User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/March

Page Userfication Request
Hi Sandstein, Please could you kindly restore Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode page to my userspace for me. There was a discussion on this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aisha_Muhammed-Oyebode before it was deleted and you had suggested anyone who was to work on it to have it userfied,i would like to continue work on it and improve it with better Reliable Sources hence my request. Thanks. Ebubay01 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not userfying pages for editors who don't have a good article-writing record, sorry.  Sandstein   09:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

i'm improving and certainly not the best of writers but i'm certain you will see a difference if you have me work on this one. Ebubay01 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, i was wondering if you've had a change of heart regarding my request. i would appreciate your prompt response on this. Thanks. Ebubay01 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Thanks for asking me about the deletion of, which was deleted as the result of a community discussion. I do not generally have the time to help editors recreate deleted articles, or the knowledge about or interest in the article's topic that would be needed to assist with its recreation. Please see WP:AFTERDELETE for advice about what you can do now or who you can ask for further assistance.  Sandstein   09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

end run around MfD
Hi Sandstein,

I want to protest the end result of Articles for deletion/Graffiki. It has rewarded an end run around MfD (by ), where there is proper resistance against deletion of others' userpages without good reason. Unilaterally moving someone else's userpage to mainspace to see it deleted there.

The page should be undeleted and put back at User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki.

This is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, your view wasn't shared by anybody in the AfD, so I didn't give it determining weight in the closure. Because there was consensus to delete in the AfD, I decline undeletion. On the broader issue of whether such moves and deletion nominations should be allowed in general, I have no opinion.  Sandstein   08:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From a discussion viewpoint, I agree that this was closed per the consensus. But it is really troubling from a process prospective.  I'd suggest waiting for the discussion that SmokeyJoe linked to to end, and then consider bringing this to DRV. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fudzilla
Hey I just noticed there's a draft Draft:Fudzilla of the deleted article created by the same user, which appears to be an earlier version of what was eventually published. I'm not sure if it qualifies for deletion too or if anything should be done, but since it's basically the same content as what was deleted and is going to face the same issues regarding a lack of sources, I thought you should know about it. Thanks. Elaenia (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleted.  Sandstein   18:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ben Polk
Can you move the article to draftspace. I don't want it in my userspace, as there should be multiple editors. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please ask somebody else, I'm, not familiar or comfortable with this "draft" thing.  Sandstein   16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ad Noiseam (2nd nomination)
Do you think it would be appropriate to relist this for a third round? All of the "keep" feedback came within the last 24 hours of the the three-week listing and was not backed by policy at all. czar 22:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, normally two relists are the maximum and I can't imagine this now suddenly attracting a number of "delete" opinions sufficient to sway consensus.  Sandstein   22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that a third relist would generate at least some comments on the exchange in the last 24 hours... That it sat for three weeks with minimal comment would indicate that an extra week makes a difference. But I still don't see how you're finding a consensus for "keep" (so as to become "no consensus") when the "keep" rationales are not backed by policy. What's your assessment of the sources/rationale? czar  22:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All opinions except the nom were weakly argued. Not only the keeps, but also the unsigned delete: it confuses dead links with source independence. Hence no consensus.  Sandstein   06:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it "Trending to keep" then? czar  23:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That should be self-evident from the discussion.  Sandstein   16:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be asking if it was self-evident. You just said that those stances were weakly argued—if you're saying that more !votes were prefaced by "keep", that still wouldn't mean that the discussion was "trending" to keep, especially if we're going off of consensus and not counting votes... Look, I'm asking primarily because if this was "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination", my recourse would be different than with a "no consensus trending to keep" (even though I find this unreflective of the discussion). czar  16:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Sino-US Marriage Culture
Hi, I created the page named Sino-US Marriage Culture but it was deleted on March 10th 2016. This page I created is a project for my class, so if anything is not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia, please let me know if there's anything I can do to fix it, and I will create it again. Thanks so much. Looking forward to your reply ChangQingjing (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me about the deletion of, which was deleted as the result of a community discussion. I do not generally have the time to help editors recreate deleted articles, or the knowledge about or interest in the article's topic that would be needed to assist with its recreation. Please see WP:AFTERDELETE for advice about what you can do now or who you can ask for further assistance.  Sandstein   09:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

history
Hello, I had once written a value that was deleted and I want to see what was written there it's called "criminal spin". where can I see it? can I see the history of the page? Thank you, Moran — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't. Only administrators can.  Sandstein   15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

May I ask administrator to send me? and if yes how can I see who is administrator? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:ADMIN. I'm one, but see no reason to restore the content in this case.  Sandstein   16:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

you didn't understand me I want to see it because I want to improve it not to publishe it again. I didn't save it before I published it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by מורן חסיד (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me about the deletion of, which was deleted as the result of a community discussion. I do not generally have the time to help editors recreate deleted articles, or the knowledge about or interest in the article's topic that would be needed to assist with its recreation. Please see WP:AFTERDELETE for advice about what you can do now or who you can ask for further assistance.  Sandstein   09:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreation
Recently a page was deleted via discussion of a "non notable person". Now the page has been remade with a new variation to which i tagged as G4 criteria. Please do look forward as the page may get new variations though! SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Why was a popular Nigerian Artiste wiki page created by a fan deleted?
Hi Sandstein,

My attention was brought to the deletion of Capital FEMI's wiki page created by a fan. I first came across the page and I was gathering information and facts to edits and correct few things in the post, only to find out it has been deleted. Please I will love to know the reason why the page was deleted and if it is possible to recreate the page for the Artiste. It is a shame that a celebrated and very good musician like Capital FEMI did not have an official Wiki page that we lovers of good music can add info and achievements like we do for other artists on wiki. I will be glad if you can respond and attend to my talk.

Thanks Sandstein

I am Femi Lawal by name: (e-mail removed) Thanks 41.58.117.48 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC) .

41.58.117.48 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me about the deletion of, which was deleted as the result of a community discussion, Articles for deletion/Capital Femi. I do not generally have the time to help editors recreate deleted articles, or the knowledge about or interest in the article's topic that would be needed to assist with its recreation. Please see WP:AFTERDELETE for advice about what you can do now or who you can ask for further assistance.  Sandstein   14:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazons / Shieldmaidens
Hello, Regarding Lagertha I see your point in the quotes, but then the article on Amazons is wrong. It only describes. Neither have the term 'Amazon' never been used on shieldmaidens in Scandinavia. Warming (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate on Talk:Lagertha?  Sandstein   10:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Last version of Animal Charity Evaluators before deletion?
Hi, I see that you are the deleting administrator for the article Animal Charity Evaluators. I would like to keep working on that page so that it can be improved and published when the topic becomes notable enough. Would it be possible to obtain the source for the last version of the article before it was deleted? Riceissa (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please link to the page at issue.  Sandstein   06:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Charity_Evaluators Riceissa (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfied at User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators.  Sandstein   20:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
I disagree with the result of this discussion. A mere mentioning of the foundation of PHRMG and a few citations from a PHRMG report in the Washington Post of 1997 cannot possibly be the basis of a WP article. --Qualitatis (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's not what others thought.  Sandstein   11:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. Only four to keep and two to delete, with E.M.Gregory voting twice! Sir Joseph did not vote; Gregory striked out his name, but left the sign of Sir Joseph! Have a scrupulous look. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a scrupulous look.  Sandstein   16:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. 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. Qualitatis (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bobo Norco
Hello Sandstein, you closed this AfD discussion arguing "The result was delete. After discounting all the sockpuppets, nobody wants to keep this". Actually I voted for Keep and I am not a sock. I understand you had reasons to delete article but describing me as a sock was not appropriate. Berti118 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. You were one of several redlinked accounts with few edits, so in that regard you looked just like a sockpuppet.  Sandstein   11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of Whirling to Sufi spinning
Dude ... where to start. First off, I really appreciate and honor the role of the admin, and I'm glad that you took the time to read the "walls" of text. The apparent reason for the merger, lack of sourcing, is not borne out by the multiple references to independent sources, as required in WP:N. Moreover, as was explained in the "walls" of text, there were significant encyclopedic/conceptual reasons why whirling needs to exist, and then can be disambig to sufi spinning, tanoura, and so on, rather than the opposite. The intervention and decision to merge took a few pages that worked quite well on their own and vis-a-vis one another, and bundled them into an incomprehensible and conceptually slippery mess. I'm sorry, but the result of the merger is chaotic, and there is NO easy way to undo the mess other than to ... recreate the original standalone pages. Mein Got! What really irks me is that it was clear from the discussion that the contributors were doing multiple good faith sourcing edits, reorganization edits, and so on. The abrupt deletion/redirect, without a nomination for speedy deletion, was really uncalled for. I respectfully ask, yet again, to restore the pages and give proper time for development. These are volunteer efforts, let's remember. I was spending the majority of my time defending against deletion noms from suspected socks, to the great detriment of the page. And the result of the deletion/redirect nom is ... seriously ... gobbledygook on the Sufi spinning page, which literally has almost nothing to do with the Tanoura and whirling pages, save tangential connection as movement practices. Prior to initiating a DRV, I ask that the merger be undone, and work can continue. If Dab (dance) can stand due to pop references, and hundreds of other dance genres can stand on WP due to pop support, numerous dance festivals' feature of whirling and numerous media appearances definitely support a standalone genre page.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but it does not change my assessment of consensus.  Sandstein   19:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash
How can the decision to not delete this article be reviewed? It is insane that it exists. It is notable in exactly zero ways. It is a clear example of Sanders supporters being more active online than other candidates and pushing through their bias. This cannot be allowed. Wikipedia cannot take sides in a political debate. Eightball (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:DRV. However, mere disagreement with the outcome is not grounds for review, as explained there.  Sandstein   05:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The article "Bear versus bull" was changed, before you deleted it
Can I now ask why you deleted it, despite the changes I made to it, in consideration of what was discussed in the Page Articles_for_deletion/Bear_versus_bull? Leo1pard (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there was a consensus to delete the article.  Sandstein   12:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikepedia: Articles for deletion/Blackmagic (rapper)
Hi there,

I'll be recreating the deleted page with additional reference points. Can i be assured it will go through a review and allowed if compliant with guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsmart (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No. We are volunteers, nothing is assured here.  Sandstein   21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Question
Re: this. Did you even look at the page I changed the redirect to? Valerian is a disambiguation page that includes both Valyria and Valyrian languages. I would think this is more appropriate. - the WOLF  child  09:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree; "Valerian" and "Valyrian" are words that are pronounced and spelled differently, such that I don't see the point of redirecting from one to the other. If you disagree, I suggest you submit the matter to WP:RFD.  Sandstein   09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're miles apart. Forget it, it's not worth the hassle. - the WOLF  child  09:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What now?
Re this. "Not appropriate" according to who? There are other variations on the spelling there, why didn't you remove them as well? The purpose of a dab is to help differentiate. "Valerian" and "Valyrian" are extremely close words. People could easily search out one while really looking for the other. How does your deletionism help in any way here? - the WOLF  child  09:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:DAB: "Common misspellings should be listed only if there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling." I don't think that's the case here, as I haven't ever seen this misspelling.  Sandstein   11:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a "misspelling", it is a very slightly different spelling of what is basically the same word, with a different meaning. (Just like the other words with slightly different spellings that you left there.) So not only is your revert inconsistent, it's seems it's also misguided. And, again, how is it helpful? - the WOLF  child  19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that it omits irrelevant information. The two words have nothing to do with each other in terms of meaning and etymology. This means their only connection is a misspelling, which is not common, and so not relevant here.  Sandstein   21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignoring some glaring inconsistencies, but... ugh, again it's not worth the hassle. Nice job. - the WOLF  child  21:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of south west india
Wikipedia asked to make a the following article which had been deleted by you. it was sourced/referenced, had many links. if wiki has coastal south west india, a article, why it needs to make this article. take the name from the list.--wiki tamil 100 06:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)
 * Please link to the article or discussion at issue.  Sandstein   08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of "Bear vs. Bull"
The article Bear versus bull, which was deleted on March 26 following an AfD discussion, has been recreated (as "Bear versus bull (Reality)") by the creator of the original article, in a move which clearly violates the established consensus. Seeing that you closed the deletion discussion, I felt that you should be notified so that the correct course of action may be taken. Thanks! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Regalia (Condominium)
A similar issue to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/March: An issue with Articles for deletion/Regalia (Condominium) that isn't obvious: The content at Regalia (Condominium) was moved from User:ARQLA/Regalia under the edit summary "stale draft found" (not by the author whose namespace in which it resided). Per the guideline about such moves WP:STALEDRAFT "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". If the content gets nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. So, I would request you restore the content to User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong, but I assume you feel the same way as User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/March. Just discussing it here first as I'm considering taking it along with some other content that has been inappropriately moved to WP:DRV. The issue is abuse of process with regard to other actions, not yours. I appreciate the large amount of administrative work that you handle, and don't want to take up your time. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, and in general, I only act on userfy requests by people who want to actively work on the content themselves.  Sandstein   21:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)