User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/September

VAM Drilling
Hey Sandstein,

I noticed that you recommended VAM Drilling be merged with Vallourec. This is probably a good idea, but there is also an alternative. I am new to Wiki, but I was attempting to change the name of VAM Drilling. All of Vallourec's business units went through a rebranding effort and adopted the parent companies name. VAM Drilling is now Vallourec Drilling Products. It is a stand alone business unit with it's own P and L. Can you help me change the name? If not, can you assist me with the merger? I have made as many corrections as possible, but I am not savvy enough to merge or change the company name. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VDP-Corporate (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see WP:MOVE and WP:MERGE for advice on how to do this.  Sandstein   12:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

mail call
Winner 42 Talk to me!  20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that I can userfy this, but the article was first created on 5 March 2013 by Sree5657 with what reads like a copyvio from a website, and after a PROD deletion again on 27 February 2015 by the now-blocked Rauierter as a short but well-written and -formatted article.   Sandstein   20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A concern
User:Aidepikiwnirotide, a supposedly "new user", has added "(At that time in Iran" to the Al-Biruni article's template, claiming Khwarezm was in "Iran". What my concern is that this supposed "new user"(currently 55 edits) knows about harvard referencing. My other concern is that there was no Iran during 973 - 1048(Biruni's lifespan).

The only verifiable source, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania p 403 makes no mention of Biruni being born "At that time in Iran", on the contrary it states he was born in what is now Uzbekistan! The other source, of course, is unverifiable ~Nasser Takmil Homayoun. Kharazm: What do I know about Iran?. 2004. ISBN 964-379-023-1. p.35~. Aidepikiwnirotide has also added "At that time in Iran" to Ghazni, located in the Ghaznavid Empire as Biruni's place of death.

Therefore, I believe this user to be a returned blocked POV pusher. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And what do you want me to do about it?  Sandstein   08:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Martinson
Someone cut and pasted my article from my user space to Wikipedia space, can you delete it and use the move function to preserve the edit history User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson>>>> Robert Martinson
 * Done.  Sandstein   20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Though your name wasn't mentioned, User:Choor monster has asserted that copyright problems may affect this article. For RAN's ban on article creations, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, replied at ANI.  Sandstein   18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please restore the article to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson so people can see for themselves that it does not include copyright violations. Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations are copyright violations whether they occur in articles, on talk pages, or in userspace. Since Sandstein has already determined that your article contained copyright violations, why would he re-create the article anywhere on Wikipedia? Doing so would, by itself, be a copyright violation. BMK (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because a properly attributed quote is not a copyright violation either under United States copyright law or Wikipedia !law. Calling it a "copyright violation" is deliberately inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made no determination regarding any copyright violations. I deleted the article because its existence violated the applicable article creation ban. You should have known that when you asked me to move the history to mainspace, and should consider yourself lucky not to be sanctioned further. The restoration request is declined. If you wish to appeal this further, you can do so at your discretion either at WP:DRV or at WP:AE.  Sandstein   07:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am only banned from creating articles in Wikipedia space, there is no ban on creating in user space, nor on requesting them to be moved to mainspace by a second party, I sought a clarification on that over a year ago. In any case the proper thing to do would be to have moved it back to my space where it started. You shouldn't kill the child because you think the parent did something wrong. I should have asked you to delete the cut-and-paster's copyright violation, that would have been the best outcome retrospectively. Thanks for your work, sorry to get you involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have recreated the Robert Martinson article from scratch. As in, I had no saved copies of any of the now deleted version, and simply went looking for information and made up my own words to convey the information.  On the talk page, I have acknowledged RAN as the article's original creator.  If he feels this is out of place, he has my complete permission to delete this statement of mine. Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, excellent research. I have already added to it. Does the obituary mention his place of death? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Ahmad Chebbani"
Why was no reason for this page's deletion given? Information was relevant and properly cited. Faybeydoun (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Faybeydoun (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahmad Chebbani was deleted as as result of the community discussion in Articles for deletion/Ahmad Chebbani, linked to in the deletion log.  Sandstein   08:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Request re: Shilo
Hi User: Sandstein. Thanks for attending to the the Ronen Shilo Afd issue.

After deletion was proposed, I created an improved version of the article, which I linked to from the AfD discussion. In a comment in the Afd discussion User: Graeme Bartlett agreed it was better. It's still quite short but it has more sources and more info about the subject of the article. User:BC1278/sandbox

I have a disclosed COI, so I can only suggest it as a replacement, since I don't do direct edits. But, in order to lessen the chances of AfD proposals in the future, I think it's a good idea to do the update. Would you consider reviewing it, changing it howevere you want, of course, and doing the direct update?

Many thanksBC1278 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278


 * No, I'm not interested in the topic. If you propose it on the talk page, others may act on it.  Sandstein   16:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Charles Scorsese
Can you userfy this plus the talk page? I maybe able to improve it. Valoem  talk   contrib  07:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done at User:Valoem/Charles Scorsese.  Sandstein   07:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do you might if I added a few sources and restore this? I feel he does pass WP:NACTOR in the definition Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions., he was featured in multiple historically significant film directed by his son. I feel had there been more discussion the outcome may be different. Valoem   talk   contrib  08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on this, really. Basically, your improvements would need to address the concerns raised in the AfD.  Sandstein   08:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination)
What changes can I make to get The Next Internet Millionaire restored? Editors at Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination) called it promotional. They did not explain how it was promotional so I do not know how I can address their promotional concerns. There were very few arguments about notability (almost all focused on promotional concerns). There is no borderline notability because the subject has received significant coverage in six sources: Wired, The Daily Beast, TechCrunch, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union. This clearly meets Notability. I'm asking you for advice about what to do to get the article restored. Cunard (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Difficult for me to tell. Maybe you should ask the nominator?  Sandstein   17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sandstein. Pinging User:DGG, the nominator. DGG, you wrote in the first AfD: "If it is notable, an uninvolved editor can write an appropriate article. This sort of paid writing is promotional enough that it is better to remove it and start over." This is essentially what I did. As an uninvolved, non-COI editor, I rewrote The Next Internet Millionaire following your advice. After my rewrite, you renominated the article for deletion, and it's been deleted. How can I improve my rewrite so the article can be restored? Do you have concerns about the article's tone or about WP:WEIGHT or something else?  Cunard (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The close gave as the decisive reason that then notability was borderline. Given that, some more refs would be enough to justify re-creation. . It might be stronger with the results table omitted, and also the last para of the history.  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . That is a reasonable approach. I'd rather not remove the last paragraph of the history, which if I remember correctly is sourced to Canwest. When I had omitted it, another editor tagged the article with update because he wondered what had happened at the conclusion of the reality show. I've asked for an undeletion and move to draftspace at WP:REFUND. Thank you for your comment here: "is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its 'possibly deny us', but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected. Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified." The Joel Comm article was created in 2009. The paid editor(s) who worked on that set of articles then were paid six years ago and are long gone. They are unlikely to be affected by the deletion or retention of the article. So I don't think my work subsidized them. If the subjects were non-notable, I would support deletion. But if they're notable, I'll try my best to improve them and support retention as I did here.  Cunard (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles of course are not divided into notable|non-notable; the decisions in most doubtful cases tends to be on the basis of trying to analyze the exact reliability of the sources for the purpose. I've said from the first that I can in many disputable cases construct an argument in either direction, depending on what I think should be in WP.  In the case of undeclared paid editing, I would suggest not trying to rescue borderline articles-- otherwise the effect of this is hat we are emphasising the creation of whatever articles the subject has paid some usually unscrupulous person to try to create, instead of trying to add the most important of the many missing articles.  By my standards, this show was not important enough to be a priority, but of course everyone will judge different fields differently.  DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "instead of trying to add the most important of the many missing articles" – I likely wouldn't have done any done any content work during the time period that I worked on these articles. So it would have been either no improvement of Wikipedia articles or improvement of promotional articles. I wouldn't have worked on any missing articles because I'm either not aware of them or not interested at that moment to work on them. Several reliable sources have called it the "the first Internet reality show", which I found interesting and drew me to research the topic as extensively as I did. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article on B.V. Larson
I know you're not the only one responsible for deleting the article on B. V. Larson and all involved are "just following the rules", but I find it very odd that this article was deleted. The reason given for deletion was lack of notability. There are literally hundreds of article on authors of equal or lesser notability that are allowed to remain. For example, at least two-thirds of the authors on List_of_science_fiction_authors are less notable than Larson. → Mad Dog (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We have no record of an article about a B.V. Larson.   Sandstein   19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course you have no record of an article about B. V. Larson, you deleted it! Maybe you should look under Articles_for_deletion/B._V._Larson    → Mad Dog  (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I couldn't find it because you didn't provide the link to the exact spelling of the name, as instructed at the top.  Sandstein   04:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Time slip
Can you please delete that redirect and move User:Valoem/Time slip into tha per DRV? Valoem  talk   contrib  03:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Sandstein   04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Most Spoken Languages by Countries
I wanted to know why did you delete the page for the"Most Spoken Languages by Country"? There was no reason to do it. It was an important part of the site and now it's gone. Please respond back before I report you to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to the article or discussion.  Sandstein   06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the LD Products page
Hi there,

I understand why you deleted the page on LD Products (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LD_Products) as it was, but I think I found enough news articles to make their page meet Wikipedia's standards, especially if some of the un-cited proclamations on their page (like "one of the largest") are removed.

Here are the legit news mentions I found:

Also, these business rankings:

Shall I give it a go and see what you think?

Rotherme (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Rotherme


 * Rotherme's editing history makes it appear likely that they are a sockpuppet of one of the paid editors allegedly active in this topic area. Would a checkuser make sense here, or does this fit into an editing pattern you are aware of such that a block would be warranted?   Sandstein   05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "Santosh Paliwal" page
I wanted to know why did you delete this page for? From my side all the information given was genuine.. I dont think so my page should have been deleted..


 * Santosh Paliwal was deleted because a discussion at Articles for deletion/Santosh Paliwal resulted in consensus to do so.  Sandstein   14:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Raja Allahdad Khan
Why was no reason given for deletion of Raja Allahdad Khan. I was told that deletion discussion is not a vote but you guys turned it into a vote. for dead person bio no reference is required as per rules and for living person bio only one reference is enough. Please state the reason clearly or otherwise i will be compelled to recreate the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaba1977 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to the article or discussion. If you recreate a deleted article, it may be speedily deleted again.  Sandstein   05:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment There were atleast three sources, including primary,secondary and reputable tertiary source. You failed to satisfy me. you just counted the vote and deleted it. It's not fair.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks!  Sandstein   19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resubmitting Grace Sai
Hi there, I have resubmitted a new page for Grace Sai, can you please review since I believe you did the final deletion of the previous version earlier this year. The new version is shorter, more concise and has more references to credible news outlets like Huffington Post and Singapore TV stations. Tobias Tan (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, but I don't really have any interest in the topic. The only thing I can confirm is that the new version isn't substantially identical to the deleted one, and therefore not likely to be speedily deleted.  Sandstein   19:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Archive Talk Page
Thanks for your recent closing of the AfD of Stephanie Powell Watts. Can you also archive the discussion on the talk page here? Thanks and have a great evening! -O.R.Comms 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Powell_Watts
 * This doesn't need any archival as far as I can tell.  Sandstein   05:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Piggate
Not to quibble, as this was sort of a silly discussion about a silly article about a silly allegation, but.......

I really think that you should have been closed as keep. I'm sure you know better than most that a 2/3 majority in favor of something potentially controversial is about as much unanimity as you can hope to get on WP. And before you say it, consensus is about more than headcount, and I understand that, but when head count points so strongly in a particular direction, in the absence of compelling policy arguments, it seems you should observe head count. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in my view, for the reasons given in the closure, the headcount majority was not so strong as to constitute a "keep" consensus. And if one adds the "merge" and "redirect" opinions to the "delete" side, you have close to parity as to the question of whether this should remain a separate article.  Sandstein   19:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I think including the "merges" sorta messes up the count, b/c a lot of the "merges" were in fact "merge/deletes" or "merge/keep" votes. There were only two or three pure "merge" votes.
 * Regardless.... as I said, silly article. Silly affair. Silly wasting more time on it.
 * Best, NickCT (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a deletion review would be more than appropriate here if this decision stands. WP:GNG clearly, unambiguously demonstrates this article should be kept. The consensus was overwhelming, and I urge you to review your decision. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I think we have a majority but not a consensus to keep.  Sandstein   04:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Piggate
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Piggate. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing
I am writing about your decision to close 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing as a redirect. Like you, I am concerned about the calibre of arguments in this overheated AFD. But I also
 * I think that WP:GNG is more to the point than WP:NOTNEWS or WP:N/CA, but the later does remind us that "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."  I regularly weigh in at AFD in articles involving crimes, and the standard in use there seems to be intense, widespread coverage.  I created this article with an understanding based on many AFD debates and after creating a fair number of articles that  that when a rape, murder or other crime attracts intense national coverage, and especially if it attracts international coverage, it is kept. (see: Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham, and Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape.  However, few articles on notorious crimes get taken to AFD, (see: Death of Chris Currie, Interstate 80 rock throwing), in fact, it appears that editors are applying standards to articles about Israel that are not applied to articles about crimes in the United States.  Recent crime articles such as  (2015 Boston beheading plot, 2014 Queens hatchet attack, Articles for deletion/Broken Arrow killings -  about headline-making crimes that occur in the U.S. are kept on the basis of "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources."  Not because they have ongoing impact, or, in fact, any demonstrated policy impact.  The same standards that applies to a murder in the U.S. should apply to a murder in Israel.
 * But the double-standard goes far beyond that. When a murder in the U.S. has actual impact on a policy debate, like the Shooting of Kathryn Steinle it is kept.  This is in keeeping with WP:GNG, the murder happened and immediately a new government policy was put into effect.    The killing of Alexander Levlovich is an almost exact parallel, the death riveted the attention of the national press, and with incredible speed led to the enactment of a new policy on dealing with rock-throwers.  I think that when editors who consistently push a strong anti-Israel POV nominate an article for deletion and engage in endless assertions of WP:NOTNEWS while ignoring extensive evidence that the impact of an event is  WP:LASTING, and has both WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:INDEPTH and, moreover,  passes both WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG, the AFD ought to be left open for a longer period a longer discussion and the opinions of experienced editors not regularly involved in Israel/Arab pages solicited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That may or may not all be true, but my closure was based on the arguments made in the discussion, rather than on what happened to comparable articles, or on the dynamics of the I/P dispute on Wikipedia. I can't take such elements into account without taking a position in that dispute, which I neither want to nor, as an administrator, may.  Sandstein   04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand entirely. In my view, one of the flaws of Wikipedia is that a dozen and often fewer dedicated POV-pushers can take down an article that passes WP:GNG by the simple expedient of repeatedly keying in WP:NOTNEWS.  And by the strategy of endless, repetitive, argument that Nishdani uses to drive sane editors away from articles and AFD on Israel/Arab issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would take it as a courtesy if you would give me access to the article as it stood before it was deleted, to facilitate the process of creating a new article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was not deleted, only redirected. The content is still in the history.  Sandstein   15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Prophet&
Sufidisciple has asked for a deletion review of Prophet&. 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. Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)