User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/October

OSTI
Could you also undelete Template:OSTI/doc ? Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.  Sandstein   19:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding next step for Bentley Systems Article Deletion Review you recently closed
Good morning,  Sandstein  !

I saw that you changed the status of the request for deletion review of Draft:Bentley_Systems to say "Recreation from draft permitted." For your easy reference, the comment you left on the closing of the deletion review is located here: Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_28

I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first time going through a deletion review. Would you kindly let me know what the next step is? Is there anything that I need to do? Or has this kicked off into another process for someone to review the article to create it?

I disclosed (everywhere I could) that I am affiliated with Bentley Systems so I really want to make sure I don't do anything wrong and stay within Wikipedia guidelines.

I'm sorry to bother you with what I'm sure are simple questions. I tried looking here Deletion_review but I couldn't understand what the next step is for me after reading this. Thank you in advance for any insights you can provide! --MBouch16 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. You can now simply move Draft:Bentley Systems to Bentley Systems and make all appropriate edits to reflect its status as an article rather than a draft. See WP:MOVE for the procedure.  Sandstein   16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --MBouch16 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Query on AFD closure
Hello! Which arguments at Articles for deletion/ESPN College Football on ABC results do you think were the ones that most indicated that the consensus is to delete the given article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can read for yourself which arguments were most frequently cited: we are not a TV guide / statistics repository; and it's not a notable list topic.  Sandstein   19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather find out the reasoning behind your decision before going to Deletion Review. Are you willing to discuss the matter?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reasoning was that there was consensus to delete the article because of the abovementioned arguments.  Sandstein   22:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for ESPN College Football on ABC results
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ESPN College Football on ABC results. 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. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nannyshare.co.uk
This was a strange closing. The first step in solving a problem is identifying a problem. There were no promotional problems identified with the article, and none of the sources were refuted. One of the delete !votes argued that the article was "likely written by a COI editor" but provided no evidence. This was certainly not a deletion argument, and as such shows general inexperience by the !voter. The nominator argued that there was "no notability", which is refuted by citing merely one source. There is no evidence in the nomination that the nominator has done a WP:BEFORE D1 survey. The remaining "delete" needed to know where the AfD had already provided sources. On its face, this was a clueless question, but the editor may have been planning a follow-up. Do you agree that our content contributors need the protection of our policies such as WP:PRESERVE? Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that we disagree in our assessment of the arguments. My reading is that described in the closure. And my view is that those wanting to promote their business on Wikipedia don't deserve any particular protection.  Sandstein   21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Clickability
Hi Sandstein. You closed Articles for deletion/Clickability as "no consensus". Would you provide some guidance at Talk:Clickability about when the Notability tag can be removed? I don't think it is appropriate to leave it on the article indefinitely when notability has been thoroughly discussed at AfD and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of the notability tag is to ask editors to determine whether a subject is notable. Since the tag led to an AfD, and there was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article, the tag should not be restored because notability has already been discussed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Transits
Why did you delete the pages on transits?121.169.145.5 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which pages?  Sandstein   07:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Help
Hi Sandstein, a user from Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones is refusing to collaborate and listen. He wants the article to look a certain way and has reverted my edits. Those changes I have made have been approved and accepted by other regular editors. But he still acts like he has OWNERSHIP of the article. - AffeL (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replied in the RfC; as to revert-warring, what's been going on is not yet ripe for admin action. I recommend waiting for the RfC outcome.  Sandstein   17:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect for deleted article?
Dear Wikipedia editor, You have deleted article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model while the conclusion of the deletion discussion was to redirect it to the author article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Gryzi%C5%84ski Could you maybe add this redirection? 149.156.69.178 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the outcome of Articles for deletion/Free-fall atomic model was just "delete". Anybody can now add a redirect, but anybody can then challenge that redirect.  Sandstein   10:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In the last series from the discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free-fall_atomic_model ) there was only one "delete" per 4 votes (previous advocates didn't even try to defend their arguments) and it stated "Honestly, I think the best solution here would be to redirect this article (merging appropriately given due weight) to an article on Gryziński himself; he's done some fairly significant things and, overall, has been pretty well-cited, and I think there's a case that he's notable.". If I properly understand, creating redirection requires creating article first, but it states that it was recently deleted and forbids creation. Probably only editor can do it now. 149.156.69.178 (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. Anybody can create a redirect.  Sandstein   17:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect
Hi there! Wondering if it would be possible to create a redirect for the recently deleted page for Anthony Casalena to Squarespace. Anthony's page has been visited ~9k visits since December 2015 (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-12-01&end=2016-10-13&pages=Anthony_Casalena), and has seen significant search term volume as well (https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=anthony%20casalena).

I'd be happy to assist in creating the redirect in whatever way possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luluchang2015 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Anybody can create a redirect, including you.  Sandstein   19:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion referral a problem for students on a schedule - please advise
I pinged you at Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=744486108#Maternal_Health_in_Texas. The deletion at Articles for deletion/Maternal Health in Texas was a problem because I was expecting userfication. Can you give me advice for the future on how to get an article like this userfied?

Should I immediately move it from main space to userspace and close the deletion discussion myself as a non-admin, even though multiple users had edited the article? I thought that I was following protocol. I had not planned for this to be deleted and the student and teacher were depending on this being here for the student to edit.

I would appreciate your guidance on how to avoid this in the future. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The undeletion is . Thanks
 * For my own practices I still would like to sync with you about what I should do to keep processes smooth. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The student may be on a schedule, but Wikipedia volunteers are not. AfDs can take up to a month with relists, so any delays with userfication are, I think, a relatively minor concern. Anybody can make a request for userfication at WP:UND; that's all there's to it.   Sandstein   15:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clonbony GAA
I am absolutely baffled by your removal of Clonbony GAA. To my opinion, you under-appreciated the three county championships of the Clonbony GAA Ladies. County champions, men and women, always take part in the island wide (so even a bit more than national) All-Ireland competition.

Is it possible to review your decision on that point? And otherwise, when that not convinces you, can you restore it to my workspace? The Banner talk 09:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not my decision, but consensus among discussion participants at Articles for deletion/Clonbony GAA. I assume that you are experienced enough of an editor to know how the deletion process and, if needed, deletion review work. It is possible to userfy the content, but I don't do that; you may ask another admin e.g. at WP:UND.  Sandstein   14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested userfication on the indicated place. I am just flabbergasted by the comments and their focus on hurling, largely ignoring the far more important results of the ladies. But life is sad sometimes. The Banner talk 15:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barbara Matynia-Łyżwińska. 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ooops!
Sorry about that! Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/N. Balasubramaniam
Sorry, but I do not see how this can be closed as anything other than a no consensus. Opinions are being expressed on both sides and there is absolutely no reason to give one opinion any more or less weight than another. If it's not reopened or closed as no consensus I shall have no option but to take it to DRV. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No; I did explain why I considered it necessary to give some opinions more weight than others.  Sandstein   19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but I do not agree with your reasoning, for the reasons I have given in the DRV. There was absolutely no reason to give the opinions of one 'side' more weight than those of the other. This was a clear no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for N. Balasubramaniam
An editor has asked for a deletion review of N. Balasubramaniam. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Big Brother Criticism page
Why did you delete this? I use it every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.238.0 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please link to the page or discussion at issue.  Sandstein   17:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick Sherwood Dunn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Gian Kumar Wikipedia page Recreation
Hi Sandstein,

In the month of August 2016, you had deleted the page for Author 'Gian Kumar' citing reasons that the page seemed promotional. I had requested you to re-activate the page, citing references from various sources both online and offline.

For reference, I am sharing with you the URL of Author's website which talks about the author and all his books: www.giankumar.com

I want your help to recreate the Author's page on Wikipedia. Please help me with the same. Link to the deleted page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Kumar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gian_Kumar)

Looking forward to a positive reply from you.

Thanks,

Warm Regards, Nidhi Nidhi Arora (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Please refer to my previous comments about this matter in my talk page archive. I will not respond further to queries about this matter.  Sandstein   09:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

40Billion
You were wrong to delete the 40Billion page on Wikipedia. Please undelete.2600:1005:B02D:49B2:26E8:DDF7:A3EE:D49D (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why?  Sandstein   09:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Unity_Linux
This closing has multiple problems. AfD is not a vote count, yet that is how the ruling is stated for this closing. A closer look shows that two editors objected to delete and redirect, so even the raw !vote count is erroneous. There was only one editor who objected to keeping the edit history with a redirect, and the argument for not keeping the edit history was to handicap future efforts to improve the encyclopedia. This is not a policy based argument. It is never correct to delete the edit history with WP:DEL8, as the edit history contains content, and notability is not a content guideline. The simplest fix is to restore the edit history, but if you want to delete and redirect, I suggest that you !vote in the AfD and make a content argument for the deletion. While there may be such an argument, it needs to be a considered opinion that can be reviewed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, only one person (Cunard) wanted to explicitly keep the history. The other, Tigraan, wrote that in the case of deletion the article should not be redirected. That opinion is therefore not a basis for contesting the decision to delete the history. It may be a basis for contesting the decision to create a redirect, but deleting the redirect is apparently not what you want.  Sandstein   11:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What I "want" is policy-based closes. On further review, I think that Mandruss's point involved WP:DUE, so I've struck that comment above.  (1)  Checking the AfD I see that it is still stated as a !vote count.  As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads..." (2)  Another problem with the closing is that it has not taken down the !vote of an editor opposed to the editing of contributions, while WP:5P3 states, "...no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited".  Note that the previous quote contains a Wikilink to WP:Editing policy.  As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Arguments that contradict policy...are frequently discounted." (3)  A third problem with the closing is that it is never correct to delete the edit history with WP:DEL8, as the edit history contains content, and notability is not a content guideline.  As per the WP:N nutshell, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles."


 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot follow your arguments. This is not a headcount but consensus that there is no basis for an article here. I fail to see what ownership has to do with anything here. And of course we do delete articles - really delete, with their history - for non-notability all of the time, just look at AfD on any given day.  Sandstein   05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You say you are having trouble following the arguments, but you didn't seem to be having trouble following the discussion previously when you said, "deleting the redirect is apparently not what you want." Your rationale for the deletion of the edit history was, "With one exception, nobody wants to keep the history."  This appears to be a vote-count rationale, unsupported by a policy basis.  While your last sentence argues as to why entire articles may be deleted, your closing was not "delete", it was "delete and redirect".  So discussion about why entire articles may be deleted appears to be a non sequitur, where Merriam Webster defines "non sequitur" as "a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it".  The basic remedy here is for you to restore the edit history and amend the closing to Redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Declined. Merriam Webster defines this as "to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in, or comply with".  Sandstein   09:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Good close
Thanks for the close at the difficult AfD Articles for deletion/Edusemiotics. A redirect is a good compromise that should allow for a future consensus building on what content can be reliably sourced. I wish I had thought of that myself. --Mark viking (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus
Thank you for this close. But I believe the revisions before 22 September 2013 should be accordingly re-deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --Oh, and I'm sorry to be a nidge, but could you undelete the talk page revisions? Someone has unnecessarily recreated the talk page, and the old AfDs and RfD should be linked for scrutiny. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll restore the talk history. As to the old article revisions, in theory they shold be redeleted, but why bother?  Sandstein   06:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)