Auntof6

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Cheisaang Marol

Thanks for closing the RfD's. As for Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Cheisaang Marol, I think you meant to close it as keep. 66.96.79.214 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Question

Why Are You Acting Like Wikipedia Is YouTube.? 75.89.78.1 (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello

I was simplifying Willenhall E-ACT Academy for tomorrow. Why did you delete it? Rafael Hello! 13:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even finish it! Rafael Hello! 13:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat: The issue wasn't that it wasn't simple enough. The issue was that it didn't show notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was simplifying it. It was not complete. Rafael Hello! 16:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I am going to make another one. Rafael Hello! 16:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat: Make sure it shows notability. If you need time to work on it, you could work on it in your userspace until it's ready. Otherwise it might get deleted again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for clarity of a recently closed AFD

I am reaching out to discuss the recent deletion of the Akuma Saningong article, which I noticed was removed from my watchlist. I believe moreover, I understand you closed the most recent Articles for Deletion discussion with a "delete" decision, despite previously closing an earlier AfD for the same article with a "keep" outcome. I’d appreciate some clarity on how you arrived at the deletion decision, especially since it seems the second discussion had stronger arguments for keeping the article, including at least two well-supported "keep" votes that carried weight based on Wikipedia’s notability guidelines WP:GNG.

Could you please explain how you evaluated the consensus in the second AfD, particularly given the stronger arguments for retention compared to the first discussion? I’m also curious about the process here, as it’s unusual for the same admin to close both AfD discussions for the same article, especially with differing outcomes. My understanding is basically that Wikipedia’s deletion process WP:DEL encourages a different uninvolved admin to handle subsequent closures to ensure impartiality. If there were specific factors, new evidence, or policy considerations that led to the shift from "keep" to "delete," I’d value your insight into that reasoning.

Thank you for your time and for all the work you do as an admin. I look forward to your thoughts and hope we can find a path forward to restore the article. Funtiberry (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Funtiberry: First, as for the earlier RfD: I closed that one as "keep" because the only comments came from one person arguing to delete and one arguing to keep, meaning that there was no consensus to delete. In any case, the second RfD was evaluated on its own, separately from the earlier one. I also don't see anything in WP:DEL indicating that an admin should not close two RfDs for the same page. Please point out where you see that.

On to the more recent RfD:

This RfD certainly had more arguments, but they weren't necessarily stronger. Some of your arguments in the RfD seemed to say that a source is considered reliable if there is an article about it in Wikipedia. That is not the case.

Also, most of the sources you cited in the RfD were not in the article. Even if they could show notability, they need to be in the article. Besides that, CounryANDWestern gave good arguments against some of those sources.

If you disagree with the way the RfD was closed, you are welcome to use WP:Deletion review to ask for it to be restored. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Auntof6,

Following your feedback and your explanation regarding the absence of sources in the article itself, I’ve now formally made a request at Deletion Review asking for the article to be undeleted into my userspace.

This would allow me to integrate the secondary sources that were discussed but not included in the article at the time of deletion. I’ve aligned my request with the explanation you provided, and I’m looking forward to your next steps as the admin who closed the discussion.

Thank you again for your engagement and clarity throughout this process. Funtiberry (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Revert on AI

I know we don't have a G13 yet. That article is proposed and not yet official, that's why I undated it so people can review it. The page already mentioned the QD option so I think it makes sense to include it in the proposal. As the original author of the proposal I think it makes sense to include it as it clearly seems to be the way the project member's consensus is leaning. fr33kman 21:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: You're right. Maybe you didn't notice that I reverted myself. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I did, I just wanted to explain why I added it. fr33kman 22:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Kadama

You recently closed this page Kadama with decision to delete, where I feel at minimum this should have been kept or extended for further voting period. Could you please explain your rationale when there were 2 people that voted to KEEP. Plus, it was previously also decided to be kept. I know that is beside the point, but the fact that no one else challenged it the first time, should count for something. Darrenchant (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Darrenchant: Sure.

First, keep in mind that RfDs are not votes. The decision to keep or delete is based on the arguments, not how many people say keep and how many say delete.

What I saw was two people saying to delete because that there weren't enough reliable sources, and two people saying to keep because there were enough sources. Note that the latter mentioned only the quantity of sources, not whether they were reliable. Quality of sources (that is, reliable sources) is what matters, not how many there are. Also, some of the sources listed in the RfD were already in the article, so listing them without emphasizing why they were reliable didn't argue for keeping.

Regarding the earlier RfD: Each RfD is independent. This RfD mentioned the earlier one, so people had the opportunity to look at it and consider what was said in that one. Then if they wanted to bring forth any arguments from it, they could.

As far as extending the time on the RfD: I did see that done recently (although I don't remember which admin or RfD it was on), but we normally don't do that.

I hope that answers your concerns. If you want the article to be restored, you can use WP:Deletion review. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Low priority (a non-optimal interwiki,'because' two users first tried a 'reasonable effort')

PubChem.
A user (and not me), mentioned 'on that talk-page', that s/he was not able to make Language-link (or interwiki).

If my (following) diff is totally forbidden (when 'two users' fail with 'ordinary effort'), then please say so.

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PubChem&diff=10377912&oldid=10377903

(And if totally forbidden, then maybe one should mention on talk-page, about how users might 'easily get to' an appropriate wikidata talk-page, so that one can mention the thing there.) 2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:B9D1:C969:6551:E913:D235 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)