Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

This AFD is not formatted correctly. Please review instructions at WP:AFD for bundled nominations. You just can't write the article page titles in a list, they need the appropriate coding. It's not complicated but the closure will be complicated if the AFD is not formatted correctly. Thank you for addressing this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done @Liz thanks for catching my oversight! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Emojis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just want to say that the article was objectively terrible on several levels and while the topic is in fact highly notable, this really would not have been at all obvious to anyone who hadn't already done some reading on strawberry pesticides, or lived in some very specific areas of California.

If you are around in a day or so I could possibly use some fresh eyes to assess how well I have explained the thing for a reader that knows nothing about all this. Don't worry, not a full-scale AfC, just whether you can actually read it without getting a headache. I'd appreciate hearing about any continuity errors. Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elinruby, I would be more than happy to dive into that article and provide feedback when I next get a chance. Looks like an interesting read. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

After we talked I noticed your interest in Wikiproject Soil. Do you have an opinion on or are you familiar with soil fumigation? If so feel free to suggest sources anytime. I find it, er, interesting, that all of the EPA documents linked in the news sources are now giving 404 errors, but some have been archived. And someone uploaded a lot of PDFs to Commons, trawling through those. Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Elinruby, I did some quick copy-editing for clarity and changed the lead to present-tense as is typical in court case articles that are still valid (see, for example Roe v. Wade in stead of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

In regards to soil fumigation, what is your concern? I hadn't previously checked, but I noticed that Soil fumigation redirects to Fumigation which is, well... *opens to do list*. What was specifically are you interested in? You wanted to add sources to the article? You think some of the sources given aren't suitable?

Let me know, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that almost all of the sources are extremely RS but hmm what I knew about the facts before I started editing this article revolved around Oaxacan migrants and agriculture on the Central Coast. I am suggesting that perhaps you have specialized knowledge that I do not. I hesitate to outline the topic on your talk page, since that will involve length, but soil fumigants are injected into the soil, which is then covered with a tarp to mitigate the drift of carcinogenic particles. From Fumigation#Chemicals methyl bromide is the topic of Angelita C. article, and chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene are alternatives to methyl bromide now that methyl iodide is no longer on the market.

The essence of Angelita C. is that the tarps don't work very well and the methyl bromide disproportionately harmed non-whites given that agricultural communities in California are disproportionately non-white. A lot of the sources take issue with the scientific review process at EPA, and the models used to assess health risks. I am literate enough to get through the reports but it's a hard slog, so I am asking whether this would be any easier for you. And also asking whether there is something that can/should be said about the idea of killing anything alive in soil that will be used to grow produce. Just spit-balling. I think, as an effort to clarify the structure, I will outline this topic on my talk page, since one of the things I am asking you to look at as fresh eyes is whether it is clear what the Montreal Protocol or methyl iodide have to do with anything. Also whether it is clear that while the complaint focused on children (and given mandatory school attendance probably rightly so), these pesticide issues affect millions of people, and that is without getting into the even more polluted Central Valley. Side note, I am assuming from the mention of Guelph that you are in Ontario and not necessarily familiar with the names of California regions, so let me point out a hole in the road: Central California = Central Coast + Central Valley but all of the areas mentioned in the article are on the Central Coast and the Central Valley has very different harvests and climates.

Appreciate the input and any further suggestions. I still can't find a good inbox, also; might have to set up something bespoke, since this is *not* a court case and was specifically disallowed from being a court case. Hope this clarifies my request. Given some of the (well-sourced!) material about the EPA, I really want the article to avoid amateur error, is another reason why I am asking for your thoughts Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I put that outline on the article talk page if interested Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good day, and thank you for your review of my draft, Final Five Voting.

Your rejection cites this reason: "Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability."

The article is thoroughly cited with articles in mainstream media about Final Five Voting, and the voting method has been used in major elections nationwide (described in the article) so I believe it meets the criteria for substantial use and press coverage.

You mention that the topic is included within an existing Wikipedia article, "Top Four Primary," but I believe it would be an inappropriate commandeering of that article to fully flesh out the Final Five Voting section. For this reason, and the depth of information in the Final Five Voting draft, I believe it justifies having its own page.

I appreciate your consideration of this appeal. Aapril3 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Aapril3: some minor semantics here, I did not reject your draft, I simply declined it. As such, you have the option to resubmit if you would like to have another reviewer review it.

In regards to notability, I personally found that the citations did not demonstrate the that the subject itself was notable. Take, for example, "Politics Industry Theory maintains that standard industry evaluation techniques and competition thinking like Porter’s five forces analysis can be applied to the U.S. election system to produce election results more reflective of the true preferences of voters" the end of the history section, with the citation to Stateline.org.^[1] The only mention of the final-five in the article is "Then, in a system known as final-five voting, the top five candidates would advance to the general election. In the general election, voters would then rank those top five candidates, triggering the ranked-choice mechanism during the vote count." Otherwise, the article seems to be focused on Ranked-choice voting in the United States, which was my suggestion of where the content should go; see my declination comment "... perhaps on Ranked-choice voting in the United States which is linked in the draft, given that all the examples seem to be American. Especially considering all of the examples don't even use final five systems as it is." Take a look at our WP:Significant coverage policy on WP:Notability for further guidance here.

With regards to my reasoning, I felt I expanded a lot in my AFC comment in addition to the declination reasoning, showing other articles that may be a suitable location for it. Not every example of state usage listed in the draft article even use "final five" voting, so would the explanation of those voting systems even be applicable in your draft article?

If, given all the above, you still think this topic has independent notability and the states examples are specific to "Final five" and not simply ranked choice voting, feel free to present which WP:THREE sources demonstrate as much. While that linked essay is mostly applicable for Notability discussions at WP:AfD, it's philosophy is very applicable at AfC. I would reconsider if you still feel strongly given my guidance on the draft page and here, and you provide those three sources.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing the submarine article. Though I also wanted point out, that to my understanding, the original title of the article was in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions for ships. The normal style is nationality, type of ship, and ship name. I just thought I would let you know, and thank you again for reviewing the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Romanov loyalist,   Done! My apologies, that reading of the article title conventions looks correct. I've swapped those pages. Thanks for the heads up, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply