Let'srun

I've declined a few of your G11 requests. The latest, Tribal Research Institute and Museum makes no sense to me. How does that qualify for G11? -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, meant to tag as A7. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nox (platform) does not qualify for G11 as well. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why, it seems pretty clear cut to me. Let'srun (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which sentence or paragraph makes you think that the article is unambiguously promotional? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"To a developer, NOX:

Provides a C++ OpenFlow 1.0 API

Provides fast, asynchronous IO

Is targeted at recent Linux distributions.

Includes sample components for:

Topology discovery

Learning switch

Network-wide switch" Let'srun (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does not make it unambiguously promotional as even if you remove it's usage, there is salvageable content remaining. FWIW, I have rephrased it. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Overcategorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Let'srun,

If you are going to close an AFD discussion, you have to untag all of the nominated articles and put the appropriate tag on the article talk page. Please follow through and take care of all aspects of closing a deletion discussion if you want to take on this responsibility. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let'srun, you still haven't followed through on this AFD closure. It's incomplete for reasons I explained. Please let it be the first editing you do when you log back on. Seriously, you can't just close a discussion without taking care of all of the other steps. You're not a new editor any more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aplogies, missed your first message somehow. Done. Let'srun (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

While this closure technically reflected the consensus, it was also a situation that warranted greater scrutiny. Reading the "keep" rationales and lack of response to the original nominator, there was nothing ultimately supporting this article, hence the re-nomination two months later that ended in deletion. I recommend considering where to help the discussion along and prompting for answers via a third relist next time. It's not standard to need a third relist, but it is warranted when the participation is fishy or not up to policy. czar 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will do so. Let'srun (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply