User talk:Sandstein

Chelsea F.C.-Manchester United F.C. rivalry
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am interested in re-creating Chelsea-Manchester United rivalry article, which was deleted by you. I wanted to know why it was deleted and if I can re-create it again with reliable sources?

Thank You! AkephalostheHeadless (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link.  Sandstein   19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Quite old (2012) now, though I doubt if much has changed in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Saira Shah Halim
Hi, can you get the article version that was deleted in the recent AfD into draft form? There was a lot of information there. MrMkG (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   07:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at the page and I can see respondents just saying "Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion." which is what I assume will happen here.
 * Even though the the page introduction says post deletion discussion pages can also be granted. But the process that I have witnessed till now, when a perfectly good article got deleted on such flimsy grounds which then no one sought to address properly, there is going to be a snowball's chance in hell that this will be granted.
 * It's fine you dont have to do anything but don't guide me down a dead end. I just have one question now, say hypothetically this person gets elected later or gets even more coverage at some time (although I am assuming no amount of coverage is sufficient if what is already there isn't), the article would never be created again since it is locked now. How does that work? MrMkG (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AFC is an option.  Sandstein   19:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/British Rail DHP1
I was extremely surprised to see this closed as delete. Of those people who actually engaged with the sources one recommended keeping, one (me) suggested keeping or merging and one recommended deleting or merging. Of those !votes from before the sources were identified all of them are wholly or mostly invalidated by the sources and subsequent discussion of appropriate merge or redirect targets. I genuinely don't understand how you can state that there is nothing to merge, or that most of the sources are primary (3 of the five I found, and the coverage Andy Dingley mentions are secondary). Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That's one way to look at it - another is that in three weeks, your sources convinced only one out of three subsequent commenters. So I don't think that the earlier "delete" opinions are necessarily invalidated.  Sandstein   20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, unfortunately it's a typical one in this area - a lot of obscure machinery was built in the 1960s. This locomotive definitely did exist (there are at least four different images of it on the net, original drawings exist, and railway model makers have even produced models of it), but you try finding a reliable source with reliable information - even the sites that do talk about it can't even agree on its power units (four 375hp engines? two 750hp engines? Who knows?).  That said, there's enough out there for at least a redirect to one of the targets mentioned in the AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There has never been any credible disagreement over the engine number and power. The class 17 used a pair of untried 750 bhp Paxman engines, and had many problems with them. DHP 1 used Rolls-Royce engines from the outset and these just weren't of that size, only half of it. This isn't because of any issue with Paxman, but because of its connections to Fell and the Yorkshire Taurus (which already used R-R) . If anything, DHP 1 is more of a Taurus on bogies to make it a road switcher, rather than the canard of it being a 'hydraulic 17'. The reports of DHP 1 having two 750 bhp engines are entirely wrong, based on assumptions that it was simply a 17 with a changed transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In what way are comments stating that the existence is unverifiable and that there are no sources not invalidated by the existence of multiple independent sources? Whether those sources demonstrate notability (sufficient for an article or to merge the content) is something reasonable people can disagree on, but unless and until they actually opine on the sources you can't say one way or the other.
 * Of the people who commented post-sources being presented, one is irrelevant as they clearly didn't even look at the sources (ADifferentMan), oaktreeb is unconvinced of standalone notabliity but expressed no opinion regarding a merge, the nom vaguely suggested delete or merge (which was actually a much stronger argument than their nomination) and Andy Dingley recommended a straight keep with a comment about additional sources (the strongest argument since mine). That's not consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'd assumed that Sandstein went with delete here just because I'd gone for keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-creating deleted categories
What is the rule about re-creating deleted categories? I may want to re-create some just for my own use, so I am OK with them being deleted again and won't vote to keep them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not very familiar with categorization. Generally I assume the rules are the same as with articles. Also, categories are not for any one person's use, but for all editors and readers.  Sandstein   22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for British Rail DHP1
An editor has asked for a deletion review of British Rail DHP1. 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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Close
Hello, thanks for reviewing the deletion request for Articles for deletion/Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism. Can you please clarify why did you think there was no consensus to merge? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Because there were three "merge" opinions (counting the nomination as not disagreeing with a merger) and three "keep" opinions, including two made after the merger proposal.  Sandstein   15:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The second keep might have been unfounded since it was made by a non-confirmed user. Third keep was on the condition of merger. Either way closures are not entirely dependent on a headcount, as keep opinions did not demonstrate how this fulfilled WP’s notability guideline relating to significant coverage in RS. Also, it might have been premature as barely two days have passed and consensus had not yet fully formed. I would ask for your kind reconsideration, or at least relisting to get a clearer consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the second "keep" was by a registered user (albeit with a poor rationale), and in any case, even unregistered users can comment in AfDs. The third "keep" did not propose a merger (except that the said that some content shouuld be moved elsewhere). The AfD ran for the full 7 days. Given the number of views expressed, a relisting was not called for. You can continue to propose a merger on the article talk page, which is the proper place for it, not an AfD.  Sandstein   18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)