User talk:Metropolitan90

Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

AfD Marathon Sports (retailer)

Hi, please could you expand the reasoning for closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathon Sports (retailer). Sorry you only had a couple of !votes to go on. (WP:CORP / WP:GNG being my failed to mention implicit policy). Widefox; talk 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• There were only three participants in the AfD, and two of them recommended "keep"; you were the only "delete" recommender. I don't object if you want to take this to AfD again, but there wasn't much of a case made in the original AfD for the non-notability of this chain of stores. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree my nom was weak, and only one !vote outside creator isn't great. If you don't mind, I will re-check the secondary sources and create a new one, or would you prefer to reopen / relist? Widefox; talk 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you start a new AfD rather than having the previous one reopened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wirths

I thought it should be deleted because it is now a surname page, not a dab page. Surname pages usually do not have talk pages.Hoops gza (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population

I see you deleted Template:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population as a recreation of a previous deletion. However, this page got deleted as an isolated TFD. When over a dozen related templates were TFDed they were kept. As a result, the closing admin of that TFD agreed to restore this one, which should not have been TFDed in isolation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Where is the other TfD in which the dozen related templates got kept? I would need to see that one before restoring the template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Everything is here.--05:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've restored the template pending further developments at TfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You have restored a version with a CSD tag and no talk page explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Is there a current TFD that I should be aware of?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I've removed the speedy tag with an explanation in the edit summary. I'm not aware of any current TfD, but I wouldn't be surprised if this template and its counterparts for other states were later taken back to TfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Can you tag the talk page with the two TFDs and the DRV that the other templates have gone through somehow?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If not, we need to link to the admin talk archive that I showed you above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
            • You can add those tags yourself (see Template:Old AfD multi). By all means, please go ahead and do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Wouldn't it be less likely to be challenged if an admin did it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. As an admin, I've already made the decision to restore the template. Any user, even a nonregistered one, can post on the template talk page to report the past TfDs and DRV that the page has been involved in. If other editors object to the template being restored, I doubt they would direct their objections to an editor who merely posted the {{Old AfD multi}} template on the template's talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you have a look at the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "WikiProject approved revision" at Template talk:Kansas cities and mayors of 100,000 population. There didn't seem to be any WikiProject involvement in those events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That was the closest defined action for the template for talk page agreements to restore. Maybe I should talk to the template creator and request a restored upon administrator review action. I'll see what they say.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Carpetball

I missed the deletion discussion for this article. I agree with the outcome, but as a fan of the game I would like to preserve a copy of the article for myself against the day it becomes notable. -- LWG ^talk 19:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved a copy to User:LWG/Carpetball for you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! -- LWG ^talk 16:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste pages

Funnily enough, there was another one I came across not very long before - Christoforos Bakaoukas. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sun 21:32, wikitime= 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stott Pilates

Hello. You kept Stott Pilates about ten days ago, after I had volunteered to do the work to bring it up to snuff. Given that I'm still a bit new to WP, I was wondering whether you'd advise that I do a complete rewrite and invite comments on that, or do lots of little edits to clean it up. I admit that I'm inclined to do a complete rewrite. Trevor Jacques (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is up to you. I don't have a strong opinion either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll go for the complete update. Please holler if I make a mess of things. Thanks. Trevor Jacques (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD closure oddity

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (Sydney, Australia), the close you did seemed to add a bit off odd text at the footer. "DISCUSSION ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged" appears above the standard footer. -- Whpq (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have removed that line now. There was an explanation for that. I had copied the line "DISCUSSION ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged" by mistake while copying other text from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Closing the AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of WebDrive

Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted our longstanding article on Webdrive, and I was wondering; why it was deleted? If the article was written as 'sales-ish', That's odd as we chose to base our content and structore on other software in our category, FTP clients, such as CuteFTP, ExpanDrive, WS_FTP and deliberately ommitted content to ensure that it explained more about the uniqueness of our technology and it's origins and less about it's commercial viability. If our product was deemed unremarkable, I would greatly disagree as WebDrive was the world's first commercial implementation of this technology in the world when released in 1997. It is still the defacto standard for accessing cloud storage and is relied on by customers in nearly 130 countries. We have existing Wikipedia entries in many other countries including Germany, France, and Russia.

Wikipedia is a fabulous resource, and we enjoy being included; please let me know how we can have our articles included.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southrivertech (talk • contribs)

• To be precise, the deletion was based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebDrive, with which WebDrive with a capital D was deleted; Webdrive was deleted along with it because it was just a redirect to the deleted page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebDrive ended as a "delete" because in the 17 days that the deletion discussion was open, no participants recommended a "keep" for it. (I did consider 2 deletion recommendations against zero recommendations for anything else to be a consensus for deletion; some other Wikipedians might disagree with that.) In particular, one of the cited reasons for deletion was "Major contributor to article has clear COI [conflict of interest] and therefore promotional intent." Since you represent the company which created this software, you would be considered to have a conflict of interest and thus the article was perceived as promotional. I would not rule out the possibility that this software may in fact be notable enough to warrant an article, but it looks to me as though there were only two independent reliable sources discussing the software cited in the article before it was deleted. If a Wikipedian who did not have a financial interest in this software wanted more advice about how to re-create an article about WebDrive, I could probably help them, but I don't think there is a way that you yourself can get around the conflict of interest issues. Sorry about that. If you believe my closing the Articles for Deletion discussion was wrong because it was only 2 to 0, you are free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, but the participants there may note your conflict of interest and take that as a negative against you there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was a contributor to the article as it was originally just a stub and was being pulled in to things like FB and other external sources. So we added detail to help it be more informative and based that structure on other software products in the FTP clients category. Unfortunately as is the case with most software, it’s difficult to find external resources to provide accurate vital details on the proprietary technology. I’ll work on tracking down a Wikipedian with no COI willing to start a new article. If they need help, I’ll have them contact you. Thanks! MisterYan (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the Celebrate the Century page - regarding

Regarding the Celebrate the Century page deletion, only two delete requests were made not including the person who nominated it and one keep. Two relists for consensus did not result in any replies. A similar article Nature of America which too was listed for deletion at the same time for the same reasons had one delete and no keeps, yet that article was kept and not deleted. I feel that Celebrate the Century should have been kept. Regardless of the not notable clause it is an article that is presented for anyone looking for information on it. Is this a lost cause or are there any chances of it being reinstated. Likewise there are two other similar articles (which I mentioned in the deletion page) that very strongly resemble the conditions for delete ie not notable, yet these two were not nominated for deletion.--PremKudva^Talk 04:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Leave your reply here since I will be watching it.

• I did think there was a consensus for deletion as the article had three "delete" recommenders and only one "keep" after the AfD had been open for 23 days. If you disagree with my interpretation of the consensus, please feel free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. As to how the article could be improved if you just want to revise it in hopes of it being accepted later, it looks like most of the article's citations were to the Arago site where all U.S. stamps are discussed. Another version of the article might warrant keeping if it had greater emphasis on public attention given to the stamp series in mainstream media, per WP:GNG. If you want a copy of the article to be placed in your userspace so you can re-edit and improve it, I will provide it for you. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Metro do place the copy in my userspace I'll see if it can be improved. Thanks.--PremKudva^Talk 05:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've placed it at User:Premkudva/Celebrate the Century. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Much appreciated Metro.--PremKudva^Talk 09:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Metro please do have a look at the page now. Will the additional edits, and additional non catalog references save it? Or should I give up now? Your response will be appreciated.--PremKudva^Talk 05:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)