User talk:Gonzo fan2007

As of January 2025, I have started a new job, which will likely cause me to have less time to edit. I will still be able to respond to requests and address concerns at my nominations (FLC/GAN/DYK), but at least for a few months I will have less time for article creating or more intricate administrative work or discussions. Thanks for understanding! « Gonzo fan2007

: 1

: 2

: 25

: 1

: 56

: 1

: 69

It is currently 08:37 (UTC), Monday, 27 January 2025 (Purge)

Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A few things about me: I have been an editor here for about 18 years (first edit), although I only recorded 29 edits between 2011 and 2015. I am also an administrator, which means I have a few extra clean-up tools. I passed my RFA in 2008, back when adminship was truly no big deal. I was an admin from January 2008 to June 2009. I resigned the tools for seven years during a period of mostly minimal editing, but then had them restored in May 2016 when I started editing consistently again. I am bold when it comes to making administrative actions. That said, I will never revert another admin who has undone one of my administrative actions. I mainly edit articles within the Green Bay Packers WikiProject, although I do edit some random articles from time to time. If you need me to reply on another page, or would like to get my attention, please {{Ping}} me. Please feel free to leave a message below if you need to contact me. Old messages can be viewed in my archives (I am a quick archiver, so please feel free to unarchive an old message if there needs to be more discussion). Feel free to email me if you need to discuss something private. Please leave me a message here notifying me of your email, as I do not check my Wikipedia email often.    Remember, we are writing an Encyclopedia! Happy editing!

Archives 2007  •  2008  •  2009  •  2010  •  2011 2012  •  2013  •  2014  •  2015  •  2016 2017  •  2018  •  2019  •  2020  •  2021 2022  •  2023  •  2024  •  2025  •  2026 2027  •  2028  •  2029  •  2030  •  2031

Hey can u help me with my article, which u have already seen its 2025 NFC Championship Game and 2025 AFC Championship Game Tommy516 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy516, my recommendation would be to wait until after the game is done, where there will be significant news coverage available for you to build it out. That said, I pretty much only focus on Green Bay Packers articles at this time, so these articles aren't really my cup of tea. Best of luck to you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very strange close, especially with the AFD only open one day and the original nominator seemingly supporting a procedural keep. Obviously AFD is not a true democratic process but I'm just not sure how you found any reasonable consensus to draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You are correct, its not a democratic process. Allowing a bureaucratic discussion to continue while the games are just 72 hours away is pointless. Put the articles in draft space, let the games occur (which will produce a lot of sources), give the writer time to flush them out and then move them to mainspace and see what happens. The articles were appropriate for draft considering their less than great condition and the fact that they may become notable shortly. For now, redirects to 2024-25 NFL playoffs serve the purpose of informing our readers. I will also note the incorrect naming of the articles, which needed to be fixed. Feel free to go to deletion review, or just wait a few days. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please open this back up, the AfD wasn't even a day old and already had three 'Keep' comments! Respectfully, the writer may not even want to continue adding, and if other editors want to add to the page they likely won't be able to find it in draft form. Could say more but have never seen this done before, is it common practice? If so, I've missed it and thanks for any clarity. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, as I stated above, and as was noted in the section below, draftification allows the article to be saved and worked on later (likely after the game when there are a lot of source and information that can be added), allows for the clean-up of the incorrect naming, and provides the ability to redirect to the appropriate page for now. Look, there are three outcomes here: (1) the game(s) become NFL classics, with instant and obvious notability; (2) the game(s) are standard, non-notable games (like someone winning 31-10); or (3) they fall somewhere in between. However, none of this becomes apparent until after the game. So why keep a deletion discussion ongoing, one that would have ended up going over the game itself, that would likely invalidate many of the comments made before the game (i.e. someone says "delete" yet the game(s) happens and it becomes an instant classic). Another concern of mine is what if one of these games becomes an instant classic, yet the other is a mundane blowout. Again, no prejudice to anything happening after the game (AFD again, expansion, move to article space), but let's just let the games happen and see where things falls. As always, you are welcome to go for a deletion review and I would be happy to restate my opinion there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other important note: the big debate seemed to be less on the notability of these upcoming games or takeaways on their current state (and whether the content in them justified a standalone article or could be adequately covered at this point in 2024-25 NFL playoffs) and more about whether these championship games are inherently notable. This whole discussion just needs to occur in one week when we have the benefit of hindsight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but since someone took the time to create the page hopefully it won't be up for deletion again. The yearly conference championship games seem notable on their own no matter what occurs during them. Anyway, I just never saw such a close before (but I'm not a regular follower of most deletion discussions, they seem often pop up and, such as categories, sometimes dozens or scores are nommed during a 24-hour period. Some deletion-minded editors actually keep track of their deletions, as if it's an honor). Thanks for the long explanation. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The draftify result was mostly to just give the editor the time to actually build out the article. The AFD, imho, was appropriate for how the article was in its current condition, but considering it will likely be significantly expanded in a few days, the discussion likely will have to be restarted anyway after its expanded. This way, it can be improved without the pressure of being live. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		You deserve commendation for your out-of-the-box closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 AFC Championship Game. While some users, including myself, may consider this closure to be a WP:SUPERVOTE, it is oddly the most correct outcome. This allows interested parties to continue working on the page without the looming cloud of an ongoing AFD discussion (or a pending second discussion if this was closed as keep, procedurally or otherwise) and leaving the door open for an AFC discussion or a second AFD. Happy editing! Frank Anchor 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also requesting a post-closure note be added to this AFD with links to the two draft pages to allow interested users to more easily find and edit these drafts. Frank Anchor 14:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor, interesting barnstar but, ah, just interesting. You cannot withdraw or close such a nomination because it already had three Keep !votes (balanced by, I think, one delete). Encouraging such a IAR move with a barnstar is...interesting. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three deletes (including mine), but you make a valid point. Any user is free to take this to DRV. Frank Anchor 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, I generally don't "take" things somewhere to complain but sometimes come to the editor themself. In this case the close seems so controversial and, as you say, outside the box, that its odd to even consider that the closer won't overturn it and open it up again. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor, no prejudice to you renominating after the games occur if they are moved to mainspace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely fine. If relisted/reopened, I maintain my proposal to withdraw the AFD pending the removal of the standing delete votes. I consider the close to be an out-of-the-box supervote that is oddly appropriate in this application, though I understand not everyone feels the same way. Frank Anchor 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snow Globe Game you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]