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)

Next step?[edit]

Hello, I just received a notice that my new article had been reviewed by Killiondude and my talk page reviewed as well. 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. Krisiv (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krisiv: I took a look at the page several days ago in order to do some tidying and cleanup. While there, there was a link to mark it as patrolled so I did so. (That doesn't matter as much for drafts, but I did it anyway.) I would advise that you go through the Articles for Creation process. To do so, you only need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft and click "save". A reviewer will be along to examine it. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have completed this. Thanks for the help. Krisiv (talk) 18:35, 22 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)
Thank you for the information. If you could move the deleted article article to the drafts area of Wikipedia that would be great. We will edit the article so that it meets the inclusion criteria. Thanks Killiondude for your help, MickeyHuff (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@MickeyHuff: Sure thing. It is now located at Draft:Project Censored. Killiondude (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi again Killiondude, we have put a considerable amount of time into the draft Project Censored Wikipedia page and believe it to be worthy of inclusion. What is the next step to take? Thank you again in advance for your help MickeyHuff (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello MickeyHuff! Sorry for the delayed response. Since this was an article formerly deleted due to notability concerns, I would recommend that you put {{Subst:submit}} at the top of it so that a reviewer can come along to check that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Hope that helps, Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey Killiondude no worries and thank you! We will do that right away. MickeyHuff (talk) 20:42, 12 February 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)

Request to Reconsider Deletion of BuildZoom Article[edit]

BuildZoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey there, I'm writing in reference to your decision to delete the article on BuildZoom. I'd ask that you restore the article so others', including myself, may have a chance to participate in the deletion discussion. I recognize that a topic was posted to my talk page, however I've been out of the country with limited access and have just returned, the discussion was only made available for a week or so before you made the final decision and I would like to request the opportunity to address some of the claims, which I believe to be either inaccurate or unwarranted. Furthermore, the discussion involved an initial, debatable claim that doesn't actually reference any specifics in the article, followed by two brief acknowledgements, the totality of which, falls short of a substantive consensus viewpoint. I'd like the opportunity to articulate a perspective and contribute to the discussion before a definitive decision is made. Driftreality (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Driftreality: Hello! Yes, those discussions are set to be 7 full days from their start and is now closed. If you have new information that was not presented in the discussion, that is fine. You can open a conversation at the deletion review board where a multitude can review the info you provide and see if it merits recreating the article (or starting a new AFD discussion), this would be point #3 at WP:DRVPURPOSE. Hope that helps! Killiondude (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Philippine Basketball Association related AfDs that should be addressed[edit]

An editor, User:Sportsfan 1234 recently nominated a large number of articles, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino, probably due to a basic misunderstanding of the deletion policy, showing a lack of WP:BEFORE and a WP:BIAS towards foreign articles.

I think the above articles have been adequately addressed, but prior to my involvement, additional articles including: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson (PROD),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa were AfD'd or PROD'ed by the same editor. All of the deletion discussions consist only of a terse nomination (Fails WP:NBASKETBALL) that doesn't really include a valid reason for deletion, a delete vote by an editor (John Pack Lambert) who votes delete on almost every article for deletion, apparently with little to no research as he often votes multiple times within the same minute. One of the discussions has an additional delete vote with the reason "per nom". All were then closed as delete by User:Killiondude.

I know we're busy, and junk nominations such as these are largely why, but I don't think this is how an AfD should be closed. If no one votes on it (and I think JPLs votes are close to meaningless), or even comments on it, certainly not giving valid policy-based reasons for deletion, shouldn't the discussion be relisted or closed as no consensus? Is it possible to get these articles restored? I would like to see what was there. Thanks.

On a very positive sidenote, I've been addressing editors politely on their talk page, with good results, one has withdrawn a nomination and is appreciative of the comments, while another has at least quit making spurious nominations. Hopefully this will cut down the future workload at AfD. Thanks for all your help!Jacona (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It is not the nominations that are junk, but the attempts to allow articles with no reliable sources that is junk. We need much more stringent relibility guidelines for sportspeople, so that Wikipedia will no longer be drowned and overwhelemed by articles on totally non-notable sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jacona. Failing the notability criteria for a basketball player is certainly a valid deletion argument. And with no other participants vying for an outcome other than deletion, we delete. I will undelete the articles you linked above per the SOFTDELETE link I just cited. I should have used "soft delete" in my closing statement as most only had JPL as a participant other than the nom. However, if no changes are made to the articles, I have a feeling that one or more other editors may create a mass-AFD with them listed. Killiondude (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that Edward Chongson has never existed. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Killiondude, I'll be looking at these. A couple may be right back at AfD, but in contrast to John Pack Lamberts comments about these nominations not being junk, a couple that survived were among the all-time greats of the league, with literally thousands of English-language sources, yet they were nominated and JPL voted for deletion, because of our WP:BIAS, these would probably have been deleted as well if I'd not gotten involved. AfD is often more about the timing of who's paying attention right now than it is about our policies, guidelines, and facts. Thanks again Killiondude!Jacona (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Closure of FFD nom on File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg[edit]

Hello. You closed the FFD nomination on File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg more than a week ago. However, I see that it wasn't closed as relisted. There are newer comments from others, including me, who wasn't aware of the relisting. I was confused at first when I didn't see the FFD tag. Then I went to the file talk page and saw the banner. What can be done about that ongoing discussion and newer comments? George Ho (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@George Ho: Interesting! I suspect the script's relist action successfully copy/pasted the thread into the new log page and didn't point the old log page to the new(er) discussion. After having read the new comments, I still don't see any consensus to delete, so the "no consensus" close I made is probably still fine. I'll just manually close the open one and make some notes in edit summaries and log page itself. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like User:SlimVirgin created the mess while assuming bad faith in the relist. They can clean up. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks, this message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, hello there! Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

*waves at Coffee*
It's been a while. :) Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to notify you that there is currently a discussion taking place at ANI[edit]

Hi Killiondude, this is just to notify you that there is currently a discussion taking place at ANI which you might want to participate in, the discussion can be found here. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. As you noticed, I haven't been around as much this week. I didn't see your ping from yesterday, it seems the issues has been taken care of. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Dike[edit]

Greetings, the Dike page itself is still there.<grin>--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Just deleted it. More often than not, I've been getting errors while attempting to delete pages. Here's what I got just now when I attempted (worked on the third try), for posterity's sake.
[WmuqiApAMEoAAB39jIAAAAAW] 2018-01-26 22:24:18: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"
Killiondude (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Those error messages are SO useful here in the trenches... And thanks.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision to delete article: Marilyn Monroe's Evening Gown and Shawl[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering if you could please reconsider the deletion that had taken place on a Wikipedia page I was working on? The Marilyn Monroe's Evening Gown and Shawl is the page I was working on. I am a very well known celebrity historian and I was working on a Wikipedia page about one of Marilyn Monroes gowns, it had been the first ever to be exhibited as being owned by Marilyn Monroe. It has a very famous history yet it is a virtually unknown gown to people who don't know film and celebrity history. I was hoping that you would reconsider the deletion that was on my page so I could finish my page off and let more people see and learn about this famous gown. Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uncoveringcelebrityhistory: Hello! Wikipedia has a certain set of notability requirements in terms of what subjects should have articles. Generally speaking, they need to have several sources that discuss the subject in depth, these sources should be reliable and independent of the subject and verifiable. This specific article, Marilyn Monroe's evening gown and shawl, was deleted via an articles for deletion discussion located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Monroe's evening gown and shawl. There are a couple of routes that can be taken here: you can present a case at deletion review if you have new information that would help build a case saying this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or you can work on the article in a draft in an attempt to add more sources and "prove" the dress itself (not Monroe, not Mann) has been discussed in-depth in reliable sources. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Could I have the draft and then I will add more references to it once I find them and then shall I just republish the page? Or how about doing the deletion review first and then if it is rejected I shall work more on the article? Please tell me how to present a case onto Wikipedia for a deletion review. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talkcontribs) 14:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You can visit the link above to examine the Deletion Review page. It has clear directions and live discussions. Let me know how you would like to proceed. Killiondude (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again My apologies for the late reply. I looked on the deletion review page but I couldn't see it. Where would the draft be? Would you be able to send it to me? Thanks (Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)))

If you could please send me the draft of the gown I shall edit it up with the correct sources and everything Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talkcontribs) 12:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uncoveringcelebrityhistory. I just emailed it to you. Killiondude (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision to delete article: List of Arrow Video USA Releases[edit]

Please reconsider the deletion of this page, it keeps an archival list of restored classic films in the United States from the established film label Arrow Video. Many film enthusiasts have been extremely upset by this page deletion and are no longer able to access this important information.

Tylertwy2005 (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tylertwy2005. The subject doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Specifically, in the deletion discussion users cited WP:NOT. I can email you a copy of the article if you'd like it to be hosted elsewhere. It's licensed under CC-BY-SA. See also WP:C. Let me know if that's something you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I would much appreciate having it to host somewhere else, thank you for your time.

Tylertwy2005 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


Please explain your closure at this AFD esp. in light of this paragraph and this AN thread.Thank you!~ Winged BladesGodric 04:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hello. I've amended the result of the debate and explained my reasoning there. While several users did argue for deletion, there was roughly an equal number who also used policy-based reasons in their voicing to keep it (after discounting a few of the drive-bys at the end). Btw, I have no stake in the SCHOOLOUTCOMES debate and in this discussion in particular. If you feel this reading of the discussion is still erroneous, an option would be to bring it to Deletion Review. Hope you have a great day. Killiondude (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely Okay...That's the perfect close! Thanks:)~ Winged BladesGodric 09:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

Kyle Bent[edit]

Please let me know about Kyle Bent, I think its a genuine article. (Fbofficl (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC))

Hello Fbofficl. I relisted the discussion as there wasn't enough participation to close it as of yet. Hopefully 7 days from the time of relisting there will be further engagement by other editors. If not, it may be closed as "no consensus." It's a bit of a tough call to do that since I don't believe you cited any policy points in your arguments. Though I last looked at it several hours ago. See Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to reconsider decision to delete Craig Bromberg[edit]

Killiondude, I have added my conversation here previously with respect to deletion of the article about me, but do not see that conversation here. Would you please let me know where (url) to find the conversation about this decision and how to appropriately appeal? Thank you! Bromony (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

EUROPT page deleted: please let us know if and how to get it back on line![edit]

Dear Sirs, this morning I discovered that the EUROPT page ( has been canceled. That page is very important for a large international scientific community, it is the page describing the essence and activity of the European Working Group on Continuous Optimization within EURO, the Association of European Operational Research Societies - see the working group page here: This is a vivid academic and practitioner working group, with periodic international meetings, prizes, honorary fellows, publications. Please let us know how to help this community to re-gain visibility to this page, it is not clear to us, members of this community, why this page is considered as not relevant - maybe we should link to it from our sites? I see that the main reason is the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Of course, being an academic group, it contains most of the people interested in the subject. So it is not easy to find really "external" sources referring to EUROPT, however the group is cited in the page of the the Association of European Operational Research Societies and I am sure that in some cases, in the occasion of the annual mmeting, there might be some general news reportig the event (last year in Montreal more than 200 participants gathered). Checking the news, as an example, I found a citation of EUROPT here: Further external references to EUROPT are and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabio Schoen (talkcontribs) 12:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So please let us know if there might be any possibility for re.consideration and let us know how to proceed. Many thanks Fabio Schoen (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fabio Schoen. Wikipedia has a certain set of inclusion criteria, the general criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. There are also subject-specific criteria found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The deletion discussion found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EUROPT reflects a consensus that EUROPT didn't meet these criteria. If you feel that is in error, you can either file a new discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review that specifically brings new information to light or you can create a draft article in an effort to meet the inclusion requirements. Hope that helps. Let me know which you'd prefer to attempt. Killiondude (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Constant Recreation of an Article Comment[edit]

I am bringing this to your talk page since you deleted the page RS Praveen Kumar as per AfD, the article has been recreated again as RS Praveen Kumarand I have tagged it Speedy. This promotional article about the non notable person has been deleted and recreated multiple times each time with slightly different name and gaming the system, the article never passed AfC before it was introduced in the mainspace. (Draft:Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar, WP:Articles for deletion/Dr Repally Shiva Praveen Kumar, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar, R. S. Praveen Kumar, Dr Repalle Shiva Praveen Kumar, and Dr. R S Praveen Kumar.)

Request you to salt the title so that it cannot be created again, since I cannot see the creators of the earlier article there could also be Sock-puppetry here in trying to get this individual into Wikipedia. --HagennosTalk 04:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Fabrictramp, who may or may not be watching my talk page and who may or may not live in the same county as I do (!), seems to have gotten to it before I did. Thanks for letting me know. I had a short email exchanges with the offending user a week or two ago and advised them not to recreate. Let me or any other admin know if you see it happen again. I've salted all the pages you linked, but I'm not sure how much it'll help. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Small world. :) ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Killiondude. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So... I sent you two emails. Ignore the first lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankur Jain[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankur Jain, because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion[edit]

I request you to undelete the article as no discussion took place. Also, I intend to improve the article. Thank you.--RamKaran Parjapati (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes. It's been undeleted. Please note that it may be tagged for a deletion discussion again. Killiondude (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguating out of RfD[edit]

Hi and thank you for your help with the RfD backlog, but seeing what Ethiope and Ethiop currently look like, I think one useful conclusion that can be drawn is that the XDDcloser script, brilliant though it is, doesn't yet have the AI capabilities needed to write disambiguation pages on its own. – Uanfala (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala What I do is ping the participants, generally those who !vote to disambiguate should be able to create it Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I threw a rough dab together at Aethiops, pointed the two there, it could use some work, but I removed the minerals since I couldn't find any references and they weren't mentioned at their targets. ~ Amory (utc) 11:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala. I had figured that those involved had watchlisted the RfD page or the target pages themselves and would flesh it out. I certainly wasn't trying to shirk work, but my only goal (while on Wikipedia) last night was to clear the "backlog" status on RfD. Galobtter's suggestion above to ping those users seems like a good idea. I'll do that in the future if this happens again! Killiondude (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Future Career College[edit]

Please move to draft. (I know I can do it myself, but I think it's better to ask.) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

And please restore Augustine Soares to mainspace , he meets WP:PROF as President of a college. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG. You brought a smile to my face. I have undeleted both articles, though of course in the future you can at any point do so without needing to ask me, but it was kind of you. Let me know you need anything further. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)