User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/December

Deletion of a talk page

Hi,

We recently recovered a draft version of the Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution page. Is it possible to recover the talk page as it had comments that included suggestions for improvement that we would like to use?

Thanks, NidaAhmad2 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"?  Sandstein  15:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A group of students at University of Warwick. There's a little background at User:RexxS/Warwick, and my detective work on the articles and students on the associated talk page. I must make it clear that I'm not affiliated with the course. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

NidaAhmad2, you can request at WP:UND that the page and its talk page are restored to your user space so you can continue work on them. I am not undeleting deleted content myself, however.  Sandstein  09:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution

I see you deleted the draft article following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution. That deletion is out-of-process for two reasons. MfD is the correct venue for discussing deletion from draft space, and the requirements for notability are not normally enforced on a week-old draft that is still being worked on. The article began as a draft and the new editor only moved it into mainspace by mistake (since he was unable to create a pdf from a draft). I returned it to draft space and expected it to be treated as any other new draft. There was clearly no need for it to be deleted while it was a work-in-progress outside of mainspace. Your hostile deletion now leaves a group of third-year university students without any trace of the draft they have been working on. Treating new users like that is beyond WP:BITE and goes a long way toward reinforcing the impression that Wikipedia has no place in Higher Education. I am deeply offended by your action as it undoes so much of the good work that many have been doing to build relationships with educational institutions. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Would you be willing to return the draft to draft space? Or would you prefer for me to raise the matter elsewhere? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It appears that you moved the content from article to draft space while AfD was underway, in an attempt to halt the AfD process. That was a violation of the deletion process because no user may, in this or another way, unilaterally prevent an ongoing deletion discussion from concluding. I therefore closed the AfD without regard to your move. Because the content had been moved from user to article space by its creator prior to the AfD nomination, it was an article and no longer a draft, and was fully subject to AfD. As to the issues regarding student work, they are irrelevant. Whoever contributes to Wikipedia must follow our project's rules, whether they are students or anybody else.  Sandstein  21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's be accurate: I returned the content to draft space following a suggestion by the AfD nominator, Velella. I followed the guidance at WP:EDITATAFD which specifically allows the possibility of moving an article under discussion (albeit advising against it). The very existence of such a guidance gives the lie to your assertion that it would prevent an ongoing deletion discussion from concluding. In addition, don't pretend you can read my mind "in an attempt to halt the AfD process" and I find that personal attack on my motivations to be unacceptable, particularly when - as closer - you should have read the suggestion from Velella and been aware of it. Please strike that calumny, or I'll take up the issue of your behaviour elsewhere. The content was unequivocally in draft space when you deleted it and you had to have been aware that applying notability guidelines to early draft work does not comply with the community's expectations. Finally, the issues concerning student work are not irrelevant. I thought I had explained to you clearly enough that the consequences of your over-zealous and inflexible interpretation of the deletion process have ramifications beyond simply biting a newcomer. It is deeply disappointing that you don't seem able to understand how much damage you have the potential to do in these cases. Wikipedia doesn't have rules - for good reason, and you need to get to grips with that. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no reason why it should not be restored to draft space, as we would restore a good faith effort to improve an article of this nature. If it is really being contended that the subject is so hopelessly non-notable that not even a draft would be acceptable, that can be discussed at MfD, but I doubt there would be consensus there to delete--usually only much more obviously hopeless material is deleted for that reason. Moving a challenged article to draft space or user space is a frequent way of dealing with a challenge, and is not prohibited. There is no prohibition of moves, WP:AFD says so explicitly. As I see it, even the advice to be cautious so as not to complicate the discussion and closing mainly refers to changes of page title. Moves out of mainspace have become increasingly frequent at AfD, and I think they should be encouraged, as part of our general approach in all discussions of trying to find compromises that will have consensus.

Incidentally, I note that in the discussion, several incorrect statements were asserted: First, it is not correct that all US courses must use a course page. There is no requirement that any course use the facilities of the education program, although it is highly recommended that they do, and I always advise it. This is part of the basic principle that anyone can edit--anyone can teach a course on Wikipedia in any manner that they choose, as long as they have the students use individual accounts just as is required for all contributors. Also, deletions at AfD are not limited to questions of notability, but can be for any of the reasons at WP:NOT, which is the actual content policy-- WP:N is just the guideline for one part of it--though it is certainly true that most AfD discussions are about that part of the policy.

Sandstein, possibly it would be a good idea to just restore it to draft, without the need for a formal Deletion Review. I understand your thinking, but it could be argued that using AfD to delete a draft is out of process.

But, RexxS, I would advise you not to consider this a question of personal attack, or of misbehavior. It's a disagreement about how to handle a proposed article and nothing more. Try to keep things from getting complicated. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your calming advice, David. Although I have no formal relationship with the course, in the way that a Campus/Online Ambassador would have in the USA, I did promise the staff at Wikimedia UK that I would try to answer questions that the students had and I've felt rather protective of them. So I apologise for my intemperance. I don't really think Sandstein has misbehaved, and I can shrug off the suggestion that I was trying to do an "end-run" around the AfD. I just think that this is one of those cases where we could have got a better outcome with some give-and-take. I've been in contact today with the course lecturer to discuss ways forward, and I've taken the opportunity to indicate the good advice in WP:Student assignments and WP:Course pages. It's a learning experience all-round and my main concern is to smooth that process for all involved. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As with other deleted articles, I do not object to a restoration of content to user space such that good-faith improvement work may continue. However, interested editors will have to request such restoration from others, such as via WP:UND, as I prefer to focus my admin work on other matters than restoring problematic content.  Sandstein  09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden straw vote

Hi. Thank you for your input at the AFD. If possible, could you drop by for a straw vote to determine if the article should be redirected (linked here)? Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another WP:NOQUORUM case

On 11 November 2016, I referred you on your talk page to WP:NOQUORUM.  Tonight I have discovered a new WP:NOQUORUM case occurring on 27 November 2016.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki93 shows multiple issues.  The AfD was not given a second relist.  WP:NOQUORUM does not directly provide for a delete result.  Since there is no del-reason for "no sources", a close for "no sources" must cite WP:IAR.  WP:DEL7 does not apply, because WP:BEFORE shows a review on nytimes.com, [1].  Please revert your close, and then apply Template:G5 to the AfD, or delete the AfD under G5.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Such discussions "may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement", which for me means that uncontested deletion requests end in deletion for lack of opposition, similar to PROD, if the deletion rationale is not obviously mistaken or without basis in policy. That is not the case here.  Sandstein  07:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) This could already be resolved now; just as you could have answered the "admin help" template at WP:Articles for deletion/Asa Akira Is Insatiable when you relisted the discussion, instead of allowing the ambiguity to fester.  (2) Here you've said that the AfD nomination, "No source plus not notable due to lack of info on chart sales" is your idea of "not obviously mistaken or without basis in policy".  Yet there is no WP:BEFORE, which is the community standard for a proper AfD nomination.  "no source" does not satisfy WP:DEL7.  "not notable" requires analysis of the WP:ATD to rise to the level of WP:DEL8, which neither your close nor the nomination has provided.  (3) The community has expressed the opinion that AfDs should be relisted, where the norm is currently two relists, rather than be subjected to a WP:NOQUORUM close.  See WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions dated July 2016, which closed as, "There is a consensus against deleting articles at AfD that have no input other than from the nominating editor."  From this same archive, you stated on 29 September 2016, "I normally relist up to twice if there have been few contributions."  (4) Your close was not a soft delete, you closed as "The result was delete. Uncontested and unsourced.", so the description here that your close was "similar to PROD" does not match the close.  (5) Since you've completely ignored my request for G5, and analysis of your response here creates the benefit of reference to the now-disputed closing, I am withdrawing the request for G5.  I have instead reverted the nomination with strikethrough font.  The current problem for you remains that you have deleted an article in a discussion with zero participants.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit closed AfDs. If you have opinions about whether articles should be kept or deleted, offer them during the AfD, not after it is closed.  Sandstein  16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wise Owl Award

Please accept the Wise Old Owl Award for excellence in closing those deletion discussions that are contentious and confusing. I'm learning a lot by following you around AFD and watching how you explain your closing thoughts. Thanks for being a great example. Joyous! | Talk 16:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Ehrlich

Dear Sandstein,

I am writing to ask for your help with a ridiculous situation. A subject who was profiled on the BBC and NBC News was deleted on Wikipedia for "lack of general notability."

Actually, you suggested one month ago that I submit a request for Deletion Review: (Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/November )

I tried to do it myself, but my request was rejected since I don't have a history on Wikipedia. The admin wrote: "If an established editor wishes to contest this AfD, with a policy-based argument, that's fine, but we're not doing this. - RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2016 "

I'm very frustrated, because the AfD was obviously improper. This is what I wrote in my request for a Deletion Review:

====Clinton_Ehrlich====

Clinton_Ehrlich (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are two reasons.

First, there is significant new information that shows the subject is notable. After the original article was deleted, NBC News ran a primetime special on the subject.

Trailer: https://www.instagram.com/p/BMnDkslA3wi/ Full Episode: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode-the-man-who-knew-too-much-812427331656

Second, the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted it incorrectly. There was no consensus reached that the general notability guideline was not satisfied.

Two users said "Delete" because there were no reliable independent sources. Then a user said "Keep" and posted nine sources. These were very strong sources, such as the BBC.

After the sources were posted, nobody responded, so the admin "Sandstein" relisted the discussion. I said "Keep," and so did other unregistered users.

The only new support for "Delete" came from a user who said he "tried his best" but couldn't find the sources. He must not have read the beginning of the discussion, where the URLs were all posted.

Nobody ever criticized the sources that were posted, so no consensus for "Delete" could exist. If anything, the consensus was to "Keep."

I explained this problem to the admin who deleted the article, and he told me to create a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_20#Afd_Clinton_Ehrlich

I hope this mistake can now be fixed. Thank you.

After I submitted this, the user "Lourdes" made a post that made it clear how the original mistake occurred. He said that neither the BBC or the NBC sources had anything to do with the article.

His mistake is that he is just looking at the title of the shows, not actually listening. For example, the interview with Clinton Ehrlich is the lead story on the BBC Newshour linked in the AfD.

I wrote a partial transcript of the interview so you can see it is all about the subject:

"BBC Reporter: It's becoming very clear that the Kremlin is adamantly opposed to a Clinton administration. Well that's something discussed on the website Foreign Policy by Clinton Ehrlich, an American citizen working at the heart of Russia's foreign-policy establishment. He's currently a visiting researcher at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, which is — and it's important — part of the Foreign Ministry.

...

This is all a bit of a risky strategy for the Kremlin, isn't it? Hillary Clinton might well win, and they will have to deal with a Clinton administration.

Clinton Ehrlich: It's not a strategy. It's the opinions of an American citizen, embedded at a high level in their brain trust. I've taken it on my initiative to share the fear that I have that Moscow really is disturbed about this, and I think that voters to know it in the United States. And the problem is that people are assuming that because of his personality, positions that Donald Trump advocates are dangerous, when the reality is that the single greatest danger to the world is conflict between America and Russia, and Hillary Clinton has openly declared an intention to fuel that conflict.

BBC Reporter: I have to ask you, I mean, what is an American citizen doing in Moscow working at the heart of the foreign policy establishment?

Clinton Ehrlich: Well, previously I was working inside the American foreign-policy establishment, as a missile-defense researcher. And I realized based on my research that missile defense was a horrible idea and that America was really risking destabilizing the globe. And those views were not something that I was able to openly share in America. I was sort of, maybe, blackballed, in academia. And so Russia was open to my views, and I came here for the intellectual freedom.

BBC Reporter: Some people may say, well, this is putting the Kremlin's point of view — this is effectively Kremlin propaganda, and you're a useful conduit for that. What would you say?

Clinton Ehrlich: I would say that if I didn't disclose that I was working inside the Foreign Ministry, that would certainly be problematic. But people can take my views for what they are, which is that of an independent American citizen, who is talking to their highest-level foreign-policy experts.

BBC Reporter: Clinton Ehrlich, of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, a Visiting Researcher there. It's part of Russia's Foreign Ministry."

Thank you so much for your help. You did the right thing when you relisted the AfD. It should not have been deleted.

ReinhardStove (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not interested in the topic. You will need to take this up with the admin who you think acted wrong in closing your deletion review request.  Sandstein  18:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Transition design

Dear Sandstein, you recently deleted the Wikipedia section on Transition design, presumably because you identified it as a PhD specialism at Carnegie Mellon University and therefor considered it as self-promotion. Please reconsider your decision on this topic. I am not at Carnegie Mellon, nor in any way affiliated to them, but am a professor of Design at the HFBK Hamburg. I am writing and lecturing on transition design and have been sending my students to the Wiki page for a basic understanding of the subject and connected links and resources. The fields transition design and transformation design are closely linked, emerging design areas and do deserve to be named on Wikipedia, just as service design, transformation design, design thinking and interaction design have their own entries.

Please reinstate this page.

Greetings, Prof. Julia Lohmann, HFBK Hamburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:8C04:6C00:8578:181F:AC7A:407C (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Lohmann: Transition design was deleted because editors determined in the course of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition design that the topic does not meet our inclusion criteria for neologisms, which you can review at WP:NEO. I myself have no opinion on the matter but, as an administrator, merely determined the existence of a consensus to delete. If you think that, with better references to reliable sources, an article that meets our criteria could be written, I recommend that you contact DGG (talk · contribs), an experienced administrator and the user who requested deletion. He may be able to determine whether any improvements you may suggest could lead to the article being restored, and how you could go about doing that.  Sandstein  21:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2A01:C22:8C04:6C00:8578:181F:AC7A:407C, there is no reason why it can not be restored to Draft space if you would like to work on it further. To simplify things, I will just go ahead and do that; it's at Draft:Transition design. I would advise you to make it less of an essay--try to present the idea without arguing for it. DGG DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A comment by you is being discussed

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Query regarding WP:ATD. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your thoughtful analysis and deletion of the Conflicts of interest of President-elect Donald Trump article, which I wrote, and which I now see was flawed. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure on Talk:AD 1

Dear Sandstein, I am calling upon your expertise in closing complex discussions, that I witnessed on political topics. There have been two recent RFCs about articles titled 1…100. The first one closed with strong consensus that those titles shouldn't harbor the year articles any longer. The second one is debating the future title of articles about the affected years. Meanwhile, some editors (including me) have started the technical work necessary to update templates and clarify any potential inconsistencies; as a testbed, years 1…9 have been moved to AD 1…AD 9 and titles 1…9 are now (temporarily?) disambig pages. The second RFC has been pending closure for a while and new comments have dried down, however nobody has yet risen to the challenge of closing it. With your boundless wisdom, would you possibly volunteer? Greetings from a probably IRL neighbour! — JFG ^talk 10:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but seeing as there does not seem to be a clear consensus, I have offered an opinion of my own rather than attempt to close this discussion.  Sandstein  11:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking! — JFG ^talk 11:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Userfy request

Would you please userfy the recently deleted Georgia for Georgians as suggested in your closing summary here [2]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not undeleting content, but you can ask another admin at WP:UND.  Sandstein  16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Richard Perlhagen

Hello, Sandstein. Could you please userfy this one so that I may recreate it if significant new material comes along? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not undeleting content, but you can ask another admin at WP:UND.  Sandstein  13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you userfy it? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had bad experiences with userfying deleted content. I prefer focusing my volunteer time on removing problematic content rather than re-adding it. Others have different priorities.  Sandstein  15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

DRV

Hello Sandstein: Just a note that after your close at DRV, the DRV template remains atop the Journal of Global Information Management article. Since I'm involved in the matter, I would prefer that you remove it. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, done.  Sandstein  07:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Surveillance Technology Companies deletion

Could you please provide more information about why you deleted this page? It's rather frustrating when your pages are deleted without being informed what guidelines they do not meet and without being included in the discussion. I believe this is an important page for access to good information about these companies, and I do not feel like I was given a chance to argue that it should be kept. --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There has never been an article called List of Surveillance Technology Companies.  Sandstein  16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello, because of an edit war on And you are lynching Negroes, and an on-going stalemate on its talk page, I am going through and notifying people who have previously worked on the article, and are still somewhat active to comment on the current state of the page. It is my intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't remember editing that article.  Sandstein  07:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Sandstein: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Georgia for Georgians

Hello Sandstein. Regarding your closing summary, I believe single comment suggesting move to draftspace did not deserve more attention than the consensus. Although some editors were Georgian, I don't find it strange that Georgian editors would edit the articles related to Georgia

The consensus of the AfD was to TNT the bad article and instead create more balanced article on Georgian nationalism. Can any single editor overturn the consensus? I've already contested the undeletion, but another admin didn't understand the problem. WP:UND says: "controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." The deleted article obviously was attack page, because the article's aim was to portray Georgian nationalism negatively. The article was grossly misquoting poorly selected references to imply something that didn't actually exist. The notability of the slogan has never been questioned, only the existence of such policy. One editor noticed Tiptoethrutheminefield's POV-pushing intent during the discussion [3]. Tiptoethrutheminefield then used the phrase Georgia's lies during the discussion [4]. Another editor became suspicious of the article's intentions [5]. Tiptoethrutheminefield left similar anti-Georgian comments here [6] proving his strong animosity towards Georgia.

After the article was deleted, George Ho, the editor who suggested move to draftspace during the discussion, became concerned about Tiptoethrutheminefield's intentions [7] [8] [9] [10]. Then George Ho told Tiptoethrutheminefield that there was no more need for the article's revival [11], because Georgian nationalism was created in its place as suggested in the AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield then removed the entire section from his talk page to hide both his WP:IDHT attitude and his dislike for you [12]. Tiptoethrutheminefield was sanctioned in the past for edit-warring on the articles related to Georgia [13]

Tiptoethrutheminefield has just suggested that I edit with another account [14]. Is that a personal attack? I don't edit Wikipedia with any other account. I have to admit, I've been watching the edit histories of the articles related to Turkey-Armenia relations and associated discussions. Over time, I acquired some understanding of the inner workings of Wikipedia. Integrist (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to the AfD and provide a brief summary?  Sandstein  20:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to this AfD. Upon discovering that article, the statement on the expulsion of Azeris from Georgia under the policy "Georgia for Georgians" was the red flag. There is nothing known about this forced expulsion or policy in the Azerbaijani historiography. If such policy and the resulting expulsion of Azeris had happened, the government of Azerbaijan wouldn't have been silent. Such policy and the resulting expulsion would be remembered in the same way as the Khojaly massacre. Numerous content and sourcing issues in the article indicated that the article was attack page. I've explained every issue in the AfD. Most editors agreed with my rationale. The existence of such policy was questioned by most editors. Please, review the diffs in my original comment. There was no justification for undeleting that article.

I have nothing personal against Tiptoethrutheminefield, however, I noticed that he was the only one defending the problematic content and his comment mentioning Georgia's lies alarmed me, because neither my name is Georgia nor the discussion was about the truthfulness of the Georgian authorities. Integrist (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A newly created single purpose account with 6 edits to its name is unlikely to have gained an instant ability to code in editing diffs or policy wikilinks or, as you observed in the AfD closing, initiate AfDs from just "watching the edit histories of the articles", and Integrist in these post-AfD pursuits made here and also here [15] is veering into harassment and stalking territory. I would initiate a SP investigation but at the moment I do not know which blocked account to reasonably attach the case to. The only suspicious account that edited the article was, ironically, the initiator of its first AfD, SourAcidHoldout, who edited here for a mere 4 days [16] and whose edit history summaries also seem sprinkled with an unusually knowledgeable (for a 1-day-old account) display of Wikipedia jargon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Some people don't register on the first day when they discover Wikipedia. I have no past blocked accounts. My edit count does not render my arguments invalid. Hopefully, my edit count will increase over time. However, it's not mandatory to make over 100 edits in one day. Registration was the only way to nominate that article for the deletion. Integrist (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Integrist, after reading your summary above, I note that you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but that in and of itself is not enough to undo the closure. I decline to do so.  Sandstein  11:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If the blocked user is a sockpuppet, what about the outcome of the AfD? Would this change the consensus or something? I think the article should be moved back to the mainspace due to the damage done. If not, shall I take this to the DRV? --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Integrist as the AfD nominator is now blocked as a sock changes the outcome of the AfD, because even without Integrist there is a consensus to delete.  Sandstein  07:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps can you add the latest update about the sockpuppet to modify your rationale? The user is still working on the draft. George Ho (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Since Integrist is now unblocked, that seems a moot point.  Sandstein  16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you for reading my summary. I don't want you to misunderstand me. I have never challenged the closure or the consensus. I have neither positive nor negative view on Georgian nationalism. I believe that the article threatened the integrity of Wikipedia. I had seen media reports of hoaxes on Wikipedia, so I started the AfD nomination to let other people share their opinions. I tagged the article [17], because about half of the content was falsified. Later, Tiptoethrutheminefield removed the tags [18], claiming "No talk page justification for them." I had already explained in the AfD nomination that not only the content was falsified, but the article so grossly misrepresented the slogan of Gia Chanturia as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it bordered on hoax. Although I was surprised by Tiptoethrutheminefield's action, I decided to wait for the outcome of the discussion. I believe my opinion was supported by several editors in the AfD. Kober wrote in the AfD [19]: "Most reliable sources mentioning this slogan just say that the slogan was allegedly used by a politician or a group of politicians but none of them attempt to illustrate it as the basis of political ideology or state doctrine." Wikimandia wrote in the AfD [20]: "I say delete, and let someone recreate it as Georgian nationalism instead of just being about one phrase that may or may not have been attributed correctly." She also wrote [21], "Georgia for Georgians may not have been Gamsakhurdia's own slogan, but the slogan existed in some way (was it really actual policy?)" An IP editor wrote in the AfD [22], "Although your sources say that tensions arose between Georgians and the ethnic minorities during Georgia's transition to independence, they don't absolutely prove that Gamsakhurdia in his official capacity sanctioned a state policy named "Georgia for Georgians" with the aim of discriminating non-Georgians." Yahya Talatin wrote in the AfD [23]: "The problem is not if such a wording like Georgia for the Georgians ever existed, but if there is anything peculiar with Georgia for the Georgians in comparison with any X for the Xians." IP editor also wrote in the AfD [24]: "As the origins and the meaning of the slogan are unclear, it is misleading to portray it as Gamsakhurdia's invention purportedly materialized into law and politics."

The closure determined that the consensus was to delete. It was Tiptoethrutheminefield who challenged the consensus when he wrote on his talk page [25]: "numerous RS sources indicated notability, so the number of Georgians wanting it gone should have been irrelevant. Sandstein has in the past gone out of his way to delete or attempt to get deleted articles created by Russavia." Then he added on his talk page [26]: "A slogan naming and representing a policy that led to civil wars, the deaths of tens of thousands, massive population movements and incalculable material destruction is not notable, yet minor trope slogans like Your papers, please are all but certain to be kept." This comment came after the editors in the AfD had questioned the existence of such policy. This came after Wikimandia had written in the AfD [27]: "Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources." This came after IP editor had written in the AfD [28]: "Sources also say that the slogan did not actually intend to suppress ethnic minorities, but rather it was probably wrongly interpreted as such. Actual meanings and interpretations are two different things. Insistence on correctness of one given interpretation is not neutral." This came after Georgiano had written in the AfD [29]: "The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article." and "The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive."

I only challenge the undeletion. I read the notice at the top of the WP:UND: "controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all." I believe that the deleted article was attack page. That's what I meant when I called the article 'inflammatory' in the AfD nomination. Three editors had expressed similar views in the AfD. Kober wrote in the AfD [30]: "The entry was intended by its now community-banned editor (and his permanbanned ally) to illustrate the alleged exclusionist character of Georgian nationalism, but, as expected, the article and its talk page has long become a hotbed for anti-Georgian sentiments." Yahya Talatin wrote in the AfD [31]: "I question the intentions and sincerity of the creator of this article, for having created an article which had no parents (like Georgian nationalism etc.)." Georgiano wrote in the AfD [32], "The only purpose of the article is to cultivate anti-Georgian sentiments among those, who are not well-versed in modern history." Tiptoethrutheminefield had used the deleted article to attack Zviad Gamsakhurdia in another AfD [33]. IP editor noticed in the AfD that Tiptoethrutheminefield had something against Gamsakhurdia [34]: "you have an agenda to impute Zviad Gamsakhurdia."

I'd like to thank George Ho for expressing his opinion. However, his final comment was made just before the closure and other editors could not respond to him. It should be noted that George Ho wrote in the final comment [35]: "The article may be anti-Georgian; so are the sources." However, Wikimandia had written a different opinion in the AfD [36]: "Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources." WP:ATTACK explains that attack pages are poorly sourced. George Ho also wrote in the final comment [37]: "However, the article is too large and valuable to be deleted." However, Georgiano had already written [38]: "The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article." and "The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive." So, George Ho's comment was not suitable as an example of consensus.

What was so astonishing is that one editor managed to overcome the consensus. I think I will continue to be a casual reader of Wikipedia for a while. Hopefully, I will detect other cases of problematic content on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. I rest my case. Integrist (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's too long for me to read.  Sandstein  16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Brad Delaney

Could I ask that the deleted article for Brad Delaney be sent to my sandbox please. Many thanks in advance.Fleets (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete content. You may ask others at WP:UND.  Sandstein  18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry thought you were the one who deleted it. My apologies.Fleets (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of timberline knolls

Good afternoon,

I wanted to reach out to you and see if you are able to restore the Timberline Knolls article as a draft so I can make edits to it. I am happy to share with you the new content if you'd like to see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickQuad (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the article or deletion discussion.  Sandstein  19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timberline_Knolls_Residential_Treatment_Center&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickQuad (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Declined. Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center was an advertisement, and you have no edits to other topics. I am not interested in helping you advertise your company on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination)

Could you please add some analysis to your close to for this AfD? The close fails to adequately summarize the discussion. There are several !votes that are buttressed by policy and guideline that challenge the notion that the sources establish notability, per WP:WEBCRIT vs !!votes that simply said "sources exist" or "Google returns hits".That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the deletion discussion.  Sandstein  19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Underground (2nd nomination) per your request. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how one can find a delete consensus in that discussion. Yes, there were some "keep" opinions that were based only on "it has many Google results" or similar, but there were also several that addressed the issue of the quality of the sources. On the other side, there was only you and one other person in favor of deletion. Under these circumstances, you'd have needed an absolute killer of an argument to force deletion against a substantial numerical majority, such as a copyright violation, and I don't see that.  Sandstein  17:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It was actually three people, but who is counting? None of the keep arguments that addressed the "quality of the sources" discussed the central point of the delete arguments. Namely that the sources were trivial mentions of the subject, which is counter to WP: WEBCRIT. I was hoping the close would address this guideline. If there is a "killer argument" to be made, this is it. It is a well defined guideline, which a minority feels has not been met, and the majority doesn't even address. I understand people come to these discussions and some may just look at the hit count or examine a few sources for a mention of the subject and may not bother to read some of the other opinions. There aren't even any challenges like "no, it's not a trivial mention". That would at least be an "agree to disagree" situation. Regardless, I wasn't coming here to lobby you to change your position (though I guess I have now) but asking if you could flesh out the central disagreement in the close summary.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided my explanation here. There is no need to amend the closing statement.  Sandstein  18:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant now, but did you consider the WP: WEBCRIT argument? I don't think it was addressed. That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability issues are always about editorial judgment. If a substantial majority of editors indicate that after examining the sources they consider them good enough for notability, then I as closer am not going to second-guess that, no matter which specific notability guideline is invoked.  Sandstein  09:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Like a debate, discussions are supposed to be weighed by the quality of arguments, rebuttals, and redress. Sadly, most of the responses were one and done. Requesting a triumvirate is perhaps the only way to adresss that. But thanks for the chat. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)|