Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).
Kagane continued
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hallo, You seem to have archived the thread about Draft:Kogane just as I had finished making what I thought was a constructive contribution - my edit and your archiving have the same timestamp. Did you have time to read the point I addressed to you? PamD 15:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, no I actually didn't read that post. My only involvement in this was closing the AfD. Discussions of this subject don't belong on my talk page, but on the talk page of the draft. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- PamD, I had another look at the close. I agree that HungryHighway was rather too trigger-happy and should be admonished for that. However, the AfD then ran for 2 weeks without anybody presenting even the feeblest argument on keeping this article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I've copied my posts to Draft talk:Kogane. PamD 21:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, when the article was nominated the subject had only a couple of passing mentions in user-generated articles, and a cursory search through resources like Google news and scholar turned up no results. At best it wasn't ready for mainspace at the time of nomination. -- HungryHighway🛣️ 10:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Draftifying would have been a possibility, but even that would be a bit premature for an article that was only minutes old and still being worked on by the article creator. Waiting for them to finish and then moving it to draft would have been a better way to handle this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- PamD, I had another look at the close. I agree that HungryHighway was rather too trigger-happy and should be admonished for that. However, the AfD then ran for 2 weeks without anybody presenting even the feeblest argument on keeping this article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology (2nd nomination)
Hey, I'm letting you know about this nom because you nominated the article last time (and have nominated other things in this space), and seem to be more experienced than I am re journals on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)