is Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is not a Wikipedia guideline page, but is used at times in deletion discussions. Do you have any evidence that the topic may meet any of the criteria therein, or that which counters arguments presented in the deletion discussion (including the nomination)? Due to the overall arguments and consensus at the deletion discussion, it's unlikely that I will be able to restore the article. A place to contest closures is at WP:Deletion review Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually,Ankababel, it would have to be at WP:Deletion review, since it was deleted at AfD. Requests for Undeletion deals only with prods and AfC deletions. Take a look first at the AfD: the decision was unanimous. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DGG for the clarification. I knew that, but for whatever reason, I thought about WP:REFUND, rather than the correct Wikipedia:Deletion review. (facepalm) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NorthAmerica and DGG for the further clarifications. To summarize, I need to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, correct? I definitely have counterarguments to the arguments presented in the deletion discussion. User:Randykitty was very helpful when I first created the page, so I am surprised that s/he voted for deletion! But, is there any way I can access the page as it was before deletion? I need to know what was, actually, being discussed.Ankababel (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ankababel: Yes, WP:Deletion review is the place to go. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• User:Ankababel: I have temporarily userfied the article to your userspace to aid you regarding this matter. The page is located at User:Ankababel/Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthAmerica: Thank you. I have consulted WP:Deletion review and am satisfied that it is appropriate according to the Purpose. The Instructions ask me first (before listing a review request) to discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. It is unfortunate that I was not alerted to the deletion discussion (presumably the page was not on my watchlist) otherwise I could have made the points then and there. So should I go ahead and list a review request?Ankababel (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ankababel: go for it. It's unfortunate that you were not notified about the discussion. While this is not required when articles are nominated for deletion, in my opinion it is preferred to notify article creators and contributors about them. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthAmerica: I agree -- it should (and could) be automatic. A) I have reviewed some recent Deletion reviews and see (roughly) how it works. I have some questions, numbered for ease of reference: 1) is the decision at the end made by any administrator or the one who deleted it in the first place? 2) Unfortunately I could not find any journal page that had been deleted. This would have been useful as a guide. Are you aware of any? Is there a tool to locate them? B) regarding the AfD, 5 editors contributed, which I deal with in turn: 1) the nominator made several points i) "without an impact factor" -- from the data cited IF > 50/318. Is there a formal threshold? Besides, these are BIOSYS data only; since the journal gives equal weight to chemistry and physics, which are presumably not of interest to BIOSYS, IF could be 3x that. ii) "only listed indexing services are minor" -- is Chemical Abstracts Services minor? I thought that was the major one. iii) "the link to the journal here is currently dead" -- I have checked it now & it is working fine. Maybe some temporary glitch in a server? It is unfortunate that the link was then marked as "dead" -- would have negatively influenced opinion, of course. 2) Comments by Randykitty are problematical because Randykitty contributed to the creation of the page and these issues, that were originally raised, were resolved then -- otherwise the page would not have remained. Why the change of opinion? 3) Blue Rasberry refers to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) but you have yourself stated that they are "sometimes used". In any case there are no absolute rules. Given the journal's unique profile and history, and the way it occupies a very special niche, especially in FIS, a strong case for an exception could be made. 4) DGG: "Worldcat shows only 6 library holdings". This must be a gross underestimate, because "Only libraries that have created a profile in the WorldCat Registry are listed in the library search results". I doubt that our departmental library, which subscribes to the journal, has bothered to create a profile. 5) Joaquin008: "per nom". I do not understand this. Could you explain, please? Finally, I note from the history that an orphan tag was added on 18 March 2014. It is not so obvious why a journal page should have incoming links (but I will check other journals), but of course they could be created. But is it appropriate for me as page creator to do that? Seems like COI, which is why I never even looked at the page again until a few days ago. I would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks Ankababel (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi User:Ankababel: Regarding the above:

1. Deletion review discussions are typically (and should be) closed by an uninvolved administrator

2. See this custom search to view AfD discussions that have occurred regarding journals. Some of these have been closed with a deletion result.

3. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is the closest thing to a guideline page for journals

4. Regarding editor !votes in the discussion, you should ask them about it, as they can explain their rationales better than I can

5. "Per nom" in deletion discussions is an abbreviation for "per nominator"

6. Links to articles are functional to interconnect topics in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking for more information. Having some incoming links to an article one created is unlikely to cause concerns about conflict of interest.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi NorthAmerica: thank you for these responses, all very helpful, thx especially for custom search. May I (perhaps finally on this topic) ask:

(a) whether you find my responses to AfD points reasonable

(b) does the closing administrator simply tot up the votes, or are the points critically evaluated for validity and weighted accordingly

(c) is there a ″quorum″ (i.e. minimum number of participants) for AfD (and deletion review)? Ankababel (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ankababel: I recommend adhering to the points at the Notes and examples section of Notability (academic journals) page in terms of qualifying the criteria listed above that section on the page, as there is precedent therein. Some of your points above are functional in terms potentially demonstrating notability. Afd and Deletion review discussions are closed upon the merits of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There is no minimum for participants in said discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)