User talk:GB fan: Difference between revisions

This user is the owner of one other Wikipedia account in a manner permitted by policy and it is registered with the arbitration committee.

Regarding this page: Monte Carlo (solitaire)

You deleted this on 26 February 2020 on these grounds: Expired PROD, concern was: Non notable card game that has been unsourced since 2009.

I can appreciate the reasons for you making this decision at that time. Unfortunately there are not many contributors about solitaire games who are active editors; I'm working hard to correct that. So in this instance the issue isn't that this solitaire game isn't notable, the issue is rather that people in a position to verify notability aren't active on Wikipedia.

I can confirm that Monte Carlo is included in the following book The Little Book of Solitaire, Running Press, 2002, ISBN 0-7624-1381-6 on page 60. I have the book (and others like it) and will include this reference when the page can be restored, and will also do a general review and clean-up of the article. Monte Carlo is a fairly common solitaire game and is also included in numerous software packages.

I'm currently working on adding references to other solitaire games as well, and it would be good if this one could be restored, since it is covered in the above mentioned book and other similar works. Gregorytopov (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is restored. ~ GB fan 08:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated! Source has been added, and article has been further polished. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you declined the speedy deletion, with an explanation that "redirects from moves are eligible for speedy deletion"? Yahballaha V doesn't exist. Someone mistakenly numbered him as the fifth, when actually he is the fourth. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Yahballaha V existed or not has absolutely nothing to do with the speedy deletion policy on the English Wikipedia. Your explanation of why it should be deleted, "Wrongly numbered" would be closest to the R3 criterion in the policy. That says that redirects from implausible titles that were recently created are speedy deletable. The policy though does include redirects that are the result of a move it the moved article was also recently created. You recently created the redirect by moving an article that was created in 2011. An article created 9 years ago is not recently created so that criterion does not apply. If you feel the redirect must be deleted because it in some way harms the encyclopedia then you will need to explain that using WP:RFD. I can predict with almost absolute certainty that the result of any discussion at RFD will result in the redirect being kept. ~ GB fan 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very detailed explanation. It's nothing too important, but I will make a request at WP:RFD. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Sheng, Just want to point out one specific section of the WP:RFD policy before you nominate it for deletion, please read WP:RFD#KEEP #4. ~ GB fan 17:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi. who declined the tag A7 for above article? user:Adam9007 first tag was true and he made a mistake for changing that. the article must be deleted in 1st day of creation because didn't cover wp:N and wp:SNG.the medals are not seniors and must be deleted by WP:SPEEDY. i'm sure for that and no need for wp:AFD.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba2361, Adam9007 in the edit at 14:52, 11 August 2020‎ stated in the edit summary of the edit; "Speedy deletion contested. Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7". Failing wp:N and wp:SNG have absolutely nothing to do with WP:A7. Those are reasons at WP:PROD or WP:AFD. The only things that makes a difference with A7 is if the article makes a credible claim to significance and that claim does not have to be referenced. The article says he won a national championship and that is a credible claim to significance. ~ GB fan 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba2361 his medals wasn't seniors medals and it is against the WP:NSPORT and didn't cover wp:N and wp:SNG both sound to me like 'non-notable', which isn't a valid speedy deletion criterion (and no, that is not what A7 is about, contrary to popular belief). Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]