I don't understand why you're suggesting the page for deletion. Breen is the CEO of a nonprofit and previously headed a think tank, both of which have their own Wiki entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplewriter (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the criteria for notability under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited by virtue of the organization someone is affiliated with but must be independently established by reliable secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed it, and disagree with you -- it is notable when someone, for example, is invited to testify at a congressional hearing and when someone is listed by secondary sources as an expert in his field -- but will try to find a couple more secondary sources. Purplewriter (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to Dclemens1971 for accumulating at least 500 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were the nominator of this AFD discussion. You should not have closed the discussion unless you were withdrawing your nomination. Please do not do this again in the future. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Liz - it looks like I misunderstood the speedy keep provision for non-admin closures and I see my mistake now. Won't happen again and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned in an AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nana Wanjau that you were unable to access a Gale database. Perhaps you could access Gale databases through your local public or college library. If you live in one community and work in another, you might be able to get a library card in the community where you work in the event that your work community's library has access to online databases that your home library does not. I mention this because public libraries sometimes offer access to non-residents who work in their community. Eastmain (talk • contribs)01:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your comments were direct, specific and helpful, I was able to use your advice to fundamentally re-write the article to be a bit more short and succinct.
Hi Dclemens1971, I want to discuss having a skeptical approach to editing wikipedia. ( if there is a more appropriate place to have this discussion then I'd be happy to discuss moving this there. )
My view as someone with more than a passing interest in preserving the history of a schoolyard game is that it benefits wikipedia to record encyclopaedic knowledge across the broad spectrum of human experience.
I do like the skeptical approach generally but I do think it has its limitations and can at times be detrimental to encyclopaedic knowledge where it seeks to discredit a kids schoolyard game for example. In comparison, a skeptical approach of a wikipedia page contributor who benefits from listing their business details on the page they created on the other hand is very useful and helpful in maintaining wikipedia standards.
There's lots of useful knowledge in the world. Wikipedia is one place where it can be collected, but only under certain circumstances. I don't doubt that you and/or your kids play some variation of a recess game called "down-ball," but what we've asked you to do in the AfD discussion is to provide secondary, independent, reliable sources to validate this claim. The sources you've provided indicate that the term refers to other games or to the game downball, not some other game. You've also offered your personal experience and videos that you have personally uploaded. Wikipedia's core policies include no original research and verifiability, which means we need more than what you've provided. It's not "skepticism"; it's the way this site is built and anyone who wants to come into this community needs to play by those rules. Those are my thoughts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 - can you provide any further direction on what level of proof/evidence is acceptable? What are your thoughts on the proof/evidence of the existing page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopscotch? Is there another existing page that you think demonstrates sufficient proof/evidence? Rockycape (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly fine for an editor to state that the utility of a particular conversation has been exhausted. I do not see any rudeness here, just a commonsense attempt to save valuable time of all editors involved. Викидим (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of today the Down-ball AfD and Down-ball article has been deleted without warning. There was no consensus reached and the AfD had recently been re-listed to gain consensus. Back to the drawing board I guess. If I create this page as a draft is that acceptable to Dclemens1971 ? Rockycape (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My page Down-ball existed for about two weeks before it was deleted. That's not a lot of time for a newcomer to get their article up to scatch. Now time I would have spent getting the article up to scratch is being diluted by trying to navigate the AfD and now the Deletion Review. Another Editor kindly informed me the Deletion Review would be likely decided in a week. Rockycape (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockycape Please don't claim to be a newcomer; we can all see that you have been active on Wikipedia since 2018. You appear unwilling to receive feedback from a variety of other editors who have all engaged with you in good faith, and you have bludgeoned discussions at AfD and on user talk pages trying in vain to make the same point without reference to others' perspectives. I don't think it's productive for this conversation to continue at this point. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly a newcomer in regard to my experience in that it's my first time participating in a AfD and now a Deletion Review. My experience is limited to creating a page back in 2018 and now a page in 2024 both of which are on the record. I get concerned when you speak as "we" so perhaps peak for yourself Dclemens1971. Happy to leave this particular discussion there as per your preference. Rockycape (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We ... all" is an inclusive we here. Everyone (including you) can check the history of edits indeed. So Dclemens1971 does not speak for any particular group here, just makes a factually correct statement. Викидим (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dclemens1971, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
