The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for picking up the task of slogging through the articles tagged for notability and determining if they should stay or go. I'd been doing it for several months before other things took priority, so I'm glad the work goes on. UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, utherSRG, and for your work on this. I have done it on and off for years and it's always nice to see others have been making a dent in it too. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn! Thanks for all your work on the geography stubs (some of which need to be tossed for notability) - while I appreciate it, this has added about 130 articles to the November 2023 unreferenced articles category in a few hours. I know there are no hard rules about drive-by taggings, but if you have the time, would you please try to add a source or an external link to some of them? WikiProject Unreferenced articles has a very small handful of active users and our backlog is some 116,000 articles. We would also definitely appreciate having an editor of your caliber and experience involved if you'd be interested! Thank you and have a good evening. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea I had tagged so many, sorry - I know the tags need to be there as they are unreferenced, but I appreciate it doesn't feel nice when you are working on a backlog and it goes up! I will be mindful of that if I look through any more and see if I can add any sources. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged :) Kazamzam (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marc Hogan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:BIO, subject has not received received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Citations included here are either the author's own byline, or mentions in passing about other subjects, especially Pitchfork.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WWB, I created this as a redirect to Mark Hogan, which may still be useful. Pinging the eprson who overwrote it, Djm99001. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27. PamD 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the above two dab pages as WP:CSD#G14. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked @UtherSRG to reinstate those two valid dab pages as they had been taken to AfD and there had not been enough time for other editors to contribute to discussion. PamD 13:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are times an AFD can be quick closed. CSD is one of those reasons. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Though your initial closes gave no such explanation. PamD 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tool I used which gives the "quick delete" option doesn't allow for any explanation. I've updated the AFDs to indicate G14 speedy. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, this was a dab with about 6 entries and another with 4 entries, in no way candidates for deletion, never mind speedy. Unfortunately there is an editor nominating hundreds of dabs for deletions and the guidelines around MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION in particular aren't well-known. Please restore. Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From G14: This applies to the following disambiguation pages: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. The above two pages disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and some number of other non-extant pages. This makes them G14 eligible. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you have got confused, UtherSRG. Both link to many pages (bluelinks). They don't have to be full articles on the person. See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused. I disagree that there are multiple extant articles being disambiguated. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27. PamD 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gilbert Evelyn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Individual lacks any sources outside of the page for the 1659 election. There is no purpose for having this page due to a lack of information on the individual in question.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alfonso Téllez de Meneses el Mozo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, seeing you AfDing articles in that are in Category:Articles lacking sources from January 2024, I think you should join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles and help us deal with these backlogs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CactiStaccingCrane, thanks, I will have a look at the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for clearing out the backlog! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but just a bit of it, it's such a crazy backlog! Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Akuapem North (Ghana parliament constituency has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 13 § Akuapem North (Ghana parliament constituency until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't CSD an AFD. You have to go through the withdraw/close process. I did the tasks for you. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination for more info, including a link to the withdraw/close process itself. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help :) Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You want to do the actual closure or should I? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ouro, if you know how to do it, that would be great. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'll do it within the hour. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Thanks :) Probably something I should learn. Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same about a lot of things :) have a nice day! --Ouro (blah blah) 13:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've noticed that you nominated the Database Nation article about Simson Garfinkel's book for deletion. I've found multiple reliable sources and rewritten the article to include them. I think that this article was probably nominated by accident, as you mentioned the WP:MUSICBIO and this book is about privacy and has nothing to do with music. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deltaspace42, I will sort that out. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Derham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. TheDoodbly (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cat:NN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § Cat:NN until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn

Please see the recent RM at Talk:Stephen Kirk. The purpose of the move was indicated in the proposing comment - "Rather than using a pointless disambiguation page, it'd be much better to move Stephen Kirk (handballer) to Stephen Kirk and add an hatnote for each article saying "For the footballer/handballer, see Steve/Stephen Kirk"." This is a clear WP:TWODABS situation and there are no other notable people with this name. The dab page is no longer needed, and I will list it at AFD given that you've contested the PROD nomination on it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there are several of this name mentioned on Wikipedia. I think an AfD sounds like a good idea - thanks for worknig on this. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century zoologists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Tovey (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The forward was found as the primary topic per a move request in November. I don't want to leave the DAB as it is, so what do you propose? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I have done a bit more work on the dab, you may want to look it over. AfD is an option if you think it still doesn't meet MOS:DAB. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pleck, Forne, Sherborne, Dorset has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Pleck, Forne, Sherborne, Dorset until a consensus is reached. Peter James (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For finding a variety of articles that are so bad that they need userfication or blowing up and starting from scratch, and even when we disagree why at WP:AFD, I still appreciate your hard work. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bearian, I really appreciate that. Working through CAT:NN is a bit dispiriting at times, so that will help keep me motivated :) Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lucas Bennett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Walt Trowbridge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Harold Crow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Catchpole (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Asshenden (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis exactly did you decide it doesn’t meet WP:N? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RadioactiveBoulevardier. I couldn't find good enough sources to show it meets any part of WP:N, or any evidence of real significance. It is part of a group of hotels, which also appears to be a non-notable group. However, I read over your edit summary and removed it from CAT:NN. Hopefully someone can add to it and show more clearly how it is notable. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of articles have lots of useless search results and the few SIGCOV results tend to get lost in there. But sometimes they actually are there, buried among the chaff.

In this case I did a "news" search, not sure which engine maybe Brave Search. I saw 2-3 candidates so I assume that there's more somewhere else. Often in 2024 we forget that not all "independent RS" are findable via The Google.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rohit Sharma (Rajasthan cricketer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Sharma (Rajasthan cricketer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your draftification of Monte Jackson. The reason I did this is because articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, per WP:DRAFTIFY (point 2d). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted the move of Craig Schlattman to draft space for the same reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think my brain must have not been working well - thanksfor correcting my errors. Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, these things happen from time to time =) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bolyen, I am wondering why you are deleting my page? And redirecting it. It is correct I just haven’t added most things, thanks 871-G (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry for not giving a clear enough reason for my edit, 871-G. The article was at too early a stage for publishing - with refernces and it being clearer how it meets WP:NOTABILITY, it can easily be moved back. In the meantime, please don't let this put you off working on it. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you just draftified it; I don't know how to do that but I think maybe Twin wall flues should also be. It was created by the same user at the same time and has the same kind of content. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it still wasn't an approved draft so I have moved it back to draftspace. It has a reference, which is more than the other article, but still needs a lot of work. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still using Evad37's version of the draftication script. Please switch to MPGuy2824's version, which is substantially better than the old version. GTrang (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GTrang, I am using the 'Move to draft' that comes up at the side of myscreen as I have the permissions - do you think there is a way to change it there? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, please edit your common.js subpage by removing the existing line and adding {{subst:iusc|User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js}} to switch to the new version of the script. GTrang (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1213986179, for example, there is still a "via script" link that points to User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, but that script is outdated. So, please follow my above suggestion by editing User:Boleyn/common.js. Do not ignore this please! GTrang (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boleyn, it appears we are engaged in a silly edit war on the Paul Boujenah page. In my experience, if a page has zero references, no reference section is included. Unless you plan on adding refs within the next 24 hours, I would suggest removing the section until references are available. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you maybe haven't looked at the page recently - when I wrote it was being actively worked on, I did mean that :) I also don't know of any guidelines/rules that say references sections should be deleted if it doesn't have refs yet, but please direct me to any guidelines like that, as I maybe just haven't come across them. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is such a guideline, but it seems obvious to me that an article shouldn't include empty sections. Next time, please don't add bare urls to a page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should edit war on what seems obvious to you, we all see things differently :) There are no guidelines I know of that ban how I added the reference (please correct me if I am wrong, as I may well be). It wasn't perfect, but was quickly putting together a refernce. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page William Caulfield (disambiguation) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You moved Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions to draftspace because it had "no sources". It was a list of lists and therefore did not require any. I moved it back. Then you moved John Mearsheimer bibliography to draftspace because it had "no sources". The entire article is a list of sources, and like other bibliography articles lacking citations it does not need them unless claims are made, i.e. within the lead or annotations. Can you undo your move of John Mearsheimer bibliography please? Ivan (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Иованъ. Lists do need refs, as they are classed as articles. I wouldn't feel comfortable when patrolling to put articles fully into mainspace, search engines, etc. when there is no clear idea where the information has come from, especially as search engines are likely to put WP articles at the very top of the search results. Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists need refs. Lists of lists do not. Think of lists of lists as "advanced" disambiguation pages. See Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts for its manuscript counterpart, or Lists of New Testament minuscules for an older example, or Lists of hoards or Lists of dictionaries or Lists of deaths by year for examples currently lacking any sources at all. Or Category:Lists of lists if you are still skeptical (or List of lists of lists if you want a good laugh). These are simply articles that have grown too long for MediaWiki to render efficiently and have had to be split. Sometimes new additions don't fit any of the subsumed lists, and the list of lists page has to be used instead, and that is how sources make their way onto list of lists. Once these are placed within subsumed lists or split off into another list. Ivan (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too bold of me to redirect Ted A. Bohus to This Thing of Ours (film)? Bearian (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be OK, especially as it is an unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has sourced this. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Angas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability as religious figure.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nirva20 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't realize you had created this article (14 years ago) when I posted the PROD. Gives me pause slightly but I still think it's a bit thin. Perhaps in 2024, it looks a bit different to you? Yours, Nirva20 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nirva20, I'm sure quite a few of the articles I created 14 years don't quite meet WP:N now, but this one should meet WP:ANYBIO as it's in the Dictionary of National Biography. I can see why you questioned it though. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dmitri Filimonov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perm.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced this stub with the requisite two citations. Please feel free if you still want to go to WP:AfD to get community consensus. As an actress with three supporting or recurring roles, I think she passes WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, thanks for working on this. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Bearian (talk) Bearian (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this article (Savona Bailey-McClain) is PROD-worthy. Any opinions? Thanks. Nirva20 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirva20, I think solely because of the number of sources, it would probably be suggested for AfD if PRODded. It doesn't seem she is notable though. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nirva20 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boleyn,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You moved an article to Draft:Hiroshi All biographies of living people need inline citations.Ohno, looks like a few days after a draft was separately made, so now we have two drafts on this guy, and a weirdly messed up title. Can you look into how to resolve, preserving content and edit history? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging the concerns with that article. I looked more closely, and it was actually a lot worse...nearly every section and in some cases every sentence had glaring factual errors. Things that might seem reasonable or what someone who has learned "just a little" about chemistry might reasonably write, but what is actually wrong and in at least one case actually contracted the editor's own cited source. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cat:NN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17 § Cat:NN until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Maha (cat) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Maha (cat) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Robaina is the brand name of the cigar and Alejandro Robaina is the name of the individual. It is strange that each of them are completely separate and not in a position to give valid information to someone who wants to know about the brand of cigars, Vegas Robaina. It is a very bad situation, especially in foreign wiki entries, to display information that is not relevant in a certain way. K's Garage (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @K's Garage Both are linked from the page Robaina: what is your problem with that? It's a page about the surname, and includes the brand name as a "See also" because it is not a person with the surname.

Ah, I now see that the link "Vegas Robaina (cigar brand)" was redirecting to "Alejandro Robaina", not helpful. I've (a) changed it to redirect to the article on the brand, and (b) changed the "See also" to link directly to the brand. All now seems well.

There seems to have been an article about the brand since 2006, so I don't know why anyone added that unhelpful redirect to the Robaina page. PamD 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have looked more closely. I saw a page tagged fairly as unreferenced and promotional, so restored it to how it had been before, but it seems it needs more careful handling. Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boleyn,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is easy to do via the StubSorter tool, and is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Turtletennisfogwheat Boleyn is a very experienced editor and doesn't need to have stubs explained (see the spirit of WP:DTTR).

Nothing is compulsory in Wikipedia, and adding a {{stub}} tag, where appropriate, is much more helpful than not doing so, even if adding a more specific stub would be even more helpful. There are people who enjoy sorting stubs (I used to do a lot of it), and others who don't: the former are more likely to know their way around the stub hierarchies and find the exactly right one. Adding a slightly-more specific stub tag (eg changing {{stub}} to {{UK-bio-stub}}) can be an unhelpful change, if the appropriate stub tag was actually {{England-poet-stub}} or {{Wales-GreatBritain-MP-stub}}, as it hides the stub from the regular stub-sorters. PamD 13:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Turtletennisfogwheat. It's not an area I have ever been very interested in, but appreciate what stub-sorters like you and Pam do. Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Myles Byrne (Fair City) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Myles Byrne (Fair City) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn,

This is a 20 year old article, it's been around Wikipedia even longer than you! It should not be draftified unless there are COI concerns or it is the closure decision of an AFD discussion. Draftification is primarily for recently created articles but I know that you already know this and I'm telling you nothing new. In the case of an article this old, draftifying is often just another form of deletion and for a longstanding article, other methods should be used like PRODding or sending it to AFD.

Thanks for all of your many, many contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz, my error. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the justification for adding empty References sections like this? ~Kvng (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kvng, you might want to comment on a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#Empty references sections?. Thanks for all your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peatfold Burn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peatfold Burn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid taxonomic ranks all the way down through species are generally presumed to be notable. There is no reason to arbitrarily redirect them to higher taxa, especially when they have articles about their own subtaxa! I have undone your redirect of Ephialtias on this basis and would appreciate if you would avoid doing this kind of thing in the future, as frankly it makes no sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Generally on New Page Patrol, I am not keen to pass unreferenced pages. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with regards to NPP, but that page was created in 2010, so that doesn't apply. A quick BEFORE search would have turned up taxonomic sources; alternately, that page had a taxonbar; glancing down at it would have brought you to several database sources which could easily be inserted into ref templates and stuck into the article. I respect your frustration with unsourced articles, but community consensus has held time and time again that large-scale removal of unreferenced articles (by deletion or by BLAR) is not acceptable, especially without reasonable BEFORE checks to determine if sources exist. I see from your contributions that you are in the habit of redirecting articles "until it has sources and evidence of notability" - do you do any BEFORE checks before doing this? (To be clear: I have often redirected articles for lacking notability, but I make sure to check for sources first; it's not the bold action I object to, but doing it without checking). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a difference of opinion, with NPP, of whether the burden for sourcing is on the creator or the reviewer (though a bit different in cases where it has come up in NPP because of significant changes to the article, rather than brand-new creation). Perhaps something to discuss - I think there would be different opinions if I went to Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles, NPP or other forums. I think Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles pages links to some discussions started to try to get a wider concensus on this topic. Again, I do understand your point on this particular article. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you keep referring to NPP when many of the articles you're redirecting this way are not new articles. You also didn't answer my question about whether or not you actually check for sources before making these redirects. Do you check for sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKC, this isn't really feeling like a polite discussion at this point, especially as I started my response by saying that I see your point. I was referring to NPP because the article you contacted me about was in the New Pages Feed. Yes, I generally check for sources. I have referenced other places where wider discussions on the topics of sourcing and our guidelines are occurring - feel free to continue discussions on this topic there, but I don't feel comfortable with the tone of your messages and won't reply further here. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Craig Murray (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Until we get more than two people with articles, this page is pointless.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an AFD for this article. PatGallacher (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		For all the reflists you have added, but especially the ones in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2008. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you moved List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise to Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise2, which was blanked and everything was copied to Draft:List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#Draft:List of NHL players with most games played by franchise back in May 2024, and a discussion was again started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive85#List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise after the creation of the moved page. These attempts are nothing more than WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of NHL players with 1,000 games played and other pages from List of NHL players. In addition, I am pretty sure these attempts fail WP:LISTN. – sbaio 06:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect D-ring has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 21 § D-ring until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in this conversion of an article to a redirect. The edit summary says "redirect until it has sources and evidence of notability." It seems to me that making it into a redirect reduces the chances of attracting any sort of sourcing to near zero. Might it not be better to find some sources, or leave it alone?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough, nice to hear from you. This was a while ago, but I think was where I couldn't find evidence of enough good sources to add, and doubts of notability. Mainly I would just leave articles if I can't find anything, other times if a search doesn't show up promising results, I would redirect, or propose a merge or AfD. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boleyn :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counties 1 Surrey/Sussex - Wikipedia

Hello Boleyn. As you'll have seen I anticipated this page being removed in the original editing comment I put on the page. As you'll see from my editing history I am trying to be an ally to community rugby in England, a sport that doesn't get media coverage - there are virtually no sources to validate the existence of leagues except from the only one that actually matters - the governing body themselves, the RFU. I am at a complete loss as to how I can persuade Wikipedia that these these leagues exist and the teams included are participating in them. I don't know which country you are in but I can't provide links to BBC Sport or Sky Sport or The Times or The Telegraph, they simply don't exist. This is not malicious content, there is no attempt to spread disinformation, just a genuine fan trying to give a platform to clubs who otherwise have no online presence save for their own club website. You'll note that was a time a couple of years ago when every league in the 'system' section of the English Rugby Union System page was populated with details of dozens of leagues incorporating hundreds of teams competing. The RFU changed the league structure at the start of the 2022-23 season and since then the page has dozens of blanks pages. People like me are slowly trying to reinstate the information and fill in the gaps in our free time. I can't tell you how frustrating and dispiriting it is to spend hours curating pages, getting maps right, uploading the details of clubs only to seen it all taken down for 'insufficient sources'. I hope you can apply some discretion and reinstate the information I uploaded. Thank you. MaxPower2017 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Boleyn - keen to hear your thoughts on how I can get this page back up given all I have explained. Thanks in advance, MP17 MaxPower2017 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boleyn - I can't seem to reply to your message so I am replying to my own in the hope you will see it. Thanks for your reply and I have actioned your advice and spent a long time finding and uploading 20 (Twenty) independent references to the existence of Counties 1 Surrey / Sussex to the page in the Draft Space. These come from a variety of sources including the governing bodies, club websites and local newspapers. I sincerely hope that this is enough to persuade Wikipedia that there is a legitimate interest in having this entry of the English Rugby Union System page. Thanks in advance for your cooperation and understanding, MP17 MaxPower2017 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxPower2017. I'm sorry that this is dispiriting, it can be really hard to find reliable sources, and I have had hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles I have created tagged for deletion or moved to draftspace, so I know it doesn't feel nice and I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I appreciate your contributions. It isn't my area of expertise, but there may be a good Wikiproject on rugby union where people can help with sourcing. WP:AFC is the best way to move articles from draftspace to mainspace but with the chance of extra support/mentoring/advice.

Please see the discussion with WeyerStudentOfAgrippa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WeyerStudentOfAgrippa#Secondary_sources_for_open_source_software . I said that the tags were obviously wrongly applied, so far there is no reply to that. Why, because open source software, that this article is about, also most of these about which there are articles in Wikipedia, most often don't have secondary sources, that are required there. Most often there are no articles written about open source software, that is also no peer-reviewed articles. There may be books, but not about all open source software, as i said for some very popular software there are only internet tutorials, wikis, forums or such. Many of these books are also not reviewed. About that article and what the tags are about, the article was written ten years ago, not by me. There are other ways how to estimate the importance of open source software, but this is not about these tags, that are obviously wrongly applied, these tags are for articles about various public issues, but not about open source software. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tkorrovi, it is really difficult when there are subjects where sourcing is so light - sometimes it's about putting them all together in one article rather than separate, so the information is still there. I don't know much in this area, but [1] might be a good place to get help if you haven't already tried. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As i understand from there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_for_software_articles#Primary_sources primary sources can be used for software, if they are not promotional. The SourceForge project site for ADS-AC is not promotional. By that also, the tags were wrongly placed. In the AI Forums there is a lot of information, among the rest, that written by the other people who were interested, many years of discussion. The project's web site has nearly 140 000 visitors, it is popular. Tkorrovi (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, you suggested [2] , there is a list of sources that they consider reliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force/List_of_reliable_sources . A number of them are sites where one can submit, and then it is reviewed, some "less reliable" have even no review. So as such sites are enough for sources, there is an article about ADS-AC in Everything2 https://everything2.com/user/actsl/writeups/ADS-AC , added to the references. Everything2 is moderated, whoever submits there, what is submitted there is checked, and can be deleted if not accepted. This should satisfy the criterion and thus solve the issue. If i find or if there appear other articles about ADS-AC, i will write here too. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that people like this article a lot in Everything2. If you know, Everything2 is a historic site, grew out of Slashdot (open source news, etc). Not so many people there, but it is working, and the moderators are also active. I don't know where to merge this article, it is in a way unique. There was no article, then someone wrote an article many years ago, thought that there should be an article.Tkorrovi (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with that site, Tkorrovi, but it sounds interesting. It's definitely worth you putting a copy of your article with sources into WP:AFC, and someone more knowledgeable than me can look it over. If you don't have the original, whichever admin deleted it could revive it for you. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century American people has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. so you took away the box that says Paparizou discography needs references, and stated that it has references. I would like to know where are the references for Cyprus chart positions? Cyprus does not have an IFPI so it is *literally* impossible for her to chart there. thanks FoureiraStreams (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FoureiraStreams. This was tagged as an unreferenced article. As there are references in the article, I removed this. If you think there are sections of the article where a lack of referencing is of concern, then feel free to delete them if they are dubious, or tag as 'citation needed'. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boleyn,
I hope you are keeping well? All is well here. I am hopeful you might be able to assist me once again about a redirect, but if not, then I will ask at the help desk, using {{Helpme}}. Thank you in advance for your time and any assistance you might be able to offer.
I wanted to set up the archiving facility at Talk:Man in the Iron Mask (for the first time) and made a mistake by setting ‘numberstart=‘ to ‘3’ instead of ‘1’, since I had copied the code from another article talk page as a working example. So, ClueBot III dutifully archived most of the earlier posts into Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 3. In an attempt to reset the archiving system to start at ‘1’, I moved this archive to Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 1, which worked but obviously retained Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 3 as a redirect. Unfortunately, this did not update the same file name in User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Man in the Iron Mask, which still has Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 3 for each section entry. I attempted to rename this in the index entry of the oldest section, here, but the result did not end up pointing to Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 1.
So, I am now stuck and don’t know what to do next.
What I was hoping to achieve is to keep Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 1 intact, have all the indexed sections pointing to it from User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Man in the Iron Mask, and delete the contents of Talk:Man in the Iron Mask/Archive 3 so that it’s available when ClueBot III creates the third archive in the future. (I have now also reset ‘numberstart=‘ to ‘2’, assuming that this is needed for ClueBot III‘s next update, although I am not sure that’s needed.)
Please forgive me for creating this mess and for asking you to fix it for me if/when you have the time.
Thank you for your consideration, but please know that I will fully understand if you are unable to assist, for whatever reason, in which case I will use {tl|Helpme}} instead of imposing on you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 10:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pdebee, I hope you are well. Unfotunately, this isn't something I know how to do - I'm not so great at the more technical stuff, but hopefully someone else is! Best of luck, Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boleyn,
Yes, I am very well, thank you. Thank you also for your prompt reply and please don’t worry; I understand perfectly. I will ask for assistance from the Help Desk and see what happens. Until next time, please keep well and joyful.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 18:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Boleyn
Just for completeness, I thought you might be interested in the fix. Thanks again for your time earlier on, and please keep well.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 00:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Corey Gamble, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 (talk page watcher) I've reverted it to the redirect Boleyn created, and requested page protection as this has happened a few times before. PamD 07:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 61.8.123.139 and saltyvibes have been aiming to make this an article - unless reliable sources can be added for this, the redirect is best. Hopefully the page protection will help - thanks, PamD. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article David Downs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable RL player. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this as a redirect to Dave Downs. The article was later created by DynamoDegsy, who may be better placed than me to look at its notability. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joan Andrews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Painting17 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Christy Martin (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jade Peters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade Peters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m working on the unreferenced backlog and found this. I made several searches and found zero possible reliable sources. Is it really notable? Is it time for WP: AfD? Bearian (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian (talk page watcher) I see that the editor who created the article is still editing though only once a month or so Could be worth a note on their talk page so they don't find it deleted while they aren't looking. They presumably have sources. PamD 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added User_talk:Adamsa123#Retroflex_ejective_fricative. PamD 08:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearian, it's the sort of topic which looks like it should meet WP:N, but I couldn't find sources either. AfD would give it a chance if the creator isn't able to add sources, but would get it sorted either way. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Dana Fuller has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § Dana Fuller until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rob Cross (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Isaac (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Milan Ristic, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Preston Arsement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Arsement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added three additional sources. Can you please re-evaluate the tag, Boleyn-San? Bearian (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article José Luis Vásquez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, though the Spanish Wikipedia version is longer I'm also invoking WP:TNT here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it to its district. Bearian (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Milan Ristic".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]