User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/September

Close on Comey Memos
I am thinking of taking your close on Comey Memos to review based on WP:Process. 1. The original merge discussion was closed after 48 hours by an involved editor. I reopened that discussion. 2. Once reopened, the same editor opened a AfD. I think it is forum shopping and the original discusion should simply be allowed to play out.Thoughts?Casprings (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was discussed in the AfD, but the discussion proceeded nonetheless, and was substantial enough to deserve a closure on the merits. The AfD process and the merger discussion are, in principle, independent from each other. But the closer of the merge discussion will have the opportunity to determine whether any consensus established in the merge discussion is more substantial than that in the AfD, and overrides the AfD.  Sandstein   17:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

File:RUeyegouge.jpg
Hello again. You closed the as "no consensus". How are arguments for deletion not as strong as for keeping the image? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the discussion should have been closed as "delete"?  Sandstein   08:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that the result should have been "delete". But then after three relistings and four months, I guess another "relisting" is unnecessary, right? Also, my last statement must have made you think that I was demanding an overturn to "delete". Actually, I'm not asking for overturning... yet. I will rephrase my last statement to ask why it was closed as "no consensus". That's all. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that after that many relistings, it's evident that there's not a consensus for deletion. Whether an image is necessary or not to show something is a matter of opinion and not something that I can determine by fiat as closer.  Sandstein   10:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of page MCskill ThaPreacha
Hi Sandstein, how are you? Reaching out for the recreation of the page MCskill ThaPreacha it was deleted last year by yourself after a consensus was reached when i tried restoring. I kept tabs on the subject's movement ever since and i found some news sources on him.

1. The Nation http://thenationonlineng.net/mcskill-thapreacha-drops-new-video/

2. Nigeria Entertainment Today http://thenet.ng/2017/08/mcskill-thapreacha-goes-reflective-on-man-in-the-mirror-video/

3. Juice Magazine Germany's Juice Magazin (Edition #173, p.72) Juice Magazine. Berlin, March 2016. ISBN 4194503705909.

4.https://earmilk.com/2017/08/24/mcskill-tha-preacha-reflects-on-some-poignant-issues-on-man-in-the-mirror

With these and other few Valid sources in the article previously, i think it stands a chance now.

I look forward to a response. Many thanks.

MustaphaNG (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion about that, sorry. I am actively disinterested in music. Please ask the original deleting admin, .  Sandstein   08:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. MustaphaNG (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kang Daniel
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kang Daniel. 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. Chilli pepper (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Zui Quan page
I would like to know your reasoning for why you deleted the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:443:480:61C2:696F:CACF:9CDE:4A0B (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at what appears when you try to open Zui Quan?  Sandstein   23:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

IGH
Thanks for taking on the cumbersome Is Genesis History? close. In your closing statement it seems like you've presented two opposing arguments in the way several of the !votes did -- an argument about the application of WP:FRINGE/PSCI that takes for granted that it passes NFILM. Indeed it seems like most of the keep !voters do just this, without pointing to why it passes NFILM. Most in fact point back up to one of the first commenters' list of sources, which is quite poor, including Box Office Mojo, World Net Daily (which was then defended at length (!)), advocacy sites, brief mentions, material from press releases, etc. The film received no in-depth mainstream coverage -- only brief mentions, "coming soon" announcements drawn from press releases, etc. The most recent discussion was about whether in-depth coverage on a pro-Christian anti-YEC advocacy organization's website was a good source for film criticism (or, more specifically, whether an advocacy organization, regardless of the topic, should be considered a good source for demonstrating notability when they write about their focus subject on their own website). The same question then extends to religious publications which advocate a POV and have an obvious bias in their selection of topics and manner of coverage. Anyway, I'm only leaving this message because it seemed like almost everybody omitting justification for why it passes NFILM, but that's also taken for granted in the close. I keep feeling like I must've missed some key source in the walls of text such that experienced editors are jumping in supporting keeping based on NFILM. Anyway, I recognize that a delete outcome is not going to come out of this, given numbers, but it seems like the quality of those numbers' !votes make it no consensus. Meh. Not going to drag it to DRV to do so, though. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was able to convince at least two skeptical !voters to change their opinions simply by presenting the sources -- by no means are the sources bad. Also, I cannot let the false World Net Daily attack slide. The WND source is a movie review, one that obviously takes a clear pov. I never said that it is unbiased or representative of the RSs -- I was arguing that it was an appropriate movie review for the article (WND is a notable site and one that I think focuses more on politics than YEC), and I think I only linked it once when discussing. This is the diff that I constantly linked when showing that the movie has a lot of coverage. Try to find WND in the diff. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to thank you for tackling what must have been a time-consuming close, . Nobody is going to waste time repeating sources that have already been listed by someone else. I can only really speak for myself, but I think that probably most of the keep !voters simply disagreed with your assessment of the reliability of those sources – especially WND and the Christian publications. I don't think it's fair to characterise them as low quality arguments just because they didn't respond to your specific objections to the sources given. That AfD was bloated enough; the last thing it needed was more repetitious back-and-forth. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't want people to repeat sources. Asking for sources is because I want to be clear that there aren't some other secret sources people are basing their keep !votes on, and that people are actually basing keep !votes on sources like WND. This is just the sort of reason why we have not-a-votes rather than votes. Numeric majority of participants in a particular thread doesn't transform sources like WND (which is among the best known of terrible sites -- just search RSN, e.g.) into good sources. That said, I recognize that since there are some superficial sources in less egregious publications, a couple sources that are more of a gray area than WND, and a significant enough numeric majority, that it would be hard for anyone to close as delete regardless, lest they be accused of a supervote. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that WND is notable regardless of its reliability or lack of it. I don't think Donald Trump is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, but if he hypothetically publically commented on the movie, we would include it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD: List of download-only PlayStation 4 games
Will you be deleting (J–R) and (S–Z) as part of the same AFD? — Niche-gamer 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to find sources for the page of mine you deleted
I listed a bunch of possible sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction I just wasn't quite sure what to actually do with them. And there were at least a few sources within the article itself.

As far as the "original research" thing, I asked about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research (though I haven't gotten an answer yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Having gotten an answer, it appears that I'm not the only one who thinks that most of the "original research" on that page... wasn't. It's not "original research" to say "This book has vampires in it" if, well, the book itself says that a character is a vampire. Tamtrible (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Medjed
Hi! I understand what you say that we do not know with certainty what species it was, however at my first reading my impression from the "was" was that it was an extinct species... The rest of the article makes that confusing, saying that they are common in the Nile. Can we fix this somehow? Maybe indeed indicate that there is no certainty on the species? Also I understand that its modern use is not relevant, so it's an archaic word... This reminds me of my French training to deal with ideology-loaded issues, "just the facts, no more, no less". It feels that neither "is" or "was" by itself will do. Thank you! Yama Plos  talk  18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, but I don't have a better wording ready right now.  Sandstein   12:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Arid Uka for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arid Uka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Arid Uka& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

James Thompson (Kansas politician)
You closed Articles for deletion/James Thompson (American politician) a month ago with a decision of "redirect". There's an issue now with the page where it has been recreated at James Thompson (Kansas politician), a different article about the same subject, but without sourcing to address concerns from that AfD. I'd like your guidance. Should it be restored to a redirect? Should I open a new AfD? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd redirect it, with reference to the AfD.  Sandstein   15:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I decided to renominate it, given the difference in content and to respect the contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Willis
Interested in userfying it? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don‘t userfy stuff, sorry,  Sandstein   23:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I actually already asked you before. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Debris documentar
Thank you so very much for restoring my article! Can you please restore the link to the German Wiki original too?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   12:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please see my comments over at AfD.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)