User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/November

Hey man
Hey, man I hope you are doing well. The battles you have seen here, eh? Hey, ancient history for you. The person operating this account I had occasion to finally meet very recently in the real world. Absolutely out of his mind. If I didn't thank you those ten years ago for dealing with that situation, I am doing so now. Best! -O.R.Comms 04:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red
--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page
We recently worked very hard on my Wikipedia page only to find it deleted the next day. We had to learn how to post how to write, ...lots of hours and trouble and it was deleted!!!!!!

Can you PLEASE tell me why you would do this? Does this mean anyone that just doesn't like you because you are their competitor could do this? Crummy system.

Linda Septien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.59.74 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article Linda Septien was deleted because a community discussion at Articles for deletion/Linda Septien determined that the article didn't meet our inclusion requirements.  Sandstein   22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

In regards to File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg
I've been going through the image cleanup backlogs and I came across this image. I was just going to tag it as F9 as an obvious copyright violation but I noticed that you closed a regarding this file as no consensus. No consensus closes have to also take into account the actual copyright status of the image. Since there was no proof that the State of Washington put this under PD and that state does not automatically license images under the public domain we must assume that the image is copyrighted. Very few states license their material under PD. See c:Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). The uploader's objections over that were unfounded and their singular oppose to the delete does not mitigate the problems with the image. Would you be open to revisiting this? --Majora (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only say that in this discussion, there was no consensus about what the actual copyright status of the image was.  Sandstein   19:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is long standing consensus both here and on Commons that the State of Washington does not license their material under public domain. Also per, Washington is not one of the few states that places their material into the public domain. Per Files for discussion/Administrator instructions #9, consensus or lack thereof cannot be used to override actual law. The actual law being that the image is in violation of copyright. --Majora (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're quite possibly right as a matter of law; in addition, the image source page does say "Copyright 2013 Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus | All Rights Reserved". However, legal arguments to the contrary were made in the discussion, referring to some "Public Disclosure Act", such that the legal situation isn't quite clear, at least to me as a person with no knowledge of Washington State law. Imposing my own understanding of the law in such a situation would be casting a "supervote". In the end, we are stuck with consensus to decide about deletion, including with respect to points of law. You can renominate the file, however.  Sandstein   19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally these types of files are eligible for deletion under F9. And I have marked many of them as such in the past. Unless there is explicit notice as to the copyright status of state images, as there is in Florida and California, then the images must be assumed to be copyrighted. Renominating a violating image that would normally be eligible for F9 seems a little unwise. Even the EXIF on the image shows that the copyright belongs to the Washington State Legislative Support Services. Wikipedia is in violation of copyright by having this image here. It isn't a supervote if you are enforcing the law. That is why that #9 carve out in the admin instructions exists. --Majora (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The page Files for discussion/Administrator instructions is not a community-approved policy or guideline. Moreover, the "instructions" you refer to were added by a user without discussion. They are not binding on administrators. In any case, I don't think that I'm better qualified to determine what the applicable Washington State law is than the other participants in the discussion.  Sandstein   20:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the participants in the FFD only the uploader, naturally, had a problem with its deletion. Both the nominator and  said to delete. Both of them are highly respected individuals in the file maintenance field. Now a third person, myself, is telling you that the image is in violation of copyright law. It seems a little strange that you would just ignore all of that. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that this be taken to DRV? -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a really good idea. I should've done it in July. I'll do so later if neither of you beat me to it. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, with the RFC and all the other debate surrounding this, I'm going to pass on making it my first DRV nomination. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The image is back at FFD. I renominated it a few days ago. --Majora (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates and State sponsored Terrorism
Hi i created a page with the name "United Arab Emirates and State sponsored Terrorism". As per my research the information i added was totally accurate then on what basis that page has been deleted on your part?Please help me understand this as i am new to Wikipedia, what possible mistakes i could have avoided?Also any way to restore that Wikipedia page if i correct those mistakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technopunch (talk • contribs)
 * There has never been an article titled United Arab Emirates and State sponsored Terrorism.  Sandstein   07:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/United Arab Emirates and State-sponsored Terrorism.Regards:) Isn't fuzzy-search working? Winged Blades of Godric On leave 12:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * United Arab Emirates and State-sponsored Terrorism was deleted because there was consensus to do so in the community discussion Articles for deletion/United Arab Emirates and State-sponsored Terrorism. Please ask the nominator,, about what you could do to recreate the article in a form that addresses the concerns voiced in the discussion.  Sandstein   12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Why was Page deleted?
Could you please tell me why the page Govardhan Vigraham was deleted?


 * Govardhan Vigraham was deleted because there was consensus to do so in the community discussion at Articles for deletion/Govardhan Vigraham.  Sandstein   14:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mike Adriano (2nd nomination)
What's the deal? Nobody has disputed that he's a notable director. The only delete !votes came early, from the nom and an editor who both mistakenly believed he won his awards for acting. Since I pointed out that he satisfies WP:DIRECTOR, the only other !vote has been keep. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, numerically it's still 2-2, so some more input can't hurt.  Sandstein   09:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

NWA Anarchy deletion
I absolutely agree with deletion. Non-notable Indy that was affiliated with the NWA for like a minute. That said, the afd discussion also included the promotion's clearly non-notable titles, which it seems there was also consensus to delete. Just wanted to mention it because why're still up, and weren't mentioned in the close. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No other articles were tagged with an AfD tag, so they were not included in the nomination. They can be nominated for deletion separately.  Sandstein   14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You might agree with the deletion, but I don't. Deleting the NWA Anarchy article based on a dubious claim of "non-notability" and the say-so of certain editors who wanted to get rid of the article for that reason (despite the presence of reflinks, which those editors likewise brushed off and dismissed as "non-notable" to suit their agendas, and there not being a consensus to delete) does not make the article "non-notable". If it were up to those and certain other editors on Wikipedia, the site would still be the same today as it was when it first began in 2002 - few articles, with minimal descriptions and no images to illustrate them. 24.68.218.0 (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Self-made man
I have been expanding the article self-made man for which I have found a plethora of reliable sources. I am in the process of adding some of these. I did not intend to add content you had just deleted. My edits and your deletions were concurrent. I will add this to the article's talk page. Before deleting and more of the related content I ask for your indulgence to show why this content is crucial to this article. Kind regards. Oceanflynn (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Looks much better now.  Sandstein   20:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for Edgy (adjective) as Delete
Your closure of the recent AfD for Edgy (adjective) as Delete was not consistent with the consensus of the discussion as understood at WP:CONSENSUS. Please undelete the page and relist.

Your closing statement was:
 * The result was delete. A Wiktionary link already exists at Edgy.

The assumption here is that the sole purpose for creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary is to facilitate search. Arguments for deletion at AfD were almost exclusively based on this assumption. As I had pointed out during the deletion discussion, the relevant policies and guidelines, taken as a whole, are simply not consistent with this view. For example, the section WP:ATD-TRANS within WP:Deletion policy does not even mention searching, but instead states:
 * If an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created under the same name, it may be turned into a soft redirect to a more appropriate sister project's article.

I advocated a soft redirect on this basis, with two other AfD participants also endorsing a soft redirect. The closest the deletion advocates in the AfD ever came to responding to this argument was one unsupported statement that "there's no reason to think this would be re-created", which I rebutted in detail. The only other argument for deletion was the one you cited in your closing statement, which is clearly inconsistent with policy.

Even if you think my argument for the likelihood of re-creation (as an article rather than a soft redirect) is not correct, it was where the discussion stood at the time you closed it on a basis not consistent with policy. If you would like to argue against the likelihood of re-creation, please relist and make your case at the new deletion discussion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the "delete" closure should match the preferences of all who expressed a view in the discussion, including those who, like you, were in favor of a soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is because such a redirect has now been created at edgy, the more likely search target. This clearly makes the same redirect at Edgy (adjective) redundant.  Sandstein   09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your reasoning, ! I can now see why you thought you were doing justice to all viewpoints, but you may have misunderstood the purpose of advocating a soft redirect. While a second soft redirect from Edgy (adjective) is redundant for purposes of facilitating search, it is not redundant for the purpose of "soft salting" Edgy (adjective). The heart of my argument advocating a soft redirect was this comment:
 * A soft redirect is the ideal solution in such cases, in that it deters re-creation of the page as a mere dictionary definition, and refers readers to Wiktionary, yet sets few barriers to re-creation as a proper encyclopedic article if sources for such are ever found.
 * The second soft redirect is not for the benefit of people who are merely searching—it's for the benefit of people who are contemplating re-creation of the article Edgy (adjective). This is why I placed such emphasis on policy passages like WP:POINTWIKT and WP:ATD-TRANS, which validate use of soft redirects for this purpose, which is unrelated to facilitation of search. Even if I'm wrong about the likelihood that anyone would ever want to re-create Edgy (adjective), the soft redirect does no harm. If I'm right, then it will be useful in selectively discouraging inappropriate re-creation attempts, while setting few barriers to appropriate ones.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I see, but you seem to be the only person to have expressed concern for retaining the history. This does not warrant undoing the closure. If at any time sources are found to warrant an actual article beyond a dicdef, the history can be restored via WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   08:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I may have created some confusion by mentioning the page history. Please bear with me; I'd like to get to the bottom of this, as I believe the issue is likely to recur in future deletion discussions, and I appreciate your patience. This specific issue (appropriateness of soft redirection to Wiktionary as "soft salting" of a DICDEF-prone page) has already occurred in one other recent AfD I've been involved in.
 * In other cases retention of the page history might also be an important issue, but in this case, if I recall correctly, there wasn't much history to lose, and what little there was had already been incorporated (by me) into edgy. The section WP:POINTWIKT within the policy WP:DICDEF, which I cited, actually focuses on a different issue: the banner created by the template wtr is much more helpful and informative to someone considering re-creation of a DICDEF-prone page than is the stern but nonspecific pink banner displayed for a deleted page. That, rather than preservation of history or facilitation of search, was the principal reason to create a soft redirect in this case. The wtr banner indicates what the pitfall is, and warns more clearly against allowing history to repeat itself (which is why WP:POINTWIKT calls it a way to effectively "salt" the page)—yet is friendlier than the pink deletion banner to someone who has in mind creation of a substantive article with sources in hand.
 * In truth I'm not terribly eager to re-open the deletion discussion either, especially since all AfD participants were in agreement that the page was not viable as a normal Wikipedia article. What I'm requesting doesn't involve re-creation of anything resembling the content of the deleted version of the page, so maybe soft redirection can itself be considered more like WP:REFUND, and can be done without re-opening the discussion. Two other AfD participants did support a soft redirect; I wasn't even the first to propose that solution, and one of the others just said "Agree with two commentors. Pretty clear from above." The other cited one of the two policies I also cited (WP:NOTDICTIONARY=WP:DICDEF). So it looks to me as though at the time of closure there was no consensus to overturn; it can't be assumed that the other two soft-redirect supporters were concerned only with search facilitation.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is getting too complicated for me to follow. I decline to undo my closure; if you disagree with it, you can appeal to WP:DRV.  Sandstein   09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicola Pellow
Hi, I'm asking if you'd reconsider your decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Nicola Pellow. While there was certainly some vocal opposition to deletion, I think that consensus based on actual policy was clear. did an extremely thorough job checking for sources, and there was simply next to nothing out there about Pellow – certainly not enough to push past BLP1E/BIO1E. Thanks for your time. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even assuming I agree with you, there is just not the required consensus for deletion here. Issues of sourcing are tricky, and people can disagree in good faith about what sources are adequate and what not. I don't think I can override the "keep" side to a degree necessary to find a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein   22:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the auto stats are off for the head count - showing 4 keeps, 1 delete (me, though my nom was more of a redirect) and 2 redirect - but for whatever reason not counting E.M.Gregory (redirect) and DGG (delete). So the raw head count for delete/redirect was 5 to 4. Some (but not all!) of the keep !votes were not grounded in policy (stating there are sources (and then providing a list of passing mentions / repeats) or saying that the whole team "should" be notable, while not addressing the BIO1E/BLP1E (and I am using the slash as it is not clear that she is alive due to lack of sources) policy issue).Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nicola Pellow
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicola Pellow. 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. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Rudy Moise
Hi Sandstein, just noticed the ruling on this article; does it still count as a no concensus if the nominator withdrew? How does that work? Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nominator's view is not any more relevant than any other editor's.  Sandstein   19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thank you for clearing that up. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Elworth Jr.
Hi, you recently deleted a page that I had created, Mark Elworth Jr. The article contained information that was verified by multiple, reliable sources. Can the content of the article be moved into the draft space, so my work isn't lost, and I can continue to improve it until it is ready for the main space? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Another admin might do that for you, but as for myself I do not, as a rule, userfy articles. Sorry.  Sandstein   20:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you direct me? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND perhaps.  Sandstein   20:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD keep closure of Disney International
At the Articles for deletion/Disney International HD - All keep were clearly considered not supported by any guidelines as indicated by administrator The Bushranger with his Relisting comment. Since, I as the deletion requested did cite guidelines should have prevailed. So what is your reasoning? Spshu (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that literally nobody supported your view that the article should be deleted.  Sandstein   19:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they must support it with policy as I indicated that pointed out. Thus it is like they did not vote when they don't support their position with guidelines or sources. For example, claiming because that the article is about a Hindi (or Disney) subject (as some did claim) there for it meets notability is transference of notability, which was directly in the guidelines for organizations notability (WP:ORGSIG, WP:INHERITORG, WP:BRANCH, WP:CHAIN) and should logically be in the main guideline. (WP:CHAIN should apply as this is just another channel unit in their casting network - the chain.) As they basically they say don't need any sources, which is clearly against WP:N. So, to a degree Bushranger supported my position (at the time of relisting, while being netural) given my cite of the rules Spshu (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you can convince nobody else of this, the article isn't going to be deleted. That only happens when there's actual consensus to delete.  Sandstein   21:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti
Hello, I noticed that you deleted a page I had recently added about attorney Michael J. Avenatti. I took great care to adhere to Wikipedia's standards and to thoroughly and accurately source all references. I'm hoping I can convince you to take another look at it and reconsider the deletion. Thank you.Bytemark (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link, and a reason why I should reconsider.  Sandstein   23:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but since the page was deleted, I'm unable to access it (I believe only Admins are able to access deleted pages?) In any case - the page was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti. And I am hoping you will reconsider since I believe the subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability (in multiple fields). Some of the subject's recent cases certainly qualify as "remarkable" and "significant," particularly the Kimberly Clark and SCI cases which were of remarkable legal, financial and historical significance. I'm more than pleased to re-write parts (or all) of the article in order to meet any standards not previously met. Thank you Bytemark (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Michael Avenatti was deleted because there was consensus to do so, with no opposition, in the community discussion at Articles for deletion/Michael avenatti. I myself have no opinion on the person's notability. But to recreate the article you would need sources that meet our inclusion standards as described at WP:GNG.  Sandstein   19:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll re-read the standards carefully and make sure the recreated article meets them all. Bytemark (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zhisheng Niu
Perhaps you can explain why an obvious, clearly factual, and undisputed pass of the relevant notability criterion, a nomination statement that says only that he does pass that criterion (and points to no other problematic aspect of the article), and two opinions that the article should be kept based on that criterion, all add up to a relist rather than a keep? The "speedy" part is moot by now; the question is why a relist rather than a non-speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still 2:1, numerically. More input can't hurt.  Sandstein   19:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when do we decide these things numerically? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't, but more opinions usually yield a clearer consensus.  Sandstein   21:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Just duck
Hey, I saw you delete my page "Wonderland (Bandari album)", how come you did that?
 * Because it was a redirect to a deleted page, see Articles for deletion/Bandari (AVC).  Sandstein   07:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

LaReece
Hi, I noticed that you deleted an article that I created for a very well known rapper and I want to know why did you delete it it met WP:Band Guidelines and I had add more citation sources that I got the information from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaReece

LaReece was deleted because there was consensus to do so in the community discussion Articles for deletion/LaReece.  Sandstein  12:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Dr. John Hoffmire page
Dear Sandstein,

I would like to inquire why with respect to the John Hoffmire's page, my comments were disregarder, and consequently, the page was deleted. My comments, which were in upper case, provided evidence that the subject fulfilled Wikipedia's criteria for Notability, particularly points 5, 6, and 7, which is why I found a bit odd that the page was deleted without considering this information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario5554 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * John Hoffmire was deleted per consensus at Articles for deletion/John Hoffmire because I disregard ALL-CAPS SHOUTING.  Sandstein   19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein, I understand that Upper-case-writing is not the most polite way of writing, nevertheless, that is not a reason to disregard arguments, according to Wikipedia, articles may be deleted only if they do not fulfill its criteria, which is not the case this time, which is way I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider the publication of this page.

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario5554 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Formula 3 AfD
Hi Sandstein,

Could you please tell me why you chose to relist this AfD? You said that it was to allow for more discussion and to generate a clearer consensus, but I don't see how much clearer it could be. After two weeks of discussion, twice as many editors support the deletion than those that oppose it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, in my view, a clearer consensus would be preferable.  Sandstein   08:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

atmail page deleted?
Hi Sandstein,

Our /Atmail page was deleted on 17 November. Can you please help us put it back up? It has been on Wikipedia for some time and all the information was accurate. None of our competitor pages were deleted, so we cannot understand how our page was deleted but our competitors (IceWarp, Roundcube, ProtonMail, Zimbra and so on) are still there.

Ironically, the only way we discovered the deletion was because we went on to Wikipedia to submit our updates (which have been on our to-do list for the last few months). Updates included below.

We've also been deleted from this page: Comparison_of_mail_servers and would genuinely appreciate your help in being restored.

Thank you so very, very much for your help! We really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmailPtyLtd (talk • contribs) 01:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Per WP:COI, you should not be editing pages about your own product. I'm therefore not going to help you to restore "your" article.  Sandstein   08:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Canan
Delete is not a policy-based close. There were no policy-based delete !votes. As per WP:ATD, notability is irrelevant to topics that can be merged or redirected. Bearcat's !vote does not make an argument for deletion. A quick review of the rest of the discussion shows him making the statement, "it's the sourcing that determines notability", but he is looking in the article for sources, even though WP:N says, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." He also created a new redirect target during the AfD, and cited redirect. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please link to the AfD you would like to discuss.  Sandstein   22:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In my view, there is a clear "delete" consensus, given that there is only one "keep" opinion, and that editors can disagree in good faith whether sources are sufficient for a biography.  Sandstein   08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sources" is your word for "GNG sources", and the words "a biography" are your words for "WP:Notability". But WP:ATD merged material about a biography doesn't require Wikipedia notability and it doesn't require GNG...it requires our core content policies, which I believe were not questioned.  I believe that your role as a closer is to discount !votes that ignore WP:ATD policy.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Groupuscule
Thanks for closing this AE report - the right result, I think. What is your opinion on User:Groupuscule/GMO? I'm pretty tempted to call it U5, and of course for the time being any edits related to it would be a TBAN vio. But if you think it's not really ripe for CSD then I'll take it to MfD. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that MfD would be the proper process. I don't see U5 applying here because the content is about Wikipedia and not something entirely unrelated.  Sandstein   10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Victor Sanz
Can you please undelete Victor Sanz? I think it's pretty blatant that nobody in the AFD did a WP:BEFORE, as the subject meets WP:BAND by having several charted singles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've redeleted the article you recreated per WP:G4 because your version was substantially the same as the deleted one - you only added a book cite for the date of birth. You may disagree with the AfD, but it was unanimous (if brief). To recreate the article, you'd need to find new substantial coverage of the subject satisfying WP:GNG. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:BAND and its charted singles only create a presumption of notability that must be backed up with actual GNG-type coverage if challenged.  Sandstein   08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification, please?
I came across User:Mishae and saw this notice. I read the various noticeboard & TP discussions and so many of the responses by our admins make me appreciate them that much more. My question to you stems from my desire to expand my knowledge about how socks operate, and the "signs" that customarily indicate such activity. I noticed in Mishae's contributions that there have been multiple TP welcomes created, most of which are for users who have no edits, no user page, and the few that do are minimal. I'm not sure what to think of it, and was hoping you could fill me in. Thanks in advance. Atsme 📞📧 16:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of these edits either.  Sandstein   17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we just leave them there taking up space, or is that not an issue? Could someone who knows the login and password use those IDs as socks to avoid a block? Is there someone else I should ask? Atsme 📞📧 19:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Space is not an issue, but you could ask at WP:ANI if an admin wants to WP:NUKE them all. I don't see this as a real problem though.  Sandstein   10:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Marie Plourde article
Hello,

I see that you recently deleted the Marie Plourde article following an afd.

I agree with the afd participants that the previous version of the article – which I did not write – did not adequately assert the subject's notability. I have drafted a new version of the article (currently posted on my sandbox page) that, I believe, does this.

My understanding of Wikipedia's current afd policy is that I have the right to post the new/improved version of the article without going through a formal deletion review or request for undeletion. In the interest of transparency, however, I wanted to check in with you to ensure that we are on the same page on this point. (Incidentally, my understanding of Wikipedia's current afd policy is based on a conversation that I had a short time ago with User:Bearcat, the user who nominated the previous version of this particular article for deletion.)

Can you please advise me if you would object to the new version of the article being posted? Thanks, CJCurrie (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I do not currently have the time to follow up on this, so I won't express an opinion either way.  Sandstein   12:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Henry page deleted
Dear Sandstein,

I understand that the page "Taylor Henry" was deleted per discussion over its "lack of notability."

However, Wikipedia's criteria for "notability" of a journalist include the receipt of a major award and references in multiple publications. As the deleted article noted, I received the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, one of the top two national awards in American television journalism. In addition, my work as an overseas correspondent for CNN and other news channels has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications.

I did not write the originally posted article, and I understand that I am free to resubmit an documented article without prior review. Can you please verify this, and advise as to how I might go about submitting the new page?

Thank you for your reply.

Taylor HenryTaylor Henry (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Taylor: Thanks for your inquiry. The article Taylor Henry was deleted as a result of unanimous consensus in the community discussion Articles for deletion/Taylor Henry. For it to be recreated, there would need to be the sort of coverage of you and your work that is described in our notability guideline WP:GNG. If, as you say, your work "has been the subject of numerous articles in a variety of publications" then these requirements might be met.
 * However, our conflict of interest guideline, WP:COI, strongly discourages writing articles about oneself. In light of this, it would be inappropriate for me to assist you in recreating an article about yourself.
 * Regards,  Sandstein   18:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What about the duPont Award? Next to the Peabody, it is one of the top two national awards in American television? Under Wikipedia specs, receipt of a major national award in the industry is grounds for "notability." How was this overlooked in the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.17.208.141 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the people contributing to the discussion. But generally, while we do treat things like awards as indicators of notability, in almost all cases of challenged notability the availability of sources as described at WP:GNG is the determining factor. That's because we can't write a good article without such sources.  Sandstein   20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. But the sources regarding the duPont were meticulously documented in the originally posted article. Curious to know: how did the discussion over the article arise, and how was a decision made with only four comments? It all seems a little hasty to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.17.208.141 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Anybody can nominate an article for deletion, and then the discussion lasts at least seven days, so there's nothing hasty going on. See WP:AFD.  Sandstein   20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein, the more I look into this, the stranger it gets. Apparently, the person who nominated the article for deletion back on Nov. 10 was a "Shawn in Montreal." Shawn's page now says that Shawn is "Retired," and "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." I would like to request an internal review on the part of Wikipedia. This doesn't look right. How would I go about formally requesting a review?


 * At WP:DRV, per the instructions there, but the people reviewing will be other volunteers, and they will very likely also not help you write an article about yourself.  Sandstein   22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only reason that I suggested my own submission is that I suspect sooner or later someone will resubmit an article, and I would rather submit my own than he or she submit theirs. The article that was deleted was very poorly written, and I would never have approved it had I the opportunity. Anyway, it is what it is. Thank you for your attention and so long for now.

Magic the Gathering is an online video game
I saw you reverted my edits at Sexism in video gaming. I tried to preempt your blind revert by showing people that the game is also an online video game (I even linked it in my edit summary), but you kind of steamrolled right past that. So I've reverted your edit. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Magic: the Gathering says "Magic: The Gathering is a trading card game created by Richard Garfield."  Sandstein   23:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a square is also a rectangle. Magic the Gathering is clearly a trading card game, but it's also a digital collectible card game, but it is not just a card game. Personally speaking, I'd guess that 33% of all games are played on their online server. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will update that article. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)