User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/February

Donald Watkins
Hi Sandstein,

After weeks of debate, you deleted the Wikipedia page titled, “Donald Watkins”. This deletion occurred earlier today and was unwarranted under the facts and circumstances discussed below.

Since August 2017, there have been intense efforts to sabotage my Wikipedia page by individuals in America who oppose my publicly expressed viewpoint that we must hold rich and powerful rapists and sexual abusers accountable for their misconduct. I did not create my original Wikipedia page and do not know who did. I have occasionally edited my page, as permitted by Wikipedia, to ensure the accuracy of the information contained therein. My Wikipedia page has been under attack since August 2017. It has been taken down, put back up, revised, and taken down again.

What concerns me is the fact that Wikipedia has erased a verifiable history of an African-American attorney, banker, and businessman whose life story has been chronicled by the well-known, U.S.-based "The HistoryMakers" series. The link to my HistoryMakers page appears here: http://www.thehistorymakers.org/search/node/donald%20watkins.

Much of the factual information in this HistoryMakers documentary also appeared on my original Wikipedia page and other biographical publications. Additionally, all of the information that was contained in the May 2017 version of my Wikipedia page can be easily verified from public sources on the Internet. As I understand it, the HistoryMaker documentary is or will become part of a digital archive in the new Africa-American Museum in Washington.

I do not understand how my biography as an African-American is good enough for a independently produced HistoryMakers documentary, but it is not good enough for a Wikipedia page.

In reading the editorial comments on my Wikipedia page, there was a suggestion that the editor who reinstated my page several months ago was a paid employee or affiliated person. This is not true. I am not affiliated in any way with the individuals who edit my Wikipedia page. Even when I edited my page to correct inaccurate content, I did it in a transparent way by using my own name.

I publish news articles on national and international subjects, via a public Facebook page under the name "Donald V. Watkins". The sabotage of my Wikipedia page started when I began publishing a series of articles on the 2015 rape of a University of Alabama honors student named Megan Rondini. Megan who committed suicide in 2016 after the man she identified as her rapist escaped criminal justice. The case was featured in the June 22, 2017 edition of BuzzFeed News. My Facebook articles investigated the local law enforcement and University officials who mishandled this rape case in the criminal justice system. My news coverage infuriated a lot of well-connected people in Alabama, including a powerful PR firm that represents some of the key public officials and entities involved in the case.

In August 2017, the defenders of the rape “suspect” launched a targeted Internet campaign to discredit me. They pressured Facebook to take down my page, which it did for 24-hours. Next, they convinced Wikipedia to take down my page, which it did for several weeks. Later, an editor unconnected to me republished a modified version of my original Wikipedia page. This revised version came under intense scrutiny and debate by Wikipedia editors. Finally, you took down the revised Wikipedia page today.

A modest amount of work by an unbiased editor would verify and confirm all of the content that was presented in my Wikipedia page, as of May 2017. For example, I either own Alamerica Bank, or not. I either a co-owner of Nabirm Energy Services, or not. I am either the CEO of Masada Resource Group, or not. All of this information is verifiable from publicly available records.

Additionally, the landmark legal cases listed on my original Wikipedia page are found in news articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, New York Daily News, Montgomery Advertiser, Birmingham News, etc. They are also contained in public court records, most of which are still readily available on the Internet. I either handled these legal cases, or I did not.

More than four decades of well-documented, groundbreaking civil rights and business history by a nationally known African-American was erased with the click of your editorial button.

In America, African-Americans have always had their histories ignored, erased, stolen, or minimized. Wikipedia should not condone, or ratify, any malicious effort by unknown volunteer editors to erase, minimize, ignore, or otherwise sabotage my Wikipedia page. By taking down my page today, this is exactly what Wikipedia has inadvertently done. As a media organization, Wikipedia should immediately correct this error in editorial judgment.

If you decide to reinstate my Wikipedia page, you should go one step further and protect it from volunteer editors who are tied (directly or indirectly) to the PR firm in the Megan Rondini rape case, or who have an undisclosed personal agenda to diminish my public profile.

You may call me on my cell number below, if you have any questions or want to discuss this matter. There is no subject that is off limits for discussion.

You have my permission to circulate or publish this email.

Thank you.

Donald V. Watkins, Chairman and CEO, Donald V. Watkins, P.C.


 * I have received the above by e-mail and am replying to it here as a matter of transparency.
 * Mr. Watkins, I understand that it is disconcerting to be deemed "non-notable" by Wikipedia. However, we have our own criteria for the inclusion of biographies, documented at WP:BIO, and we do not directly depend on judgments made by the subjects or others, such as the makers of a video series. Wikipedia is an international project, and I myself (like many editors) am not an American, so any arguments based on the particularities of U.S. history, such as you being an African-American, would not have been taken into account in assessing the inclusion of the article about you. What matters is whether you are covered sufficiently in-depth in third-party reliable sources. Our community discussion at Articles for deletion/Donald Watkins determined that you are not. My role as an administrator is limited to determining the consensus to that effect and acting on it. Even if I myself were convinced that you are notable enough for inclusion I would not have been allowed to act differently.
 * If you would like to appeal the decision to delete the article, you can do so through the process described at WP:DRV. Note that if the article is restored, it may be edited to make it less sympathetic to you, and to mention the allegations of misconduct that have apparently been made against you.  Sandstein   11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

Thanks for your prompt response to my January 30, 2018 email.

I understand that Wikipedia has now deemed me to be "non-notable" and has its our own criteria for the inclusion of biographies. I also understand that Wikipedia is an international project, and that you (like many editors) are not an American.

I did not create my original Wikipedia page. At some point, Wikipedia created this page based upon its internal criteria and assessment that I was "notable.". The determination of whether I am "notable" under Wikipedia standards was made at that time.

You indicated that what matters in determining a "deletion" action in my case is whether I have been covered sufficiently in-depth in third-party reliable sources. I agree. There have been extensive biographies published on me in USA Today, The L.A. Times, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Fortune Small Business Magazine, and a host of other third-party reliable sources that are readily available on the Internet. Yet, the community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Watkins has determined in 2018 that I am no longer "notable" enough for a Wikipedia page.

In light of the facts mentioned in my emails to you, I do not understand how you, as an administrator, determined that I am no longer "notable" for a Wikipedia page.

I should not have to appeal an error in editorial or administrative judgment at Wikipedia. I should only have to bring this error to your attention since you made the administrative judgment to delete the page.

You note that if the article is restored, it may be edited to make it less sympathetic to me, and to mention the allegations of misconduct that have apparently been made against you. This is fine as long as the article accurately presents my official response to allegations in lawsuits, as well as the disposition of any case where such allegations have been made. For example, a Wikipedia editor mentioned that I was sued by an athlete in New Jersey. This is true. However, the lawsuit was "dismissed, with prejudice", as the court records reflect (and not "settled" as suggested by the editor).

You are free to circulate or publish this email.

Thank you.

Donald V. Watkins


 * Replying to the above mail, also reproduced here: It's not "Wikipedia" as such that determined that you were notable previously, it was the individual editor who created the article. Because anybody can edit or create an article, anybody else can then challenge its inclusion, which is what happened here.
 * As an administrator, I am generally required by our deletion process to determine and follow the consensus of editors. I therefore could not (absent special circumstances not applicable here) have gone against the consensus of the discussion and decided to keep the article.
 * Whether or not you consider it fair or appropriate, our appeals process at WP:DRV is in fact the principal venue in which to attempt to undo a deletion. (Another would be to simply recreate the article in a form that clearly addresses the reasons for the original deletion, but since you are the article's subject, you are deemed to have a conflict of interest and should not do that, see WP:COI). If, as you say, there have been "extensive biographies" about you in such media as the ones you mention, and you can prove this by linking to them, it is probable that the deletion review process will undo the deletion. However, the reviewers may still decline to do so because of your conflict of interest.  Sandstein   19:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

Listed below are links to some of the third-party biographies and related articles I referenced in my email earlier today:

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2002-01-30/2002-01-30-watkins.htm

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2002/06/01/324552/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/04/sports/baseball-a-businessman-has-a-dream-and-very-few-doubts.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-12-28/sports/0112280349_1_major-league-baseball-corporate-welfare-donald-watkins/3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB110729833785942929

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/07/25/8266621/index.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/innocent-alabama-man-murdered-cops-article-1.2471278

https://www.iflr1000.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Powering-up-on-garbage-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa/Index/651

https://www.energy-pedia.com/news/namibia/new-165614

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/ex-jet-bryan-thomas-settles-investment-suit-as-sec-case-proceeds [Note: The headline says the case was “settled”. The article correctly reports that the case was “dismissed.”]

I have been a public figure for more than four decades. There are hundreds of online and pre-Internet news articles on my career in law, banking, and business. They are readily available to Wikipedia editors.

I do not understand how bringing these Internet articles to Wikipedia’s attention could possibly constitute a “conflict of interest”, particularly since you mentioned this option for correcting an obvious error in administrative judgment in your response to my email.

I am not seeking special treatment. I only seek fair, objective and unbiased media treatment in the public domain. I don’t mind being subjected to heightened scrutiny if it applies to everybody else. Unfortunately, I has always been subjected to a dual standard where heightened scrutiny was only applied to me.

If Wikipedia reports on lawsuit accusations, it should also report on the accused person’s response to such lawsuits. Additionally, Wikipedia should also report on the ultimate disposition of such cases.

I have seen where young porn stars and other people with interesting and non-traditional backgrounds have Wikipedia pages because were deemed to be “notable” under your standards. At some point, I was deemed to be “notable” and Wikipedia maintained a page on me for many years. Obviously, something happened in the Wikipedia Community in late 2017 and again in early 2018 that has made me “un-notable”.

I am not sure you have identified all of the factors that went into Wikipedia's “deletion” decision. The factors for “deletion” that have been identified in your emails have now been fully addressed.

You have my permission to circulate or publish this email.


 * Thank you. These do seem to be the kind of sources we usually look for to determine notability. I'm asking the participants in the deletion discussion: do the above sources make you change your opinion as expressed in Articles for deletion/Donald Watkins?   Sandstein   22:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I argued for the article to be kept. I think it stood a better chance without WP:COI editing. The difficulty with the article was maintaining WP:NPOV and in accord with WP:BLP. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are statements of policy; though less often argued than WP:N, they are also both valid reasons for deletion. I'm sure these issues could be addressed if there is sufficient interest, as we have resolved neutrality disputes with much more controversial subjects. Maybe WikiProject Law can help. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. He's clearly notable, but the problem has been to create an article that is encyclopaedic rather than hagiographic. I deleted this article initially because it was so clearly biased in its tone. It's perhaps understandable that the Afro-American editors involved in writing this article may suspect racism, and have accused me of such, but that doesn't actually address the article's problems. I'm not American, and I'd never heard of Watkins before this article, but I know what neutral point of view means. I restored the article on request to allow the debate, but it appears that the text still did not meet the community's guidelines. The following worries me If you decide to reinstate my Wikipedia page, you should go one step further and protect it from volunteer editors who are tied (directly or indirectly) to the PR firm in the Megan Rondini rape case, or who have an undisclosed personal agenda to diminish my public profile. You don't WP:Own the page, it's a page about you. You can't select who can edit articles about you; any one can edit any page as long as what they write is referenced adequately, and in any case we have no way of identifying editors or their affiliations unless they choose to tell us, and do so truthfully. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Forgot to ping  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Mr Watkins needs to understand the policies WP:OWN and WP:YOURSELF. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All of the arguments used for deleting Mr. Watkins page clearly demonstrate why Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a credible source in academia in the United States. Students are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference. That means that none of any Wikipedia editor's work (as time-consuming as it is) is deemed credible. When editors decide to delete a person's page although numerous, credible sources validate the information on that Wikipedia page, the editors are validating the very reasons why Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. There are credible sources listed in the references on his Wikipedia page that verify his background. He did not author the information in those references. It seems editors spend lots of time using bots, etc. to find articles that can be deleted instead of revising the articles according to whatever "policies" the Wikipedia community has established. The "policies" are forever changing. There is no consistency.  The "deletism" culture does not contribute to establishing an online, credible encyclopedia. DerrickH71 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion indicates that consensus among the editors who contributed to the deletion discussion remains that the article should remain deleted even though you are indeed notable enough for inclusion, because the article did not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). I will therefore not restore it. This does not prevent another editor, who is neither you nor associated with you, from recreating the article in a competent, neutral manner. As indicated above, if you disagree you can appeal the deletion to WP:DRV. This is my final communication about this matter.  Sandstein  07:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography of Oakland, California
Hi - I originally created the Oakland bibliography page, contributed most of its entires, and had tried to keep it up to date (alongside others of course). But I fell off the pace this past year and then somehow missed the entire debate these past two months over whether it belonged on WP.

I accept the decision though I think it indeed raises the question of whether a bibliography of any kind belongs on WP.

Like any bibliography of published works, all the entries can be found and verified via the publishing information given in each case.

I think the objectors who deemed this "original research" really just did not grasp the inherent nature of bibliographies.

What motivated me in the first place (beyond being an Oakland native and local history buff) is that the (non-fiction) literature regarding Oakland, California is large, but not overwhelmingly so. Therefore it is possible to create a comprehensive bibliography of Oakland, and that's what this list aspired to be.

In any case I will surely find a different home for it.

But I am sad to see it gone.

russmoss (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
Hello! I just wanted to thank you for your nomination of United States v. DuBay for deletion. It gave me the motivation to improve an article I previously had no idea existed. Keep up the good work. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Okazu
Goodnight. I did not understand a little, it is possible that this is some kind of misunderstanding. She is quite authoritative on the yuri and is used in most articles about works in this genre. Yuricon as her project even has a separate article. In any case, if you doubt the authoritative of this blog, you can always ask someone in the project "Anime" and all will be confirmed. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on Talk:Otokonoko.  Sandstein   20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ARBAA2 question
There is an issue at WP:ARBAA2. I requested here Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Armenian_Genocide to add the standard editing notice template as required by Discretionary_sanction. But I am unable to find out whether or not the consensus clause has been logged for this page. (The template was copied from another article where it is logged). I'm not sure if the template needs to be changed or if I have just been unable to locate the sanction in the logs, because of this diff I don't want to revert again but I want to know if the sanction is logged for this page before I file a complaint at AE [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=824249751&oldid=824246070]. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this concerns me?  Sandstein   07:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to get involved in any way, I just need to know if the sanction has been logged or preferably how I can find out if a sanction has been logged. The 1RR restriction was logged in 2010 or something and I wasn't able to find it by searching for it. I don't want to file a complaint at AE if a sanction hasn't been logged because it would be a waste of everyone's time. If the sanction isn't logged I have to make a second edit request, because I'm not a template editor. I'm not asking you for any particular reason other then I know you are an admin - most admins I've talked to are willing to answer simple questions about things like this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Template:Editnotices/Page/Armenian Genocide was created by, who is inactive, but you can try e-mailing him. To otherwise find out whether a sanction has been logged, you need to search the case page or the central sanctions log linked to from it.  Sandstein   08:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Split of List of The Legend of Korra characters
Hi. Just want to inform you that I've started a discussion on splitting List of The Legend of Korra characters from List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. Since you expressed concerns about such a split in a previous 2015 discussion, if you are still interested, you could have a look at the proposed draft and comment in the discussion. Also, if the split were to happen, could you advise on the best way to do it (is histmerge necessary)? Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians?
I was amused by your call for "more input by experienced AfD / Wikipedia contributors" at WP:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction. Only the day before at WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Boone it was complained (admittedly by the nominator) that "I am also astonished at the number of people who have turned up here in short order, mostly experienced and yet seemingly clueless about sourcing." Sadly I seem to fall into these two categories! Thincat (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring page for Aftab Pureval
Aftab Pureval is now a candidate for the House of Representatives. Would you consider restoring this page so that it can be updated to include this information? I'm willing to edit it to be less "puffery" and include national media coverage. Thanks in advance!

Waxlion sb (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Being a candidate alone does not confer notability. See WP:BIO.  Sandstein   16:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Adventist Today (Articles for deletion/Adventist Today closed as delete)
Requesting that the article for Adventist Today please be restored. The organization is one of the two most significant independent publishers for the 18M+ Adventist community, including news, quarterly magazine, and books. (The article for the other publisher remains, thank goodness.) Now numerous references to Adventist Today in other Wikipedia articles have no information linked. If memory serves the article—which wasn’t mine—needed updating and expansion, and it will be improved if restored. Thank you for your consideration. Bluepenciltime (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. This doesn't address the reasons for deletion highlighted in Articles for deletion/Adventist Today.  Sandstein   19:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction
You relisted this AfD Articles for deletion/Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction - the same editors who participated in the last round have now started a move/split discussion that should be on the article talkpage - pinging only a few of the participants in the discussion. I think relisting this was been a mistake, a move discussion does not belong at AfD. The main complaints from editors opposing the deletion have been that issues like WP:OR and the article title should have been discussed at the talk page and not at AfD, which I feel you ignored by soliciting further comments that are not directly about the article's notability. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting on the rest of your post, but regarding specifically my behavior, my intention with the move/split discussion was not to involve "only a few of the participants" -- the ones I pinged were specifically the ones who had previously mentioned renaming the article. In fact my goal is a broad consensus across the various national divides that are present on this issue [], though perhaps I was naive. --Calthinus (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case if the agreement is to keep the article and try to reach a consensus on scope and article name the AfD should be closed keep and the proposal should be discussed on the talk page. Otherwise it looks like voting delete based on content and not notability - since some of the editors supporting the move also supported deletion. I don't think it was intentional on your part, and I know you voted keep, but AfD is not the right place to reach a consensus on content issues. Seraphim System ( talk ) 06:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Editors can discuss what they want, and it will be up to the closing admin to determine what does or does not belong in the AfD.  Sandstein   07:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a lot of flack for starting this sub-thread and I've started to agree that it is making matters confusing. For the purposes of the admins seeing the AfD, do you think it would be helpful for me to move that discussion to the talk page, which is where (as I have been admonished) it really belongs? --Calthinus (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't move comments by others.  Sandstein   22:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandstein. The discussion on the AfD has become difficult to follow and editors are somewhat confused around the parameters of the discussion. Some editors have initiated a discussion on other article issues with various proposals that are usually dealt with on the article talkpage instead of an AfD which is about whether an article should exist or not. So i have a question. Is the original AfD of the article still in play or has the new discussion on proposals overridden it (which are not of an AfD nature)? Clarification on the matter would be much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion has become so overwhelmed with various proposals and off topic commentary that we are basically now talking about two different articles, both of which have copious WP:RS to support notability. I don't think it is possible to salvage this AfD, as the limited source based discussion has been broken up by various off-topic proposals, and non-policy based votes and personal opinions like While POV issues cannot be a reason for deleting an article, it is the nature of that POV the reason it has to be deleted. I think this is going to be very difficult for any admin to close. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD discussion is handily beating the article for length, frequency of edits, and daily views. I don't think it can be closed ever because it's driving too much traffic. The AfD may become so epic that someone writes an article about the AfD, then we'll also have an AfD for that article... Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

United States v. DuBay
I would like to get the above article to GA status, but am unsure how much more it needs to be improved before nomination. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, really. Long time since I did a GA.  Sandstein   15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Betesh deletion
You didn't acknowledge (Mozucattalk)'s reasons to keep. Please revert or I will bring you up as a problematic editor to an administrator.A21sauce (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please link to the discussion you refer to.  Sandstein   20:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Second to last comment here--A21sauce (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did count Mozucat's keep opinion, but that didn't change the consensus to delete.  Sandstein   15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Behaviour Composer page
Why was the Behaviour Composer page deleted? As I noted in the page update a couple weeks ago it has been the subject of 6 published papers and is still freely available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Composer ToonTalk (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Because nobody opposed the deletion in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Behaviour Composer. It was argued there that the six papers are in fact self-published.  Sandstein   10:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

These papers were published in reputable international conferences. Would it help if I provided links to the proceedings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonTalk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And Google Scholar lists 22 publications mentioning the Behaviour Composer. https://scholar.google.co.id/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22behaviour+composer%22&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonTalk (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You should have made these arguments in the deletion discussion. It is now over and the decision to delete has been made.  Sandstein   10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Joseph Betesh
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joseph Betesh. 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. A21sauce (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pseudo Slang's deletion
Hi Sandstein,

Hope this finds you well. On January 27, 2018, I posted a message to this talk page that I cannot find in your talk logs. I will re-post at the bottom of this message for reference.

If I recall correctly, Mattg82 and Boleyn were both amenable to sending the article for Deletion Review. Sandals1 never replied, and may not actually exist in any meaningful way.

With all that in mind, I ask you what the status of this situation is at present. Thank you for your time!

Best regards, Rod Phasouk

Hi Sandstein,

I hope this finds you well. At 09:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC), you deleted hip-hop group Pseudo Slang's page per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pseudo_Slang. I write you on behalf of the artists, and believe the deletion is in error per criterion #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. I base this not only on the "news" and "HighBeam" results in the "Find Sources" parenthetical within the article deletion page, but can also provide further examples, including:

http://vocalo.org/post/159683773156/jill-hopkins-spoke-with-mc-sick-and-dj-form-aka (notable NPR interview) http://www.okayplayer.com/reviews/pseudo-slang-200908198688.html (extremely respected and reputable source for hip hop journalism) https://youtbe/znAAyisLHy8 https://youtube/H_kTzAu1dsQ https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1636336.html http://hiphophourra.blogspot.com/2016/03/pseudo-slang-well-keep-looking-2009.html https://www.britishhiphop.co.uk/features/interviews/pseudo_slang.html (UK interview) http://artvoice.com/issues/v5n16/this_is_buffalo_hip_hop.html (Buffalo NY's main art publication, digital version of a print article) http://www.ihiphop.com/blog/album-review-pseudo-slang-well-keep-looking/

Unless I'm mistaken, the above links and aforementioned search results include "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Perhaps the fact that some of these works are in languages other than English has led to some confusion, but I do believe these links and search results together well meet criterion #1.

While meeting only one of the criteria is enough to be notable, Pseudo Slang also meets criterion #5, releasing albums on the following labels (and many more):

Fat Beats Records (prolific record label with a huge discography). Album: "We'll Keep Looking" Sub-Bombin Records (record label which has released albums by many notable artists). Album: "Cyclical" ThinkLoud Records Freshchest Records

Sandstein, I do realize that two community members (Mattg82 and Sandals1) made comments contrary to the above about Pseudo Slang's notability, but I could find nothing further about the existenace of User:Sandals1 beyond that specific comment.

There is much more, however, than I have referenced here - both online and in print, and even beyond - about Pseudo Slang out there in the world; works existing independently that support Pseudo Slang's notability.

In light of the foregoing, I hope that you will re-consider the deletion of Pseudo Slang's page. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter, and all the best to you, Sandstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.117.62.129 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * what is your view on the above as AfD participants?  Sandstein   23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it to DRV and have other editors look at it. Mattg82 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Maya Pencheva
Hi, I'm not going to challenge your close, after all I did write in the nomination that she's not very far below the notability threshold. However, I really can't see any viable arguments on the "keep" side. The first "keep" !vote contended that a) she was the author of a bestseller, and b) there are enough citations in the article to establish notability. The first point, as shown in the discussion, is false: she's only the translator of that book. As for the citations, the article is completely unsourced, so this was a probably a reference to the list of her publications, but that's actually a smaller body of work than that created by an average Western academic. The second "keep" !vote was entirely based on the presumption that there might be sources in Bulgarian, but then it's specifically the dire paucity of such sources in Bulgarian that I had already commented on.

Well, that's how I see things. Your close suggests that there's something else there that I seem to be overlooking. What am I missing? – Uanfala (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, I've reclosed the AfD as "delete".  Sandstein   18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting you would reconsider. That's appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

New clarification
User:Sir Joseph here accuse me of violating 1RR. I believe he is wrong, but could you possible clarify?

The article is Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories:


 * 00:52, 12 February 2018 User:NYCJosh add some brand new material

...it is discussed on the talk, and two editors (User:Icewhiz and User:Sir Joseph) removes it, while three editors (User:NYCJosh, User:Al-Andalusi and myself) edits to keep it in. So far everything perfectly "normal"  for the IP area.


 * 22:36, 12 February 2018 I reinsert the material


 * 20:42, 13 February 2018 Sir Joseph revert me,


 * 22:59, 13 February 2018 I insert the material again.

Now, from my understanding of Sir Joseph, he thinks I should have waited 24 hour after his revert of 20:42, 13 February 2018. I disagree, as I think that rule would only apply to User:NYCJosh. Which one of us is correct? (NB note that my revert of 20:10, 13 February 2018‎  doesn't count, as that was of an obvious, and now blocked sock.) Huldra (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in going through the particulars of such incidents outside of an enforcement request.  Sandstein   21:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Dead to Fall
Please don't remove Chad from Template:Dead to Fall if he is a former member. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But what is the point of a navbox entry if there's no article to link to?  Sandstein   19:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jason King (journalist) (2nd nomination)
I think you should look at this AFD again, because I don't think the delete arguments presented (of which there were only 2) were very convincing. There were some reliable sources in the article already and a decent amount of additional ones regarding him and Company Freak also exist. These include the following:     Therefore, I think you should reopen this AFD so that another discussion can take place taking into account these sources, which I think establish notability per BIO, MUSICBIO, and/or GNG. Every morning  (there's a halo...)  15:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your views on the above as AfD contributors?  Sandstein   18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those are notability-supporting sources that help him pass WP:GNG. Three of the five just namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about somebody else, thus not contributing GNG points because he isn't the subject of the coverage — and the other two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself, not being written about by a third party. Interviews can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves — people can and do make inflated and self-aggrandizing claims about themselves in interviews, and aren't subject to the same degree of factchecking that would apply to third-person coverage, so people can't get over GNG just by talking about themselves in interviews. We're looking for coverage about him, not for coverage of other things which happens to quote him or for instances of him talking about himself. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for deletion, and agree with Bearcat's assessment of the sources here and on the AfD page. I do not just look at the sources in the article, and check at least the first few pages of search results to see if there is anything else that would help towards GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect that he has a claim to notability per WP:MUSICIAN due to his disco band Company Freak. Coverage of this band can be found in the following reliable sources, among others:    page 25 I would like to know if anyone involved in this discussion (esp. Sandstein) considers these sources to establish notability.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  01:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A person doesn't get over MUSICIAN just for being a member of a band that gets over BAND, either — to pass MUSICIAN, a musician has to also be the subject of coverage in his own right independently of the band as a whole, such as by having also released solo material. So just showing that the band has sources about the band still doesn't mean Jason King automatically qualifies for his own standalone BLP separately from having his name mentioned in an article about the band — to clear the bar for a standalone article about him, he would need to be the subject of coverage about him, not just to have his name mentioned in coverage about the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, it seems that the new sources would not have changed the AfD outcome. I'm therefore not reopening the AfD.  Sandstein  17:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

your opinion please...
Your closure of Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green is based on BLP1E.

Green is dead, killed himself several years ago.

Do you still think BLP applies? Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If not, WP:BIO1E does.  Sandstein   11:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When I went to WP:DELREV I saw I discussed the AFD with you in 2014. I had no recollection of that.  I restored the article, and then updated it.  Do you think I should inform anyone other than you?  Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think as the then AfD nominator it's up to you to decide whether this version of the article is adequately improved or whether you want to renominate it for deletion.  Sandstein   20:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It was deleted and merged as BLP1E because he not notable and living. He didn't become more notable by dying. As Sandstein points out, BIO1E does apply. I don't see anything in the current version that makes me feel like this should be restored. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is now apparently being discussed at Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green (2nd nomination), rendering this thread moot.  Sandstein   17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

BrowseAloud
There has been a lot of significant press coverage of BrowseAloud in the last few days. Please undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you link to such recent coverage?  Sandstein   18:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actual WP:N-conferring sources, please, not a Google search.  Sandstein   20:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The top half of the first page of that search currently includes numerous such results. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my reply... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but you seem to have missed mine.  Sandstein   16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to open the top six links in in the search results provided by. In the order that google showed them to me they are: I don't see why formatting them into pretty templates is necessary to prove that they're "Actual WP:N-conferring sources", since they're literally just the same thing in a different format, but if that's what you need... Wittylama 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm, this all covers this software being hacked with cryptomining malware. I don't think that restoring the article on this basis alone is useful; this does not make the software notable as such, but as a hacking target. If anything is notable here, it is the hack or the hackers, and even this is probably a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:1E issue. Probably this is best covered in context at Monero (cryptocurrency), and/or in a list of hacks or similar.  Sandstein   17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I make no claim to accuracy or quality of these references. I have no stake in the status of this article as deleted or not. I'm simply putting the first six results of the google-search into en.wp reference template format. My point in placing these references manually is that I do not see why the shift in format is necessary to move the discussion from the above "show me proof - I already have - no you didn't - yes I did..." debate, since it's literally the exact same 6 news articles we're referring to. It's just that before they were in a google-search result and now they're in mediawiki templates in the same order. Wittylama 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Undeleted per AGF and moved to draft space, where it can be improved and discussed without one admin being the gatekeeper. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction
Hi Sandstein, you recently closed the List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction AFD but didn't delete the article. Mattg82 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction (2nd nomination)
Hi Sandstein, did you mean to delete the page List of electromagnetic projectile devices in fiction? I noticed that you closed the AfD as delete, but the page still exists in mainspace. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)