User talk:Let'srun/Archives/2023/October

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Let'srun. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Let'srun! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You nominated this page for WP:PROD using an incorrect procedure; you are supposed to use only the PROD tag on the article only, and then add {{Old prod}} to the talk page above the talk header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand, how does one do this? Let'srun (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You place {{subst:prod|reason=Your reason here}} on the article only, then copy-paste the following onto the top of the talk page:

{{Old prod|nom = Your username|nomdate = {{SUBST:#time: Y-m-d}}|nomreason = Your reason here}}

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Next time you propose an article for deletion, you might want to notify editors involved with the editing or creating of said article. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

"While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Snickers2686 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BUNDLE, you should just make one large proposal for deletion of federal judicial nominees. Then the community can have one comprehensive discussion about that, rather than having multiple different threads within each individual AFD page. I would ask an admin for help if you need help figuring out how to bundle these. Marquardtika (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think all of them should be deleted though, but will do so, thank you! Let'srun (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you in good faith though? All of your articles are of non-notwworthy people it seems! Let'srun (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy based on what? Precedent has been set with prior nomination articles with no objection. Why switch now? And you need to decide where you want to have this discussion, the AfD or here, I'm not going to be going back and forth. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don't think all of them should be deleted, then what is your rationale for wanting to delete some but not all? This is the kind of thing that would benefit from a unified community discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

For instance, I don't think Charnelle Bjelkengren should be deleted because of the significant press coverage she has received after her answers to senator Kennedy in a committee hearing. I don't know how to start such a discussion but would be happy to learn Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

At the least it and others are closer cases Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I see you have proposed multiple judicial nominees' pages to be deleted because it is too soon. Judicial nominees are nominated by the president of the US for lifetime appointments to an equal co-branch of government. All of them have lengthy careers that is detailed on their pages as well. Traditionally, all judicial nominees have been considered notable & have Wikipedia pages. The only one that was taken down in recent memory was Tiffany Cartwright. She has still not been confirmed, yet her page is back up. What you are proposing, respectfully goes against all previous precedent.

MIAJudges (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one district court judge in history has had their Wikipedia page sent to draft. That one person is Tiffany Cartwright. Her page has been reverted back to main space, but she hasn't been confirmed yet. Who made the assertion that district court nominees are not notable until confirmed? I saw that for Assistant US Attorney's but have never even remotely seen that suggested, let alone decided for district court nominees.

MIAJudges (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please refer to WP:USCJN Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. You are trying to blanketly take down the pages of all nominees but there simply is no way a person can be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. What you are trying to do goes against all Wikipedia precedent in this category.

MIAJudges (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk in the AfD Let'srun (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Let'srun,

I have closed several of your AFD nominations as unanimous Keeps. Participating in AFD discussions thoughtfully takes up a lot of editors' time and talent so you might take a second to review the criteria you are using to decide when to nominate an article for a deletion discussion. If you are using Twinkle, which I highly recommend, you can set up a lot for articles you have sent to AFDs, articles you have PROD'd or ones you have tagged for CSD speedy deletion. It can be very useful in your development as an editor to review your decisions and see which ones were supported by your fellow editors and which ones were not. We all strive to become better editors here over time and I encourage you to assess your AFD nominations and see what the successful ones had in common. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise! I greatly appreciate it and look to become a better editor over time. Let'srun (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you nominated several other judicial articles for deletion instead of just asking that they be draftified? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Let'srun,

Just another reminder that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), you should post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. Most editors take care of this by using Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. Twinkle is a very useful editing tool that is used by page patrollers and by many administrators because it means that you don't need to remember or search for templates, it does all of that for you. It allows you to create AFD discussions, report vandals to noticeboards, post welcome messages, tag articles that have issues, post warnings to user talk pages, so many activities that I can't imagine editing every day without using it. I encourage you to try it out.

But what you need to do is to set your Twinke Preferences to "Notify page creator", it's a box that should be checked off. Then, any time you tag a page for deletion, Twinkle handles the talk pages notices for you. If you choose not to use Twinkle, then please use an appropriate template or write a personal note to inform the editor that a page they created might be deleted and, more importantly, why it might be deleted. Give it a try! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned at ANI, if someone asks you to stop pinging them you really should stop. I appreciate it an be confusing since some editors (including me) generally prefer pings when mentioned especially if someone wants a response, but others don't like them. But one thing community consensus is clear on is that requests not to ping someone just like requests not to post on an editor's talk page really should be honoured with very rare exceptions when it's absolutely needed. (Which is probably never for pings, since they can't be relied on if it's needed then posting on a talk page is better.) I understand you might forget about such a request, but in the particular case of MIAJudges, considering the request was made in the same thread multiple times and that it's only a week or two ago, forgetting isn't really an acceptable excuse either. So please don't ping MIAJudges again.

As I said at ANI, if it happens again, I'd fully support sanction against you for doing it, so please don't. As you might be aware, I've largely agreed with you at the ANI thread itself, but this is on case where your behaviour has been wrong.

As I also mentioned at ANI, you can still discuss MIAJudges behaviour without pinging whether using the noping template or just by mentioning them without linking to their user page. If an uninvolved or mostly uninvolved editor feels MIAJudges really needs to respond and their fail to in good time, they may chose to either ping them or approach them on their talk page but you should leave this up to them not you.

Ultimately with their request, MIAJudges has chosen to accept that their behaviour will be discussed without notifications for new developments, although for better or worse no editor should expect there to be such recurrent notifications anyway. To some extent editors are expected to follow threads discussing their behaviour even if they last a long time. With such long last threads it's recognised as somewhat problematic; but regular pings is often no better.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand and won't be doing it going forward. Let'srun (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Let'srun,

On Wikipedia, we have a much bigger problem with non-notable beauty pageant contestants (and non-notable beauty competitions) than we do with non-notable judicial officials. Ask Bri about this, she's been successful at getting obscure beauty pageant articles reviewed for deletion for over a year now. Take a look at Draft:Miss Beauty Doll which, as a draft, is not eligible for AFD but it gives you an idea of the absurdity of some of our beauty pageant coverage. Unfortunately, the international pageants get all caught up with national pride and so there can be more emotion involved than considering the deletion of biographies on judges. But there are a lot of non-notable articles to still be weeded out. That's just my personal opinion, whatever the consensus is, as long as it's in line with policy, rules the day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I have seen that you nominated 21 beauty pageant pages today for nomination. Did you search every single name through google, google books and newspapers.com before nominating? It seems like that would be very hard to do in such a short timeframe. It's also asking a lot of people like myself to go through 21 articles at the same time.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have a newspapers.com subscription. Let'srun (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So every single nomination was run through Google, Google Books and newspapers.com?KatoKungLee (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I also used ProQuest. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There were 1,900 mentions of Miss University of Florida alone on a newspapers.com search I did - See here. While mentions aren't everything, that's really a lot of mentions to somehow not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Let'srun,

I opened up an ANI about this. It's too many nominations at once, I don't know how many more are going to be added within the next few days and I am skeptical on some of these nominations.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please post a link next time. Thank you! Let'srun (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, how original: another post about your involvement in the AfD process. However, this time it's because I wanted to thank you for your dedication to weeding out articles on non-notable subjects – always a sure-fire way to ruffle some feathers. But hey, someone's got to make sure the place doesn't get overtaken by WP:FANCRUFT, right? Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t) 19:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in the AfD for Jennifer M. Adams, nominees might not be as notable but Senate-confirmed people are. Bryan David Hunt was confirmed last week as the next ambassador to Sierra Leone. Although I agree that more sources can be useful there, he now meets the criteria for WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as the US head of mission in Sierra Leone (the question now is when he starts, which can take a while but nevertheless he's confirmed).

Therefore, I'm planning on moving it back to the mainspace (again) when the speedy deletion process is complete so there aren't any mixups. I'll add a tag for BLP. Losipov (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say just to hold off in the future to create mainspace articles for these career diplomats when they are nominees unless they meet the GNG somehow. Too often articles are being created WP:TOOSOON. I have just requested to move the Hunt article back to the mainspace. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I think it's better to bypass AfC for Hunt's article though, as notability has already been established and it can take literally months for his article to be reviewed. I still think it's better to just move it back to mainspace for these two reasons alone. And again, I'll add a BLP tag just in case. Losipov (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bryan David Hunt. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are moving older articles to draft space. You should know the Wikipedia policy of WP:DRAFTIFY, which says article older than 90 days should not be draftified. I am reverting some of your moves. Okoslavia (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: Policy says: The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Older articles should not be draftified. As a rule of thumb, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue. Also in this case I am not seeing Losipov as inexperienced editor as she has been trusted with reviewer and patroller flags. Okoslavia (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding, though, WP:DRAFTIFY is just an essay. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. But on which there is a community consensus. Okoslavia (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Let'srun,

This discussion about draftication has been held in various forums, like the Village Pump (sorry not to have a link). I don't use a strict 90 day rule, I generally consider it inappropriate to move articles older than 3-6 months. But you get the idea. Don't move longstanding articles to Draft space. Either work on improving them, tag them for existing problems or pursue deletion if you think this is an appropriate measure to take.

And don't overdo it...we sometimes have editors discover draftication and then draftify dozens and dozens of articles in one day. Draftification is just one tool to use at your disposal and look at the experience level of the editor. If the page creator has more experience in content creation than you do, it's probably a bad idea to draftify their articles. It can be very jarring for editors to have an article they've worked on moved to Draft space so use Draftication primarily with editors who are new at content creation and whose articles could use an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Let'srun (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Let'srun With that said, I think this rationale applies to the Adams article. It's been in the mainspace for well over six months, and draftifying it now wouldn't make much sense. I still think the article should stay, and I'll simply put a BLP tag on the article so others know there can be improvements. Maybe it's time to close that discussion?

(And just a side note: checking if nominees have been confirmed is easy. congress.gov automatically updates their nominations when some sort of action is taken like, say, a confirmation hearing was held or they were placed on the executive calendar. I don't know if you knew this, but putting it here just in case). Losipov (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am aware, and though I saw that no action had been taken before the recess. Apologies for reading incorrectly. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cad Crowd, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Do me a favor and don't tag me in any more deletion discussions, it's clogging up my inbox. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Good morning from Campora San Giovanni, Calabria, I am writing to say hello and know how you are. In addition to this, to ask you for a small courtesy. Would you like to fix the page and make it a bit more encyclopaedic? I tried to create it, it seemed right that the actress too should have her "place in the sun", using an Italian expression. In any case, if I can do something for you, please ask, waiting to hear from you, I thank you in advance. Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Per your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CW affiliation realignment, I thought you might be interested in a draft I created that I think covers more of the scope of the local changes. I'm not sure its ready for Wikipedia so I'm interested to hear your thoughts. Draft:2023 sports related U.S. television changes. Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Let'srun,

Just a head's up that this bundled nomination wasn't set up properly. When it came time to close the discussion, no action was taken on the articles included in the nomination. When making a bundled proposal, please set it up according to the directions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion so that it is formatted properly. It's not as simple as creating a list of articles, there is specific code you must use. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could you clarify your decision to move this article back to draftspace? Your reason of "no sources" is incorrect, as there are multiple sources in the article. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I cam here as well for that reason. She's a sitting magistrate judge, which in my view meets NJUDGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, sorry to say but there was a Afd where the result was to draftify the page, and nothing has changed to the subject in that time. Saying she will be confirmed next week is WP:CRYSTAL. I will send the article to a draft again, and if it is reverted I will create a new AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please link to that AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

[[1]] Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that it was deleted as a result of that discussion and then moved to the draft space. In that case, I think moving it back to draft space was entirely appropriate, but I think you should have made that clear as your draftify rationale. @ARandomName123: do you think this should still be in the mainspacee, should we re-draftify it, or would you prefer to go the AfD route? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I would go with draftify for now, but if any other editor objects, it should go to AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved to the draft space. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)