User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/November

Riva-Melissa Tez
Hi there, Riva-Melissa Tez was recently deleted. Could I have the page content so I can reuse it in H+Pedia please? Thanks! Deku-shrub (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't undelete stuff, please ask another admin.  Sandstein   06:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Afd Clinton Ehrlich
Dear Sandstein,

You resisted for discussion the Afd Clinton Ehrlich. No consensus for DELETE occurred. There was not even discussion of the sources linked in original comments.

With 3-2 vote for KEEP, an admin MBisabz closed discussion and deleted the article. I am discussing such a mistake on the talk page for this admin.

Would you please look and contribute an opinion? Thank you.

ReinhardStove (talk) ReinhardStove (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Spelled MBisanz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz#/talk/6 ReinhardStove (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to the AfD?  Sandstein   09:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Ehrlich

Thank you! ReinhardStove (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The AfD is closed. If you want it reviewed, after talking to the closer, the place to request such a review is WP:DRV.  Sandstein   10:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Page move
Vugar Ismailov is protected from creation. Can you please move Draft:Vugar Ismailov to Vugar Ismailov. Thanks, Writer278 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should I? Without even a link?  Sandstein   20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vugar_Ismailov. You deleted the previous article. Link to the deleted page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vugar_Ismailov Thanks, Writer278 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And why should this draft now be restored?  Sandstein   20:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this draft meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Writer278 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Convince me of that.  Sandstein   18:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about Vugar Ismailov, who is a well-known mathematician in Azerbaijan. In my opinion, his academic achievements meet some Notability (academics) conditions. For example, he serves in Editorial Boards of the leading mathematics journals in Azerbaijan. In particular, he is a managing editor of Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics and an editor of Azerbaijan Mathematics Journal. Both journals are abstracted and indexed in several services, including Web of Science. Many of his works were published in prestigious international academic journals. All these satisfy Criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. Writer278 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't care. What matters is: How does the draft differ from the version deleted at AfD such that the concerns voiced there are addressed?  Sandstein   17:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I must study the version deleted at AfD and also the deletion discussions. I contact you later. Thanks, Writer278 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have studied carefully the version deleted at Afd and the corresponding discussions. That version did not contain any information towards satisfying criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. In the deletion discussion, the Wikipedians rightly referred to low citability and a WP:AUTO case. Unfortunately, some significant criterions such as editorships, awards, etc, were not discussed, since they were not indicated in the article. Note that this new draft is different from the version deleted at Afd. It is written in a different style and includes much new and necessary information substantiated through reliable sources. Should this draft be given a chance to go through Afd, I believe that, the result most probably will be "Keep". Thank you. Writer278 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Which third-party reliable sources, not present in the AfD-ed version, do you think establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG?  Sandstein   18:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Below are some of the required third-party sources (not present in the AfD-ed version) evidencing the notability of Ismailov:


 * Managing Editor: http://proc.imm.az/board (indexed in Web of Science)
 * Editorial Board member: http://azjm.org/index.php/azjm/about/editorialTeam (indexed in Web of Science)
 * Editorial Board member: http://trans.imm.az/board/
 * Editorial Board member: http://cjamee.org/index.php/cjamee/about/editorialTeam
 * Successful project award: http://sdf.gov.az/az/generic/menu/Detail/126/menu//
 * Project winner: http://sdf.gov.az/development/uploads/bitmis_qrant_layihe/eif-2010-1_qalibler.pdf
 * Project winner: http://socar.az/1/Netice2013.docx
 * Project winner: http://sdf.gov.az/development/uploads/bitmis_qrant_layihe/eif-2013-915_qalibler.pdf  Writer278 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That won't do. What we need are reliable published third-party sources covering the subject in depth, not a list of accomplishments. See WP:GNG.  Sandstein   20:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I want to understand one thing. Suppose someone is an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal. Then this case automatically satisfies Criterion 8 of WP:ACADEMIC and he is considered to be notable, since according to the Notability (academics) guidelines "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable". By your words, the journal itself, where it is shown that someone is an editor-in-chief, is not a reliable third-party source and this indicates only someone's accomplishment. Do I understand you correctly? I ask this question, because it is indirectly relevant to my draft article. Thanks, Writer278 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a new claim to notability, but what is this major journal? Does it have an article?  Sandstein   07:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you agree that to prove that someone is an editor, the journal itself can be taken as an independent third-party source. Then why the four journals, homepage's of which I mentioned above, cannot be a third-party source and can be considered only a list of accomplishments? According to the Notability (academics) guidelines, service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals (such journals are listed in the draft) are contributing factors towards satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. Note that the first two journals are the major academic journals in Azerbaijan. Besides, according to the guidelines, significant academic awards also partially satisfy Criterion 1. Please, see above the page of Science Development Foundation of Azerbaijan ( http://sdf.gov.az/az/generic/menu/Detail/126/menu//). Why this page cannot be considered as a third-party source? Writer278 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the journals do not have a Wikipedia article, they are likely not "major well-established academic journals". In any case I am not qualified to evaluate the merits of scientific journals or awards. I will therefore deal with this matter no further. If you wish to have the article restored, you will need to convince the editors at WP:DRV that there is now a case for notability.  Sandstein   11:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Vugar Ismailov
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vugar Ismailov. 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. Writer278 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD
Hi Sandstein, In re to Articles for deletion/Birmingham bus routes 2 & 3 - My apologies I forgot to add the AFD message to them all, is there any chance you could revert your closure as then I would add the AFD messages to them and will relist it ?, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be easier to start a new AfD with all of them and refer to the outcome of the first AfD.  Sandstein   18:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How is ... never mind not gonna argue over it. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
Hello. Why did you close this as delete even though only two editors (including the nominator) wanted to delete this?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there was no opposition to the deletion request.  Sandstein   10:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In case that wasn't clear, I oppose its deletion? We also wanted more output from other editors; the deletion seems very premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you are too late. The seven days during which a deletion discussion runs are over.  Sandstein   11:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This was improperly closed, see WP:NOQUORUM. The community does not support AfD deletion with insufficient participation, especially when a concern was raised during the discussion, and especially when it was never relisted. You can request a relist, or you might also request a change of the closing to a soft deletion, as this allows any editor to resume editing the page at a time of their choosing. Unscintillating (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Unscintillating: It was undeleted by User:Drmies, and they thanked me for creating it in the first place. See my talkpage. However, please be aware that I am currently on strike. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/5pm
What is this? There is no explanation in the closing. With not a single delete !vote left standing, there is no possibility to find a consensus to delete. Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not express a "keep" opinion. What is it to you?  Sandstein   20:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, can you protect it from creation? It's unlikely to come close to required notability. Pyrusca (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Quite a number of recreations there.  Sandstein   23:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a process with standing defined, not to mention I spent over two hours digging through the edit history and the logs and made four edits to the Project Page. So the fact that I have not yet made a !vote does not change my status here.  As per Guide to deletion (italics and bolding in the original), "Verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process."  I have concern for our content contributors and their contributions.  I would also mention User:NancyJeanGF, who stated, "As a novice Wikipedia contributor, I find this attitude very discouraging."  The information page Closing discussions states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."  Please explain how the closing decision was reached.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for why I found a consensus to delete should be evident from a glance at the AfD: there was only one "keep" opinion, and their arguments were not more compelling than those advanced by the several "delete" opinions.  Sandstein   06:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The process is like a trial of sorts. Convince the jury (in this case the closing admin) to not delete. Pyrusca (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article was "G11 worthy material", the remedy is a speedy deletion, WP:G11. It doesn't hurt to look at the article to see if it is indeed a misplaced CSD, but I see nothing in the article that supports G11.  There are many straightforward statements of fact there.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, so you are presenting that as a "transparent" statement of how the decision was reached? If so, why is it that editors don't know the WP:DEL-REASON, the reason for deletion?.  Even after I noted that the WP:Guide to deletion explicitly states in bold that all opinions will be considered, your explanation says nothing about the role of my participation as a part of the decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not take your comment into account in the closing because you did not express an opinion about whether the article should be kept or deleted. I now believe I have provided all necessary information.  Sandstein   20:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain the policy reason why article was deleted; such as WP:DEL8 based on WP:GNG, with no alternatives for deletion available, or WP:DEL14 so severe that the promotional NPOV cannot be corrected with editing. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently closed page: GunDB
Admin User:Sandstein,

First off, thank you for your work on Wikipedia! WP:AFD states that "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion) - so I am, respectfully, a bit disappointed to see "Nobody except the page's creator wants to keep this" as the reason for delete. From my perspective, it appears WP:GNG policy was ignored and that the reasoning/logic provided was ignored, especially when WP:DISCUSSAFD states "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies."

Was there any reasoning other than WP:VOTE that you could clue me into why the article was closed? Especially when WP:GNG was established with sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, The Kauffman Foundation, and others, especially when compared to Open Source databases being an existing presumed subject for Wikipedia, with the likes of ArangoDB, Neo4j, and OrientDB that survived their own deletion?

Thank you for your consideration, time, and contribution to Wikipedia! Tmobii (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please link to the AfD at issue.  Sandstein   21:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Sandstein, I apologize - here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GunDB#GunDB, I also updated this section to include the URL. Thank you for correcting me to include this. Tmobii (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, you failed to convince anybody else of your arguments, and you yourself are a single purpose account who it looks like is here only to promote this subject, so I can't really take your concerns seriously.  Sandstein   06:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Sandstein, yes I am a newcomer, does that mean WP:GNG, WP:AFD, and WP:DISCUSSAFD policy should be dismissed? Graph databases are my first contributions, being told I "can't be taken seriously" feels discriminatory WP:NEWCOMER. Policy should be taken seriously, regardless of me.


 * WP:GNG was established with WP:RS sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, Kauffman Foundation, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others. No other editors provided WP:ATD WP:BEFOREhand. All these sources were presented with arguments following WP:DISCUSSAFD and abiding by WP:AFDEQ. Policy is important, and why "Nobody ... wants to keep this" is stated in WP:MAJORITY, WP:IDLI, as not a reason for closing. Tmobii (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Contrary to popular belief, discussions on Wikipedia are not "won" by those who can string the most WP: acronyms together, but by those who can convince other editors to establish consensus. Whatever the merits of your arguments, you could not. I will not reply about this matter further.  Sandstein   19:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have disturbed you then. As a required notice, I have:

Deletion review for GunDB
An editor has asked for a deletion review of GunDB. 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. Tmobii (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Larson
I was looking up this author B. V. Larson and found a page with that name has been deleted. I was wondering why it was deleted. I would be willing to create one, but don't want to put the time in if it will just end up deleted. So, why was the B. V. Larson page deleted, and/or is it worth it for me to create a page about him? Thanks Solx (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please link to the page at issue.  Sandstein   06:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about the correct way to respond, hopefully this method is acceptable. The page doesn't currently exist, but this link may show you that it was deleted by you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._V._Larson&action=edit&redlink=1 The only information I see about its deletion is the text on that page which says: 17:13, 31 August 2015 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page B. V. Larson (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson closed as delete) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petritis (talk • contribs)
 * The page was deleted as a result of the discussion in Articles for deletion/B. V. Larson.  Sandstein   06:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I understand now, thank you for posting a link to that discussion. I had tried to find that and failed. I am satisfied with the state of things at this time. Thanks again Solx (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_News

Hi, Why was this page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Gandolfi (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because of the deletion discussion linked to in the page you refer to.  Sandstein   06:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Magsi
Why didn't you consider the revision cited by me at the Magsi AfD? That revision was a valid surname list article – without tinkering with the article's title. I can't show the original diff of that revision, as you deleted the page. So, I've copy-pasted that revision here – without using the. Please tell me why it isn't a valid surname list article.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that WP:ATD should be considered, which in turn states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And that's what I did. Remember the title 'Magsi' is in itself ambiguous. And the tribe should've only been mentioned under the 'Magsi' title if it was a primary topic. In all other cases, the page should've stayed as a surname article. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing prevents you from recreating the article as a surname list. It would be different enough from the deleted article.  Sandstein   21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, NitinMlk, so I went ahead and recreated Magsi as a surname article. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - NitinMlk (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RFC closing
Sandstein, wondering if you might be able to clarify your comments "my reading of the discussion is that most who addressed it were of the view that inline attribution of an assessment of Trump's statements as "false" is required by policy." As I understand it, the term and phrasing "Many of his statements" is relative and subjective, making the sentence a judgement of quantity in relation to truthful statements. The sentence thus becomes a generalized opinion, which is fine, but it does require inline attribution in some way per NPOV and BLP. Meaning, it can't be stated in Wikivoice without referencing it as a characterization or description of his overall statements. It seems you said the same thing in your assessment of consensus. Based on my reading of the discussion and your clarifying comments, it seems there is consensus in that discussion to include some type of attribution as needed by policy. My suggestion was to add "characterized as", but apparently the RFC is set in stone unless we start a new RFC. Am I misunderstanding your comments? Do you think the RFC includes support for at least some vague in-text attribution? Thanks for any clarification or guidance you can provide. Morphh  (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was too long ago for me to remember what that was all about.  Sandstein   20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Coats of Arms Gallery Deletion/Move to Commons
Hi, I saw you deleted a gallery I created about 10 years ago that should be moved to Commons: Articles_for_deletion/Coats_of_arms_of_U.S._Infantry_Regiments. Could you please restore to my user space so that I can do that? Thanks! Hammon27 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't do undeletions, but you can ask another admin, e.g. at WP:UNDEL.  Sandstein   12:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a policy, or you don't have the rights? Hammon27 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a policy; I've had various bad experiences with restoring deleted content.  Sandstein   16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Afd closure
Could you possibly conclude this Afd Articles for deletion/Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD)? It has been delisted twice and consensus looks pretty clear. I just want a closure so I know how to go about preserving any useful information from the page. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, an admin will get around to it eventually.  Sandstein   12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Breaking a topic ban
Hi,

I am writing to you because I saw that you posted a topic ban on the talk page of SPECIFICO. The ban states "You are topic-banned from everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to your previous topic ban covering the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it." - it seems that SPECIFICO has repeatedly broken this ban. Normally he has stopped as soon as he was warned, for example in the case of Ayn Rand and Peter Schiff, but he has carried on editing Stefan Molyneux despite warnings.

Stefan Molyneux has multiple connections with Mises / Austrian School. As an example, there is a youtube video here where Stefan gave a talk at the invitation of the Brazillian Mises institute. Also Stefan is a "frequent guest host" of the Peter Schiff show (the Schiff wiki page says "Schiff voices strong support for the Austrian School of economic thought" in the lede).

Can you tell me if there is a procedure for dealing with this. Thank you. Reissgo (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you review an AE thread that found no such violation, provided I steer clear of the prohibited content. SPECIFICO  talk  18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link? Reissgo (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reissgo, if the sanction at issue was a discretionary sanction, then you can make an enforcement request at WP:AE.  Sandstein   18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, Riessgo has never edited that article. He's here because he stalks me for whatever reason. SPECIFICO  talk  18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the dispute between you two. Please take that elsewhere.  Sandstein   18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Me neither,thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD Barron Trump close
The presumption of good faith is not irrebuttable, but must be judged by the preponderance of the evidence. Your summation of the arguments of both sides in the Barron Trump AfD discussion was inaccurate and your decision to redirect without even a clear majority seems biased to me. (Not that it is or should be a vote - but you admit no consensus in your first paragraph.)

"...the basic argument for not to have an article is the guideline WP:INVALIDBIO which covers our practice that notability is not inherited: a person must be the subject of substantial coverage in their own right to merit an article. " failed to note that this is a very weak argument, mere wiki-lawyering, turning a guideline with existing exceptions into some grand and eternal principle. It is exactly this sort of attitude and characteristically disingenuous style of argument that has brought the character and decision-making of the self-appointed core Wikipedia community such a wide reputation for corrupt, vicious political advocacy and disdain for facts that few potential editors are willing to risk dealing with them in any fashion.

"To counter that argument, the "keep" side would have to point to such coverage in reliable sources. However, with very few exceptions, the "keep" opinions do not do that"  Now of course, you admit that there are exceptions, so admit that there were reliable sources, so that the INVALIDBIO argument fails. You then go on to set up a couple of straw-men, as if bad arguments for a proposition somehow falsify good ones, then say: "such assertions must be given less weight when assessing consensus". You misrepresent the arguments of one side, fail to note the assertions of the other side are shown to be false and further fail to note the evident petty passive-aggressive political motivations of that side, by your conduct appearing to share such motivations to score any little hit on the President-Elect you can, even through dismissing the notability of his 10-year old son. This unseemly and hateful attitude was recently demonstrated by Rosie O'Donnell's widely-reported speculation that Barron is autistic; these scurrilous stories ironically show that Barron is noted in news reports on his own, not just in pieces primarily about his father.

You also did not address the conclusive argument that Barron Trump is already a highly searched-for page, and was a highly visited page while it existed, more so than at least 95% of biographical pages of unquestioned notability in Wikipedia. It is the readers who ultimately determine notability. Disagreeing with the readers' opinions of what is notable based on whatever rationalizations is an error.

You end up by flatly contradicting your statement in the opening paragraph that there is no consensus. "Accordingly, I conclude that after weighing the strength of the arguments made in the light of our rules and practices, we have consensus to redirect the page to the family article..." You made no valid arguments, indeed no arguments at all, that there was in fact consensus to merge. This kind of thing is, of course, quite usual in Wikipedia, but it is shameful for the whole endeavor and also makes you personally look quite small. Enon (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is noted, but since you assume bad faith on my part, I don't think that I can give you an answer that would satisfy you.  Sandstein   22:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Note
Hi Sandstein: Just a note that after your AfD close, the AfD template remains atop Kate - la bisbetica domata. North America1000 12:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like somebody messed around with the code, which broke the script.  Sandstein   12:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. Happy editing, North America1000 12:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ibid for Ballyfin '93. AfD template still there. North America1000 13:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America1000 13:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico
Hi. A few months back you closed Articles for deletion/Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico as delete. Given that Trump/Pence I am writing to ask you to make the article live again, and we can update it. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you first gather consensus on an appropriate project or article talk page about whether this news changes the project's opinion about whether the topic should be covered in its own article as opposed to in existing articles.  Sandstein   14:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)