User talk:Bob drobbs

Userfied pages

Hi there. Just to note that you don't need to do this to preserve a page: User:Bob drobbs/sandbox. If a page is deleted, you may ask the closing admin to userfy a copy for you, and they will do so. This is better than taking your own copy, because the userfied version will maintain the edit history in compliance with the Wikipedia license. Making a copy /paste copy is an unattributed WP:COPYWITHIN and could not go back to mainspace without that being addressed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that page ends up being deleted, I may appeal the deletion not really under the concerns that single page is gone, but because of the idea that every article which uses news articles as secondary sources doesn't belong on this site.

I don't think this is supported by policy, despite this existence of an essay which focuses on an academic definition of "primary source". I also think it's is a terrible idea which could result in a large part of this site being deleted. What percent of articles on this site do you think are written based on news reports?

I'm storing a copy of the article solely for my own purposes to help write up that appeal... _if_ we get to that point. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the deletion discussion on the deletion page. If you choose to challenge the close, note that you should first speak to the closer on their talk page. Only if you have no joy there should you take it to WP:DRV. I'll also note that I am a touch confused by your stance on this one, considering your recent nomination of Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre and 9 July 2024 Gaza attacks, both of which you cited WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. I note that one closed as merge and one is trending the same way. I have already indicated I'd support a merge as a WP:ATD. Is there an appropriate merge target? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been clear and consistent with my views, but to share more details:

• The 9th July attacks only had coverage within 24 hours of the event. That one seems very black and white and it looks like we have total agreement that it's appropriate to just merge these into a list.
• Likewise with the Az-Zayyem checkpoint shooting, an Israeli was killed. Breaking news then the story disappeared. Totally not notable: deletion discussion here
• The school attack was more shades of gray. But it only got coverage from fewer than 10 sources over a 2 week period after people found the bodies. This felt like a limited amount of coverage for a very limited duration.
• By comparison, the Junction attack and it's aftermath got a large amount of coverage (50+ sources?) over an extended period of time. It got attention of government bodies and elected officials. The founding of a settlement in retaliation is a real-world result of this event. To me, this clearly fits the standards for GNG and LASTING.

If there are any attacks against Palestinians which get 50+ news stories written by them over a period of months, with 3rd party governments making statements, you'll definitely find me also saying "Keep". Bob drobbs (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SirfurboyAlso with sincere curiosity, if you think that all of the sources for both the school attack and the junction attack are primary sources instead of secondary, then why would you support a merge at all?

Shouldn't all of this info just be completely wiped away from wikipedia for lack of coverage in what you consider to be secondary sources?

This is the slippery slope I see in applying your definition, where we end up with much of the entire site being subject to deletion. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: WP:GNG says (my emphasis):

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when...

Failure to meet notability for a standalone article does not mean that we cannot mention the subject on a suitable page, where relevant. If we decide, say, a school is notable, and that school featured in, say, an episode of a TV show, then we would mention this in a sentence on the school article, even though "Frogmorton School in Power Turtles" would clearly be a non notable subject for an article that would have no secondary sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Thanks for nominating the deportation article for ITN. But you wrote

It looking like this is going to end with consensus for "oppose" and I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind. But I am sincerely puzzled by the standards applied here. The NCAA Division I women's championship is of global importance, but a constitutional crisis in the USA is not?

To explain this, please note that WP:ITNSIGNIF explains that "Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious. ...It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough...". So, the outcome of such nominations depends on who shows up. ITN's regulars tend to like sports, which are granted a special preference, but dislike US politics and so such outcomes are common there.

The good news is that ITN doesn't matter much as it doesn't drive much traffic. The article in question is getting lots of readers regardless and was the #2 most read article yesterday with about quarter of a million views. The NCAA article got less than a thousand.

Another aspect is that the article has also been nominated to appear on the main page in DYK. That section is much more productive – posting 9+ articles every day while ITN may only post one blurb per week. But DYK has a rule that an article can't be posted if it has appeared at ITN. So, ITN's loss is DYK's gain.

So, your work on the article is still getting plenty of attention. Thanks again.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background info and especially the link to the wiki page traffic counts! Bob drobbs (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all's well

I've noticed your absence, and figured I'd should stop by, especially given today's news about the prisoner exchange involving El Salvador, the U.S., and Venezuela. I hope that you're just busy with your life outside of WP, but nothing serious. Take care, FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:United States Deportations to CECOT

Hello, Bob drobbs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:United States Deportations to CECOT, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Hello, Bob drobbs. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]