User talk:TarnishedPath

This is TarnishedPath's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Sorry to keep harassing you TarnishedPath. I apologise if i was antagonistic or it wasn't my place to tag you on the page. I was just looking for a second opinion but I understand and won't do it in the future. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeadlyRampage26, if you thought that the article didn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL you could have nominated it for deletion per WP:AFD. There was absolutely no need to ping me as some sort of guru or whatever. TarnishedPath^talk 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TP, my revert here may have undone some of your reference fixes. Apologies in advance. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, thanks for letting me know. I probably won't bother as it looks like it's going to be deleted at AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problemos, and agree. Should be deleted, absolutely. I sent a COI report to our new COI email overlords earlier today as the editor has a clear conflict of interest that I established. Will be interesting to see if anything happens in that space. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have an article that made it through AFC that reads like a resume. Looks well-sourced on the surface but I will have to evaluate the sources when I have time. TarnishedPath^talk 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw one of your recent AFD noms, and I thought I'd drop by to say that about half the pages you've sent to AFD during the last year have ended up being kept.[1] That's a significantly lower 'success' percentage than average, so you might want to be more careful with your noms. It might be that you just need to be more thorough with your WP:BEFORE searches. Some people find that it helps to assume that the community's standards for inclusion are a bit broader than your own, or make more use of the {{notability}} tag for subjects that have a lower chance of getting deleted.

AFDs are "expensive" in terms of community time, so I encourage you to only use AFD when you are reasonably confident that the article will actually get deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have tended to go out on a limb sometimes, especially when I've considered that an article is unmitigated WP:OR and then discovered that others don't share my view that it is strong enough reason for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to really be OR, there has to be no reliable source in the world, anywhere, in any language – not even one written by the subject themselves – that has ever said whatever is in the article. If it's really OR ("Here is my personal analysis of Darth Vader's breathing disorder in The Movie"), but the subject is maybe notable (e.g., the subject is mentioned in the news occasionally), then I'd suggest that you try Wikipedia:Stubbing to get the article down to something that isn't completely made up. AFD is not the only way to get rid of bad content, and it is often not a reliable way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed articles in the past. I'll take your advice and do it more often in circumstances where I don't feel an AFD would lead to a likely outcome. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So using this data source for debates where TP was the nominator (ie. Vote is "Delete (nom)") between 30 August 2023 and 30 August 2024, and excluding the two debates which are "not closed yet", I get the following:

• Delete (12) 43%
• Speedy Delete (1) 4%
• Merge (4) 14%
• Redirect (5) 18%
• No Consensus (2) 7%
• Keep (1) 4%
• Speedy Keep (3) 11%

Delete/speedy delete/merge/redirect being 79% and no consensus/keep/speedy keep being 21%. Nothing for me to be concerned about purely based on the numbers, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a long break between August 2014 and July 2023, with only sporadic editing between. My overall stats are somewhat skewed by the figures from 2014 and to be honest I shouldn't have been editing then given what was going on in my life at the time. TarnishedPath^talk 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, Merge and Redirect are generally considered forms of Keep, because nothing gets deleted. That puts it, by your count, at 47% delete and 53% not-delete.

I didn't look at the 2014 edits. I don't think they're relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree entirely with that. Merge and redirect are more often than not alternates to deletion that are used where consensus clearly exists to not retain the content (making the AfD entirely justified) but a different outcome was proposed and accepted by the closer and consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess. I think that an "alternative to deletion" is not deletion; you are entitled to think that it's deletion if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]