User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/August

Closed AfD, Britain for Europe

With regards to this AfD which you closed less than a month ago, I have now found a second article in the Financial Times which contains the following quote:

Tom Brufatto, the youthful leader of Britain for Europe, agreed. “It absolutely doesn’t mark the end,” he said. “It marks the beginning of the work we have to do, which is effectively to stop Brexit

Mr Brufatto, who says he took the EU “as a given” during a childhood in Italy, Germany and Spain, is convinced that Mrs May will have to win some form of popular approval for whatever new EU relationship she negotiates.

He is betting that the public will grow disenchanted as the warts of that deal become evident — for example, that the UK will have to pay a sizeable exit bill and will not be able to keep its access to the EU single market if it restricts free movement of EU citizens.

References

I was wondering if you would re-consider your decision to delete in light of this additional ref. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this confers notability. It contains no coverage of the organization as such, it's just a quote of the leader with his opinion about Brexit. Sandstein 06:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Britain for Europe

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Britain for Europe. 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. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished - You're doing good work, so ... ;-)

Hi Sandstein,
I've seen you've been doing good work in a lot of AfDs (and that not limited to AfDs I've been involved with).
- Incidentally, I think your "Dog's breakfast"-closure was great, and it can (unfortunately) probably soon be reused in this AfD.

Anyway, I'm actually also here to ask for advice.
Yesterday, an AfD (totally unrelated to lists, foods, drinks) caused me to take a step back, and ask myself the question:
 : Can WP pillars, policy, and guidelines be ignored by mere consensus precedence?
A question with the probable answer of: Yes!
Which caused me to ask myself another question: When is existing consensus precedence invoked, and when is a consensus having the effect of altering precedence?
This second question daunted on me, when I looked at two recent AfDs, and the histories of these particular kind of topics/articles:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michaelwood_services
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doncaster_North_services
Your thoughts?

And so, back to the first question, i.e.: Can WP pillars, policy, and guidelines be ignored by mere consensus precedence?:

• If the answer is "Yes!", then: Can't the Voika AfD simply be speedy closed, stating that consensus precedence is that "every named location is always notable, by long established consensus precedence"?
• If the answer is "No": What are the chances that a single well argued "Keep" can become the outcome of an AfD?
  - Secondarily, looking at what has piled up since yesterday: Can I be accused of being of disruptive if I continue to inject rebuttal based on WP policies? ; Note: I'm unsure if I care to, it's feeling a bit like telling people that Earth is spherically shaped at a flat earth society conference.

I hope I haven't here ruined your day by asking too worrysome/strange/complex questions.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, your question is answered at WP:CONLEVEL. But the issue at AfD is often that the policies are so general that there can be disagreement as to how to apply them, and on that issue there can often be a valid local consensus. Sandstein 14:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've now also closed the AfD as "keep" because consensus as to how to apply relevant policies and guidelines is very clear. Sandstein 14:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, Got it. ("valid consensus" is a tautology, and "very clear" is by consensus.)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I need Administrative arbitration/enforcement and protection against user Newslinger COI Vandalism and harassment of the ferrolens page. Personal dislike from previous QFM deletion. Not acting on best interest of WP but on personal dispute and its COI. Thank you.

Newslinger,

You have the COI here and are unfit to moderate and edit this page because personal dispute unjustified reasoning you have nothing contributed to the talk page of the ferrolens just issued you retarded delete tag.. . Three senior editors have passed this page and an administrator prior. I will report you for vandalism, harassment and COI. Also ask for Administrative Enforcement to make sure you get blocked from WP.

The next time... This WAS YOUR LAST WARNING!!...

I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN KEEP UP ALL THE TIME WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

Markoulw (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Markoulw: Based on the above screed, and a review of your contribution history, which leads me to conclude that you are on Wikipedia only to promote the apparently very questionable research of one Mr. Markoulakis, who I assume is you or a relative, I am indefinitely blocking you from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 18:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for acting. This person was unfortunately antagonizing everybody they came in touch with. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Deltek page

Hi there-- We are wondering what steps we need to take to have the Deltek Wikipedia page put back up? I read the article for deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deltek

It seems as though it was deleted mostly for being too promotional in nature. Is there a way we can reword it and get it back up?

Please let me know.

Sophie (sophiegayter@deltek.com) 72.83.146.227 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You, can't, actually, because you have a conflict of interest; see WP:COI. Sandstein 17:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment by BullRangifer

As the admin who recently imposed a formal AE warning to BullRangifer, this recent comment[1] may warrant your attention. I think it unduly personalizes the discussion, and labels editors with a different viewpoint than his own as people who "refuse to accept the evidence" and "only trust fake news and unreliable sources". That's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory imho. Although I believe the editor who started the thread is misguided, there were certainly better ways to respond to their stance. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think this warrants arbitration enforcement, please make a request at WP:AE. Sandstein 17:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary. I meant this notice as a friendly reminder to BullRangifer. I'm sure he knows how to handle himself. — JFG ^talk 19:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki that combines all Wikia wikis

(I could have asked this question to anyone I wanted to, but I'm choosing you because you surprisingly deleted Chiyo Miyako.)

Is there a special wiki that combines all Wikia wikis?? (For example, if you type Washington in its URL, it will show all pages whose URL is http://anything.wikia.com/wiki/Washington as opposed to simply Wikipedia's Washington article.) (Note that the "anything" is a wild term in this URL; it's like a blank tile in Scrabble or a Joker in card games, meaning that anything with no space in it can substitute it. Please don't click on the URL as if it were literally the URL I'm talking about.) Georgia guy (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Wikia is a different project than Wikipedia and I do not use it. Sandstein 11:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, who should I ask instead?? Read the sentence at the top of this sentence for why I chose you as the person to ask. Georgia guy (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea. Try Quora. Sandstein 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ju-52 crash

Isn't the "Bundesanwaltschaft" the Federal Prosecutor's (police?) office? Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The prosecutor's office is an agency that's distinct from the Federal Office of Police. It's similar to the relationship of the U.S.Attorney's Office and the FBI in the US. In this case, the Federal Prosecutor's office has jurisdiction because it's an air crash, but it normally lets the cantonal police and the civilian air accident investigation agency do the groundwork. There are no uniformed federal cops, the Federal Office of Police is basically only an investigative agency. Sandstein 19:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation. Thought I'd ask rather than undo as you're de and I'm just about de-0.5! Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've attempted to more clearly convey in the article what the source reports, according to which the cantonal prosecutor's office is also involved. Sandstein 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. 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. Andrew D. (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako

Your recent close of this AfD seems erroneous. For example, you state that "keep" opinions are almost all variations on the theme of "anybody who is among the oldest persons is automatically notable". This is false because I and others made no such statement but instead based our position upon WP:BASIC, which is a standard part of WP:BIO. Your comments seem to selectively attack the keep voters contrary to the guidance of WP:DGFA, respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete.. Note also that the topic has been immediately recreated as a blue link which has immediately reverted your action. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You did invoke WP:BASIC, but almost all other "keep" opinions did not and merely asserted the notability of the person because of their age. An assessment of the strength of the arguments made is not a personal attack but an integral part of the deletion policy and closing procedure. For these reasons, I still consider the closure to be correct. The recreation as a redirect is not my concern. Sandstein 10:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Two other !votes specifically cited WP:BASIC. The fact that other !voters made some other arguments doesn't mean that that you should pick one and ignore all others. You claim to have considered the strength of argument but seem to have only put one of the various arguments onto the scales. You therefore seem to be considering weight of argument and weight of numbers in a selective way, not considering all points which were made. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree. The users who invoked WP:BASIC did not make any substantial argument as to why the article met these requirements, that is, how exactly the topic "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." As such, these are mere assertions of notability that I cannot give much weight to. What I would have expected are arguments such as "she meets WP:BASIC because she was covered in detail in sources A, B and C." Such arguments would have been valid and helpful, but they were not made. Sandstein 10:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The fact that there was coverage of the subject did not seem to be disputed. For example, User:Peaceray said "...the article appears to have the requisite number of citations to support notability" while user:Cullen328 later listed some sources such as TIME and Washington Post. Why have these points not been considered? The issue seemed to be that the nay-sayers found that the coverage was "unencyclopedic", while the supporters thought it was adequate. If you require every !voter to list lots of supporting details, the AfD is going to get even more tiresome and tedious and few !votes will count. Some economy of effort and avoidance of repetition is needed to avoid further decay in the process. Andrew D. (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not asking everybody to "list lots of supporting details", but merely to make clear (such as by reference to other opinions) on what factual basis they consider a topic to be notable, rather than just asserting "it's notable". Also, even if I had fully counted the three opinions making reference to WP:BASIC, that still wouldn't have saved the article from deletion. Sandstein 11:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, what, in your view, would warrant an article on Chiyo Miyako? Sources are out there - see my entry in the AfD discussion - and should that aspect (the potential of the article) not be weighed? After all, if all other sources in the world - including the New York Times, the BBC, and what have you - report on Chiyo Miyako (and, in fact, on every single world's oldest person, yet Wikipedia does not, then does that not hint at a certain bias in Wikipedians to deem what is importat/relevant, and what is not? Fiskje88 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about that. My role is or was limited to assessing consensus and weighing arguments on the basis of the arguments that were made at AfD, not on the basis of arguments that potentially could have been made. Had the "keep" arguments been based more on sources rather than on inherent notability, I would very likely have closed the AfD as keep or no consensus. Sandstein 16:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

Hey Sandstein, I see you tweaked the lead of this--it's being tweaked quite differently right now. All of a sudden it's a "contested term", in the lead, unlike contested terms like Political correctness, for instance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but my contribution was editorial, to improve conciseness, and not to change the content of the lead. Sandstein 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

John Vinzelts

• Hello Madam/Sir, Please sorry for calling on your attention to help me resolve on an issue concerning an Article i have created as John Vinzelts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was looking for an Arbitary Member to help me resolve it. I'm currently teaching my young daughter how to edit wikipedia articles, unfortunately on the same laptop. I have been charge now for Sockpuppet and with deletion Tags on my article please could you help? (Professorat (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)).

I don't quite understand what your specific problem is and what your daughter has to do with it. If the article meets our speedy deletion criteria or consensus forms to delete it, it will eventually be deleted. Sandstein 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your negligence; someone deleted one of my comments in an open deletion discussion that you closed, etc.

Someone deleted one of my comments in this then-open deletion discussion that you closed.

The comment was

• Keep, because I dug for a few minutes, and here's one strong indicator of current notability: Of "what the editors at HealthDay consider to be the most important developments in Pharmacy for June 2018" were four articles from JNO. This from a total of 58 articles, 37 of which were behind paywalls. That's 19 percent of the open access articles.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone interpreted it as a second vote and perhaps it was deleted it on that basis. That's not a reasonable basis for deletion of the entire comment. And I thought deletion discussions aren't votes, so how is saying Keep twice even voting? *If* I understood that it wasn't allowed, wouldn't have done it, and would be willing to apologize for it now, but I don't understand that that's the case. Did you consider the arguments I made on the deleted comment? The struck ones? I don't see any indication that you did. Also, I don't understand the basis for striking all my other comments. Can you please address these concerns? I was blocked for complaining about some misbehavior and no one appears willing to have a conversation with me about my or others (alleged) misbehavior. Are you willing to do either or both? I'm trying to make sense of the responses I've received and there's rarely any connection I can see between my edits and the allegations, let alone policy.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion. Sandstein 20:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please reply.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You were being disruptive and the discussion was unanimously in favor in deletion apart from you. The discussion would have concluded the same way regardless of the striking or deletion of your contributions. There‘s nothing for me to do here. Sandstein 05:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why you bothered to reply. You avoided both answering my questions and addressing my concerns. Seems to be common- it's like what happened in the other discussions I've attempted to have with someone who opposed a contribution of mine. I still don't know if you considered the arguments I made on the deleted comment. The evidence suggests you didn't. Your second sentence doesn't change that, but it implies you think it's irrelevant. So that's my first question.

I feel hostility in every sentence. I'm already aware I was supposedly disruptive. Your repeating that statement is unenlightening. I'm guessing what the point of your final sentence was and can't find one compatible with civility.

It's a blatant falsehood - your claim that "the discussion was unanimously in favor in <sic> deletion apart from you" - as I recall. I checked. Yup. Clearly you didn't consider the "Don't Delete" vote and argument by User:Mrmxzptlk. That's negligent.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel rudely and unfairly treated. You still haven't responded to my reasonable questions and concerns above - instead you archived them. I still have no clue what I did that supposedly was disruptive. I don't understand. I could find no argument presented (by anyone) to explain the assertion. Could you please tell me? I'd appreciate a response regarding your other claim that was blatantly false. I've been civil. What is your problem?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to what I wrote above and will not reply further. Sandstein 19:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stairs

Would you have any objections to my splitting out a separate article for 'City of Stairs'? I ask since you originally made it as a redirect to the Divine Cities trilogy. DS (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, if you can make it into a decent real-world based article, per WP:WAF, rather than just a lot of plot summary and in-universe info. Not that I think that you particularly tend to do that, but a lot of book articles look that way. Sandstein 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil.

Please be civil. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you refer to? Sandstein 22:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

AFD of QuickStudy

Hiya. I noticed you raised a comment about the notability of QuickStudy. You might be interested to know I have nominated the page for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuickStudy --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ferrolens

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ferrolens. 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. 194.177.198.8 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Recreated redirects

I've noticed that BOZ has been making redirects of the comics pages that have recently been deleted at AfD, did this with a couple others as well. Is this kosher? Seems to me to be going against consensus because the one reached was to delete the articles, not recreating and redirecting them. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think the redirects are not useful you can RfD them, but as long as the content is not recreated this is not against the AfD consensus. Sandstein 20:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks much. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For unfailing kindness and courtesy towards less policy-knowledgeable editors, like me. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Box office bombs

Why did you delete a list of box office bombs by decade? That's not very nice. ~~

Because the community of editors formed consensus in a discussion to delete these articles. Sandstein 15:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD of Kilwins

Hi, you closed the AfD of Kilwins as no consensus which I can only understand if the AfD was simply looked at as a !vote counting exercise. Just about every Keep !vote reasoned that the article should remain because it is a big company. That isn't a reason as per our policies and guidelines. Not one Keep !vote provided a single link to any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability - yet every article on a company/organization should have at least two. Can you please take another look at this? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There was quite thorough discussion of sources, and editors disagreed about what kind or quality of sources are sufficient for notability. That's a matter of editorial judgment, not something I can override by fiat. Sandstein 20:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hang on. Before we get to "editorial judgement" the closing admin has to weigh the strength of the arguments. This is the bit I don't get. Looking at what you wrote above ... there was zero discussion of specific sources since none of the Keep !voters could provide any specific sources! They were asked countless times to produce sources. None did. So all of their comments were generic and without detail. There was therefore no "quite thorough discussion" of sources that I can see. Also, editors did not "disagree" on what kind or quality of sources were sufficient for notability since there was very little engagement and no engagement at all on the "quality". Most of the "debate" consisted of my explanations to Teemu08 on the NCORP guidelines. Its probably true to say that the only editor to really attempt to "engage" over time was Teemu08 and he was new to AfD with no knowledge of WP:NCORP. Of the Keep !voters that mention sources, one says they've updated the article with more secondary sources (which is the easiest part of find sources to meet the criteria for establishing notability - the most difficult is passing ORGIND), one says the franchise gets a mention in the local press and that there are sources with general coverage of the company, and when it is pointed out that the sources don't meet NCORP, he admits that its a borderline case and the argument shifts to OTHERSTUFF and Steak Escape. The next says "I see enough coverage" but doesn't provide a single link, doesn't debate or put forward any other argument, and doesn't engage. And the last says that the "sources given in the article are of sufficient notability per WP:CORPDEPTH which does not make sense as an argument since sources are not required to be of "sufficient notability". As an aside, it could also be argued that most of the Keep !votes are also specifically included in arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I have no idea how you weighted the strength of arguments for each side as part of closing. In my summary I would have said "Keep says there's load of sources and it is a big company but "big company" has no weight in policy/guideline and none of the Keep !voters could produce even one single source that meets the criteria despite being asked. The Delete argument on the other hand constantly refers to policy/guidelines and points out the weakness in various references such as the ones from Miami New Times and richmond.com. None of the Delete arguments were shown to be incorrect or were successfully overturned." Can you please take another look at this? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There was discussion of sources, you just don't agree that they are adequate. Teemu08 wrote: "I have updated the article with more secondary sources". Timtempleton wrote: "There are also sources with general coverage of the company, a few of which I just added." power~enwiki wrote: "I see enough coverage." And so forth. I don't see a basis for a "delete" consensus here. Sandstein 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not even on the basis of weighing the strength of arguments? Otherwise, you might as well be counting !votes. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Or put another way. What else could I have done at the AfD to make the argument for Delete clearer/better? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just checking back. I'd appreciate a ping when you respond, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@HighKing: As noted above, I don't think that differing opinions about what makes a source good or not is something I can weigh in terms of strength of argument. Wikipedians can in good faith disagree about this. I don't know what you could have argued differently; it's just a fact that you didn't convince enough other people. Sandstein 09:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I believe I understand your position. To paraphrase, you note that opinions are still divided and therefore there's no consensus? But (and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask) I want to really understand how much you've considered the "strength of arguments" and "underlying policy" as part of determining a "rough consensus" as per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. I've pointed out above that the Keep !voters didn't argue with respect to any policies or guidelines and didn't rebut any of my responses and most didn't engage. Of the ones that did engage, neither provided a strong counter argument. In those circumstances, I do not understand how can you weigh the Keep arguments as having the same weight of argument as the Delete arguments. Please explain. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. As mentioned, I think that there are aspects of the application of our policies that don't have a clear-cut answer and depend on the judgment of editors individually or collectively, including the question of what number and quality of sources are needed for notability. Except in rare cases, I think that this is not a question in which I as closer should weigh in with a "supervote" because people may in good faith hold different opinions about such matters. Sandstein 11:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm still struggling with understanding how, in those circumstances, a closing admin can consider/weigh "strength of arguments" with regard to "underlying policy" without, essentially, having a "supervote". The onus is on a closing admin to evaluate the AfD and form an opinion and this means looking at the arguments presented and looking at the policies they are trying to apply. I assume (maybe incorrectly and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that your evaluation is that neither the Keep and Delete arguments were stronger/better in relation to policy? In weighing arguments, it doesn't matter if people "in good faith hold different opinions about such matters" since the there is long-standing consensus (as collected in our WP:N and WP:NCORP guidelines) which clarifies both the number (multiple preferred but at least two from different publishers) and type of references required and provides examples to assist in the application of policies. In the absence of the closing admin applying this procedure it can appear that any vague assertions by either side have equal weight of argument when the AfD is being closed and this is clearly not in the spirit of the process. It would have been a different matter if, after a reference was produced, both sides argued over interpretation, but this did not occur. Whenever a specific reference was discussed and it was pointed out why it failed the criteria, it was not disputed and in some cases, was openly accepted. The Delete arguments were precise and comprehensive and fully engaged with all arguments rebutted and/or commented on. With all that said, I'm aware this AfD was hanging out there for a long time and a decision needed to be made, so thank you for stepping up. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Of Mic Diggy

How the fuck do you delete a page without asking ? There is a new reliable source which the active participants in the AFD agree's with Learn to be fucking patient and fucking ask before fucking making a rush decision! It's always seemed to me that WP:MUSICBIO criteria 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. is the strongest claim to notability. [2] does seem to provide some sourcing for such a claim (and also MUSICBIO criteria 2, though there's no currently accepted chart for Zambia)Vicmullar (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Too many fucks here for me to give any. Sandstein 18:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My point exactly. The Right thing to do was ask, that's all you needed to do. Ask. Vicmullar (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

He's being sarcastic - he does not need your permission to delete the article. Asking for "more time" or "patience" in this situation is ridiculous anyways, discussions have been going on for weeks at AFD and DRV, and not a single person has sided with you, outside of a random passerby IP that gave an invalid reason. Its time to drop the stick. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Can a page Alan Sabrosky be brought to AfD while it is protected from editing? Two tenacious editors who doggedly fought a recent, lengthy, AfD to no consensus, are now attempting to "improve" the article using FRINGE sources, and to block or minimize the use of WP:RS in proposed rewrites. After intense scrutiny of of claims being made to see multiple reasons why his career does not pass notability (such as a problematic assertion at the last AfD that a research appointment at at the Army War College carried him past WP:PROF because it was supported by a named endowment, although he has been an academic nomad, never tenured or given a full professorship; the fact that while he has written articles and monographs, the books cited are collections of essays he edited; and the fact that he is not widely cited,) I would like to bring it back to AfD. Is it permitted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is, though I express no opinion about whether renominating so soon is a good idea. I recommend asking the admin who protected the page. Sandstein 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That administrator has no objections. My problem now is, How do I start an AfD on an article that is page protected from editing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask that admin to unprotect the page or post the AfD for you. Sandstein 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K11 MUSEA

Hi Sandstein, You were the closing admin for this AfD that I raised. I just wanted to understand the closure as keep (as opposed to e.g. redirect or letting it run longer). I maintain that the article is defective with all sources strongly aligned to the original press-releases by the developer. I believe that notability is only established once there is "proper" editorial outside of such PR (which is always somewhat promotional) and there is sufficient independent secondary coverage. Besides, the announcement of the new development is very much "business as usual" in NCORP.
The editors who voted to keep essentially argue that it will be notable at some point. I think this is an extremely weak argument and one that is made frequently for companies and other commercial interests.
However, I think we should be better than that especially when we are dealing with commercial interests. I agree that it MAY be notable at some point (many major HK malls are), however the fact that it is part of a larger development (Victoria Dockside) MAY also mean that on the other hand that individual notability is never established as it may be regarded as part of the wider development by future (unbiased) editorial. I think that keeping this article at this point is bending notability quite far - especially when comparing to common consensus at AfD/CSD outcomes. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Odilon Ozare

Dear Sandstein, I noticed that you closed a page on 11 August 2018 that I had started regarding "Odilon Ozare". That person has been gaining public interest and publicity and I tried to make this entry a starting point to build up further. Perhaps I have not met the standards that you expect, but I have read the appropriate pages about the creation/deletion of new articles and I don't understand where I went wrong - what feedback could you share, or what could I do to have this page restored to your standards? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.52.243 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Odilon Ozare was deleted for the reasons discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odilon Ozare. Sandstein 20:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki, put public, personal attacks - actionable?

I'd like to keep this as a hypothetical as I'm not sure if enforcement against the Wiki side here is worthwhile (as the editor professes to be retired) and I'm concerned the particulars would be OUTING (though they identified their on-wiki ID publicly off-wiki). What would be the correct course of action regarding a user who, via their twitter account, casts aspersions and engages in personal attacks? They also seem to be treating Wikipedia editing as an experiment. They identified their on-wiki identity by a public tweet containing the user name from the same twitter account that made the personal attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that in egregious cases off-wiki misconduct can be grounds for on-wiki action. Sandstein 07:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And how would one file such a report? Part of it is I/P related (the attacks are), part of it is UK politics related. Would posting a link to the tweets (including the one in which they identify their Wiki identity - which is a rather clear ID - includes a screenshot of their user page) be OUTING? And if so - how would one report this (ARBCOM?)?Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom is the only Wikipedia body set up to handle private evidence, but there's no guarantee that they will act on it. They can be contacted by e-mail. Sandstein 07:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A user is removing your content on the Asia Argento article

Please join the discussion here, wether or not facts published in New York Times are relevant for the article. A user is trying to remove the sexual assualt claims published in the New York Times, because he doesn't think it is relevant.--APS^talk 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

How to reverse a deletion

If an article I created was tagged for a speedy deletion in the English Wikipedia because it was included on Wikipedia too soon how do I reverse the deletion if I feel there's enough reliable resources for this article.. This is the article: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibusiso Mashiloane). Bobbyshabangu _talk 08:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Write a draft article that addresses the AfD's concerns. Sandstein 18:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

72 bikers

It would be nice if it was easier to find out how to deal with DS violations. The edit is pure trolling yet nothing will get done. Where (and how) do I find these remedies, I do I just ask for them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Sandstein 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Naija News

Hello Sandstein, in the past one month that I joined to wikipedia, I have been doing some contributions and editing about Nigerian contents that I have good knowledge and I was about contributing about "Naija News" when I discovered that there was a pending issue. I have done done some finding and found good referencing links about the page so I added few that talked specifically about the character, there are so many but I believe i'm supposed to just specifically add those that addressed the character in question, please see a sample here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Palness/Naija_news Palness (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What has changed since the AfD? Sandstein 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Following up re: deletion of deltek page

Hi I am following up again regarding the deletion of the Deltek page. It was taken down I believe for being considered too "promotional" in nature.

What can we do to get it reinstated?

72.83.146.227 (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, see WP:COI. Sandstein 08:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Chakresh Kumar Article

Hi, you reviewed and deleted page Chakresh Kumar. After I posted it as draft but unfortunately again it was deleted. Now I want to republish the page from scratch. Before doing so, I want to ask your opinion about it. Should I do it or use another approach. Looking forward to hear back from you. Thanks. Sanjeev22mannan (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the page you want me to review. Sandstein 19:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion page of Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik, Chairman of Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP).

Dear Sir! I have created a page sometime back known as Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik, who is the Chairman of the Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP) which you have deleted on the reasons <Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jameel Ahmad Malik> "He leads the communist party of pakistan, a political party that has never won any seats etc, and remains unknown in the country. He has not been mentioned in detail by any media outlet, nor is his biography as a politician included in any book on pakistani politics."

In this context, it is added that a political change by the Communist Parties in any part of world is not possible through elections. Accordingly, the Communist have their own way of coming into power under the well known principles of Marxism. Moreover, the history of the Communist Party of Pakistan has also been mentioned in detail at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Pakistan> The Communist Party of Pakistan is very well known in Pakistan due to his long struggle against all the military regimes of Pakistan and the struggle which the CPP has been doing for the downtrodden and poor masses of Pakistan is well known to all political circles in Pakistan.

Even, otherwise, the Chairman of the Communist Party of Pakistan Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik is also well known in all of Pakistan and he has also written the history of the Communist Party of Pakistan titled "CPP History" which can be read at <http://www.cpp.net.pk/cpp-history-3/> Moreover, all the references which has been quoted in his page are from reliable sources and its reliability cannot be denied by anyone on genuine reasons. The number of the press conferences and the news items about the political activities of the Chairman CPP Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik has been been reported in the print media of Pakistan number of times.

Keeping in view all as stated above, you being the administrator of the English language Wikipedia is requested to kindly restore the page of Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik. With regards and thanks. Jaro1980 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Jaro1980

Your opinion is noted, but consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jameel Ahmad Malik was that the article should be deleted. You can create a draft that addresses the notability concerns and submit it to WP:AFC for re.-review. Sandstein 14:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Sir. I will do as per your advice and would create a draft for WP:AFC for re-review. Jaro1980 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Jaro1980

Buck Sexton

Why did you delete Buck Sexton’s page? 2601:280:5A80:6B87:9153:DF2A:17D6:2C0D (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Sexton. Sandstein 20:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)