User talk:Killiondude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks at RfD[edit]

Thanks for clearing up almost all of the backlog there! Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


I realize this isn't a huge issue but why, if this AFD was closed as delete, does a redirect exist? The only thing that bothers me is that you determined a redirect wasn't the consensus of the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi TheGracefulSlick. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I did in fact close it as "delete" and said page was deleted. After reading through WP:XFD and WP:AFD, I can't find anywhere that speaks to a situation similar to this. My only advice would be to take the link through WP:RFD now if you believe it should not be a redirect. :/ Sorry. It seems this is a way to subvert the deletion discussion process... Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision to delete article: Ty Morse[edit]

Hoping to address with you, Killiondude some concerns about the closed discussion of Ty Morse. I think there are some elements of the discussion that should be more strongly considered before making the determination to delete. The discussion hinged on 2 significant concerns: 1) promotion and 2) notability.

Promotion: Concerns about promotion should, in accordance with WP:Promotion, generally lead to a rewrite of the article rather than a delete, as noted by Genome$100. Furthermore, concerns about RS being PR spam were demonstrated to be cases of syndication of an article throughout the USA Today network.
Notability: Overall discussion indicated that notability was in a gray area. WP:GNG states that articles are typically not deleted if there is some indication that a subject may be notable. Relevant points in the discussion about notability that would lean in favor of keeping the article include the following:
1. Based on Thinker78’s last comment on 3 January, it appears that not all editor reviewed the references included in the original article before weighing in. To discuss notability, I assumed that editors would review the sources cited in the article itself, and so I only started a discussion of *additional* sources that could be included in revisions of the article to enhance notability. The references included in the article itself should have been addressed in the discussion of notability.
2. The article went through the Articles of Creation process and was approved in 2014, and so it must have met GNG when it was originally accepted.
3. Some editors with “delete” votes, including the nominating editor, indicated that some of the additional sources provided in the discussion seemed to meet GNG, which suggests that the notability of this subject is at the least in a gray area.
4. In the additional criteria for notability of people, one criterion is whether they have been nominated multiple times for a significant award. The subject has been twice nominated for the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, but this fact was presented late in the debate without enough time for it to be adequately discussed. Again, this information was in the original article, so I did not bring it up earlier, assuming that it was already known.
5. Finally, while I understand that votes do not determine the outcome, since the actual vote tally was 3 Keeps to 3 Deletes, it appears that a consensus to delete was not reached.

Would you please reconsider your decision in light of this information? Jemima1418 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jemima. Promotional language had no bearing on my decision. I am aware of what the policy states regarding that. By my count there are 4 people leaning towards delete and 3 keeps, one of which was a "per" comment that I ultimately disregarded. "ANYBIO" and "GNG" are both guidelines, while Wikipedia operates ultimately by consensus. In the discussion is seemed the sources did not ultimately sway the participants that the subject was notable. If you'd like to start a formal review of the closure, feel free to take it to Deletion Review where it can be discussed. I hope you understand more my position. Killiondude (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting that Genome's vote carry nil weight.As I and Guy assumed he was a returning sock of a banned user trying to promote OMICS and mass-!voted at different AfDs to hide the trails.Winged BladesGodric 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No consensus decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Carr[edit]

Consensus is not expected or required to be absolute. Υπογράφω seems to be the only one who thinks that the references to the sentencing establishes Carr's notability, and the sporting achievements are below threshhold. I am, at best, mystified by the decision. Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin McE. If in your first sentence you meant that consensus is not required to be unanimous, true. That wasn't why I originally closed as "no consensus". However, after going back through and re-reading the discussion, I realized I made a bad call here and re-closed it as "delete". No one is perfect and I suppose I may have misread the first time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to object to the re-closing. I think "no consensus" was the right call. FormalDude's arguments should be discounted, as they were based in misinterpretations of policy, as I explained, and he misjudged the sources. (E.g. They are not from independent websites. The ones from independent websites all only cover his death -- that's simply false.) So we have my argument for keep, which I think was fairly strong, the nominator's counterargument for deletion, a delete from K.e.coffman who did not review the improved sourcing, and a weak keep (also before the improved sourcing). I don't think that's sufficient to establish consensus to delete. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)It was in line with closer's discretion.Whilst a relist could have been done, I strongly doubt that the outcome would be anything else.The rebuttals to your sourcing was strong.Winged BladesGodric 07:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I felt similarly to what Winged Blades described above. After re-reading the discussion (post-initial closing), I considered relisting instead of re-closing as delete. Given the comments already, it seemed like deletion was imminent in any case. If you'd like to formally contest, you may do so at WP:Deletion Review. Killiondude (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Censored (2nd nomination)[edit]

Everything seems to have been done, except the deletion of the actual page - Project Censored :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh. The request must've timed out or something. Looks like another admin took care of it now. Thank you for letting me know. Killiondude (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects recreated[edit]

Hi, a number of redirects deleted as part of this discussion were immediately recreated by the original user. I've put a message on his talk page asking him to stop doing that, but as the admin who deleted the originals could you please remove them again? Many thanks, HornetMike (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems Tavix took care of the new creations. Killiondude (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate the content for 3D Builder[edit]

Content deletion should be carefully considered. 3D Builder is a widely used 3d application in the 3d printing industry. It is a free application available in the Windows Store ( and a definitive viewer of the 3MF file format. Kindly reinstate the original content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisiv (talkcontribs) 00:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Krisiv. Per the deletion discussion, it was decided that it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You can start a draft if you'd like to prove it has in-depth independent, third party sources that discuss it, you may. Killiondude (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The original article linked to NY Times Bits column, numerous press releases, and described features available in this application. There was no discussion about content challenged. The tool and its use is popular and in the public domain. Please recover this article and challenge the content that is unsupported. Removal of articles and information should only be done in rare cases. The app is also referenced by View 3D, Paint 3D and other articles that have not been removed and appear even less supported.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisiv (talkcontribs) 00:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Krisiv:, the participants in the deletion discussion agreed there was not enough in-depth, third party coverage in reliable sources. I can undelete and move into the draft area if you'd like to work on the article more. Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. It helps build good-faith. Generally speaking the other articles argument doesn't help you achieve what you're hoping for. Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

COI Disclosure[edit]

Just a heads up, Krisiv has reinstated the talk page of the deleted article and seems to have disclosed a COI. –dlthewave 17:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a new article for 3D Builder in my draft space. I have updated my COI on the associated talk page. Please take a look and provide feedback. Let me know if there is anything that appears controversial or unsupported. Krisiv (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I just received a notice that my new article had been reviewed by Killiondude. Thank you. Is this sufficient to create a new 3D Builder article with these contents? If so, should I do that or is should this be completed by an editor? Please let me know the next step. I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisiv (talkcontribs) 19:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to Reinstate Project Censored[edit]

Hello, Klliondude,

I’m the director of Project Censored and president of the Media Freedom Foundation nonprofit that oversees the Project. We recently learned that our Wikipedia page has been deleted. We don’t understand why this has happened given the material we’ve already reviewed and our organization's history and ongoing contributions and activities.

We have been around since 1976, are an award-winning organization, we continue to publish a book a year with Seven Stories Press (see their website), work with faculty and students on nearly 20 campuses across the US, are covered by media around the world including dozens of weeklies in the US every year, and have our own radio program on some 40 stations across the US on Pacifica network and NPR affiliates (since 2010). This is all verifiable on sites and sources well outside our own webpage. Without getting into any particulars surrounding the person/source who requested our deletion, we respectfully request that the page be reinstated.

For a partial listing of prominent people who have supported our work over the decades into the present, including Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, see

Please feel free to contact me if there are questions or concerns, or if you can let us know what we can do to be reinstated.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.


Mickey Huff President, Media Freedom Foundation Director, Project Censored Professor of Social Science and History MickeyHuff (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As you can imagine, Wikipedia needs to set a scope with regards to topics. The general inclusion criteria requests that the subject be covered in-depth in multiple sources that are reliable and independent. There is also a set of inclusion criteria for organizations that is more specific (but still within the realm of the general criteria).
The Project Censored page was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. Consequently, there are a couple of options. I can move the deleted article to the draft area of Wikipedia, which would allow you or anyone else the opportunity to make changes to the article such that it meets the inclusion criteria. If you feel it already met the inclusion criteria, the other option would be to start a thread on the Deletion Review noticeboard. Please let me know how you would like to move forward. Killiondude (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Could you reopen and relist Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_January_5#File:Angel_Recording_Studios.png please as there was no consensus whatsoever to keep, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey, there are three different participants who said they supported keeping the file and yours was the only voice opposing. If you feel my close did not accurately reflect the consensus you are free to open a thread at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Thank you and hope you had a fantastic Saturday. Killiondude (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Killiondude, Okie dokie I've sent it to DRV, Thanks and I hope you had a great Saturday too :), –Davey2010Talk 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

Dr Venkat Sumantran Page deletion[edit]

Hi Killiondude i am new to Wiki and recently created a page on Dr Venkat Sumantran and it is deleted now , could you tell me the reason for deletion? Dr. Venkat Sumantran (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It was deleted as a blatant promotion and self-advertisement, totally inappropriate for an impartial encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)