User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/April

List of vehicles in The Matrix (franchise) not deleted

I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in The Matrix (franchise) as delete – I actually noticed your cleaning up redirects to the page – but the page List of vehicles in The Matrix (franchise) has not been deleted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now done. Probably a script error. Sandstein 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

World Amateur Subbuteo Association

I notice you have deleted the WASPA link from the Subbuteo page ... WASPA is a large and active organization

http://waspa-circuit.blogspot.co.uk/

Ralphtheclaret (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Example from Mac deleted accidentally

I added an example in the Mac page reading "Magnetic Accelerator Cannon, a sub-class of coilgun from the Halo series" some time in the past. However, it was recently removed when the "List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction" page was deleted, with your username being the one that made the edit on the Mac page. What I'd like to know is why Magnetic Accelerator Cannon was deleted when it was a perfectly valid example?2001:5B0:51C5:CAE8:61F7:5B01:C2E:1C81 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's because List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction was deleted, and so there was no longer an article to point to. Disambiguation pages list only articles, see WP:DAB. Sandstein 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So would it be ok for me to restore the example in Mac? It'd be trivial for the restored text to exclude the linked article. 2001:5B0:51C5:CAE8:F860:C5DF:8778:EA55 (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The purpose of the Mac page is to list all articles called Mac. No article, no list entry. Sandstein 05:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gina Ortiz Davis, I thought there was consensus to keep

Hi Sandstein, and thanks for doing some closure on two different AFDs I worked on, Steven Christopher Parker and Gina Ortiz Jones. Can you please look again at your closure of the latter, because I thought that consensus was to keep it.

The 3 people who who "voted" delete (here I include the nominator) all based their opinions on WP:NPOL: that a politician who has not yet won an election is not (by default) notable. But the important part of this criterion is "by default." A politician who has not been elected is not debarred from qualifying as WP:GNG -- something that the 5 Keep "voters" (including me) pointed out: that many independent sources that had written about her creating "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

None of the no votes addressed the substantial coverage of Gina Ortiz Jones shown in references to the article, e.g. Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, Harvard Political Review, Huffington Post, and more.

My impression was that there was consensus to keep among people who spent time reading the article. Can you please reconsider your statement on the article talk page that there was no consensus? Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the discussion trended keep, but some keep opinions were as superficial as the delete ones, so I don't see clear consensus. At any rate, the result is the same. Sandstein 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ingraham boycott merged

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle merged to The Ingraham Angle with this.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I came late to that party, but I do think that this was an elegant close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, elegant indeed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Frank Cipolla Page Deletion

Hi, I noticed that one of the pages I've edited in the past (Frank Cipolla) was deleted. I was curious as to why and, after reading the articles for deletion discussion, came to the conclusion that the Frank Cipolla page met the criteria of being deemed notable. I did a quick search and found many links showing his notable history involving news. I'm not 100% sure if the page was sourced properly to support it before deletion, but I'd like to see what you think about having the page undeleted. I'd be more than happy to add sources properly to meet Wikipedia standards. I'm still new to all of this editing on Wikipedia and am confident, after a second look, you'll see that the page meets Wikipedia standards. Below is a list of all the links I found on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfwZah-WdCc

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/reporting-field-harder-wwor-anchor-article-1.146634

http://www.nj.com/warrenreporter/index.ssf/2011/09/award_winning_broadcaster_fran.html

http://tenminuteinterviews.com/frank-cipolla/

http://www1.gmnews.com/2011/06/02/veteran-broadcaster-gives-back-to-the-industry-he-loves/

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/national-progressive-talk-radio/2012/10/22/frank-cipolla--it-shocked-even-us--nptr-23

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me and would also appreciate any advice I can use in the future for editing on Wikipedia. Jovanny1992 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Frank Cipolla was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Cipolla. Asking deletion nominator: @Rusf10: does this change your view? Sandstein 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Would like to know if a decision to undelete the Frank Cipolla page has been made? I'd like to make the proper edits for the article. Thank you Jovanny1992 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Requesting the input of other AfD participants: @Innisfree987, The Gnome, E.M.Gregory, Johnpacklambert, and Bearian: your view? Sandstein 15:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Short answer, it doesn’t, for me anyway. These sources are all hometown, primary and/or self-published, so don’t help with notability (also: as I’m not an admin I can’t see the deleted entry but I think we had already seen at least some of these). I feel like the discussion at AfD pretty well spelled out the sourcing issues so having a careful read of that is my best advice for Jovanny going forward, unless they have more specific questions? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• This was a case of clearly borderline notability. Closing editors necessarily make judgment calls in such cases and it damaging to the project to revisit the judgment of editors in such cases. None of the sources mentioned above are sufficiently compelling to make it notability other than borderline. Should mew sorced emerge in future, a new article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invite. I checked the sources that Jovanny1992 brought above.

a YouTube videoclip of an interview of Cipolla to a WTNH local station (New Haven, Connecticut);

a portrait of Cipolla in the New York Daily News, a major newspaper in a major city;

an article about Cipolla in NJ.com, a major news source in a major city;

a write-up in a blog

an interview archived in the Greater Media Newspapers website; and

an audiotaped interview to National Progressive Talk Radio.

Now, this bunch of late additions contains some significant sources dedicating their time and space to the deleted article's subject. The only worry I have is that almost all of them took as their cue the 2011 release of Cipolla's book, which he wrote as soon as he retired from the radio business. They might be taken as farewell homages to a colleague, who obviously worked hard and successfully and for a very long time in radio and TV. All in all, and in view of the above, if I had to choose all over again, I don't think I would have a big issue with an admin who'd decide to keep the article up. It'd be a weak keep. Take care, all, and keep up the good work. -The Gnome (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Gnome, I brought both the Daily News article and the one from NJ.com to the article during the AfD, (and note that although nj.com is the Star Ledger, a major regional daily, the article was in a small, local paper - Star Ledger operates the website for,) so that these are not new. The other sources are new as best I recall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me so long to respond, I saw this and then forgot about it. The two newspaper articles were already in the discussion (as mentioned above, one is just a small local paper). The local news interview barely adds to notability. The rest are blogs and can be disregarded. The additional sources do not change my opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for the input. @Jovanny1992: Based on the assessments above I decline to undo the deletion. Sandstein 09:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reconsider everyone! Jovanny1992 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Göstl

Hello, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Göstl, I had just recreated the page not long ago, however your deletion of the page was the first time I saw that the page had been nominated for deletion. I tried to check the talk page but those are gone as well. Is it too late to contribute to the AfD discussion? Is it not proper to notify the page creator of the nomination for deletion of a page I just created not a month ago? I am wondering what are my options to restore or reopen debate on this page? Outback the koala (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The AfD is closed and over. Notifiying the creator is often done but not mandatory. What you can try to do is to recreate the article in a version that addresses the AfD's concern via WP:AfC. Sandstein 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Great! Do you know if there's anyway to get a copy of the last version of the article? I would like to work on it in sandbox before hand, but the history was deleted when the article was as well. Outback the koala (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 05:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Meg: Primal Waters deletion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg:_Primal_Waters

I was attempting to access this page and I noticed that it has been deleted :( all I was wanting was a summary of the plot as I was reading up on the series. Is this information still available?

Thanks,

A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:160kC:851B:804E:A2A7:33BD:F6F5 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not on Wikipedia at any rate. Sandstein 05:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Check deletionpedia.org Bangabandhu (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

John Two-Hawks deletion

Is the John Two-Hawks page still stored somewhere? I've been using it to create a discography on the Sputnik Music website, and it makes it harder that I can't get to it anymore. Thanks. 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No, deleted pages are not accessible to users. Sandstein 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. Really wish this hadn't been deleted.Divamanhughes (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Check deletionpedia.org Bangabandhu (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokborok script

Hi! I did oppose the redirect for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokborok script (as would the nom @Jake Brockman: - per my reading of his nom - to this particular redirect). The problem is that there are a number of competing scripts for this language - and that it is a political dispute - see Script issues of Kokborok - which would be a better redirect (though I opposed it) than Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma).Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your opinion in this regard. Certainly the redirect target can be changed subject to normal editorial consensus. As a plausible search term, however, I'm not sure what argument could be made for not having a redirect target at all. Sandstein 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kesari Tours

Gadgetsgigs has asked for a deletion review of Kesari Tours. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Frances

Megamediamissus (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)kelly frances deletion and request for assistanceMegamediamissus (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC) kindly reply to kellyfrancesm@gmail.com if possible. If not, not a worry

Page (deleted April 22) kelly frances Username megamediamissus / all links not working to start new discussions

Hello, I am uncertain as to whether or not this is the appropriate manner in which to discuss this issue, kindly help me out if not, my apologies. I could not find any recent rationale following links. (Page Kelly frances)

I contacted Wikipedia a week ago after having time to review a page that discussed my work. I am not very savvy with computers.

I was told I was suspected of being hired, and that sources were not reliable. Additionally, (though I am learning), I was last told by an admin that “the issue boiled down to my being an “outsider” and therefore spammer, something I don’t understand as I felt Wikipedia invited inclusion and contribution - not exclusion. I saw commentary accusing me of making too much work for admins. I do my best, and thus seemed unbecoming to a professional and respected community. I voiced this politely.

I was encouraged to add RS and did so yesterday upon seeing wiki editing and assisting me. I sent my thanks. I wasn’t made aware of current status and assumed I was being helped. There are many global RS. I’m unclear. I wasn’t aware the page would remain as my name is searched in this manner. It’s causing me embarrassment as it was a reference for 4 years that cited English language events in animal activism found in few places.

I then modified and added new - and reliable (news articles, etc) sources. Again, I was invited and encouraged to do so. The last rationale I received from your admin was "I clearly feel entitled to the recognition for activism work documented by news and recognition documented by RS-though I felt the page seemed very promotional initially - and this was a reason I requested help.". I am unclear what wikipedia would have someone in my situation do now as my name is searched often due to film nominations (Cannes being the current), and your records are embarrassing. Can I know my options please? Thank you for your help.

With gratitude

Kelly Frances

Ms. Frances, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Frances the Wikipedia community of editors decided that we should not have an article about you because of our inclusion requirements at WP:N. Per our rule WP:COI, you should also not attempt to edit or create an article about yourself. Accordingly, I can't help you with any further advice aimed at restoring the article. Sandstein 18:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Kelly Frances article

Hi Sandstein, your talk page is on my watchlist so I noticed the message a new user inexpertly placed at the top of it. Kelly Frances seems to have received a very bitey reception from Wikipedia. If two of her projects are headed to Cannes, it seems a shame to discard the material even if by Wikipedia standards she is WP:NotYet notable. May I keep a copy of the draft in my Sandbox, where I will be happy to work at doing a better job on the biography, as my time allows and reliable sources give support? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I've no objection, but I don't undelete articles myself. You can ask at WP:REFUND though. Sandstein 18:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

AE Appeal - No More Mr Nice Guy

Hi! I copied over User:No More Mr Nice Guy appeal from his talk page to AE.Icewhiz (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Kalisochina Adrustum

Dear Mr.Sandstein while conveying my lots of thanks for your guidance could your please indicant the reason for suggesting the deletion of Kalisochina Adrustum and what to do for resubmission. Kind Regards.(B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC))

Kalisochina Adrustum was deleted for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisochina Adrustum. You can recreate it if you can address the problems indicated there. Sandstein 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Carlos Nicholas Fernandes

Hi, I am writing to you about deletion of the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Nicholas_Fernandes . There are claims that there is not enough independent press coverage; however, the fact is that the press coverage exists, but it is not "searchable", because Singapore media is a monopoly. I have attached substantial independent coverage - these are easy to miss because they are just links to a google drive account, but I would appreciate if it were reviewed and your input was shared. Further, Fernandes is the inventor of the cloud PVR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedmind88 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Nicholas Fernandes, is still ongoing. You can offer your views there. Sandstein 06:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Subbuteo Page

Why delete WASPA ? ..I asked before and provided you with a link to the WASPA website ..you did not reply .Lack of knowledge is not s reason to delete a page and or link ? WASPA is an international association with members worldwide

The reasons for why WASPA was deleted can be found in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Amateur Subbuteo Players Association. Sandstein 07:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DS Notices

This is semi related to the current AE filing involving AmYisroelChai. I notice several pages under DS that have extra restrictions like 1RR/consensus required and the like have a template when editing the page listing the extra restrictions but not always on the talk page. Is there a requirement for them to be on the talk page? Also would it be appropriate in the future if I see such a situation to add the template for the restrictions there myself? PackMecEng (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, only an edit notice is required, and no, because you're not an admin. See WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Sandstein 18:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for the clarification. Just odd at times seeing the page has notices but nothing on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping with the Ursula Beimann page. This article was created by a student and a first-time editor, who appreciates your assistance.

No problem. Sandstein 19:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hiya

Hiya Sandstein, thank you for reading all that material and closing the faith healing RfC. Unfortunately the discussion that you suggested occur has reached a brick wall. Since you have already read all of the RfC I thought you would be the best person to review, per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions, the discussion that you recommended in your closing summary. The discussion starts here, Talk:Faith_healing#Adding_text,_per_Sandstein's_closure_summary and continues to the very bottom of the page. Are you able to perform an uninvolved close, if that is what editors agree is necessary? This is the least dramatic option as the other options are another RfC about interpreting sources or worse steps. I'm not suggesting you jump in right now, there still is a slither of hope consensus can emerge in the next couple of days, but it is not looking likely.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested by StAnselm, and I thought it might be necessary as well, although Raymond suggested you can't do this, but St Anselm quoted Wikipedia:Closing_discussions to point out that Raymond was mistaken. This is why I am asking 1. if you can do it, and 2. if you would like and be so kind to do a close of a discussion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. Sandstein 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale draft

Greetings! I've been combing through stale userspace drafts recently, and came across User:Sandstein/Drafts/SIKART. Normally I would simply contact you and ask you to either resume work on it, donate it or request it be speedily deleted, but in this particular case I must ask for the latter. The reason is that, as a copy of a list that was generated using creative judgement, it is a copyright violation of that list (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists for more information on this). It would be most convenient if you would request its deletion by attaching {{db-u1}} to the top; otherwise I will need to go through MfD. Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the page myself because I no longer need it, but I disagree that it is a copyvio. Facts are uncopyrightable, and how that website assesses artists is a fact. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is an essay. Sandstein 16:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that's in an essay is true, but it's not necessarily wrong. And while some facts (such as statistics) are not copyrightable, anything that required creativity to produce is. I can't view your page anymore because it's deleted, and I couldn't access the website you cited the list to because the link is dead, I seem to recall the draft stating that the rankings accounted for things including "historical significance": significance is not something you can hold a ruler to and requires creativity to assess and interpret. Not that it's relevant anymore. Thanks for deleting it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Stale draft

Greetings! I've been combing through stale drafts recently, and happened across one of yours: User:Sandstein/Drafts/Karl von Gerber. As you do not appear to be currently using it, I was wondering if you would be willing to either blank it or request its deletion by tagging it with {{db-u1}}. Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Same with this one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really your business, I should think. Sandstein 21:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you, ultimately. Relevant policies don't provide much in the way of a mechanism for deleting material in the userspace, and rightly so. Nor can I, ultimately, provide any compelling reason why it would be better for the project if you did so, as I in all honesty appear to be the only one who uses that 35,000 page category. I apologize if I seemed rude, and will try not to bother you about these in the future. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Review 2018 April 17

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that Gunter Bechly article should remain deleted? I provided several sources on top of those provided in the earlier review, and none of those who endorsed the deletion provided any valid arguments founded on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Most of them didn't even bother to provide any arguments at all. Please don't make me seek more formal arbitration. Snoopydaniels (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I myself do not have an opinion on the matter. I only determined that at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 17 there was consensus among other editors to endorse the previous DRV outcome. Sandstein 06:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a consensus is, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. From WP:Consensus:

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

Simply adding Endorse to a DRV is nothing more than voting. The advocates of deletion did not present any legitimate concerns based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are in no way obligated to take their votes or personal objections into account, nor should you.Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that you disagree with the opinions for deletion, but whether the deletion as such was correct is not the issue here. What I had to determine was whether the DRV discussion established consensus for overturning the previous DRV decision and the deletion decision. That is clearly not the case. Sandstein 16:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are still confusing "majority opinion" with "consensus." The opponents of the DRV did not present any legitimate concerns based upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That means that their objections were completely irrelevant to establishing a consensus as defined by WP:Consensus.Snoopydaniels (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree about that. Sandstein 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a cop out. If you can't justify your decision, then you need to reverse it and open the DRV back up (if such a thing is possible.)Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Günter Bechly. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Robert McClenon: Your discussion is at AN, not ANI. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Joseph Steinberg

Please restore the article Joseph Steinberg and allow for discussion in the AFD. You deleted and salted the article without enough input on the discussion and without proper WP:BEFORE. I am the creator and just saw your message today. I created that article a few years ago after discussing with the Administrator who deleted the prior version that Joseph Steinberg had become notable since the last version was deleted. That Administrator agreed and I created the article. He meets the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR for all of the reasons listed there. He is clearly “widely cited by peers or successors”. He is clearly "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". You can check his Google Scholar Page or the thousands or millions of times he has been quoted by his peers in the media and his field in the last few years. The reason for salting is also wrong and shows that WP:BEFORE was not done as the prior articles were deleted a decade and 1/2 decade ago when he was not notable but a lot can change in a decade or 1/2 decade which is why the previous Administrator and I recreated the article. Take a look at the number and dates of citations in Google Scholar and quotations in the media. There appear to be over 12,000 results when searching for how many times he was quoted about Heartbleed and that is from only one article of his and he has written probably a thousand articles. He is quoted about his field by BBC, Reuters, USA Today, Forbes, Fox, and many other WP:RS. Add all of his articles up and search for quotations and it surely will become many millions of times. The Wikipedia article may need work and I am not an expert to make it its best but a review will show that it should definitely be included in Wikipedia. Please restore it and let the AFD discussion happen. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Declined. There have been four AfDs, all of which resulted in deletion. That is more than enough opportunity for discussion. Sandstein 19:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a bad argument. All of the previous AFDs were before he was notable. Two were over a decade ago. I recreated the article after the Administrator who did the third delete agreed to restore it because he had become notable. The discussion about if a living person is notable is supposed to be based on if that person is notable, not if that person was notable a decade ago. Please restore it and let a discussion take place. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, declined. The last AfD ran for two weeks, more than enough time, and you do not submit any compelling sources here, only search results and the like. Sandstein 19:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

How many sources do you want me to list for you so that you will restore it and let it go to AFD? Thetechgirl (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Up to three of the best sources that have not previously been discussed at AfD. Sandstein 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the best means but there are probably millions of quotations from his articles online. But here are a few I found in obvious WP:RS. The Google Scholar page also shows about 200 citations by other people of him in journals and patents in the last few years after the last AFD. There is no way that he is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Here's a few with quotations that describe him as an expert [1] [2] [3] Here’s a few with his name in the headline [4] [5] [6] All are after the last AFD deletion. You can find thousands more articles with him mentioned as an expert if you search. Thetechgirl (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the first three articles, they merely cite Steinberg as a source, but they do not say anything about him that could be used as the basis of an article. Substantial coverage, rather than mentions, is required per WP:GNG. I will take no action and will not respond further. Sandstein 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)