User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2019/December

AfD Lobsters (software)
Hello, in the Afd that was closed and relisted for the second time, I feel that there was a consensus supporting DELETE, per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS While comparing the numbers of deletes vs keeps were a tie, there's a pretty solid agreement among participants that the article fails to meet the general notability guidelines, thus a generally consensus against inclusion is formed. 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus yet. The relist allows a clearer consensus to emerge.  Sandstein   16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened
Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Hill (councillor)
Hi, I see that you've closed this AfD as delete, which is a shame because most of the delete votes didn't reflect the changes that I had made since they were cast, which introduced a lot of content including citations in the Local Government Chronicle (a national publication) and an interview in The Guardian. Are you able to restore the old content in my userspace or in the draft namespace so that I can keep working on it? There is still a lot to add; if I do work it up further, at what point can I consider recreating the article? --Noswall59 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
 * You can ask for restoration at WP:REFUND. You can recreate it once it's substantially different from the deleted version.  Sandstein   17:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Media bias against Bernie Sanders
A bit early, but do you want to close? I am currently drafting up a detailed closing statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's over 7 days, according to the closing script. I was just about to close with this. What do you think?
 * Numerically, opinions are about 3 to 1 in favor of keeping. In terms of arguments, there are valid points being made on both sides, to wit: the topic has plenty of reliable sources and is therefore notable, versus: the title and presentation of the content are not-neutral, and this (sub)topic of the Sanders campaign would be more appropriately treated (in terms of weight, etc.) in the context of existing articles about the campaign. Both of these points are defensible in terms of Wikipedia policy (and in fact do not necessarily exclude each other). But strictly in terms of arguments for or against deletion, I think the "keep" side has the stronger argument, because the concerns evoked by the delete side can be remedied by measures short of deletion: editing, renaming, merging. That being so, I'd normally close this discussion as "keep", but I am reluctant to do so here because the apparently widespread canvassing makes it difficult to ascertain how many opinions should really be taken into account. This means the article is, for now, kept for lack of consensus to delete it.  Sandstein   17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking, but I've written something much longer. I guess you could append that rationale on the talk page where I've formulated my own version and we could then mark it as a joint close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, sorry if I stepped on your toes here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was also canvassing with those who said delete. There is a Youtuber who pushed his viewers to vandalise the article and to vote delete (I think in his twitter). I also want to say that another editor has nominated the article again just mins after you closed it. WP:DPAFD: is clear about this, Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.  I was trying to change the article title so that it can be improved, I was also thinking of adding other content from high quality sources.-SharabSalam (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but the keep canvassers were far more successful than the delete ones; I did note so in the closure statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - has there ever been or can you point me to a discussion involving community input relative to adding certain minimum requirements or that already added minimum requirements for participation in an AfD, RfC, etc., particularly as it relates to registered editors (SPAS) with only a few edits? Atsme Talk 📧 19:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not Sandstein but Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 73. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is clearly only one Sandstein. 😊 Thanks for the link, Jo-Jo. Atsme Talk 📧 19:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Phishing emails
Wikipedia:Phishing emails, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Phishing emails and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Phishing emails during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Byron House
I worked very hard and spend most of my day rebuilding, attributing and providing sources for the Byron House page you deleted. Can you give me the exact reasons it was deleted so my next one will stay put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.186.58.125 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to this discussion. Please read WP:MUSICBIO. Generally, if a musician hasn't charted, sold a gold record, or won a Grammy, they're not notable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... but I used pages by bassists like Dave Driewitz and Chuck Dukowski as a guide - neither of whom have collected those accolades but have played in notable bands. Byron has played on gold records that have charted, played in the bands of very notable articles and appears on numerous wiki pages of musicians with whom he's played. Your criteria seems rather rigid considering the number of wiki pages for notable musicians who don't meet the criteria you specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgravy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yours is a common problem. New editors often use other articles as a guide. The problem is that Wikipedia receives more new articles than it can successfully triage, and we still include many articles from the bad old days of ten years ago when there were far fewer rules. I can empathize with your frustration. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect vs. Deletion?
Hello! I have seen that you have been closing some deletion discussions about Dungeons & Dragons subjects, of which there are many at the moment. In cases where you come to the conclusion to delete the article, would you perhaps consider changing the article into a redirect rather than outright deletion? Some more secondary sources have been found during the notability discussions, and there are probably still more out there. It would be helpful to still be able to access the old articles, to see if notability can be established at some future point. Thank you very much for your consideration. Daranios (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When I find consensus to delete, I close as delete. You are free to recreate a redirect where appropriate, which others may then contest at WP:RfD.  Sandstein   16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

When are you gonna take action against Toa Nidhiki05?
This editor has called Tamsier a "dick" on the the deletion discussion in which you blocked Tamsier for but took no action against this editor. I disagreed with that block anyway because I found nothing in Tamsier's remarks that deserved a block, and they also did a great job improving that article, but that's beside the point. also went on to make personal attacks against another editor by calling them "an imbecile", and believes that we are here to mock or ridicule other editors with this statement: "Sometimes, when responding to sockpuppet trolls, ridicule is an adequate solution". How many passes is this editor going to get before any action is taken against them for their behaviour, or are we only in the habit of blocking our Black and African editors? Just curious! Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't take action against something I'm not aware of. I'm aware of it now, but I'm not really inclined to respond to a request that is itself phrased very confrontatively and implies racism on my part. You or the offended editor may want to ask at WP:ANI.  Sandstein   11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What on earth? Yes, I called a sockpuppet troll account an imbecile. Sue me. Toa Nidhiki05 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, but there is no point reporting them to ANI. They will just give them another pass and try to ridicule me for bringing it to their attention. I have seen that done to so many editors reporting serious issues and I will not lower myself to that kind of foolishness. Since you proclaim to have zero tolerance for personal attacks, I was surprised you let that pass. Your explanation is clear. Well noted. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We do not make any personal attacks against other editors whether they are trolls or not. I thought that was the policy? Comment on their edits not the editor. Isn't that what we've been told? So why do you have a history of making attacks against others yet nothing has been done? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not the reason your friend got blocked. I didn’t ask for it, I didn’t lobby for it, and it wasn’t my decision. This has already been discussed in detail months ago when you tried to do the same thing. From what the blocking admin said, Tamsier got blocked because of their behavior at both the deletion discussion and previous discussions. Please stop blaming me for this and trying to get me blocked as revenge - I had nothing to do with it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the user is admitting to calling anyone (be they a sockpupet, or not) an imbecile, why are they not facing consequences? It's a clear violation of the WP:5P4, which is fundamental. Ironically sockpuppetry isn't a fundamental violation, though treated far more seriously. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When someone isn’t here to build an encyclopedia but instead to edit war inaccurate content into an article, and it’s as patently obvious as that sockpuppet troll as that account was, sometimes you get a bit frustrated. In this instance, a user was abusing two accounts to try and edit war a reliable source out of an article in favor of outdated information from years earlier. He was also (falsely) claiming to have called a source to prove it was inaccurate. He had genuinely no clue what he was talking about and was not listening to anyone. I called him an imbecile out of frustration with his dishonesty and utter inability to understand even the basics of how this website works. The user has now been blocked for being a sockpuppet. I probably should not have called him that, but frankly the level of concern I have with interacting with blatant sockpuppet trolls is far, far less than when working with actual, legitimate editors. Toa <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert the Deletion of page Bandari_(AVC)
Hi Sandstein,

Today I come the page Bandari_(AVC) and sadly find it is been deleted. I propose to recover it.

From the page Articles_for_deletion/Bandari_(AVC), I read several reasons for its deletion. In one sentence that is "Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND".

I admit that there are few material can be found about this "band". Actually, from the Chinese news paper dated 2015-07-29 (which is an interview of the founder of Bandari), we know that the "Bandari" as a stable band never exist. But its musics and the styles are real, the musics are performed by invited musicians and some songs are composed by invited composers. And all these arrangements are done by Peter Pozza, the founder of AVC. AVC is producing [meditation musics].

Bandari not only confuse you people outside China, but also confuse us. In a stackoverflow-like chinese ask-and-answer website called Zhihu, there is a question about [the existence of Bandari]. The top answer there is convincing, and the most vital evidence is the Chinese news paper interview mention in the above paragraph and the existence of [AVC].

I think, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not miss such a (countrywide) famous music production team. They are not typical band, thus the rules of WP:BAND should not apply. Instead, to my understanding, Bandari is a brand of a small company. This brand is almost unknown to the rest of the world because it is a cooperation between AVC and a Taiwan company, and the CD was released only in Chinese regions.

If anyone need assistance about Chinese language (e.g. in order to understand related reference), I could do it, although I'm not wikipedia-online every day.

Wanttoknow (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What is your view as AfD contributors?  Sandstein   16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I always go back to GNG. If sources can be found, then by all means I wouldn't care if the article was created. Looking at the AfD, the nom, the two delete !votes and the single comment all seem to agree that issue is scarcity of sources. As  points out, due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to add here, and find myself in agreement with the view of above. Ultimately, notability rests upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines: essentially, in this case we need at least two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Some indication of meeting WP:BAND would be helpful, but WP:BAND does not provide presumed notability, only stating that acts that meet some of its requirements may be notable. North America1000 01:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me answer the questions above asked by, and 31.61.114.124.
 * Q: At least two independent reliable sources.
 * A: See below. I consider Source 1 and Source 2 been reliable.
 * Source 1: 2005-07-29 Guangming Online (Chinese) (sorry I mistakenly wrote 2015-07-29 at the beginning). The author is Jun Liu a Guangming Daily journalist at Geneva. In this news interview, Liu meet Peter Pozza the "father" of Bandari at Zurich. Mr. Peter talked about why and how Bandari was created. If you want to know more about this news or related, I could translate.
 * Source 2: [AVC meditation music], where the first sentence reads: "Music for relaxation and dreaming has a name - BANDARI.". And the songs listed in that page under category Bandari are occured in the published CD sold in China. This (together with source 1) proves that AVC is the producer of Bandari.
 * Source 3: [Bandari Global (Chinese)]. Probably a fan-made website. Has a full list of Bandari albums.
 * Source 4: [last.fm/Bandari]. This shows the existance of Bandari outside China. iTunes also contains Bandari songs.
 * Q: Due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing.
 * A: A trolling topic. You can freely access the web site I listed, including the two in Chinese (Source 1 and 3). And you are freely to use any search engine to search Chinese website. There is no point to "control" anything in this particular topic.
 * Q: "A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful.", "Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia."
 * A: OK, OK, I'm here now, what do you want me to do? I speak Chineses, and I have done various search about Bandari already.


 * Wanttoknow (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue I see - is two of those sources are simple listings, which show existence, but not notability. A third does not appear to be a reliable source.  So that leaves only the interview.  Technically, interviews are primary sources, but can be used for notability depending on content. As we are having more and more articles with Chinese articles, it's important to have Chinese speakers be able to vette these sources. Sandstein - perhaps you can recover the article, and move into draft space to allow this editor to work on getting 2-3 in-depth sources to show notability?  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Devlin Waugh
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Devlin Waugh. 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. Richard75 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ryszard Walkiewicz
I'm not sure why a relist wouldn't have been useful. I've already said that if I thought the AFD was anywhere close to a delete, I'd have tried to improve the article and find more references - which I've never tried to do - and isn't a part of the DRV process. Given the false claims that GNG isn't a guideline, but a policy (?!?) surely the DRV should be closed by someone who is comfortable commenting on the the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG! Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is part of Notability, which is a guideline, not a policy. We normally relist AfDs only twice.  Sandstein   16:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can point to dozens of AfDs that were relisted 3 times, and some that were relisted four times. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's a guideline. Though during the DRV, many endorsements gave GNG undue weight, with the belief it was a policy. (WP:V is the policy - which was met ... GNG is a guideline, like WP:ATH). Normally we don't have DRV discussions for AfDs ... so we are already past normal here. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with here and will also point out that many (not all) of the endorse !votes simply attempted to rehash the AfD by saying the article failed GNG without addressing whether the closer addressed consensus correctly. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time since there was a DRV of a DRV. But this one is probably there.  I'd ask that you please take another look at this.  My sense is that you do have a fairly strong opinion on the GNG/SNG issue and that most other admins would have closed it differently.  Again, just asking that you consider undoing the close and letting someone else have at it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I don't see how I can find a consensus to overturn here. I did write that I do not want to put my thumb on the scale regarding the GNG/SNG issue, so I'm not sure where you get your sense from. It is normal that in a 11:7 situation there will be people who are disappointed with the closure no matter how the discussion is closed. But such is life.  Sandstein   06:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Again I am puzzled by your interpretation Sandstein. I agree with the 11 others who came to the review and with Hobit's call for a review. The first close of the AfD was wrong, and now you have endorsed the wrong. I do not think you should close these as I have said before. This is at least the third puzzling review closure. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "too bad so sad" is the appropriate next step here. What's the DRV appeal process? Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the deletion process does not provide for an appeal of a DRV discussion. But the article can be recreated if it is substantially different and the reasons for which it was deleted are addressed.  Sandstein   19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A few DRVs have been discussed at ANI over the years, but almost all of the ones that were overturned were egregiously bad closes. I'm not sure this qualifies, and filing an ANI report is not something one should do frivolously. However, if as suggested there is a pattern of bad closes from Sandstein (I don't follow DRV closely enough to weigh in on that), ANI would be the place to address that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI is a soul crushing place.
 * Here is a close where Sandstein says they could find reason to overturn since it is 20-15, but nah they do not want to because they did not like three of the !votes.
 * In the same situation, here they again find no consensus but decides to relist. Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident 8 endorse, 5 overturn, so he went against the 8 !voters.
 * In this case 2 to 1 in favor of overturning the closure on JK! Studios but nah...Sandstein declined. overturn and reclose 14 to 8 endorse.
 * In this clear no-consensus Sandstein cast a Supervote and deleted the article at AfD. Clear no-consensus at AfD.
 * Then of course there is the latest one Ryszard Walkiewicz. It seems Sandstein decides, sometimes relist, sometimes endorse, sometimes reject consensus in favor of a supervote. Not evenly applied IMO.
 * We are at the mercy of administrators and they do not evenly apply the policies and guidelines. I was involved in these examples so I imagine I have a COI. However I have questioned Sandstein each time. And you can see this last time they have not responded to me. IMO Going to deletion review and getting support for a desired outcome means nothing if Sandstein closes. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if you want to complain and Sandstein is unresponsive, the next step is probably ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI doesn't feel like the right course of action here. Though I'm puzzled how if this was soley a review of the AFD, and there was only one valid delete comment at AFD (given both the nomination and the other delete claimed that NFOOTBALL wasn't met), and little more said than name-checking AFD, how this isnt' a simple case. I'm also confused how it's difficult, given that WP:N cleary says that either GNG or things like WP:FOOTBALL must be met, with no particular over-riding emphasis given to either.


 * It's highly suboptimal to review a DRV at ANI. DRV is a slow, thoughtful process that reaches a considered decision about content after 7 days.  ANI is a quick and dirty process that reaches a random decision about conduct after a random period of time.  I would suggest that with a content decision, such as this one, the "highest court in the land" is a 30-day RfC.  The question should be about whether, in principle, SNGs trump the GNG or vice versa.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be worth doing in general. In this particular case, GNG wasn't raised in the nomination, and merely name-checked in delete votes. We never had a discussion or search for GNG sources. Nfitz (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't support ANI in any circumstance. This is just an extremely disappointing end to an admittedly difficult and unique circumstance - a majority of !voters had policy-compliant keep !votes at AfD, and a majority of !voters suggested overturning the AfD at DRV, and that wasn't enough to keep a perfectly valid article. I know it wouldn't necessarily be within any guideline except for WP:IAR, but considering I think you could find no consensus exists about what to do in this policy circumstance at any step of the way, I don't think a no consensus finding which would also change the AfD to no consensus would be out of procedure here. However, if Sandstein isn't willing to consider this, then it's just an extremely unfortunate run of events and we should move on, though I would support a very limited RfC. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Oromo migration
Articles for deletion/Oromo migrations

Why the discussion was closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotohelp (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because seven days had elapsed.  Sandstein   11:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisting Enverus page
Articles_for_deletion/Enverus

Hello Mr. Sandstein, I was hoping you could relist the Enverus page so that we could have a more detailed conversation about this page before being deleted? I feel someone has deleted it before any changes or counter arguments could be made. Most appreciated De-Stavness (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to talk to, who closed the discussion.  Sandstein   22:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Article which you deleted
Hi Buddy, i have also contacted the person RHawort he protected the page , he said kindly wait and be patient if its accepted then protection will be remove. You have deleted an article in feb 2019, i realized that few people have created the article before with no notable links or it was not passing wp:actor or wp:gng but i recreated the article and added the latest news references and newspaper sources and i am sure it is now notable. can you have a look dear ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi it will be good if you can pass your comments or help me to make this article better as you're most senior administrator and i help wikipedia by expanding articles/creating on public figures voluntarily.

Thanks Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I cannot determine the person's notability because I cannot evaluate the reliability of the sources. You should ask somebody familiar with the region.  Sandstein   09:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ToTok (app) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ToTok (app) 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/ToTok (app) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. UA3 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; " class="plainlinks"> 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはSandsteinたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, it is appreciated a lot. Posting a msg on your own talkpage for random talkpage visitors, tps is a good idea. :) —<span style="font-size: 93%; letter-spacing:1.2pt; font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran<b style="letter-spacing:1pt;">(talk)</b> 10:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chloe (actress)
I found out about the AfD after it was closed. Would you tell last name, or any other identifier of Chloe (actress) please? —<span style="font-size: 93%; letter-spacing:1.2pt; font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran<b style="letter-spacing:1pt;">(talk)</b> 10:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know it.  Sandstein   10:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Caucasian Journal
I consider your deleting Caucasian Journal as a clear case of Overzealous deletion (WP:OZD), as in talk page there were numerous comments in favor of keeping that page.

See abstract from article on WP:OZD:

"So, an article or edit is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It has loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article.

If this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problem. That's what the talk page is for. Deletion of an article where the subject's notability can be evidenced by reliable sources contradicts the overall goal of the Wikipedia project

"Overzealous deletion refers to an overwhelming desire to get articles or other materials on Wikipedia deleted. In other words, it is the act of getting an article deleted in order to feel like a "winner", to feel a sense of superiority, or "just for the heck of it".

Blanes 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted, but nothing in the above has any bearing on the actual discussion at Articles for deletion/Caucasian Journal and my closure of it.  Sandstein   13:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A predictable answer: Just a subjective opinion. No reasons given, no grounds, no criteria. It's sad that some people who are not aware how to conduct a serious discussion, still consider themselves experts on everything. Farewell, and happy arbitration in new year! Blanes  30 December 2019 (UTC)

Clement Olaloye Folayan
Sir, I hope you checked it thoroughly before deletion. I am asking because I put reasons on how it passes WP:NACADEMIC. There are more sources when searched without the middle name. If you are not convinced then can you please provide me the content so I can work on it and submit again for review please? Regards, --Sambhil32 (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the discussion at Articles for deletion/Clement Olaloye Folayan is over, and your arguments did not convince anybody else. I do not undelete content, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   13:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#1D4E89; background-color:#0f4c81; border-width:2px; text-align:left; color:white; padding:3px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Sandstein, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year '' Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border: 3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAE0; padding: 0.1em 0.2em; height: auto; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Sandstein , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.