text:
up wanting this.) --EpochFail  (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A very crude way to assess notability would be counts of Google general, news and books search results. I would say a de-PROD may be assumed valid iff the article was not deleted within 4 weeks of the PROD. The nominator did not care to follow through with an AfD, or if they did it was rejected. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * drastic: I think deleted content should be viewable by non-admins While we may not agree with its front-page motto (radical inclusionism), the deletionpedia is a good resource for finding content to rescue. The project is still active and the bot is still importing AfD'd articles. That's where the problem is, though - it does not pick up PRODed articles, which is perhaps more important. Might be worth a request to the site operators. SD0001 (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea, as it also bypasses the main problem of changing how things work out over here. An external tool would solve a lot of problems, particularly if it could be linked from Wikipedia (like many toolserver/wmflabs/etc. tools already are). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect any bot sophisticated enough to accurately judge the odds of an article getting deprodded- probably it would need some sort of deep learning algorithm- is just going to end up following the habits and interests of our clique of serial deprodders. I think that would be both creepy and missing the point. Reyk YO! 07:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw you asked for Adam Karol Czartoryski to be restored. I recreated Grand Henham Steam Rally and International Congress on Tuberculosis from scratch, and recreated Nandini Sidda Reddy and Kamelia using Google Translate from the bg and te wikis. These five articles stood out as being likely to be notable topics among the deleted articles in the sample study. The sample study identified five editors who made more than one de-PROD. (4),  (4),  (3),  (2) or  (2). If you sort the table in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/sample2020-6-26 by closer, you can see from the colors which articles were kept, deleted or are in AfD. I would say these five users all have good track records. In some cases their de-PROD comment did not say the article must be kept, just that it deserves discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think four of those users have a good record, and one should be banned from deprodding for very bad track record, including repeated complaints on their talk and even at ANI. Not that I expect it to happen. But a study based on a sample bigger than 2-4 deprods per user would be useful, we can't really draw any conclusions from such a small sample. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  02:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , at least part of the problem is that some people are confused about whether PROD is a big deal or not. They seem to want simultaneously that prods can be removed because they don't like PROD itself, or they don't like the PRODding editor, or any other trivial whim-- but then also turn around and say that if you get too many declined it's evidence of disruptiveness on your part. "It's a big deal for thee but not for me" in other words. Reyk YO! 10:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Deprods should not be a big deal, but IMHO the fact that they don't require a summary allows plenty of abuse/laziness. When I do a BEFORE search and conclude that something is PRODDABLE, I may be wrong, and I don't mind if someone deprods it, that's no big deal - but if they do it without rationale, again and again, and then subsequent AfDs ended in SNOW DELETE with nobody voting keep, again and again, then I feel we have a problem, as it suggests that person just thinks nothing is eligible for PDOD. Then this is a bigger deal... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, after quite a bit of struggle in accounting for the myriad of different scenarios, I have come up with a fairly comprehensive automated version of the page created by . It's at User:SDZeroBot/ProdWatch presently containing PRODed articles from June 30. Interestingly, only a handful of the articles that were de-prodded have been taken to AfD. (The code is here in case anyone is interested.) SD0001 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. I thought there was a bug at first because it does not match Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/sample2020-6-26, but then I see it is as of 30 June rather than 26 June. The number of challenged de-PRODs was much lower than with the 26 June batch, perhaps because the sample was so much more visible. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the code so that it shows these things clearly, and just ran it for the 27 June 03:00 UTC articles (which is close to your 26 June 21:00 time) so that we can figure out any potential discrepancies: User:SDZeroBot/ProdWatch/2020-06-27. But I don't see any change in pattern? I see that there were 10 contested deprods, vs 12 for the June 30 batch (of course many articles would be in both batches). SD0001 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hope we can see this adapted as an ongoing tool. One thing I'll note is the potential confusion of redirects. For example, some definitions of 'kept' include articles that have been just redirected, whereas for me it is pretty much a form of deletion (just 'soft'). But a while ago I remember seeing a misleading list of 'kept deprods' where many where in fact just redirects, so prod/AfD worked well, effectively removing the articles from the mainspace. But unless someone installs the script to color redirects (I love it, very easy, see User:Piotrus/global.css), they won't easily see that those articles were soft-deleted. Anyway, I just want to stress that any analysis needs to distinguish not just between blue kept and red deleted, but also between green (for me) redirects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * in the bot analysis, all articles in the "de-prodded" section are actual articles, not redirects. The ones that were redirected are covered in the "others" section at the bottom. As an aside, redirects can be made to show up as green for all users by using TemplateStyles on the page. SD0001 (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A redirect may indicate that the article already exists under a different name, or that the topic is covered by a section in the target article, in which case it could perhaps later be expanded back into a stand-alone article. Both of these are very different from saying that information about the topic has no place in Wikipedia. If a PROD evolves in a redirect, why was it a PROD in the first place? For example, I restarted the deleted Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse as a redirect to the existing Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act. Some future editor may well decide to make the centre the main topic, with the act redirected to it. They will not hit the red wall of death. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , a word of appreciation for your work on tools which give structure to impending and recent PRODs and make oversight more feasible. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP's comment has attracted a variety of tangential responses so we need to repeat it for clarity
 * Let's unpick this to highlight core issues and misunderstandings:
 * "prod abuse". The main abuse of prod is when it is used controversially.  WP:PROD explains the process fairly clearly: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."  The abuse arises when nominators expect opposition but prod the article anyway.  It's not clear why some regulars do this.  They must surely see that prods for controversial topics will be opposed but they continue to nominate them regardless.  They seem to suppose that, if they persist and complain in forums like this, that their nominations will be accepted without scrutiny.  Their expectations seem unrealistic.
 * "the occasional newbie defending their article" PRODs are sometimes used by the new page patrol when they don't like an article but can't think of a suitable speedy deletion criterion.  This seems like abuse too because, if someone has just created an article and it doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria such as test page, then opposition should be expected.  The speedy deletion criteria have been carefully crafted over the years to cater for all the standard cases.  If a page doesn't fit them then surely it requires discussion, rather than unopposed deletion.  I suppose that the prods are unopposed in some cases because the newbie is baffled or discouraged and so gives up.  This will then be a violation of WP:BITE.
 * "hardcore inclusionists who deprod everything in sight" This is a myth because nobody deprods everything in sight. It might be simpler if they did because the process would then become defunct.  What we have are deletionists who complain when their prods are removed.  They just don't seem to understand the process.  Prods are not opposed by debate or discussion; that's what AfD is for.  WP:PROD explains it clearly: "Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag;".   I suppose that the confusion arises because, in other cases of tagging, removal is not such a simple process.  For other tags such as NPOV, there's usually a long discussion required to clarify and address the issue in question.  But a prod tag is, by design, a flimsy thing, and so users should not be surprised if they do not hold.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For a fresh example illustrating these points, see my most recent deprod, Hamilton McWhorter III. A new editor, User talk:Danimal57, made a reasonable start on this article about a notable flying ace and their talk page has now been bludgeoned with deletion templates but no welcome, advice or assistance, until now. The deletionist is now going down in flames at AfD but I suppose that they would and will do exactly the same thing again.  It's puzzling. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a good deprod. But for another fresh example, let's consider a few examples of your deprods that I can recall. First, your recent DEPROD of Bêlit. You did not choose to participate in the resulting AFD which ended up in 3:0 delete close at the Articles for deletion/Bêlit. Or older Articles for deletion/EAS Pollux, same case. Why did you make us jump through the hoops in this case? We don't know since as usual, you didn't attach any meaningful rationale to your deprod nor did you explain your reasons in the AfD (note that in the latter one I even pinged you in the AfD opening post - to no avail as you did not join the discussion, you just deprodded it and moved on). Or consider another recent deprod of yours, Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle, where the AfD was 6:1 with your voice being the only dissenting. Or, again, a but older, Articles for deletion/American Teens Against Crime where the vote was 6:0 since you didn't participate despite the DEPROD. Do you still think that 6 people there were wrong and you are correct? You say "The abuse arises when nominators expect opposition but prod the article anyway". I, for one, can easily predict that such articles will be deleted at AfD, but I can't predict whether you will feel like deprodding them or not, since you can't even bother to tell us in your edit summary why you think PROD is wrong or controversial. You may not deprod everything in sight, but whatever criteria you use to deprod them are a mystery, at least to me, and this will not change until you will start using informative edit summaries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like we have good prods and bad prods, we also have good deprods and bad deprods. I don't think we should assume either is disruptive editing. We all make mistakes and sometimes we even learn from them. I think it is helpful for deprodders to explain their rationale but we've affirmed that there is no requirement to do so. Whingeing at them is unlikely to change behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a false equivalence because PROD and DEPROD are not symmetrical. The essential point about a prod is that it should be "uncontroversial" because it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  A deprod is necessarily controversial because it is a reversion of the prod; it is inherently a dispute. So, every time a deprod is done, it means that the prod is likely to have been improper because the opposition should have been expected.  The process is only working as it should when the prods are not reverted and so there are no deprods.   If editors find that their prods are regularly being removed then they are not doing it right. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you say would be correct if we all had the same expectations. I frequently take flack for my deprods from prodders who did not expect their prod to be controversial. I am sometimes able to convince them that it was and sometimes that even changes behavior going forward. But really the same happens in the other direction too. I deprod something that looks controversial to me and then it goes to AfD and I'm unable to make a policy-based keep argument and it gets unanimously deleted so then it's my turn to adjust my expectations of what's controversial. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well said. A prod is not controversial until it becomes controversial :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as we allow PRODs to be removed for literally no reason we cannot also infer a "controversy" that the PRODder should have been able to predict beforehand. Caprice is by definition unpredictable. There's a symmetry here: if it's no big deal to decline a prod, it is also no big deal to get a prod declined. Reyk YO! 07:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * About 10 years ago I made a point of looking at every prod (within my sphere, which amounts to everything except  athletes, popular performers, and video games.  For a while I seemed to be  the only person regularly doing this. After a while i stoped doing this mainly involving myself in AfC. Lately I have been looking again--I find it fast enough without categories just hovering over each item.  I do not find as many errors as 10 years ago--I suspect the reason I find fewer errors now is that it's apparent from this discussion that others are watching also. I have had some disagreements, mainly between  and myself. Typically my reason for deprodding is "needs to be looked at by the community"--sometimes I send it to AfD, but usually I leave it up to the prodder to follow up if they wish to. I do not find prods is the main place where we lose potential articles--the main place is clearly expired drafts. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My WP:PRODPATROLLING is also irregular and I also find a lot of variation in prod quality. I think this is due to thin WP:PRODPATROL staffing and intermittent prod campaigns by editors of varying competence. I believe WP:PRODPATROL is critical to keeping prodders honest but I don't have any ideas about how to make that project more robust. Keeping projects robust is an ongoing struggle on Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended extended discussion

 * "hardcore inclusionists who deprod everything in sight"? Is this real? If articles that should be deleted are de-prodded, then they should go to AfD.  The de-PRODder should be expected to defend the article at AfD.  AfD stats should reveal whether there is a long running large scale systematic problem, and such a problem should be able to be corrected when brought into the light, or the disruptive editor topic-banned from de-PRODding. Alternatively, are many de-PRODded articles not subsequently deleted?  If so, the PROD process is broken, or the bad PRODder needs education or a topic ban from PRODding.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It obviously isn't a real thing, because plenty of articles get PRODded and not de-PRODed, resulting in their deletion after the PROD period has run. BD2412  T 03:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. I like to think it isn't real.  I am aware of some hyper-inclusionists.  I think they are limited by weak hyperinclusion arguments being a lot more work for them than for others in rebutting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See far above, which started this discussion. A snapshot was taken of all articles in PROD on 26 June 2020. Out of 146 total,
 * 107 were deleted without challenge.
 * 6 of these were subsequently recreated by and  as a result of the study:  Adam Karol Czartoryski, Grand Henham Steam Rally, International Congress on Tuberculosis, Kamelia, Nandini Sidda Reddy and International Council of Jurists. A few more may have had potential.
 * 35 were de-prodded
 * 9 of these were deleted after AfD discussion
 * 2 are still (!) in AfD
 * 4 were redirected or moved to draft.
 * This is not a particularly scientific study, but indicates the process is not working perfectly. PROD is meant be only for non-controversial deletions, but about a quarter proved controversial. Some were deleted that should not have been. Some of the PRODs go through to deletion only because nobody bothers to check them, so we are losing a steady trickle of articles on obscure but notable subjects. Not a big deal, but this discussion is about ways to plug that leak, and perhaps reduce time arguing into the bargain. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Mmm. I likewise have little use for the hardcore inclusionists who wield deprodding like cutlasses, especially when it's clear that they didn't do a lick of examination of the article and/or sourcing before their kneejerk action. (Damn it, if those seeking deletion need to follow WP:BEFORE, I bloody well expect those who oppose deletion to do the same, and I admit to being staggered by the deprodders who go on to advocate deletion on the articles they prodded.)  That being said, they're not breaking the rules even for the most frivolous of deprods, since WP:PROD allows them to do so at will and with no rationale.   Ravenswing      23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One clarification I would add to my comment that is quoted above is that the mass deproders are not a regular occurrence. Perhaps even the most 'serious' ones learned that if they they DEPROD everything, they will get taken to ANI, and although the past incidents have as far as I know ended with just slaps on the wrists, they got the message that this is not good. As such, these days while I do see an occasional clearly bad DEPROD, where BEFORE clearly wasn't followed, and yes, from the usual parties who should have k known better, they are not 'mass', as in - they don't go over dozens of deprods, mine or others, or Twinkle logs, etc. So... while still annoying for the reasons stated (no evidence of BEFORE, not engaging in discussions) they are not very common, which is why the also-mentioned one-day sample (study...) is not picking up the problem. Bad dePROD (defined as DePRODs where there is no rationale and BEFORE) happen to me know maybe twice a month, with several dePRODs at most (compared to few instances in the past I've seen some users dePROD dozens of articles in single day). Still annoying, still IMHO a problem to be solved, but at least not as POINTless as they could be... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's stay balanced. The small "study" showed bad prods and bad de-prods.
 * A prod means the proposer thinks there will be no controversy about deleting the article. They were wrong in 35 cases out of 146. In at least 6 cases there was no controversy but the article should not have been deleted, a more serious concern to me. Any random editor, including an IP, can prod an obscure article on a notable subject, and if nobody spots it, the article gets deleted.
 * A de-prod means a reviewer thinks deletion needs discussion. 9 out of 35 of the de-prods in the sample were in fact deleted, with two still being discussed. That seems like a reasonable ratio. But if a de-prod went to AfD and the de-prodder did not defend it, there probably is a problem.
 * My sense is that is more careful than others in checking that a prod is justified, and more energetic in following up at AfD if it is challenged. Some of the prods are drive-by "I don't like it", with no follow-up if the prod is challenged. Some of the de-prods are "looks ok to me", again with no follow-up. We could perhaps generate statistics on follow-up rates and success rates of habitual prodders and deprodders. Not sure what we would do with that.  Aymatth2 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assessment (and I'll be the first to note that I make mistakes too - to err is human, etc.). Anyway, more statistics could help develop better practices, through I still fail to understand the opposition to requiring a rationale for a deprod. Heck, we could make it as simple as just having people choose from a list of default deprods rationale like 'article is notable as it passes criteria x of NSOMETHING policy', 'article is notable because I found source [x]' or 'article is notable because good sources exist on foo-language Wikipedia' etc. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here  05:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reasons to delete include copyvios, nonsense, hoax, threats, blatant advertising and lack of notability. Most of these go through Speedy, but lack of notability goes through Prod or AfD. There is only one reason to keep: "notable, and no valid reason to delete". We should be able to take that as a default de-prod rationale. It would be good if the de-prodder identified sources, and better if they improved the article, but we cannot enforce that. There may be cases where the topic seems notable but is hard to research, perhaps because most sources would be in a non-Latin script. The de-prodder thinks deletion deserves an AfD. That is the other valid de-prod reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, PROD is explicitly the correct mechanism for dealing with hoaxes. Speedy can be used for obvious-at-a-glance hoaxes, PROD for anything else. This makes sense, really. It might take a little bit of work to confirm something is a hoax but, once I've done that work, I expect deletion to be uncontroversial. Reyk YO! 13:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I just got back from a wiki-break. The User:SDZeroBot/PROD Watch report has now been setup as a recurring task (updated every week). Best, SD0001 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC on improving PROD instructions in "Before nomination" section
Proposed improvements to Proposed deletion: Before nomination Proposed by Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The instructions should point out that if the article is about a notable subject it is not eligible for PROD, however poor the article quality.
 * 2) They should recommend checking for sources on the internet (WP:Before)
 * 3) They should recommend checking other language versions, which may show notability.
 * 4) They should caution about searching for topics where the primary language does not use Latin script.

 * ✅ This is basic. Editors may not read the instructions, but we have to try. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE already contains many steps and detailed instructions. These are routinely ignored by the editors who tag articles for deletion.  Typically this happens because they use WP:TWINKLE which makes tagging the easiest thing to do, while the actions suggested by WP:BEFORE tend to require more care, attention and detailed execution.  So, the issue is not the instructions; it's the mechanical way these things are done.  Enforcement is another issue.  If there's no enforcement, then the instructions are a dead letter, whatever they say. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See my more detailed comments below, but there is currently no link to WP:BEFORE in the PROD policy. –Darkwind (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ As it makes things clear for new or newish editors who are unaware of WP:BEFORE, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 * There's nothing in the proposal that will help raise awareness of WP:BEFORE. ~Kvng (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 * ✅ These are good improvement suggestions. What we really need is for more PRODDERS to familiarize themselves with these guidelines. Making the guidelines longer probably won't help. What apparently does help is to DEPROD where there is no indication that WP:BEFORE has been observed and give the PRODDER the link when doing so. ~Kvng (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mu. The actual purpose of BEFORE, a vehicle for ripping in to AfD nominators, doesn't pertain to PROD. Reyk YO! 20:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the topic deserves coverage in Wikipedia, the article should not be deleted (whether via Speedy, PROD or AfD) unless there is some legal concern like copyright violation, threats, etc. An article may be badly written and unsourced, but it takes very little effort to strip out unsourced puff, tag plausible statements with fact and add sources as "==External links==". Maybe not as much fun as launching an AfD, but more constructive. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: this RfC is about the "before nomination" section of the PROD policy, not WP:BEFORE. Despite 's (IMO) sarcastic tone above, they are correct in that WP:BEFORE is not technically related to this policy. I would support adding a link to that page from the section under discussion. –Darkwind (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: This would definitely help limit disruption at AFD.  Dark knight  2149  20:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Broadly agreeing with 's comments above. Reviewing WP:PRODNOM I was surprised that it doesn't suggest lifting your eyes from the current article state to consider the potential availability of evidence of notability elsewhere. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment. Just make sure PRODs best practices require BEFORE. Don't they already? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - You lost me at #1, because it's just wrong. Notability isn't the only reason to delete an article. See WP:DELREASONS. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not opposed to referring people to the well developed guidance in WP:BEFORE, but this guidance isn't as good e.g. as Rhododendrites noted point #1 is simply wrong.  Hut 8.5  06:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * #1 can be refined to touch on reasons for deleting an article on a notable subject such as spam, attacks and copyvios. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The list of reasons why we might want to delete an article is very long and even the list at WP:DEL-REASON is not exhaustive. The proposed wording here is founded on the assumption that all PRODs relate to notability issues where the problem is lack of sources. WP:BEFORE does actually deal with this. As I said I'm not opposed to linking to BEFORE somewhere, but I don't think we should try to write a copy of it in the PROD policy, especially an inferior one.  Hut 8.5  08:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Making our policies/guidelines more accessible to newcomers is something that I care about a lot and have devoted a lot of attention to, but we need to go about it the right way. When advice already exists at WP:BEFORE, we should point people there, more prominently than currently if necessary, not copy and paste, which would create a fork. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a proposal to copy and paste WP:BEFORE, but to point to it from here. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ACTION TAKEN. From the above discussion, adding a pointer to WP:BEFORE seems uncontroversial. I have changed Proposed deletion (Before nominating) to say I will open separate discussions at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion on enhancing WP:BEFORE to include checking other language versions, which may show notability, and to caution about searching for topics where the primary language does not use Latin script. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "For articles, review the checks and alternatives at WP:BEFORE and consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting." (bolded text indicates the addition.)
 * Oppose this change for three reasons:
 * The disjointed and disorganized discussion above clearly doesn't represent any consensus to do anything.
 * It's inappropriate for an RfC proposer to judge consensus on their own proposal.
 * This would have the effect of elevating WP:BEFORE to policy, which it is not. Reyk YO! 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh? I do not see any opposition above to adding a pointer to WP:BEFORE, only support. Let´s take a vote among those who have contributed to this discussion. Does anyone object to adding a pointer to WP:BEFORE as shown under ACTION TAKEN above? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Clearly I oppose this. Reyk YO! 21:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support change - There is a clear consensus for it and this will ultimately do more good in the long run. Really, there's no practical reason to oppose it and even if there was, there is no sense in keeping this going by giving in to obvious filibustering. Nearly everyone here has supported it except for a few. Articles have been deleted and redirected on more controversial standing than this, and there is no policy dictating that someone who proposes something cannot enact the change. Only that consensus needs to be gained beforehand.  Dark knight  2149  22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't mind a link but reckon that there's some confusion about the nature of WP:BEFORE. WP:BEFORE is not a freestanding policy; it's part of the the process for AfD.  Each of the deletion processes says something similar.  WP:BEFORE just seems to get attention because it is lengthier and has a shortcut.  Consider:
 * 1) Speedy deletion: "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion)."
 * 2) Proposed deletion: "Before nomination – Is there a valid reason for deletion? For articles, consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting. ..."
 * 3) Articles for deletion: "Before nominating: checks and alternatives  "WP:BEFORE" redirects here. ..."
 * It would be sensible to have a common guideline to cut out the duplication but these rules and regulations are not drafted in a coherent and clever way. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that, on top of it being part of the AFD process, WP:BEFORE essentially just says to make sure the article you want deleted actually isn't notable before nominating it. Not only should this be common sense, but every policy and guideline is consistent with the same principle:
 * According to the guideline WP:NEXIST: " The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."
 * According to the policy WP:ATD, " If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. "
 * According to the policy WP:PRESERVE, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts."
 * Without pointing to anyone specifically, the reason radical deletionists have an issue with WP:BEFORE is because it means they actually need valid reason to nominate something before mass-proding.  Dark knight  2149  23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that ' for articles nominated for lack of notability' as articles can be nominated for promotionalism, copyvio, duplicating other articles and other reasons not connected to notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The caveat may be over-complicated.
 * There are various reasons for deletion. SPEEDY is used for the most urgent cases and AfD may be used for all others. PROD and BLPPROD are alternatives to AfD for uncontroversial cases.
 * BEFORE gives a good overview of the checks and alternatives, which are relevant whether the AfD or PROD/BLPPROD process is selected, whatever the reason for deletion.
 * has pointed out we should not replicate content in WP:BEFORE. I would rather keep the PROD instructions simple, with the pointer to BEFORE. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Rhododendrites and Reyk said almost everything I'd say. As far as caveats go, err, no.  I've seen a few too many deletion discussions hinge on editors screeching "Aha! That one element of the nomination is flawed!!!! It's all no good!!!" while ignoring NOR, SYNTH, CORPDEPTH, etc ...   Ravenswing      23:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ATD and the policies above, none of those are valid reasons to delete an article (unless the article is almost nothing but that, or its existence hinges on that). Those are reasons to improve on an article. Just because something is poorly sourced or contains original research does not make it worthy of deletion, hence the existence of WP:BEFORE in the first place. Failing to establish notability is not a valid reason for deletion, but a lack of notability definitely is. When it comes to not checking for sources before nominating, it often seems to be overzealous deletonists jumping to conclusions about the article not being notable and then making uncivil assumptions about whoever opposes it.  Dark knight  2149  08:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Perhaps you should reread ATD, which includes "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." (emphasis mine)  Or WP:NOR, which holds, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." and "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."   Ravenswing      09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 * (ec) I think you're missing the point, which is that people often try to shut down well-argued nominations on procedural, rather than substantive, grounds. Some of us would like to evaluate and discuss article topics on their merits; some inclusionists want to prevent that at all costs and use wikilawyering to put up fortifications of red tape. Reyk YO! 09:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Shutting down AFD's on procedural grounds is something I rarely actually see work, even if people try to do it. Typically where it does work the person doing it is really flying off the handle (i.e., mass-nominating articles). FOARP (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Ravenswing - Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that these procedures should only be used as a generalised rubric to determine if an article should be deleted, and not as blockades to keep trivial or not keepable articles from being deleted. The main point I was making is that a lack of sourcing and original research are things that can contribute to whether or not an article should be deleted, but are not reasons for deletion in their own right (for example, ). There is a difference between an article that contains original research and an article whose very existence hinges on original research. The latter of which obviously having no place on Wikipedia.  Dark knight  2149  10:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't believe there's any bright-line policy declaring that verifiability/notability are the only grounds upon which an article can be deleted, and that there is bright-line policy to the contrary.   Ravenswing     18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing is correct here. Reyk YO! 08:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Except nobody actually said that. I said that the inclusion of original research or a lack of sources alone are not grounds for deletion, which is what every policy and guideline explicitly says.  Dark knight  2149  09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Folks, by the time you get to the point where you're arguing about whether something is original research or whatever, we're already way past what can be PROD'd because you're clearly talking about a controversial deletion unless it falls under a different heading. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose change as proposed, and oppose the addition of the link to WP:BEFORE in WP:Proposed deletion as executed (since reverted). BEFORE is part of the instructions for the AfD process, and it tells you to consider whether a PROD is a better solution before nominating it - linking to it from the PROD instructions seems circular. The PROD instructions already tell you to check that there is a valid reason for deletion with a link, to consider alternatives to deletion, and to check the article's history to see whether their is an older, better version that could be reverted to. I would not be averse to reorganising the instructions somewhat - it is potentially problematic that the technical instructions on how to add the template come before the more detailed guidance on how to do a proper job of it. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would add another: they should check the article history to see if someone vandalized it and it can be restored to a former non-prod-able state. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I came here because I regularly work on AFD articles and have been seeing way too many articles nominated there in terms of "I PROD'd this article and it was declined so I came here to delete it" when even a very quick WP:BEFORE shows that it should never have been PROD'd, let alone AFD'd. Here's an obvious example - a clear WP:GEOLAND pass that the nom had tried to get rid of through PROD. Another case of a clearly controversial deletion being proposed for PROD by a highly experienced editor can be seen here. My concern is that the people nominating these article are often surprised to fail at AFD because they had succeeded in deleting so many articles via PROD, which tells me that they have probably been deleting lots of articles via PROD that shouldn't have been deleted.
 * I get that WP:NPP is like a fire-hose of vandalism, advertising and so-forth and it is not surprising that people who do it might get a bit trigger-happy about deleting stuff, but WP:BEFORE really should be done if the issue is notability. I'm glad the NPP community are moving to add it to the guidelines (EDIT that's SUPPORT in case you're wondering). I hope in future PROD really is saved for articles that can be uncontroversially deleted and not those that can be saved simply by the editor in question doing some actual editing.
 * I think this also comes down to a basic issue of civility and WP:BITE - the stuff that is PROD'd is often articles by newbie editors who don't know the rules. Excessive use of PROD means that their first interaction with someone else on Wiki is to have their article that they spent their time trying to contribute deleted for reasons that mean nothing to them. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on PROD and AfD
See a new discussion commencing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). AllyD (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit; various
Here's a space to discuss the changes I just made. I hereby declare any functional changes brought on by my copy editing to be unintentional, and you should feel free to revert or at least discuss any perceived changes. I also looked at the various editor notes (HTML comments) and would like those given the once over. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You had a sentence fragment there. I touched it up. ~Kvng (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DEPROD
I think there are 2 issues with the "undeletion" part, namely it says about moving to draftspace a page that has been undeleted but per WP:ATD-I the consensus seems to be that in general old articles aren't moved to draftspace (since I don't think an expired PROD would change that unless maybe it was deleted a long time ago). Personally I don't really have a problem with articles being moved to the draftspace as long as they aren't blindly deleted under G13 but the consensus seemed to generally be against that anyway. The other about the username policy and paid disclosure, while an inappropriate username would likely be blocked I don't see how that would allow someone to decline a RFUND though admins can obviously use their common sense, similarly although paid disclosure is required, that again probably shouldn't automatically result in a decline.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

PROD process / redirects?
I think the PROD process is pretty much broken in its current form. I PRODed an article for an episode of TV and an IP untagged it, so I went to AfD only to be told I should have just redirected the article to begin with. When anyone gets to be the sole arbiter of whether an article is controversial and is under no obligation to explain themselves, they have no reason to hesitate to de-tag. Now, if redirecting isn't considered a form of deletion, maybe that's something else, but to me intuitively redirection is a form of deletion. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirection differs from deletion in a critical respect: The original content is still in the history and anyone who disagrees with the redirector can restore it. Then the matter can be discussed if there's still disagreement despite the respective editors' edit summaries. Largoplazo (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you would say that redirecting summarily (assuming one judges it likely to be uncontroversial) is entirely acceptable? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right, as I typically would shy away from something like that. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would find that much preferable to deleting an article summarily. Redirection is simply an editing process that can be handled by WP:BRD, as the previous content is still visible in the history to anyone who thinks it should be reverted. Deletion procedures are for deletion of content so that only admins can see it, and WP:PROD and its reversion are simply applications of BRD to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By "summarily" do you mean without explaining why? I always explain my reason when I replace an article with a redirect. If I can identify a clear and useful redirect target, and if the redirect would meet the criteria under WP:Redirects, then redirecting is always preferable to deletion unless the existing content shouldn't even be kept in the publicly visible history (such as copyright violations, defamation, divulgence of personally identifiable information). If I expect that the chances of pushback are low once I've explained myself, then, yes, I'll do it without discussion. (Unless there's useful information in the article at hand that ought to be added to the information in the destination article and that I'm not competent to add myself: in that case, I set up a merge discussion.) If someone reverts me, then WP:BRD: time to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Whether PROD is broken or not is a worthy topic, but a distraction in a section named "DEPROD and explaining why". I have boldly spun you off to a section of your own, so the discussion about my proposal can continue on-track. Feel free to edit the section title (or even revert me if I misunderstand the lack of connection between the two topics). Thank you and please continue. CapnZapp (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I guess to me being able to redirect without being required to go through any consensus-building process is akin to allowing someone to unilaterally delete an article in that to a casual reader the article will appear to no longer be there, and it seems a bit abusable were one inclined to do so (I think I may have witnessed that), but if that's currently a valid process, then I'm not going to be the one to rock the boat on it. DonIago (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Replacing content with a redirect might feel like an operation similar to a delete, but really isn't. It's just a regular edit. You can simply undo it, just like when an IP wp:blanks a page for instance. Community consensus is still a part of the process, you just don't need more special protection than for any other normal edit. CapnZapp (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How about this one? PRODed, preemptively redirected with an edit summary asking why I didn't just redirect it to begin with, then restored with no useful edit summary or improvement of the article. Is the next step an AfD? DonIago (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about going to the person who reverted the redirect and ask them why? ~ GB fan 23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 * This is a person who takes great pride and delight in not feeling answerable to the community. Reyk YO! 10:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a number of editors involved, and nobody is talking to each other. This is likely the problem here.
 * As for your original question: yes, anyone can remove your PROD for any reason. If that happens, simply accept it and move to the next stage (whatever that is).
 * As for you recent question: you PRODded an article, it was removed (by the redirect), somebody contested that redirect - it appears everything is working as intended. Proceed using normal channels (I see you reapplied the redirect). CapnZapp (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people who are removing the PRODs don't ever seem to allow for discussion on their talk pages about it and then any attempt to discuss it in places like this are met with the same kind of resistance to discussion and obfuscation of facts, what the problem is, and what the solution would be that you and other people on the side of indiscriminate PROD removal have displayed repeatedly. Not to mention the whole tendency to lecture people instead of have an actual discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

DEPROD and explaining why
There's a clear disconnect here.

The lead says this

I'm making the core assumption this is our guiding star.

Now then, under Objecting, it says You are strongly encouraged, but not required to explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion. This language is repeated later on: It is strongly encouraged that when either endorsing or removing a prod to give an explanation. What does "strongly encourage" mean? I'm not trying to be thick - are you or are you not free to just remove the PROD without comment? It would appear the answer is yes. If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. is very clear that even if you remove the PROD simply just because, that counts as a valid DEPROD.

The last time this was discussed (at least as far as I could see) was here: WT:Proposed deletion/Archive 17. Making an explanation mandatory was proposed, and the consensus was clear: There is clearly no support for this suggestion. If discussion is needed, AfD is the place for it.

Assuming this is an acceptable summary of consensus, the language has been tweaked too far. Let me first make it clear that I agree with "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" and have no intention of changing our policy. However, I come across editors who strongly believe DEPROD-ing without a cause is vandalism or at least that by not following "strongly encouraged" recommendations, editors don't follow best practices. I can actually see their point. I agree the language can easily be interpreted as you doing something wrong when you DEPROD without comment. This means we have editors treating "silent DEPROD-ers" as obstructive. This needs to stop. As long as we agree you can remove a PROD for no reason, it needs to be clear no reason needs to be given.

We could spell it out - if you find that anyone removed the PROD, don't hound that user. Simply accept that the proposed deletion wasn't as uncontroversial as you thought and go to AfD. But the best way to combat this, I think, would be to slightly tone down the language of You are strongly encouraged. If we were to remove "strongly", it would help making it clear that while you can politely ask for an explanation, you can't demand one, or accuse the "silent DEPROD-er" of not following best practices.

Suggestion: replace "You are strongly encouraged" with "You are encouraged" in appropriate places.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * If you look at the history of the PROD process, the entire point of it was to set up a streamlined process for uncontroversial cases without argument, rebuttals and the like . If people are nominating topics that require discussion then they are not doing it right and they should be using AfD instead.  The onus for starting such a discussion should be on the person who wants action to be taken as they are the initiator of the issue.  This would be consistent with our other processes such as RfC; BRD and other cases where there's a dispute to be settled.  And we have a ready-made process for deletion discussions – AfD.  Having some lesser, one-to-one discussion would usually be a waste of time because the typical prodder is unlikely to accept counter-arguments so easily; they wouldn't be prodding the topic if they had any doubts about it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see both sides: I do agree with that PROD should be uncontroversial and not require discussion. That said, when reviewing the PROD log, I sometimes find borderline cases and then comment on the article Talk page to seek consensus on whether the PROD should stand, so, as in all human affairs requiring judgment, discussion is sometimes useful. I can also appreciate the irritation some feel when they place a PROD notice and it is simply removed without comment. Making that kind of removal is not displaying "civility, collegiality". Not only is it desirable to provide some kind of explanation, it can also reduce downstream noise and clutter if the explanation suffices to make the nominator decide not to take things further by opening an AfD. As to 's proposed wording change, I think "You are strongly encouraged" is clearer and more direct. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Heh. Since the resident serial deprodders are also usually the ones to throw around personal attacks at AfD maybe we should be happy when they only silently deprod. I mean, what do you expect them to say beyond what we already know? Would you be happier hearing, "I deprodded because I don't like the PROD process"? Or "I deprodded for shits and giggles"? Or maybe "I deprodded because I know it annoys you"? Those are typically the reasons. Reyk YO! 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Andrew Davidson and am not arguing against this in any way. But it's kind of off-topic, if you see what I mean? Unless what you mean to suggest is making this much more clear in the DEPROD section? CapnZapp (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:AllyD: just to be clear, I don't consider myself to be on a different side from Andrew Davidson. I just want our text to not prompt good-faith attempts from editors to coerce explanations out of deprodders. Please note I'm not arguing there's something unclear or indirect with our current messaging. I'm arguing this clear and direct message can - and is - being "overinterpreted"! If you have an alternative way to fix this issue, without reducing the clearness and directness of the message, I'm all ears. CapnZapp (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Reyk If you disagree with current consensus (that you can deprod for any or no reason), please start a different discussion. Right now, I'm interested in your opinion on the specific problem discussed and its possible solutions. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't know how you read that into anything I said. All I'm saying is that mandating that people explain why they took a PROD off would be futile because you wouldn't expect a sensible answer anyway. Reyk YO! 14:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp, my reading of the discussion above is that everyone commenting supports, or at least doesn't oppose, your proposal. Please don't read opposition into comments where it doesn't exist. Anyone who can get both Andrew Davidson and Reyk agreeing with them (although for different reasons) on a deletion matter must be doing something right! Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies for not catching your sarcasm, User:Reyk. CapnZapp (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CapnZapp's proposal is that the word "strongly" be removed. I'm not sure that this will make much difference but it wouldn't hurt to try.  As background, it may help to see when and how that word was added.  It seems to have been this edit, which was made in 2017 following a proposal that files should be prodable, as well as articles.  The word "strongly" seems to have been slipped in alongside that update without any specific discussion or consensus.  We should start by reverting it.  Apart from anything else, unnecessary intensfiers are thought to be poor style – hyperbolic and inflationary. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal of strongly to avoid unnecessary splitting of hairs on this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Just as a final observation, the edit notice for this page Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Proposed deletion does use the phrase "strongly encouraged", and I think it provides educational contrast. I'm not inherently opposed to the language. It is not always an unnecessary intensifier or splitter of hairs I mean. But as the edit notice shows, using "strongly encourage" should be restricted to the times when we really mean to say "don't do that" but also "...unless you really really know what you are doing and can justify it if asked". This case just isn't like that. But how can editors know that when we use identical language? That's why I think this change (now implemented) is more significant than it might seem at first blush. Thank you and good night CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. FOARP (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Archive 17


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Echinades (322 BC), Battle of Amorgos

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Echinades (322 BC), Battle of Amorgos

 * ... that the sea battles of the Echinades and of Amorgos in 322 BC led to the defeat of Athens in the Lamian War and the end of Athenian independence and naval power?
 * Reviewed: Goat Simulator & St. Matthew, Leipzig.

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self nominated at 23:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Date, size, sources, hook and everything else appear fine. Good to go.Alexikoua (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Shakugan no Shana

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Shakugan no Shana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzC2rxKX?url=http://www.dwci.co.kr/newtype/nt_view.asp?book_gubn=novel to http://www.dwci.co.kr/newtype/nt_view.asp?book_gubn=novel&book_sub_gubn=nt&book_seq=13407&page=1
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzH084TK?url=http://dengeki.com/maintenance/ to http://archive.asciimw.jp/magazine/backno/dai_200504.php
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzH1AzbV?url=http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164751013 to http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164751013&Action_id=101&Sza_id=RR
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzHJ8sFc?url=http://www.dwci.co.kr/comic/comic/comics_view.asp?new_gubun=comics to http://www.dwci.co.kr/comic/comic/comics_view.asp?new_gubun=comics&seq=1848&series_seq=1848&book_seq=14114
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzHLHGr9?url=http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164111299 to http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164111299&Action_id=101&Sza_id=RR
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222172114/http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164110926&Action_id=101&Sza_id=LL to http://www.e-hon.ne.jp/bec/SA/DetailZasshi?refShinCode=0900000004910164110926&Action_id=101&Sza_id=LL
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzHTff8s?url=http://www.dwci.co.kr/comic/comic/comics_view.asp?new_gubun=comics to http://www.dwci.co.kr/comic/comic/comics_view.asp?new_gubun=comics&seq=2354&series_seq=2354&book_seq=17082
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzHmvNQO?url=http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/QqRpLqcq0V=RYIDlLd/browse/item/95053/4/0/0 to http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/2vttU3RR7Xq6rvV5ou/browse/item/95053/4/0/0
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzIV6IUo?url=http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-1_article_78429.html to http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-1_article_78429.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzIWBOZh?url=http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-2_article_78634.html to http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-2_article_78634.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzIX7OCw?url=http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-3_article_78979.html to http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-3_article_78979.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HzIY2oTq?url=http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-4_article_79014.html to http://www.mania.com/shana-vol-4_article_79014.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shakugan no Shana


text:
Talk:Jean-Baptiste Sipido

Untitled
Let's not speedy this. The person and incident described are real and easy to find in Google and I can see a case for this being a notable event. At most this should be an AfD with an appropriate discussion before we delete it. I don't see this being an obvious speedy. Gwernol 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I've expanded this a bit, just to make it look like a half-decent article, but my weak French isn't up to digesting the entire long article in the Biographie nationale (and I didn't copy it anyway and haven't got it available right now - I just made a few quick notes to work from). Even English language sources, such as Brust's account or contemporary newspaper accounts (all the old issues of The Times have been entirely digitized), could be used to considerably expand the article. u p p l a n d 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Speedy deletions
''Let's not speedy this. The person and incident described are real and easy to find in Google and I can see a case for this being a notable event. At most this should be an AfD with an appropriate discussion before we delete it. I don't see this being an obvious speedy, maybe all it really needs is to be expanded and improved? Gwernol 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)''

 * Unless there's more that 'interesting' to this guy than this one event, I say delete. I mean, THIS page (Yes, the speedy deletion page) is the number 4 result on Google.  Most of the others on the first page are simple one-sentence descriptions.  If you can find more information that makes this person notable, then by all means...  But otherwise, this deserves to be a footnote in some other article.  Heck, I can't even find a (confirmed) birth year or death year.  If he's so unimportant that no one recorded when he died, then he's not notable.  (I think that's a great new way of deciding if a dead person is notable.  Did someone bother to record when he died, other than a standard newspaper-issue obituary?  Ehurtley 08:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This has now been moved from speedy to AfD and survived there. "Jean Baptiste Sipido" right now has only 15 Google hits, when the word "wikipedia" is subtracted from the search, but he turned out to have an eighteen-page biography in the Biographie nationale, the Belgian dictionary of national biography. This is an excellent example of why Google may be of some use in indicating the notability of contemporary people but how completely and utterly useless it is in determining the lack of notability of many historical figures. u p p l a n d 09:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I decided to move the discussion above to this page. Google hits on Sipido may become more numerous in the future now that he has a WP article. It may be useful to refer to this case when people use Google hits as an argument in deletion discussions. u p p l a n d 09:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Speyer
The Index to Contributors of the journal gives him as Speyer, Dr. H., Member of the Brussels Bar. He's probably this chap Herbert Speyer Cavrdg (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jean-Baptiste Sipido


text:
Tevita Vonolagi

Tevita Vonolagi (born 29 November 1963) is a Fijian former rugby union footballer, he played as wing.

Career
At club level, he played for the Fijian Armed Forces team and for the Suva District team. He debuted for Fiji during a test match against Tonga, in Nadi, on 8 October 1988. As a player, Vonolagi was known for his extremely tough and dangerous spot tackles, which made him feared. In 1989 he took part at the Fiji tour to Europe. In the game on 4 November 1989 against the England at the Twickenham Stadium, in which the Fijians lost 23-58, he scored on the side and got sent off in the 52nd minute by the referee Brian Sterling due to a late tackle on Jeremy Guscott. Four minutes later, Noa Nadruku was sent off for a rough tackle on Will Carling and the Fijian coach criticised the referee's decisions. The Daily Express described the Fijian game as "mugging the English on the mud", arguing that the Fijians eventually dragged themselves in the mud, and the referee could not limit himself to sending off both players. According to former Fiji international Sairusi Naituku, the referee's decisions costed the match to the Fijians, who, after the half-time, were under a margin of 20-13. He was also part of the 1991 Rugby World Cup squad, where he played the only match against Romania. His last international cap was against Tonga, in Nuku'alofa, on 17 July 1993, won by 15-10. He scored 42 points in 16 games, with 7 tries, 2 penalties and 2 drop goals. In 2002, he ended his career for the Australian rugby league team Camden Rams.

Personal life
He resides in Perth.

title: Tevita Vonolagi


text:
Talk:Derek Lyng

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Derek Lyng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205220340/http://leinster.gaa.ie/_fileupload/Archives/P40_69%20Finalis.pdf to http://leinster.gaa.ie/_fileupload/Archives/P40_69%20Finalis.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130702075334/http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/shefflin-goals-shatter-limerick-s-title-dream-by-jerome-o-connell-1-2176359 to http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/shefflin-goals-shatter-limerick-s-title-dream-by-jerome-o-connell-1-2176359

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Lyng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115214426/http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/3/0112101443-lyng-announces-retirement-from-intercounty-hurling/ to http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/3/0112101443-lyng-announces-retirement-from-intercounty-hurling/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Lyng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014192436/http://hoganstand.com/Kilkenny/Profile.aspx to http://www.hoganstand.com/kilkenny/Profile.aspx

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Derek Lyng


text:
Set the Record Straight

Set the Record Straight may refer to:

 * Set the Record Straight (Fast Crew album)
 * Set the Record Straight (Billy Ray Cyrus album)
 * Set the Record Straight (song), by Tee Grizzley

title: Set the Record Straight


text:
Au Rocher de Cancale

Au Rocher de Cancale is a restaurant located in the 2nd arrondissement of Paris, France. It was very popular in the 19th century thanks to its suppers offered after theatre and opera shows.

History
The restaurant was founded in 1804 by Alexis Balaine. It offered oyster specialities after spectacles. Dandies, Lorettes, aristocrats and Jockey Club used to meet at this restaurant, then located at 59 Rue Montorgueil. At the time, the restaurant offered an extensive list of dishes: 10 mutton, 17 veal, 11 beef and 22 poultry starters, 27 entremets and 30 desserts.

In 1809, La Reynière installed its tasting jury in the restaurant.

Honoré de Balzac, Alexandre Dumas, Théophile Gautier and Eugène Sue were patrons of the restaurant.

In 1837, chef Langlais created the "Norman sole" in Le Rocher de Cancale's kitchen.

Balaine's successor, Pierre Frédéric Borrel, went bankrupt and closed the establishment in 1846. The restaurant was latered re-opened under the same name at Rue de Richelieu.

Mr Pécune then moved the restaurant back to Rue Montorgueil (to No. 78). The work Rocher de Cancale is still in the building, as well as frescoes made by Paul Gavarni.

The building was classified as an official Historical Monument on March 3, 1977.

A building of the same name existed in Brussels in 1874.

In popular culture
In Honoré de Balzac's La Comédie humaine, characters Henri de Marsay, Madame du Val-Noble, Coralie, Lucien de Rubempré, Étienne Lousteau and Dinah de La Baudraye were regular patrons of the restaurant. The restaurant is notably cited in Le Cabinet des Antiques, La Muse du département, Illusions perdues, Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes, as well as in other works.

title: Au Rocher de Cancale


text:
Ulrich Apt the Elder

Ulrich Apt the Elder (1460–1532), was a German Late-Gothic painter.

Biography
Apt was born in Augsburg, and lived and worked there all of his life. He became an independent master in 1481. He ran a workshop in Augsburg with his three sons Jacob, Ulrich Apt the Younger, and Michael, all artists, producing primarily religious themed works. He died in Augsburg in 1532.

title: Ulrich Apt the Elder


text:
Norman Lee Swartout

Norman Lee Swartout, Sr. (April 17, 1879 - October 30, 1930) was an American playwright. He was the editor and manager of the play department for Longman, Green & Co. He became the director of the Summit Playhouse in 1918.

Biography
He was born in Auburn, New York, on April 17, 1879. He attended the University of Rochester where he was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity and graduated around 1901. He made his stage debut Don Caesar's Return with James Keteltas Hackett at Wallack's Theatre in Manhattan. He wrote the farcical play The Arrival of Kitty in 1906.

He married Helen Louise Briggs around 1912. They had two children: Norman Lee Swartout, Jr. (born 1914) who married Hildegarde Spindler; and Barbara Swartout.

He became the director of the Summit Playhouse in 1918.

He died on October 30, 1930, in Summit, New Jersey, he was 51 years old.

Plays

 * The Toastmaster
 * Half Back Sandy
 * One of the Eight
 * The Arrival of Kitty (1906)
 * One of The: A College Comedy in Four Acts (1908)
 * Every Man For Himself
 * Close to Nature: A Farcical Episode in the Life of an American Family, in Four Acts (1915)

title: Norman Lee Swartout


text:
User:Plt09/sandbox

The article is fairly neutral. There are no claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position, or directed with a certain point of view. The content is not divided evenly between the many sub-headings; there is more information for certain types of open NTDs (e.g. anencephaly, encephaloceles, iniencephaly and spina bifida) in comparison to closed NTDs and more information about surgical treatment. In addition, in the “causes” section, the article is framed to focus on metabolic and environmental risk factors associated with NTD. A few viewpoints are underrepresented or overrepresented depending on sub-heading. In the causes section, there is little to no material on other risk factors associated with NTD, including poorly controlled diabetes and certain anti-seizure medication, obesity, family history of NTDs. The link to folic acid is highly overrepresented in comparison to the information on these other risk factors. Further, there was an overrepresentation of open NTDs in comparison to closed NTDs. Within open NTDs there is a less information on hydranencephaly in comparison to the other open NTDs. In diagnosis, there is underrepresentation of other values that are important in maternal screening e.g. hCG and estriol. Lastly, in the treatment section, treatment options specific for each type of open NTD are underrepresented. For example, treatment for spina bifida varies depending on the severity of conditions - patients may need alternative methods of transport (e.g. walkers, wheelchairs, braces) or may receive surgical treatment (e.g. tethered spinal cord).

title: User:Plt09/sandbox


text:
Talk:Kurdish coffee

Undiscussed move
I have reverted the undiscussed move of the page from "Kurdish coffee" to "Menengic coffee" by. You must follow the procedures at Requested moves if you wish to propose a move of the article, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No reason to expect a dispute concerning a move.
There is no reason to expect a dispute concerning this move so i have moved the page back to "Menengic coffee", thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicideboi (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Chill, everybody
Hi guys. Rather than revert warring over this, may I (strongly) suggest that the issue be discussed here before any more moves, to try building consensus. The original move was fine, in the sense that Requested moves is only needed when the editor who wants the name change is unable to perform the move themselves due to technical reasons. That being said, it's obvious that this was a controversial decision, so discussion and consensus-building is the way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments. I'd like to note that Requested moves (or at least a prior discussion) is also needed for "potentially controversial" moves when "someone could reasonably disagree with the move". The fact that I reverted it would seem to indicate that I disagreed with or disputed the move... I'd prefer that the article be moved back to the stable title pending outcome of the discussion. That would be in accordance with WP:RMUM. But I also agree that revert warring isn't productive.

 * I did a Google books search, in which I could find only two sources that mention "menengic" coffee. Both were Turkish travel guides; one of them says "try the menengic (wild pistachio) coffee". Two memoirs mention "pistachio coffee" as being Kurdish., . Another has "pistachio coffee and tarhana from Gaziantep", and another describes "pistachio coffee" in Adana. None mention "terebinth coffee" or "turpentine coffee".
 * A Google news search for "kurdish coffee" gives two articles from the Chicago Tribune discussing it, plus a couple of others, for example "traditional Kurdish coffee, which is made with ground terebinth beans", and "Kurdish coffee is made from pistachio seeds".. "Menengic coffee" gives only a single result. Five or six others describe things like "pistachio coffee–a regional treat [of Diyarbakir]", "pistachio coffee" in a Turkish restaurant in Australia, and "coffee made from ground pistachios".
 * I was unable to find any other online encyclopedia entries for the subject. I couldn't find the word "menengic" in any English dictionary.
 * Of the English-language sources cited in the article, one calls it "Kurdish coffee" (Chicago Tribune), another uses the Turkish word menengiç untranslated (anissa's blog) - though Charles Perry (food writer), a historian of Middle Eastern food, in a comment there translates it as "terebinth". The third is Neuroprotective potential of some terebinth coffee brands...
 * Several online translation dictionaries translate menengiç as "terebinth" but none were able to translate menengiç kahvesi, except Google Translate which gave "turpentine coffee".
 * A Google Scholar search gives zero results for "mengenic coffee", "kurdish coffee", or "pistachio coffee", while "terebinth coffee" gets about 70 hits, with a significant number of duplicates due to citations.
 * In terms of unreliable sources and WP:GHITS, a regular Google search (with "-wikipedia") showed about five thousand hits for "menengic coffee", ten thousand for "Kurdish coffee" (though that probably includes a large number that refer to regular coffee), and about a thousand for "terebinth coffee". "Pistachio coffee" gets 30,000, but that also includes a significant number about pistachio-flavored regular coffee or ice cream. "Pistachio coffee" with either "Turkish" or "Kurdish" together gives about 7,000 hits, significantly more than "menengic coffee". Note that these Google-hit numbers are very fluid and not reliable...
 * Pinging, who showed some interest in the article, what do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Re: 'what do you think?' from
 * I'm generally happy as long as information about this beverage is findable from a "Kurdish Coffee" search/redirect. Given my druthers I prefer it under the original "Kurdish Coffee" title but I have not researched the name for correctness. User5910 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

all the sources i posted are from academic articles.
not travel guides. if i wanted to post from magazine websites like kurdistan24 or chicago turbine i could list 100 more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicideboi (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * There are no travel guides cited in the article. Is this comment is related to the above discussion of the article name? If so, the point is to try to ascertain what the most common name is, and we need to use English if possible. There is only one English-language academic paper cited in the article, which says: "Terebinth coffee, known as ‘‘menengic coffee’’ in Turkish...". That would suggest that "menengic coffee" is not a good candidate for the article name.
 * The three other papers are in Turkish. They have abstracts in English, that may not be particularly reliable to ascertain common English usage: one refers to "Turpentine coffee which is belong to Gaziantep", one has one mention of "menengic coffee" in the abstract, and the third has it as a "keyword". As I noted above, a Google Scholar search found numerous academic articles in English referring mainly to "terebinth coffee", and none to "menengic coffee". --IamNotU (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814611010958. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. IamNotU (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There was one orphaned citation that might be useful, but I don't know what it contains: --IamNotU (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

National origins
I've restored the sourced material about it being a traditional Kurdish beverage. I'm sure it's also a traditional Turkish beverage, but the two are not mutually exclusive. For example, Künefe is considered by many to be a traditional dessert of Antakya and the Hatay region of Turkey, but that doesn't mean it's not a traditional dessert of Nablus in Palestine, which it definitely is. --IamNotU (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kurdish coffee


text:
Destot's space

Etymology
Named for radiologist Étienne Destot (1864-1918).

Noun

 * 1)  The space in the wrist bounded by the hamate, capitate, triquetral and lunate bones.

title: Destot's space


text:
Investment Fund for Developing Countries

Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Investeringsfonden for Udviklingslande) (IFU), is a Development Financial Institution owned by the Government of Denmark. IFU is a self-governing, state-owned fund, whose objective is to promote economic and social development in developing countries. The Fund provides risk capital and advice to companies wanting to do business in parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Investments are made on commercial terms in the form of loans and equity, with the purpose of contribution to economic and social development in the investment countries and support the attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Location
The headquarters and main offices of IFU are located at Fredericiagade 27, 1310 Copenhagen K, Denmark. The geographical coordinates of the company headquarters are:55°41'08.9"N, 12°35'24.5"E (Latitude:55.685806; Longitude:12.590139). IFU also maintains regional offices in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe.

As of August 2020, IFU maintained regional offices in these cities: 1. Copenhagen 2. Accra 3. Ho Chi Minh City 4. Kyiv 5. Lima 6. Nairobi 7. New Delhi 8. São Paulo 9. Shanghai 10. Singapore. (Near bottom of reference page).

Overview
IFU was founded in 1967, as an independent government-owned fund offering advisory services and risk capital to companies wishing to do business in developing countries and emerging markets. In addition to investing its own money, IFU acts as a fund manager. As of August 2020, IFU had co-invested in over 1,300 companies in more than 100 countries. The investment portfolio totals DKK:209 billion (€29.07 billion), to which IFU as contributed DKK:23 billion (€3.09 billion).

Before 31 December 2016, IFU’s involvement was tied to the participation of a Danish company or the existence of a Danish interest. That requirement was dropped in December 2016. IFU does not provide business grants or development aid. Over time the investments have returned good results to the countries hosting the investments, the Danish companies and to IFU. In the 2014 to 2019 time period, gross yields on invested share capital averaged in excess of 12 percent annually.

Ownership
Investment Fund for Developing Countries is 100 percent owned by the government of Denmark.

Governance
Michael Rasmussen serves as the chairman of the company. Effective 1 January 2019, Torben Huss is the chief executive officer of Investment Fund for Developing Countries.

Recent investments
IFU is an equity investor in Lake Turkana Wind Power Station, a 310 megawatts power plant, that is Africa’s largest wind farm. It supplies approximately 15 percent of Kenya's electricity needs.

IFU owns 9.97 percent of DFCU Bank, the fifth-largest commercial bank in Uganda. The shareholding was acquired in December 2019 from the CDC Group of the United Kingdom.

In In March 2019, the Investment Fund for Developing Countries (IFU), lent KSh:1.2 billion (approx. US$11.2 million) to Sidian Bank, a Kenyan commercial bank. During the next 36 months, IFU has the option to convert a portion or all of the principal into share capital in the bank. If all the principal is converted into capital, the Fund will acquire 20 percent shareholding in the bank and gain two seats on the expanded seven-person bank board. Each of the other shareholders will be diluted proportionately.


text:
Talk:Internet Technologies/History and evolution

Page
Is the title of this page relevent strictly? Can't it reffer to "internet"? What course is this?

I'm not really sure this is a book. I was hoping for a long "book" about the creation and evolution of the Internet, and where we are today.<IP_ADDRESS> 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is just a subpage of a book with a different focus, the link to the root of the book is Here. I'm not sure if there's actually a book here that examines the history of the internet in depth though it may be an interesting read. Regards, <IP_ADDRESS> 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


text:
Pauline de Witt

Pauline de Witt (née Guizot; 22 June 1831 in Paris – 28 February 1874 in Cannes) was a French historian and translator.

Biography
She was the second daughter of François Guizot and the sister of Guillaume and Henriette Guizot.

She wrote Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant ("History of William the Conqueror") and actively collaborated to her father's last work Histoire de France racontée à mes petits-enfants ("History of France told to my grand-children").

On 18 May 1850 she married historian and Calvados deputy Cornélis Henri de Witt, with whom she had seven children. Their two daughters Henriette and Pauline married the brothers Conrad and Cornélis Henri de Witt, who were also Protestants.

Pauline de Witte was buried at the cemetery of Saint-Ouen-le-Pin, Calvados.

Works

 * Guillaume le Conquérant, ou, L'Angleterre sous les Normands, London: Hachette; Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1878.
 * Six mois de guerre, 1870-1871 : lettres et journal de Mme Cornélis de Witt, 1894.
 * Histoire de deux petits frères, Paris: Hachette, 1890.
 * Contes anglais, Paris, 1883.
 * Translation
 * Elizabeth Prentiss, Les petits brins de fil ou fil embrouillé, fil-d'argent et fil-d’or, transl. from English by Pauline de Cornelis de Witt, 1865.

title: Pauline de Witt


text:
Tehtaan kenttä

Tehtaan kenttä (Fabriksplan) is a 1934 opened football stadium in the 1st district of Valkeakoski, Finland, and the home of Veikkausliiga club FC Haka. The stadium holds an attendance capacity of 3,516. The record for attendance is 6,401 and was set in a game against rival team HJK Helsinki in 1999. In addition to its history, the stadium is noted especially for its surroundings, while located in a big park and having the nearby UPM-Kymmene paper mill lay at the southwestern end of the pitch.

The name (lit. the factory pitch) derives from UPM's ownership of the stadium (until being sold in 2014) as well as the stadium's proximity to and open view of the paper mill characteristic to the town of Valkeakoski.

The turf was changed from natural grass to artificial in November 2014.

title: Tehtaan kenttä


text:
Talk:Biomedical Systems

hi,so I was scrolling through the list of orphan articles and saw this page and was like "theres no way nothing leads to biomedical systems" so I clicked on it and realised it was about a company thus i think we should rename it 'biomedical systems (company)' to avoid confusion.

title: Talk:Biomedical Systems


text:
Boil That Dust Speck

Boil That Dust Speck is the second studio album by Mike Keneally.

Track listing
All tracks composed by Mike Keneally.

 * 1) "Sooth" (2:30)
 * 2) "'Cause of Breakfast" (5:08)
 * 3) "The Desired Effect" (3:34)
 * 4) "Skunk" (2:42)
 * 5) "I'm Glad There's Lemon-Freshened Thorax in You" (0:09)
 * 6) "Top of Stove Melting" (2:42)
 * 7) "Aglow" (2:49)
 * 8) "Bryan Beller's Favorite Song" (0:21)
 * 9) "Deep-Fried Skinks Are Go" (0:31)
 * 10) "Good Morning, Sometime" (1:40)
 * 11) "Them Dolphins Is Smart" (0:59)
 * 12) "1988 Was a Million Years Ago" (3:32)
 * 13) "Yep, Them Dolphins Is Smart, Alright" (1:59)
 * 14) "Bullys (sic)" (5:57)
 * 15) "My Dilemma" (4:02)
 * 16) "Helen Was Brash" (1:13)
 * 17) "Weekend" (3:55)
 * 18) "Land of Broken Dreams" (2:28)
 * 19) "Blameless (The Floating Face)" (2:15)
 * 20) "That Claim-Jumping Swine, O'Bannon" (1:06)
 * 21) "Faithful Axe" (1:26)
 * 22) "Natty Trousers" (2:27)
 * 23) "Scotch" (3:47)
 * 24) "There Have Been Bad Moments" (4:43)
 * 25) "Frang Tang, The Valentine Bear" (1:53)
 * 26) "I Will" (0:44)
 * 27) "In the Bone World" (2:33)
 * 28) "The Old Boat Guy, Part One" (2:27)
 * 29) "The Old Boat Guy, Part Two" (2:04)
 * 30) "The Old Boat Guy, Part Three" (2:48)

title: Boil That Dust Speck


text:
User:Marghoob Alam

Marghoob Alam A former student of M. A. (Islamic Studies) in Jamia Ashrafia Lives at Abul Fazl Enclave Jamia Nagar New Delhi

title: User:Marghoob Alam


text:
Delicious Proposal

Delicious Proposal is a 2001 South Korean television series starring Jung Joon, Son Ye-jin, So Yoo-jin and So Ji-sub. It aired on MBC from February 7 to March 29, 2001 on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 21:55 for 16 episodes.

Plot
The drama is about two families that operate rival Chinese food restaurants, and the love stories of twenty-something high school graduates on their paths to becoming first-class chefs.

Hyo-dong treats his customers like kings and serves the best Chinese food in the area, but his restaurant has been struggling for some time. Built on his father's dedication and decades of hard work, the restaurant has been declining due to the aggressive techniques of their rivals. In the midst of this competition, Hyo-dong gets to know Hee-ae, a charming young girl who frequents the same cooking class. They also meet Shin-ae, a poor, very determined student who dreams of owning her own restaurant someday. Hyo-dong falls for Hee-ae, but he later finds out that she is the daughter of the owner of deluxe eatery Golden Dragon, a ruthless rival who is out to destroy his father's restaurant.

Cast

 * Jung Joon as Kim Hyo-dong
 * Son Ye-jin as Jang Hee-ae
 * So Yoo-jin as Ma Shin-ae
 * So Ji-sub as Jang Hee-moon, Hee-ae's brother
 * Park Geun-hyung as Kim Kap-soo, Hyo-dong's father
 * Kim Yong-gun as Jang Tae-kwang, Hee-ae's father
 * Sunwoo Yong-nyeo as Hee-ae's mother
 * Kim In-moon as Wang Sa-boo, chef who taught Hyo-dong's father
 * Kim Kyu-chul as Park Young-guk
 * Hong Soo-hyun as Hong Joo-ri, Hee-moon's friend
 * Jung Won-joong as Jo Paeng-dal, Golden Dragon chef
 * Lee Hye-sook as Kwon Mi-sook, Hyo-dong's aunt
 * Park Kwang-jung as Yoon Chil-sung, Hyo-dong's uncle
 * Kim Se-joon as master Chinese chef
 * Lee Jin-woo as Shim Woo-kyung
 * Ji Sung as Oh Joon-soo, Hyo-dong's friend
 * Kwon Sang-woo as Choon-shik, motorcycle delivery guy
 * Kim Ji-woo as Hyo-dong's sister
 * Kim Yong-hee
 * Seo Beom-shik

title: Delicious Proposal


text:
afganistanilainen

Adjective

 * 1) Afghanistani, Afghan of or pertaining to Afghanistan

Noun

 * 1) Afghanistani, Afghan citizen of Afghanistan

title: afganistanilainen


text:
Talk:US History/Truman and Cold War

Untitled
I never heard there was a vast Communist Conspiracy in the government - I was under the impression that McCarthy was off his rocker and never found a real communist.

By the way, "dastardly" mayy violate NPOV.

Hmph... It is evident that the article is based only on american and western sources.

Not a single word about the money reform, held in the American, French and British zones which de facto made it impossible for citizens from the Soivet zone of influence to buy/sell anything in that territory.

Concerning "in repsonse to that Soviet Union created Warsaw Pact".While NATO was created in 1949, it should not be forgotten that Warsaw Pact was created under Khruschev, more than 4 years later.

Etc, Etc. So many mistakes, blank spots, so much misleading information...

- Theocide

Copyright violation for image of Germany
This is something I think would be comparatively easy to recreate, and something that the people contributing to this project ought to consider. This image will be deleted in a week or so, unless some formal copyright attribution that is compatable with the GFDL can be granted. --Rob Horning 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

China and Communism
It would be interesting to link to international events, forces and movements that promoted changes (not only on China) and go beyond infantile propagandistic explanations. Explaining how and why some Western nations victimized China, its relations to neighboring nations would provide a better understanding about the reasons behind the path to Maoism. Making a distinction between Maoism and Marxism seems also relevant as to educate readers that there are many things behind the concept of Communism. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You missed a lot of stuff about Truman
Nothing about his desegregation of the Civil Service and the military? Mercy me! Pittsburgh Poet (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The CIA and foreign affairs
Consider this a call for someone more informed than I am to add material about what the CIA did in the name of the United States in Central and South America and in Iran. Pittsburgh Poet (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:US History/Truman and Cold War


text:
Dilshodbek Ruzmetov

Dilshodbek Ruzmetov (born 12 March 1999) is an Uzbek professional boxer. As an amateur, Ruzmetov won a gold medal at the 2021 Asian Championships and a silver medal at the 2019 World Championships. Ruzmetov also competed at the 2020 Summer Olympics. He trains under Farrukh Kilichev.

Olympic result
Tokyo 2020
 * Round of 32: Defeated Emmett Brennan (Republic of Ireland) 5–0
 * Round of 16: Defeated by Loren Alfonso (Azerbaijan) 4–1

World Championships result
Yekaterinburg 2019
 * First round: Defeated Shinebayar Narmandakh (Mongolia) 5–0
 * Second round: Defeated Peter Pita (Democratic Republic of the Congo) 5–0
 * Third round: Defeated Andrei Aradoaie (Romania) 5–0
 * Quarter-finals: Defeated Loren Alfonso (Azerbaijan) 3–2
 * Semi-finals: Defeated Benjamin Whittaker (England) 5–0
 * Final: Defeated by Bekzad Nurdauletov (Kazakhstan) 5–0

title: Dilshodbek Ruzmetov


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles Bergner

The result was   delete. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Miles Bergner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE which states for college athletes to be considered notable they must have met one of the following:

1.Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.

2.Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).

3.Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

The article notes that he was 2013 US Army all-American, however, this is an award he received in H.S. not in College, and should not be confused with the American Football Coaches Association All-America team, which would be considered notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Preliminary note. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusive standard.  College players may also qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of significant coverage in mainstream media sources.  I haven't had a chance to assess yet, and some of the coverage appears routine, but there are some articles on him that turn up in a simple google search. They include:, , , , , , , . Cbl62 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH and all of the coverage is from the local paper which I believe is not enough to meet GNG. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that the Denver Post and USA Today should be considered a local paper on the subject of a football player from Missouri who goes to college in South Dakota. There is a LOT of coverage here, more than just "stats listings".  Granted most of it is local and perhaps regional, but there's some national exposure.  Worthy of a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the Denver Post article and it appears he had a scholarship offer from Northern Colorado. That is why a football player from Missouri who goes to college in South Dakota is addressed in a Colorado newspaper.  Potential football recruit news is just WP:ROUTINE.  Therefore, I don't give the Denver Post 3 sentence article any weight. RonSigPi (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete FCS special teams player is going to have a rough road to WP:GNG. Not seeing GNG being met here.  Almost everything is local, and even the most generous view of the non-local coverage just focuses on the U.S. Army All American Bowl.  At best, this still falls under WP:BIO1E. RonSigPi (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Saint Nicholas's Church (Mušnikovo)

Saint Nicholas's Church is a cultural heritage monument in Mušnikovo, Prizren, Kosovo.

History
Saint Nicholas's Church lies west of Mušnikovo, 15.8 km from Prizren. It is a one-nave rectangular church with a triangular apse facing eastward. The interior frescos point to construction in the 16th century from stone bound with lime mortar plastered on the outside under a two-layer stone slab roof. Two rectangular windows and two niches with semi-arched openings, one of each on the northern and one on the southern façade, are among the notable external features, along with a western annex still not opening to the older structure. The annex, like the main church, is rectangular and plastered white on the outside, but with the two-layer roof made instead of galvanized sheet metal. The reinforced concrete bell tower, with its four-layer clay tile roof, was built recently and faces westward from the annex. The churchyard doubles as the local cemetery.

title: Saint Nicholas's Church (Mušnikovo)