User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
About my warning
-Sorry for disturbing. Its just that I know that some info in the Monster Erotica page is rather unnecessary so I decided to remove it. Can you let me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @56FireLeafs: Thanks for your message. The way this works is that once you notice that there is a disagreement about what should be in an article, you should go to its talk page, Talk:Monster erotica, and explain there why you think that your change would improve the article. Others will reply, and if there is consensus about the change, you can go ahead and make it. See generally Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Sandstein 09:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
User recently off block continuing to engage in disruptive editing and request for topic ban to be instated a third time
Hello Sandstein. This user was recently blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. The history of blocks for edit warring, personal attacks, and sock puppetry in edit warring appears to be only a small representation of common behavior, after reviewing some of the user's recent behavior. The user's contribution history, including after the latest block, is very visibly one-sided reverts, removals, and additions. Most of these reverts and changes are to edits by less active users, so this user is usually unchallenged, and when challenged, the user will engage in edit warring, personal attacks and battlegrounding against the challenger, like that which led to the linked recent block.
More explicitly, the user was given a second topic ban "from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" in February 2018 (the first was in July 2017), and violating this was part of this September 2019 block. The user waited some time, and in an appeal to have the topic ban lifted in April 2020, failed to mention to you that they were formally blocked for violating the topic ban in September 2019. This was the instance that was reported, but the topic ban was violated in hundreds of edits throughout the extent of the second topic ban period. Some examples[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].
Surprisingly, the majority of the user's edits during the second topic ban period violated the topic ban. Was this an oversight to lift the topic ban?
Since the lift of the topic ban in April 2020, the user has been engaging in the same one-sided and disruptive editing behavior for which they were topic banned twice and blocked for 2 months in 2019, and includes many of the same articles edited in violation of the topic ban, one-sided additions to articles, and removing content not to their personal liking. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. The user actively removes content that puts the US or US politicians in a negative light, as demonstrated by the linked diffs and 100s of others since April 2020, which makes the topic bans understandable.
The user consistently violated the topic ban when it was active as demonstrated and was formally blocked for violating the topic ban, which seems to have fallen victim to oversight in the good-faith decision to lift the ban, and continues to engage in the type of editing that led to the topic ban twice. It's your call, but I think it may be a good idea to emplace the topic ban a third time due to long-term trends and not having followed the previous topic ban to begin with. Thank you. Informaltuxedo (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TheTimesAreAChanging, please comment on this within 24 hours of your next edit. Sandstein 07:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Informaltuxedo, you are using an account with one edit. Due to your familiarity with Wikipedia process, I do not believe you are a new user. Please promptly identify your original user account and explain why you have not used it. Sandstein 07:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandstein The user has a visible record of personal attacks, aggressive editing, and targeted harassment looking through history, recent and before, including attacking administrators. I do not believe Wikipedia should be a platform for bullying, and I would not like to become a target by a user who has demonstrably engaged like this. I hope this is understandable. There wasn't another means to contact involved admins. If there is, please let me know. That long-term behavior is another thing but the point is the topic ban. I showed that the topic ban was violated throughout the topic ban period, it resulted in a block the only time it was reported, and that the topic ban was lifted on good faith without looking into these things that would have prevented lifting it. Thank you. Informaltuxedo (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein, as best as I can tell, this user appears to be a likely sockpuppet misrepresenting the record. As Informaltuxedo states, on 20 September 2019 you issued a fairly substantial two-month block for my violations of the AP2 TBAN earlier that year, all of which were edits related to U.S. foreign policy and which you determined were "political" in much the same way as U.S. domestic disputes are "political." (While few, if any, of those edits fall within the current discretionary sanctions cut-off referencing
"the post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people,"
the cut-off at the time was 1932.) After serving out that block, I waited an additional five months during which no further violations occurred, and then returned to you as the sanctioning administrator to request lifting the TBAN, which you graciously agreed to do on 20 April 2020. There are no diffs from Informaltuxedo alleging that I ever violated the TBAN during the period ranging from 20 September 2019 until 20 April 2020, because I did not. Rather, Informaltuxedo states that"in an appeal to have the topic ban lifted in April 2020, [TTAAC] failed to mention to you that they were formally blocked for violating the topic ban in September 2019."
However, that is a false statement, as the first sentence of my appeal opens with"It has been seven months since I was blocked for AP2 Topic Ban violations ... ,"
and you also would likely have been aware of the prior conduct as the blocking administrator. It remains undisputed that after the TBAN was lifted approximately eighteen months ago (with the notable support of the editor whose AE report resulted in the imposition of the sanction), there has been no reported drama at AE or in the AP2 topic area associated with my account (other than the above comment by Informaltuxedo, of course). Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)- @TheTimesAreAChanging, thanks for the reply. I see no grounds for action at this time. @Informaltuxedo, I am blocking your account for abuse of multiple accounts. Using socks to make enforcement requests is not a valid use of alternate accounts. Sandstein 05:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein, as best as I can tell, this user appears to be a likely sockpuppet misrepresenting the record. As Informaltuxedo states, on 20 September 2019 you issued a fairly substantial two-month block for my violations of the AP2 TBAN earlier that year, all of which were edits related to U.S. foreign policy and which you determined were "political" in much the same way as U.S. domestic disputes are "political." (While few, if any, of those edits fall within the current discretionary sanctions cut-off referencing
- @Sandstein The user has a visible record of personal attacks, aggressive editing, and targeted harassment looking through history, recent and before, including attacking administrators. I do not believe Wikipedia should be a platform for bullying, and I would not like to become a target by a user who has demonstrably engaged like this. I hope this is understandable. There wasn't another means to contact involved admins. If there is, please let me know. That long-term behavior is another thing but the point is the topic ban. I showed that the topic ban was violated throughout the topic ban period, it resulted in a block the only time it was reported, and that the topic ban was lifted on good faith without looking into these things that would have prevented lifting it. Thank you. Informaltuxedo (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of Q-bus list
Cheers for deleting my article without warning. I did ask for advice on how to re-integrate the information and stated why I thought the decision to list for deletion was bogus but I guess that's how it is. Yeah I know, "there's no obligation to notify you", such is the work-to-rule of the Wikipedia bureaucrat. --Vometia (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have not deleted an article called Q-bus list; it never existed. Sandstein 13:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given the context I might be excused for thinking that seemed unnecessarily pedantic (which I say because I am definitely not an expert in "Wikipedia law" and therefore automatically at a disadvantage when I feel I've just been lawyered) but I shall AGF and correct that to Q-Bus card list. I had given reasons why I thought it should not be deleted, or at least how the information might be otherwise organised and I requested help doing so. None of those things was addressed, just a handful of people with presumably no particular saying "delete" and the next thing I knew (only thanks to checking periodically) it had gone. Not exactly a collaborative effort and personally I find it indicative of a hostile environment that discourages involvement. --Vometia (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Vometia, as per the notice at the top of this page, if you want to talk to me about a page, please link to it. I edit and delete a lot of pages and don‘t recall most of them, or at any rate not their exact title. Sandstein 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- As to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-Bus card list, everybody but you wanted to delete it, so there was no other possible outcome. We all need to abide by consensus, even if we disagree with it, and we also need to be civil and assume good faith of others. Sandstein 05:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Vometia, as per the notice at the top of this page, if you want to talk to me about a page, please link to it. I edit and delete a lot of pages and don‘t recall most of them, or at any rate not their exact title. Sandstein 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given the context I might be excused for thinking that seemed unnecessarily pedantic (which I say because I am definitely not an expert in "Wikipedia law" and therefore automatically at a disadvantage when I feel I've just been lawyered) but I shall AGF and correct that to Q-Bus card list. I had given reasons why I thought it should not be deleted, or at least how the information might be otherwise organised and I requested help doing so. None of those things was addressed, just a handful of people with presumably no particular saying "delete" and the next thing I knew (only thanks to checking periodically) it had gone. Not exactly a collaborative effort and personally I find it indicative of a hostile environment that discourages involvement. --Vometia (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
List of Magic: The Gathering theme decks
Hi Sandstein! Thanks for closing the AfD. Would it be possible to restore the history or have it moved to drafts for a bit? While I don't want to try to rewrite the entire thing, I think the sourced parts of the lead (with the few sources that came up in the AfD) could be salvaged into a subsection of Magic: The Gathering compilation sets. If that subsection works, a redirect with the article history might then be good. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't undelete pages, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
About the Monster Erotica edits
I already send the message in the talk page but it has not yet being received. What happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don‘t understand what you mean by that. Sandstein 05:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of longest-living state leaders
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of longest-living state leaders. 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. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are mentioned incidentally, and without suggestion of wrongdoing, but you are mentioned nonetheless and so I hereby gift you this statutorily required notice. St★lwart111 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Tupocracy not reviewed yet after 3 weeks of submisssion
Hello Sandstein
Kindly help look into the possible delay in the approval of my wikipedia article 'Tupocracy'. It is a new body of knowledge worth the inclusion on wikipedia.
I will be glad if you prioritize this.
Niftyrules™ 16:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)
- (talk page watcher) Niftyrules, your draft had not been submitted for review. Using
<nowiki>tells the software to display the text as-is without performing any actions that the text may call for. I have removed those nowiki tags and now your draft is in the queue for review. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation
Dear Sandstein,
Your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is biased. You were not neutral while making the decision and you failed to read the arguments from neutral point of view. You failed to read the arguments of User:Gah4, User:Andrew Davidson, User:Clarityfiend, User:My very best wishes, User:Gidonb, User:Mysterymanblue, User:Tiredmeliorist, and User:Goldsztajn. When Wikipedia is run by admins like you, there is no point in editors like me to contribute to Wikipedia. This is probably my final edit to Wikipedia (outside my User page). Goodbye! Ber31 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
One final thing. You wrote:The result was delete. By a headcount, the outcome would be keep or no consensus, but we don't go by headcounts at AfD. We weigh arguments in the light of applicable policies or guidelines. Please don't use "we". For most neutral admins, the outcome have been "keep". It was your unilateral decision to delete that page. The arguments of the "delete side" were devastated by arguments of the "keep side". You didn't read the arguments of the "keep side" properly because of your bias. I have seen admins making decisions based upon the philosophy of "might is right". Thus, it makes no sense for me to continue editing Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sandstein, the keep !votes outnumbered the delete !votes by a ratio of more than three to one, with a very clear trend toward keep. There's room for closers to weight arguments based on policy in their close, but to judge this as a consensus to delete when it ended with 16 keep !votes in a row in plainly inappropriate. Could you please consider retracting your close? You know as well as I do what the chances are of your close being upheld at DRV, and it'll waste the community's time if you force us to go through that process. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- First, I only made minimal edits to the page, so don't feel so strong connection to it. Otherwise, I don't actually know that no-one read my comments, but they didn't say much about them. As I noted, there is: List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_secondary_school_affiliation, and which doesn't seem to have an AfD discussion. Gah4 (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I decline to retract my closure for the reasons expressed in it. Sandstein 08:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not expect a response, this is a comment. Of course, here I thoroughly disagree. But I'm not interested in telling you why (and I expect even more so you are not interested to hear) rather I'm here to comment on the form of your closure, laden with black-letter law and none of the nuance that actually comes with interpretative law. NOR can be an exceptionally complex policy to police, as this AfD demonstrates, but your closure gave no indication why you accepted the claim of NOR. You gave a numerical basis to the assertion. How did you weigh the arguments? What convinced you the NOR claim was correct? You started (rightly) with a rejection of a numerical count for reaching a decision, but then arrived at a conclusion .... on the basis of the numbers. I respect your closures and work because you often are involved with difficult closures. Whether we agree or disagree, the good, nay great, thing about Wikipedia is everything can be redone, reverted and fixed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't "accept" the argument that the article was OR. I expressed no view in that regard. But I noted that among those who discussed the argument for deletion, which was whether the article was OR, there was rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion, which I was unaware of before its closure, your actions were distinctly high-handed, if not dictatorial. I thought that Wikipedia worked on the principle of consensus, rather than on one person's interpretation of rules and guidelines. A useful comparative article has been lost. Urselius (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't "accept" the argument that the article was OR. I expressed no view in that regard. But I noted that among those who discussed the argument for deletion, which was whether the article was OR, there was rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not expect a response, this is a comment. Of course, here I thoroughly disagree. But I'm not interested in telling you why (and I expect even more so you are not interested to hear) rather I'm here to comment on the form of your closure, laden with black-letter law and none of the nuance that actually comes with interpretative law. NOR can be an exceptionally complex policy to police, as this AfD demonstrates, but your closure gave no indication why you accepted the claim of NOR. You gave a numerical basis to the assertion. How did you weigh the arguments? What convinced you the NOR claim was correct? You started (rightly) with a rejection of a numerical count for reaching a decision, but then arrived at a conclusion .... on the basis of the numbers. I respect your closures and work because you often are involved with difficult closures. Whether we agree or disagree, the good, nay great, thing about Wikipedia is everything can be redone, reverted and fixed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hi there Sandstein, hope you're having a good weekend. I had a question about "passing mentions" in controversial topics/areas. I remeber you once saying that passing mentions aren't enough to be used (discussion was about controversial article), here's your exact words.
I want to ask why exactly and can you please tell me the guideline, as I have other user asking me why passing mentions shouldn't be used. My understanding is that they are WP:UNDUE, and instead, thorough analysis are needed for contentious areas (especially when even the source(s) are scarce, which is the case). But maybe there are more guideline breaches when passing mentions are used. Thanks in advance, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni, passing mentions are an issue in determining notability. Per WP:GNG, "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The opposite of significant coverage are passing mentions. Sandstein 09:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism/Disruptive editing
Hi. You or another admin might like to check out all the edits and TP of the person who made the insensitive comments. There's nothing I can do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look, but saw nothing immediately actionable. Sandstein 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
removal of short description of Python
Hi Sandstein. I saw your edit here [37] I'm not too familiar with short descriptions, but I'm not sure why it was removed. Can you fill me in? Thanks peterl (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Peterl, sure. Per WP:SDNONE, "if an article title is sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful, e.g., Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill, a description of "none" should be used". That is the case with Python (programming language): the article title makes clear what it is about. Sandstein 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, good, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. peterl (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Request for undeletion
Hi! I have visited to the undeletion request page and found that I have to contact the deleting admin for it. I have seen that you were the administrator who had deleted Gyaanipedia almost 3 years ago.
I think that this article should be restored as I feel that it is about a notable website and also fits under WP:WEB. This website is running for years and also have some independent sources like [38] and [39] many other sources can be found in Google search which is not from this website.
So I truly believe that this article should to restored maybe the content of this article has been outdated and required to be rewritten so I request you kindly process the undeletion. Pokaiᗙ Talk
- Declined, sorry. The first link is a passing mention, the second a WP:SPS. Sandstein 09:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that if one link is self published then it won't makes the topic not notable. It happened with me earlier also that when I requested for undeletion that time it was rejected but after 2 months it was restored.
Of course you have more experience than me but I think this article should be on this site, maybe with more citations needed tag so that other users could add more references if they found it. PokaiᗙTalk 21:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I don't have the time to look through this number of sources, especially given that one is IMDB, wich is user-edited and therefore obviously unreliable. Sandstein 19:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial College of Engineering and Management, Lucknow. 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.--Fztcs 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein—I'm sorry to have to challenge another close of yours so soon after the Nobel thing above, but I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohhot No.2 Middle School and found the discussion and close there quite concerning. The AfD was marred by two things—the behavior of the article's primary author and the language barrier (as exemplified by the confusion around the fact that it's a secondary school)—but neither of those actually pertain to its notability. Jumpytoo presented a group of sources that look rather compelling and were not meaningfully challenged by the delete !voters. Taking this into consideration, I do not see a clear consensus for your close.
Beyond that, by all reasonable accounts this appears to be among the most prominent high schools in Inner Mongolia. Such an article in an English-speaking country would almost never be deleted/redirected, and as a matter of systemic bias I find it concerning that this one was. Are you willing to reconsider your close? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can't evaluate Jumpytoo's Chinese-language sources by myself, so I have to go by the impression they made on other participants, which wasn't great: nobody changed their view and Adamant1 argued prima facie convincingly that this is basically all one source, rather than the multiple ones needed. Systemic bias is a problem, but it can't be solved by keeping articles with inadequate sources, because WP:V is a core policy. This does not lead me to change my view. Sandstein 10:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The "single source" was CNKI, an academic database. Saying that that only counts as one source is like saying that anything from JSTOR is only one source, even if it comes from different publications. This was brought up in the discussion, so I would absolutely not say that it was a convincing argument. I would really prefer not to have to start another DRV discussion—is there any alternative avenue for restoring the article, or is that the appropriate recourse here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Putting aside the argument about if they are from the same source or not for now a break down of the four references looks like this
- The "single source" was CNKI, an academic database. Saying that that only counts as one source is like saying that anything from JSTOR is only one source, even if it comes from different publications. This was brought up in the discussion, so I would absolutely not say that it was a convincing argument. I would really prefer not to have to start another DRV discussion—is there any alternative avenue for restoring the article, or is that the appropriate recourse here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1. A periodical article written by Wen Yong called "The Influence of the Extra Test of Physical Education in the Senior High School Entrance Examination on the Teaching of Physical Education
- 2. A dissertation written by Hao Yamin called "Investigation and Research on the Information Literacy of Students in the Second Middle School of Hohhot"
- 3. A dissertation written by Yan Junying called "Design and Development of the Book Management System of the Second Middle School in Hohhot"
- 4. A periodical article written by Yang Yuhan called "Selection and Analysis of Greening Tree Species in the East Campus of Hohhot No. 2 Middle School"
- So, we have two dissertations that as far as I know don't work for notability because dissertations usually don't and two periodical articles that are from places we know absolutely nothing about the reliability of. We are also unable to read through the articles to see if they are in-depth or reliable because we don't speak the language. That said, going by the titles all of them sound extremely trivial. How the schools Book Management System was developed is WP:MILL to the extreme. Especially since that information comes from an un-published/un-reviewed dissertation. Same goes for the thin about trees and the effects of an extra test on their entrance examines. Sorry, but people don't read articles for schools to find out what tree species the campuses have. So realistically what are you going to appeal this on aside from the hope that enough people who don't care about the guidelines or article quality will side with you? I can almost guarantee that if its over turned and goes back through AfD that it won't be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, on the single source issue, according to the CNKI Wikipedia article it's a "national research and information publishing institution in China." that sounds like a "source" to me. Compare that to JSTOR which is a is a digital library. It should be obvious that there is a huge difference between a place that does publishing and research versus one that just acts as a neutral library/document database host. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- (got pinged by initial comment) - While I maintain the keep vote based off there being enough sources (both ones I provided and ones I omitted for brevity) to meet WP:GNG, and disagree with Adamant's analysis of the sources and CNKI, this is getting into "religitating the AfD" territory so a relist seems appropriate here; seeing that an uninvolved editor dispute the results means the discussion probably was ended prematurely. Jumpytoo Talk 07:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- What sources did you not include for brevity? If you had more sources at the time the place to present them would have been in the AfD before it was closed. It's not on the closer that you left out information. Nor is the AfD close flawed and worth reverting just because you left out important information, if there even was any. 7 days was plenty of time for you to present whatever references you had and to substantively say why you thought the article should have been kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- For the reasons expressed above, I will not change my closure of the AfD. The fact that somebody disagrees with it does not require a relist; these are only for when there is too little participation. The normal duration of an AfD is 7 days. Sandstein 10:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- (got pinged by initial comment) - While I maintain the keep vote based off there being enough sources (both ones I provided and ones I omitted for brevity) to meet WP:GNG, and disagree with Adamant's analysis of the sources and CNKI, this is getting into "religitating the AfD" territory so a relist seems appropriate here; seeing that an uninvolved editor dispute the results means the discussion probably was ended prematurely. Jumpytoo Talk 07:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, on the single source issue, according to the CNKI Wikipedia article it's a "national research and information publishing institution in China." that sounds like a "source" to me. Compare that to JSTOR which is a is a digital library. It should be obvious that there is a huge difference between a place that does publishing and research versus one that just acts as a neutral library/document database host. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)