User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/December

help me
hi dear. i watch pan- .... articles. but :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arab_colors - exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavic_colors - exist

and :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Pan-Iranian_colors but this article was deleted by you. why?

can you help me and send me in my talk page content of this?

i like to see content of this article? and why ? reason of delet? while slavik and arabic article now is exist. ?

i need content of this article. thanksEdejuasa (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Pan-Iranian colors was deleted per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Pan-Iranian colors, where editors described it as a "completely bogus self-made fantasy article" and "completely unsourced, appears to be original research". I will not restore such content. See WP:WAX as to why other articles of this kind still exist.  Sandstein   16:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako (2nd nomination)
Can you please reconsider this close as no consensus, I don't know what state the article was in, but I've found numerous reliable sources giving her extensive coverage. Such as, and held the Guinness World Record as oldest living person. The reason why sources are covering her is because "being the oldest is notable". Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not one event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE apply because most sources do not just state their age, they question their lifestyle to research how such longevity is achieved. I hope can also give input here. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I forget to mention there maybe some bias in the AfD. The users JFG, Newshunter12, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and another editor have been mobbing supercentenarians as of late voting delete regardless of sources provided, I hope this can be taken into consideration. Valoem talk contrib 15:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * {tps} The article didn't include your WPost citation, but it did the Guinness one. Basically, the article read "She was born on this date, she lived for 117 years, and died on this date. She was the world's oldest person for 3 months. She credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity." And that was pretty much it. So it's unsurprising that the AfD was closed the way it was. Unfortunately, the WPost article says practically nothing more than that (apart from mentioning calligraphy). In the end, without extensive coverage to meet GNG, it's a discussion about whether reaching an arbitrary age is notable. As you can see from the AfD, the Keep votes said "yes that's notable" and nothing else. I don't think Sandstein could have closed the AfD any other way, and absent large amounts of coverage for her from other reliable sources, I don't see that changing. If you look at other people in the list of Top 10 oldest people ever, they either (a) don't have an article at all, (b) have a well-sourced article (i.e. Sarah Knauss, Emma Morano), (c) are redirected to a simple list (Miyako), or (d) where there is some information on them they are redirected to a list where there is a paragraph about them (Marie-Louise Meilleur). I would say that (d) is certainly a possibility here. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am certain if you allow me and to work on this we can produce an acceptable article. I believe less than 15 people maybe 10 have lived to 117. Every year beyond 110 is more and more difficult to achieve. Valoem talk <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree. It's just that the AfD here was closed properly.  In fact, if you've got a minute ... the Keep votes came from (a) one editor with 27 edits ever. and previously none since 2014 (b) one who bullet-posted Keeps on every longevity-related AfD including the edit-summary "Stop assaulting coverage of the AMAZINGLY old!" (c) an editor who mysteriously turned up after very few edits to vote Keep on a whole bunch of longevity AfDs (again, with the rationale "oldest is notable") and (d) an account that hadn't edited for two years and made this one Keep vote - and hasn't edited since. Indeed, the only vote to come from an account in decent standing was from User:Jjj1238, and even they only said "oldest person - notable". So regardless of the fact that there was almost certainly off-wiki canvassing going on here, the closing admin could disregard most of the Keep votes anyway.  If you can contruct a good article that meets GNG, then that would be great. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the closer was incorrect either, I just want permission to allow recreation if the history can be restored I can work on a version with new sources so that db-repost does not apply. I hope than when the version is ready Sandstein can mainspace it so a mobbing edit war does not occur. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 16:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , you are free to recreate the article if it is substantially different from the deleted version, for example if it draws on these new sources, but it can then be renominated for deletion.  Sandstein   16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you restore the history of the page it helps me in creating new articles. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 16:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally do not undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND whether somebody wants to do that.  Sandstein   16:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , given that you do not object, I am willing to undelete and move to draftspace, & then I'll move it back when the refs get added.  Since we have so many new refs to add, the AfD will have ended in the best possible way, by producing an improved article. In line with this, are here any others to draftify also?  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)‎
Hello,

I realize I'm a brand spanking new editor, and you're wikifamous, but I don't see the consensus to delete these page. It seems to me like the discussion was pretty evenly split (no consensus). I noticed you said you found the arguments for historical significance unconvincing because they referred to links in prior AfD discussions (which is what I did one of my posts). I thought referring to the link to RSes establishing historical significant/notability would cut down on spam/repetition, I had no idea a closing admin would consider where the links were (here or there) in determining consensus. That being the case, I ask that you unclose and relist the discussion so I can include links to articles showing that TV programming schedules are historically significant (and thus permitted under WP:NOTTVGUIDE). Thanks, Levivich (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. The discussion ran for three weeks; this was ample time for introducing evidence about the significance (if there is any) of these TV programming schedules. In addition, I find it difficult to imagine that there are sources that establish all of three decades' worth of TV programming as particularly historically significant. This is clearly not what WP:NOTTVGUIDE refers to.  Sandstein   18:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree three weeks is ample time to present evidence of historical significance. I thought I had done so by linking to the previous AfDs that contained such evidence. I didn't realize I had to copy-and-paste it into the current AfD. Had I known, I would have done so. That's why I'm asking for an opportunity to do so now.
 * You have expressed your doubts that there are any RS establishing historical significance of television schedules. I hope this changes your mind.
 * Here are the sources in previous AfDs that I was referring to; the ones I didn't know I should have copied-and-pasted into the current AfD. This is what I'd like to add to the current AfD for editors' consideration:


 * RS showing historical significance of television schedules (not just television in general, but also the schedules themselves, as schedules–what show aired when, against what other show):
 * Contemporary sources discussing importance of TV schedules (not just announcing lineups, but analyzing them)
 * Wikipedia articles about TV schedule slots
 * Saturday-morning cartoon
 * Friday night death slot
 * Animation Domination
 * The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present
 * This is a perennial, but "keep" wins a lot more than "delete"
 * (2005 keep) Articles for deletion/1959-60 American network television schedule
 * (2006 keep) Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule
 * (2006 keep, nom withdrawn after snow) Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2007 snow keep) Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule (old)
 * (2007 snow keep) Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule
 * (2007 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * 2008 - discussion on #NOTDIR Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23
 * (2008 keep) Articles for deletion/2008-09 United States network television schedule
 * (2008 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2008 keep ) Articles for deletion/1982–1983 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2009 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules
 * 2009 - Very thorough discussion of the topic Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30
 * (2011 keep) Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2011 delete) Articles for deletion/2012–2013 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * (2011 speedy delete based on one comment/!vote) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule
 * (2011 snow delete after recreation) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (2nd nomination)
 * (2012 snow keep) Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)
 * (2012 speedy keep citing earlier snow keep) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination)
 * (2013 keep) Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule
 * (2014 delete) Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2015 delete) Articles for deletion/2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2015 keep) Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2018 delete after one comment/!vote) Articles for deletion/1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (this AfD, 2018 delete) Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2006 keep) Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule
 * (2006 keep, nom withdrawn after snow) Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2007 snow keep) Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule (old)
 * (2007 snow keep) Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule
 * (2007 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1949-1950 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * (2007 keep) Articles for deletion/1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * 2008 - discussion on #NOTDIR Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 23
 * (2008 keep) Articles for deletion/2008-09 United States network television schedule
 * (2008 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/1991–1992 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2008 keep ) Articles for deletion/1982–1983 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2009 no consensus, default keep) Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules
 * 2009 - Very thorough discussion of the topic Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30
 * (2011 keep) Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2011 delete) Articles for deletion/2012–2013 United States network television schedule (weekday)
 * (2011 speedy delete based on one comment/!vote) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule
 * (2011 snow delete after recreation) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (2nd nomination)
 * (2012 snow keep) Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)
 * (2012 speedy keep citing earlier snow keep) Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination)
 * (2013 keep) Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule
 * (2014 delete) Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule (late night)
 * (2015 delete) Articles for deletion/2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2015 keep) Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (2018 delete after one comment/!vote) Articles for deletion/1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
 * (this AfD, 2018 delete) Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Please reconsider your decision and re-open this AfD so I can share the above sources with other editors, and we can hopefully achieve (stronger, clearer) consensus. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea for you Levivich, create a fansite to publish all the TV schedules from however long ago. That is where they belong. Why does this content need to be on Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a great question and one I'd love to expound upon if this AfD were unclosed, but I don't want to get into a debate on another editor's talk page. Short answer: these lists deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because they are historically significant, notable, verifiable, and useful, and in addition, because they exist and they've passed multiple AfDs in the past, which suggests a lot of people have agreed they should be included, over a long period of time. Perhaps a better question than "Why should they be here?" is "Do we have consensus to delete them?" Out of respect to this editor, I'll answer any questions put to me but I'm not going to argue this AfD any further on this talk page after this post. It is not my intention to "argue the keep" here, just to discuss with the closing admin about the possibility of unclosing this AfD so additional sources can be put forward and discussed. The admin's reasons for the closure were clearly stated, I've submitted my "evidence," and the closing admin will either unclose it or not; I don't think a back-and-forth is useful, but let me know if you disagree. I hope this is unclosed and I'm looking forward to discussing this further on the AfD page. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Levivich, this is an impressive amount of sources. But I remain unconvinced that it would have materially impacted the AfD. Based on the titles, these sources establish that the topic of (US) TV programming is well covered by reliable sources. These sources would be a good basis for a prose article about US TV programming, which might include some exemplary schedules, but they do not establish that we need to include all of the uncommented and uncontextualized primary data itself, in apparent violation of WP:NOT. I therefore decline to relist or undo my AfD closure.  Sandstein  07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think thebetter close was non-consensus, whether one wishes for one result or the other. Myself,  I made a commitment back at my RfA 11 years ago to only close a genuinely disputed AfD, if the result is  against my own opinion.   DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sibel Kekilli
Sibel Kekilli was indeed a pornstar. You know it. You are not working for the betterment of the project. Your point of view doesn't repudiate documented facts. SolarFlash (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That she worked in porn is not in dispute. That this needs to be mentioned in the lead of her article is.  Sandstein   22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly is more than worthy of mention in the lead section, as at one point it was certainly the single thing she was notable for. But I have better things to do. SolarFlash (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). 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. Levivich (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Appeal
Thank you for your helpful comments but I am afraid I am totally lost. When one isn't dealing with ArbCom on a regular basis the ability to navigate is lost. Can you point me in the right direction please? Thank you so much. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try proceeding per Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal/doc.  Sandstein   18:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That is very useful. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Question on my topic ban
Hello Sandstein. Sorry to bother you, but I'm having a discussion with another user regarding a possible violation of my topic ban (User talk:יניב הורון, ). I don't think the name of an ancient temple in Jerusalem is related to ARBPIA, but Zero0000 thinks otherwise. If he is right, I won't edit in that article again. Could you please clarify for us this issue? Thank you very much--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi!
If I may ask, what is the reasoning for closing this as no consensus Articles for deletion/Smash Champs? Especially with the sources posted and the fact both delete votes have been refuted in a way (promo tone is cleaned out, sources posted in AfD, none of which were countered too). I know No consensus is a de facto the Keep, but I don't think this was a close one at all. Not asking this because I am judging you, but mostly since I want to learn more about No Consenus criteria for AfD overall. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, I almost closed this as keep for this reason. Ultimately, the number of "keep" opinions wasn't so high that I was comfortable with finding a clear consensus to keep. The result, as you say, is the same.  Sandstein   09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gil Lavi / Article previously deleted that was reposted and can no longer be submitted to PROD
Current article (also contains links to history and talk): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gil_Lavi&action=history

Log of earlier deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_April_16#Gil_Lavi

I submitted an article for deletion and got an automated message that the article had already been submitted for deletion, and could not be submitted to PROD again. I'm unsure of how to proceed if I wish to progress further, but I noted that you presided over an earlier discussion of whether to delete an article on the same topic (an argument to delete that prevailed) and your knowledge of the site may inform me how best to proceed.

If there is something I'm doing wrong by submitting this article for PROD, let me know. (My gut feeling is that PROD is just the wrong process to use) My rationale for originally trying to submit to PROD was that the subject does not meet notability guidelines for creative professionals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianvan (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Brianvan (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Because there has already been an AfD discussion, Articles for deletion/Gil Lavi, you can't use the WP:PROD process for deletion. You can, however, open a new WP:AfD discussion about the article and propose to delete it there.  Sandstein   09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Afd discussion
Hello, sorry to bother you. Would it be possible to relist the Articles for deletion/Gordon Duthie discussion or open a new WP:AfD discussion about the Gordon Duthie article?

Reason: The previous deletion discussion - Articles for deletion/Gordon Duthie - did not focus on the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. In relation to WP:MUSICBIO guideline (1.) the article was written on the 24th of August 2012 using "reprints of press releases and other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as sources by an unregistered IP address. The content of the article has not been updated since the 24th of August 2012 and the musician has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" since. The musician also does not meet any of the other WP:MUSICBIO guidelines (2./3./4./5./6./7./8./9./10./11./12.).

A more thorough discussion on the topic and content of the page in relation to the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines would provide clearer consensus on the initial reason for nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C75:4F00:A0FD:323E:1E71:7811 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion was unanimous, so I don't see a reason to relist it.  Sandstein   14:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, was the unanimous decision not based on WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 2. d. rather than the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines? As it is debatable - due to the reasons above - that the article doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines would it not provide clearer consensus if the discussion was relisted with the focus on the topic and content of the page? Using this as a starting point: In relation to WP:MUSICBIO guideline (1.) the article was written on the 24th of August 2012 using "reprints of press releases and other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as sources by an unregistered IP address. The content of the article has not been updated since the 24th of August 2012 and the musician has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" since. The musician also does not meet any of the other WP:MUSICBIO guidelines (2./3./4./5./6./7./8./9./10./11./12.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C75:4F00:2592:47E:BACD:A543 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you made your point in the AfD, but it convinced nobody, so the article is kept. There's nothing more for me to say about this.  Sandstein   19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus Judaeorum
(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tickmill page deletion
Please let me know the reason behind deleting the Tickmill page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matickfo (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasons can be seen in Articles for deletion/Tickmill.  Sandstein   15:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Perez
Hi Sandstein, I believe the page I created (Happy Perez) was wrongfully deleted. He is an American music producer who has been credited with production and songwriting in many notable works (a quick Wiki search of his name pulls up great examples). Wikipedia is a vital source and hub of information in ensuring the creators of pop music and the like get the recognition they deserve for their hard work. Unfortunately there aren't many top-tier credible sources with his full personal story or biography as he typically stays behind the scenes. While the page failed the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, I believe he meets all for Wikipedia:Composers. I'd like to revive this page and adjust however needed to ensure this doesn't happen again. I'd appreciate your input as you were involved in the deletion. Particularinstance (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you can recreate the page if you can clearly remedy the reasons for deletion in doing so.  Sandstein   20:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of people with autism spectrum disorders/Archive 1
Talk:List of people with autism spectrum disorders/Archive 1 should go, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, done.  Sandstein   07:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man's powers and equipment
Hey were you the one who deleted this history of this page? If so can you revise the history of the page in an userspace draft. I want to work on it if I can. Jhenderson 7 7 7  03:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't undelete content, particularly not if, as Articles for deletion/Spider-Man's powers and equipment shows, it has no prospect of becoming inclusion-worthy.  Sandstein   07:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bummer! I already had sources and everything ready to use and I just wanted it in a draft not an article. Thankfully an admin already noticed my sources to use and offered that very thing! Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Review
Hi sand, I found that you have closed previous deletion discussions of Draft:Prakash Neupane and one of the reviewer declined the draft submission and suggested to go for WP:DRV but now the article have reliable sources which meet WP:MUSICBIO. But that are national independent and reliable sources. Let me know what to do. Regards, Azkord (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not interested in the topic and therefore not interested in reviewing these sources.  Sandstein   20:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the The Rambling Man arbitration case be amended as follows:

For the Arbitration Committee,--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A digital gift...
...for your sensitive eyes.... <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban edits
Hi Sandstein. You imposed a topic ban related to the Balkans on FkpCascais. After that, he created an article that is related to the Balkans. If I am not mistaken, this is against rules of the topic ban. If so, the editor maybe is not fully aware of the situation. Can you have a look at this issue? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, now blocked.  Sandstein   17:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD close question.
Hi Sandstein. I was a little confused by your close at Articles_for_deletion/Genome-wide_complex_trait_analysis and was wondering if you could give a little insight on how you approached it? Basically, you closed it as keep but needing considerable work. Meeting notability guidelines but not being of sufficient quality for mainspace is the exact reason draftify is an option at AfD (in part to counteract superficial comments like "notable and sourced" or "AfD is not cleanup"). No one disputed notability, and most of the keeps mentioned nothing about article content relevant to opposing a draftify while a good number of editors were clear that draftify was the better option. With that in mind, what would you have seen as the threshold for closing as draftify in an example like this versus calling it as a keep? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no real opinion on the close, but from a procedural point of view you may have missed that Genetic correlation was linked to the same AFD. Does the keep close include that article? AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to mirror your comment, I'm not asking for a close review or anything with this, just more of a meta-comment on how the close worked out. Clarification on genetic correlation would be helpful too (though I guess it's a good example of why I don't like to see joint AfDs normally). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now also removed the AfD tag from Genetic correlation. The script must have missed it.  Sandstein   10:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering it was 3 Draftify versus 10 Keep, I personally don't see any other way it could have been closed except keep; "draftify" would have been casting a supervote. Given it was a bad-faith nomination and it was a bulk nomination of two large and different articles, it was a poor nomination all around. Anyone who wants to clean up the article can. Sandstein's close did not say "needing considerable work", it said "it is clear from the discussion that improvement is needed" -- something that is generally the case with every article that is brought to AfD, but AfD is not cleanup. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Softlavender answered the question for me; thanks!  Sandstein   10:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, whenever someone mistakenly says AFD is not cleanup I always try to remind them that WP:ATD-I is also policy that such comments can violate, especially in cases where article content not satisfying WP:DEL14 yet was essentially the initial reason for nomination. Deletion isn't cleanup, but draftify/userfy as part of AfD is, which is where my question here came in. Also, I count 5 draftify !votes (Elmidae and Jytdog where in that if you read their discussion). There were 9 keep (7 if you discount disruptive comments that were pretty clearly focused on the nominator in a hounding fashion and even less if you discount superficial "notable and sourced" type comments). Far from a clear numbers divergence in terms of how we weight consensus. The main issue rather than !vote counting though is most of the keeps are saying the article needs to be improved, which is at least partial agreement with the draftify comments (and no disagreement with it or even addressing draftify issues from what I can see otherwise in many of them). Keep and draftify options are a somewhat similar in relation as merge and redirect are to each other in that sense.


 * So Sandstein, I guess my actual question wasn't really addressed. I was focusing more on when you have an AfD that turns out to be a notable topic, but there is clear consensus that significant improvement is needed. In a generic case like that, where would you draw a rough line between where a true keep decision begins versus draftify in terms of what an AfD discussion needs to show to support a close one way or another? That's especially since the arguments for the two are not always mutually exclusive (i.e., notable ≠ keep automatically) No rush on any comments you do want to give though. I'm mulling over if some of the draftify-related policy needs better clarification specific to AfDs, so I'm just gathering ideas from people first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Elmidae was Keep but crop; even after others suggested and !voted draftify he did not change his !vote. Power~enwiki did some major cropping, removing nearly 70,000 bytes (64% of the article) . There were clearly 10 Keep !votes versus 3 Draftify !votes. Closers are not allowed to cast a supervote in cases where there is no indication one is incontrovertibly warranted. There also was no "clear consensus that significant improvement is needed"; less than half of the !voters were of that opinion -- therefore Sandstein's closing comment "it is clear from the discussion that improvement is needed" was an accurate summation. No one is preventing you, or Elmidae, or anyone, from improving the article. Whatever could be accomplished in a draft of the article can be accomplished on the live article. Here also is a statement from the essay WP:INTROTODELETE: "Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Nothing prevents the article being re-AfDed at a future point in time if someone deems it should be. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's taking the respondents comments out of context and not how closes work. WP:CONSENSUS assesses the totality of someone's comments rather than just looking at their initial vote statement (and dismissing superficial or problematic !votes). That also plays into how a vote for keep isn't automatically a vote against draftify (unlike keep vs. delete which are polar opposites). Either way, this is not the place to re-litigate the AfD, so I suggest not continuing to do that here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that is exactly how closes work, and it is not "taking the respondents comments out of context"; Elmidae never wavered from his Keep !vote, and power~enwiki accomplished the cropping he sought. Any closer casting a supervote to close as "draftify" when the consensus clearly did not warrant it would have been quickly over-ruled. You are the one continuing to re-litigate the AfD (apparently to conform with your very minority !vote); I am merely explaining how the close was in fact in conformity with how AfD closes work. Softlavender (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, this is a difficult question to answer in the abstract, and I can't say that I have so far felt the need to give it any thought. I'm used to examining specific AfDs and assessing what if any consensus emerges from them, taking all circumstances into account.  Sandstein   14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought. Part of the problem I'm thinking about is that people just forget about or don't know much of the draftify option and how it fits within the other AfD options. I'll start looking into policy/guideline areas clarification can be added to avoid some of the issues this AfD ran into. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Bulk AfD you closed
Hi Sandstein, you closed this bulk AfD as Keep, but only removed the AfD notice from one article. Can you please fix the other article as well? Thanks. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, see above.  Sandstein   10:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi,

Regarding  this , I would first wish to thank you for the lenience shown. It was... unexpected. I will try my best not to make a mess out of it. On the other hand, in order to make sure that I do not break the sanction, could you clarify this please? What is "everything related to Origin of the Romanians". Does it refer strictly to Origin of the Romanians page/article or... in a more broad sense would it cover things like language, history (and if so, would WW1 be included?), the principalities. I'm mainly concerned about WW1 including the Ro-Hu war, the 19th century revolution and WW2, since I have some pretty good sources and the articles could be greatly enhanced by those.

And one last thing. If I were to present a case for the AE, would that also fall under this (meaning that any evidence I would like to present that is related to Origin of the Romanians article would also need to be eliminated?)

Thank you for your time. Cealicuca (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TBAN for what "everything related to Origin of the Romanians" covers. It also covers AE requests related to this topic area.  Sandstein   12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review Burghrecords
believes the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Sonnyf (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)M.S.Fascia


 * This concerns me how?  Sandstein   11:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool handshakes author
Hello Sandstein,

I am so sorry the article was so bad. It was on the list of requested Wikipedia pages, and I was just performing a requirement for a class. Regardless of the questions I asked, the teacher gave me no real feedback or parameters. At some point, it just became a "get it over with the assignment". I am so sorry, I myself also do not know what constitutes a "cool handshake", and now that the assignment is over, I guess I never will. Sorry Alexandrapantry (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem. Stuff gets deleted all the time. Feel free to read WP:GNG to get a feel for what we need to have an article, and try again with some other topic.  Sandstein   11:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

For Wikicommons categorising
Have you checked out formal wear and informal wear? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Informal wear is largely unsourced; calling suits "informal" would be clearly counterintuitive to most readers.  Sandstein   18:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Guess I should've used red. Didn't realize it was easier on the eyes. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 19:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please
... unprotect Talk:Zorin OS. Thanks.  HarryKernow.  Talk. 04:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   19:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Managing by wire
Hi Sandstein. I have found sources for Articles for deletion/Managing by wire. Would you reopen the discussion so I can add the sources to the AfD? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because the AfD was already open for three weeks, so a third relist would be excessive. But you can recreate the article with these sources if you want to. The deleted content was very brief and pretty much worthless anyway, as far as I can tell.  Sandstein   10:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A third relist would not be excessive because of the new sources I would present to the community for review. I would prefer not to recreate the article because the article's content was not worthless. Would you restore the article so I can add the sources? Cunard (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I believe the encyclopedia would be better served by a competent recreation based on good sources, instead of keeping poor content that is likely never going to be improved.  Sandstein   12:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken this AfD to Deletion review/Log/2018 December 25. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Pre review Cardano
Hello Sandstein, Are you willing to pre review Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)? Do you think the article is now good enough to list at articles for creation? You deleted Cardano (platform). Some where saying it looked like an advertisement, so I tried to write it in a more neutral way.

My apologies for the recreation mess a few weeks ago. The article was deleted and I recreated it quickly. I didn't notice that User:David Gerard moved the article to draft, so when I saved my edit, the article was recreated again - and speedy deleted. Then User:ProgrammingGeek renamed and moved my personal sandbox live and that was moved (back) again to this current draft version. I like the renamed Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) better. Upto then I didn't know the Draft procedure existed. User:David_Gerard gave me some pointers on how to improve this article. That was and is much appreciated.

As stated on my User talk:FlippyFlink I am not paid or compensated to contribute to this article. I also was not asked to start this article. Information security and crypto are one of my favorite topics. So I created several related pages in the English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. Regards, --FlippyFlink (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have to decline. The topic does not interest me.  Sandstein   12:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reaction. --FlippyFlink (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Lilblue Linux
Why the hell was I not informed that a DRV had been opened? Champion posted on my talk that they might take this to DRV, but I never was informed that it actually had been opened and nobody pinged me, I only saw this because you reverted my closure and I got notified about that. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. You might want to ask the DRV nominator, .  Sandstein   18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have posted this here. I got irritated and clicked the first talk page link at hand... :-) I've now !voted in the relisted AFD, so let's see how it works out. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Alireza JJ
Hello,

I have a question. One of the articles I wrote a while ago was deleted due to not having enough resources. I did not check the deletion process so I was not able defend the article. I checked back on the page and I saw that the websites that I originally used as resources had been deleted. But all of the page was written based on complete resources and that's why the page was there for almost 4 years. Can I get a chance to rewrite the page using new resources? The old page was accurate and I just need to delete chunks of it or find new resources.

A link to the deletion log Thank you, FarjjFarjj (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You can recreate the article from scratch with new sources, yes, following the advice of the AfD nominator: "this is a hot heaping mess of spam and garbage sources for a BLP and would require such a significant rewrite and research I think it's best to start from scratch, if he even meets WP:GNG."  Sandstein   20:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Rheena Villamor wiki page
Hi,

I saw that you deleted the wiki page for Rheena Villamor. May I ask to retrieve the page?

Thank you!

elivic (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC) elivic


 * I'm not undeleting articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   20:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Help List of Armed Services Editions
Thanks for the massive list at List of Armed Services Editions. I've disambiguated quite a few titles & authors but there are still loads (168) left on the list (shown in red at the Dab solver list). It would be great for the reader if these could be made more specific.&mdash; Rod talk 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, thanks for your help.  Sandstein   21:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please restore
The redirect Idol merchandise you've deleted. I've rewritten and recreated the target article. TIA. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you've recreated it as Idol goods? Then I see no need for undeleting the previous history.  Sandstein   14:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ...Sorry, I see that I wrote something about this in the AfD. I don't undelete articles myself, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   14:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are an admin, yes? So just restore the redirect. You deleted it. I fixed the target article. You can fix the redirect. What's so hard about it? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can recreate the redirect yourself if that's what you want.  Sandstein   21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)