User talk:KylieTastic: Difference between revisions

AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random… Current Backlog: 3,016 pending submissions

Archives

2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi User:KylieTastic! May I know why did you delete the Peanut Gallery Media Network page? Are you anti-media? Bootkinero (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bootkinero all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). The article was little more than a basic listing or advert with the only sources being its own YouTube channel and website. If you believe 3+ independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist and would like to expand to show the subject is notable I’m more than happy to refund to Draft. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so in this case, a government-owned news agency such as the Philippine News Agency would not meet the required 3 independent reliable source. The said Wikipedia article only has two references, and one of these is the PNA website. Yet everyone in the country knows that PNA exists. Same thing as Peanut Gallery Media Network, which mainly exists in multiple platforms. Bootkinero (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bootkinero, yes there are still many articles in the 7+ Million that exist that are not up to the current guidelines. Slowly these are being addresses and either improved or deleted. The “other substandard stuff exists” argument may end in the other articles either improved or deleted, but will not work as a reason to include more. Philippine News Agency was created in 2009 and would be unlikely to be accepted in its current form. However, without knowing the subject I can guess that a government owned news agency will have independent sources so could, and should, be improved. Doing a quick google for “Peanut Gallery Media Network” I just find primary sources and social media mentions.

In the end it comes down to the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) noting the key section Primary criteria.

With only primary sources you will be told the same by any experienced editor but do feel free to ask for a third opinion (as it was flagged for deletion by one, then deleted by myself) – you could ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or the Wikipedia:Help desk or ask for a formal Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I know it’s not what you wanted to hear but we all have to work by the same policies and guidelines, I have several times gone to write an article on a subject I thought was notable but could not find enough independent reliable sources. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KylieTastic! Thank you for the thorough reply. Believe me I appreciate it. I have a hunch over the flagging for deletion by Peanut Gallery Media Network. PGMN is a highly controversial new media out here in the Philippines, as it seems to be pro-Duterte media. Duterte of course the former President who is in jail awaiting his ICC trial, is a very divisive issue. PGMN also espouses free speech absolutism, and so voices that are usually not heard get a platform on the said news outfit.

Ironically, the PGMN editors are quite defensive when it comes to criticism of their articles.

Given that PGMN is only one year old, and they have disclosed that they have 100 million views on their various platforms, I think the question of them having a Wikipedia article is not IF but WHEN this will be made. I hope you can play a part in that.Bootkinero (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a “highly controversial new media” then that often is the sort of thing that will generate independent sources. People who try to suppress information often end up giving it focus. (Streisand effect). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, why did you delete Category:Pages using Template:Infobox musical artist with unknown parameters? This is a maintenance category that gets automatically populated by pages using the Infobox with unknown parameters. So if it’s empty that just means that there is currently no pages using the Infobox with unknown parameters, and I thought there was a note asking users to please not delete it if it’s empty. Personally I regularly patrol this category, and fix the pages with unknown Infobox parameters, until the category is empty again. Could you please restore the category? Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gurkubondinn, Zackmann08 has been doing some standardisation of titles and re-targeted the templates that populated that cat (and others) to Category:Pages using infobox musical artist with unknown parameters. Frankly the categories should have been moved rather than recreated under a new name and deleted, but the changes had already been made and it seams like not making a fuss about. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that some inbound links are broken for those that watch these I’m wondering if undeletion and redirection would be a better idea? KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I have enough experience with this to have an informed opinion, but I can see benefits to both approaches. Is there a way to attach some sort of deprecation warningnotice to deleted Category: pages? Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, deleted is just deleted so all that can be done if make the deletion reason clearer. Unfortunately we can’t edit the message. If we made these redirects people who had them on pages like yours would see them in italics so that gives the clue they are depreciated. KylieTastic (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there doesn’t seem to be any other users with a link to the old Category: page, so I don’t think this warrants any more fuss 🙂 Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve just been through the rest. Most had no links in a few did so I’ve done a few updates to tidy things up, so hopefully we can call that job done. And next time I’ll do more checking up front 🙂 KylieTastic (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool, I wasn’t aware of that. But I did see in your contributions that you had also been deleting other Category: pages and talking about a cleanup, so I figured that it would be better to ask about it rather than going and recreating the page myself. I’ll update my own links to the the new Category: page instead. I had noticed that a lot of these Category: pages had some inconsistency in their names, but it wasn’t something I had given too much thought to. Sure, moving probably would have made more sense, but OTOH now I’m aware of the cleanup/standardization, and definitely not something to make a fuss about 🙂 Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gurkubondinn: Just now seeing this. Sorry I’ve been offline. I’m doing some cleaning up of Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters. But don’t fear! These are a pet project of mine. They aren’t going away, just being standardized. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zackmann08, no worries and thanks for keeping these in shape 🙂 Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Zackmann08’s talk page. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Redrose64, I did see the ping. Do you think we should either history merge, or delete the new creations and undelete-move the old cats to fix the attribution issue? KylieTastic (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Template:Infobox curler/RoleGender speedy deleted? It has transclusions, so T5 did not apply. Please undelete and take it to TFD if you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95, the deletion was requested by Zackmann08. The only transclusion is in a talk page discussion from 2014 which did not seem reason enough to decline as it appeared just to be used to discuss if that version should be used which it was not. However, I have undeleted as challenged and as you say Zackmann08 can take to TfD if desired. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: yea that was definitely me… I did do my research and couldn’t find that it was ever used. Just went back through the history of {{Infobox curler}} and while I obviously didn’t check every diff, I couldn’t find any indication that it was added and then subsequently removed from the infobox. Best I can tell is that it was used as an additional sandbox during a discussion in 2014 about whether or not/how to use/display gender in the template. Don’t see that it serves any purpose at this point? – Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It showed up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates, which properly deleted templates should not do. That’s what flagged it for me. I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted, only that T5 did not apply. It was not unused, which is the T5 criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I’ll be more careful about T5. I was too focused on transclusions used in the article namespace… I’ve wrapped the old transclusions in pre tags so there is preservation. As I said its only use was in a discussion from 2014 so I see no reason it needs to stay. Now that it is truly unused, I’ll retag as T5. – Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you deleted Blade of Grass (song) to make way for Draft:Blade of Grass (song), but that is still under review. It is causing a bit of a weird issue with Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song)Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song). I was looking to move Draft:Blade of Grass (song) but the review has not been completed, would it be alright to recreate the redirect in the interim for the sake of Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song)Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song) and then Blade of Grass (song) could be deleted via WP:G6 again when it is ready for mainspace? Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casablanca Rock, the draft is reviewed and ready to go which is why SafariScribe requested it be deleted. Reviewers leave the “Review in progress” tag on so others do pick it up in the !queue, and also some admins reject a {{Db-afc-move}} if not so tagged. The procedure is normally to leave to the reviewer and I would expect them to get to it soon. Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song) has only had 5 page views in 30 days so not causing much of an issue, so I would leave it for a while as I’m sure they will do it when they are next logged on. If it really bothered you, the temporary solution would be to redirect Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song) to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album), then revert later. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Casablanca Rock, I have redirected Blade of Grass (Lady Gaga song) to Blade of Grass (song). However, if you are really interested in opening a move discussion, it may be good but maybe in a week time: Blade of Grass (song) may be voted for as the WP:PT to those other redirects listed in Blade of Grass. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that’s true, it likely is the WP:PT for “Blade of Grass” per WP:DIFFCAPS, the Adventure Time episode could probably be hatnoted and the Penny Dreadful episode is “A Blade of Grass”, so that shouldn’t be much of an issue. I’ll think about starting one in a bit, thanks! Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KylieTastic. Regarding [1], [2], you may wish to know that it was reported to AN/I shortly before you deleted the draft and its talk page. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I had missed the issues and it was a bad deletion. I have undeleted so the mess can be sorted out. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t say that, KylieTastic. Thank you so much indeed. It happened more or less around the same time and we simply wouldn’t be able to tell what’s happening at the other end. 203.145.95.215 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder whether there would be any method to prevent further accidental deletions, given that the attempts to speedy them are still ongoing? 203.145.95.215 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m out so can’t look, it will be sorted when an admin decides to get involved with the ANI or AN posts. KylieTastic (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted?Mwinog2777 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]