User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/February

4th AFD
Hi, are you going to address WT:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination) separately? I counted about 2.1 of 3 for a THREE based on various improvements since the 3rd AFD, with two pending (reverted) improvements on the article + 4th AFD talk pages: WaPo 3O needed + YT 4R relevance demonstrated. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I only address the AfD itself.  Sandstein   23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, would you consider reverting the decision to consider the deletion discussion as a consensus to delete? Even if you don't believe there was a consensus to keep, plainly there would be no consensus, with roughly the same amount of policy arguments on both sides. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , for the reasons explained in my closure, I do not believe that policy-based arguments were made on the "keep" side.  Sandstein   23:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I request you restore the article in question, including the history of all those deleted sources, to my sandbox. Trackinfo (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not restore deleted pages, but you can ask for somebody else to do this at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   10:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for deleted article to be userfied or sent to draft space
Hi Sandstein, I would like to know if it is possible to userfy or move to the draft space the article, Aviva (musician), discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviva (musician), as I would like to improve upon it as more reliable sources come up in the future. Please let me know. Many thanks, Freyja10 01:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyja10 (talk • contribs)
 * , I do not restore deleted pages, but you can ask for somebody else to do this at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   10:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Try to learn to work cooperatively
I will not revert because you couldn't be bothered by people like you. If you think "The sausages are spelled" is good English, then so be it. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I understand — suffering from a bout of WP:OWNERSHIP, are we? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christopher Martenson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christopher Martenson. 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. Hfarmer (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Queerbaiting in regards to Eve and Villanelle.
Yes, hello. I edited that queerbaiting section and took Eve and Villanelle off of it because they are canon gay characters on a list filled with straight characters. How exactly are the biased opinions on The Guardian and Independent reliable sources? Those sites are not Deadline or Variety or Vogue or anything with actual merit. So you can keep their articles about what they THINK is queerbaiting but delete actual evidence from the series that shows Eve and Villanelle are indeed canon?

You're calling my opinion an 'interpretation' yet using other interpretations that are just posted on random blogs. That's very hypocritical. Channy1234 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read our policies WP:V and WP:NOR. They say that we write our articles based on what reliable sources say, not based on our own views about whether something is or isn't, say, "queerbaiting". The Guardian and The Independent are mainstream newspapers and therefore reliable sources for our purposes. Moreover, in the article at issue, we don't say, as Wikipedia: "This is queerbaiting". We only say that some have perceived a certain couple in a TV series as queerbaiting - not that this view is necessarily true. So I don't think you have any cause for concern even if you don't personally agree in this instance.  Sandstein   16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your statement "...the biased opinions on The Guardian and Independent reliable sources? Those sites are not Deadline or Variety or Vogue or anything with actual merit" reveals your own editorial viewpoint, in violation of WP:NPOV. You may have legitimate gripes with those sources and you should take your complaint to WP:RSN. Otherwise, you'll need to abide by the consensus on the talk page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t personally have anything against The Guardian or Independent but my point is, multiple journalists run those sites where they all just state their own biased opinions, wrong or not, and I don’t see how that’s any different from me saying my opinion as well except I have actual facts to back up my claim instead of just being mad that a pairing I like isn’t together on a tv show I watch like every example on that queerbaiting page is. Only difference is, they run/help run a blog and I don’t; I don’t think that makes them more reliable or truthful.

Though you’re right about Eve and Villanelle being listed not meaning it’s true, it isn’t. So it’s whatever honestly. No one that truly knows what queerbaiting means would classify them as this.

Also, I will no longer be using this site so you can delete my account if you like. I really don’t care at this point. Channy1234 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Martenson
Hello. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute here. I've enjoyed using Wikipedia for years. Very surprised to read about your treatment of Chris Martenson, who I have read on occasion since around 2012 when I became familiar with his perspective. At the time I was already somewhat of a pepper by default, living on a rural property, but Mr Martenson really resonated with a huge number of people. His presentations are widely viewed because there are simply thousands of people who want to know about him and hear his suggestions. I feel the need to speak up about what I discovered today: he's been DELETED from Wikipedia entirely. This makes Wikipedia look bad, a type of PR mistake. Do you want to be known for being biased and selective, even for well-accomplished researchers? That's not the Wikipedia I've known. Correct the mistake and put the Martenson page back up please. We all make mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1800:6A4:6C15:2123:8584:42B0 (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I really want to know what your reason was to delete the article Chris Martenson. Just remarking The result was delete doesn't say anything. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not Sandstein, but The result was delete is a default text that is added by some tools that administrators use to close AFDs when they are closed as delete. As you can see from the deletion discussion, several editors agreed that the topic does not meet WP:GNG and nobody made a clear claim to the contrary other than a link dump. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with what Jo-Jo Eumerus said.  Sandstein   09:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein has no science background whatsoever and took down Martenson's page either out of spite or because the Chinese Communist Govt is paying him off. I'm not kidding, there can only be two possible answers here. I have reported many pages that are by people who had not even a modicum of visibility, but Wiki has never taken them down. I see the page of a very violent ex is still up. He uses his wikipedia page to get women to date him even though he is married. But wikipedia doesn't care about fake pages of predators pretending to be successful business men. No, just want to be egoists and take down REAL wikipedia pages of actual medical researchers. Very sick. I run an SEO company and I will be sharing what Sandstein has wrought across many channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowfatvegan (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The page about him was up for a decade. He has been in many media sources and appears in them now.  Furthermore he has a PhD in pathology which is the study of the causes of disease.  A PhD in a medical field is not easy to get or common at all.  That is what makes him a scientist.  Furthermore, it is very common for people who get advanced degrees to leave academics after  a time and seek to apply their brains to more profitable, or just different things.  A scientist does not loose their education just because they choose to play the stock market.  Some of the smartest PhD's in physics of the last 40 years ... went to Wall Street.
 * The reason given for deleting his page was that it was not notable. If someone is not notable then they don't appear reported on by others, cited by others, in Google news.  Notable does not mean a great admirable smart wonderful guy.  I don't know him.  He could be an egotistical predator.  That just gives him all the character references of a politician.  Which would certainly make him notable. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One other thing it is VERY unlikely this editor was paid by anyone. Once upon a time, a long long time ago now. I used to get involved in things on Wikipedia and people are very casual about it.  It is much more likely he saw an article with a couple of votes for deletion and a couple against and felt that they against had a stronger argument.  Plus in this day and age people tend towards deleting things now that many take what they see on Wikipedia as the gospel truth and don't dig deeper. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines
Your rude closing statement was completely unnecessary. There are three regularly scheduled elections next year in the Philippines - President/VP, Senate/Congress, and most local mayors - a trifecta that only occurs every 12 years. It's created a terrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if you found it rude. I just couldn't understand what you meant to say by your comment "2022, which has national elections and many other fairly certain events". This doesn't address why the article should be kept.  Sandstein   07:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

184.67.39.114 (talk) please reinstate Chris Martenson
This person is a major contributor to the public conversation. Has been and will continue to be. This is censorship pure and simple. I don't know if you are that distanced from the conversation, by being in Germany, or conversely if the German thing is a hobby for you. But, I do know this- you need to look in the mirror and not abuse your power as an editor. You very much have done so here. Sources for this? Right in the very middle of the deletion page. More than enough. Stop the abuse or resign your position. Ian R from Edmonton Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.67.39.114 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed at WP:DRV, so it's up to the community of Wikipedia editors what to do now. But generally, anything we do on this private website is not censorship, see WP:FREESPEECH.  Sandstein   07:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bassam Adeel Jaleel
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bassam Adeel Jaleel. 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. Govvy (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Timmi-kat records
Please reinstate

We are a small queer label Been on Wikipedia for years

Why delete now??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.129.143 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please link to the article or AfD.  Sandstein   21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ITN
Please stop imposing your version of English grammar on the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Martenson Deleted
Dear Mr. Sandstein-

I am puzzled and concerned by the deletion of the Chris Martenson page. I do not know what the motivation for deleting his page was but I have been reading his articles and others on the Peak Prosperity website for over a decade now. None of the information I ever read from Chris Martenson or Peak Prosperity has ever been inflammatory or derogatory in anyway in fact, I have benefitted greatly from some of it. Just like any source of information, some of the articles I find useful and others I don't but the decision has always been mine to make. If this has just been some kind of spring cleaning oversight I would hope it is corrected but if you are engaging in some form of censorship on a trusted information source like Wikipedia then that is anathema to what this whole site is about and would call into question the integrity of this site and it's editors. I could not in good conscience, continue to donate to a site that engages in censorship.

My motivation in writing to you is not so save or defend Chris Martenson or the Peak Prosperity website but to address my concern that Wikipedia remain a reliable, unbiased source of information. I hope you will reconsider your action on this matter otherwise you will loose at least one donor. Furthermore, if you are willing to do this on one minor topic, it begs the question, how many others have quietly been deleted for unsubstantiated reasons? Zyphryx (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is now being discussed at WP:DRV, but I hope that it will be to the benefit of Wikipedia's reputation if we do not let ourselves be used as anybody's platform for self-promotion.  Sandstein   15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Chris Martenson posted a video on his website in which he reviewed the deletion discussion of his article, which may have led to these responses. I have no dog in this fight, but I do think the AFD was closed too fast without sufficient input. AFDs used to go on for weeks in the past which may have been too long but now they can be closed very fast with little input (I'm not aware about any recent discussions about changing this). It used to be first post a PROD tag, then start an AFD or if the article was clearly spam apply for a Speedy deletion. By the way I think that nominators should link to the relevant policy and guideline pages. Martenson didn't understand what NPROF meant. People on the outside can't be expected to understand all the Wikipedia jargon. Someone Not Awful (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Chuka Ekweogwu
Dear Sandstein,

I hope you are doing well. A page by the name Chuka Ekweogwu has been deleted. Could you look into the matter as he has leading roles in 2 major films of UAE. We have additional article for his upcoming films. I hope you would be able to consider the case.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminatorwil (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Chuka Ekweogwu was deleted for the reasons discussed in Articles for deletion/Chuka Ekweogwu. What you write does not call these reasons into question.  Sandstein   14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of page 'Comparison_of_single-board_computers'
(This is my first time editing a wikipedia page. Please excuse any lapse in correct format or protocol). I object to the deletion of page: Comparison_of_single-board_computers I am an end-user that sometimes purchases ARM CPU SBCs from the Far East. There are a LOT of options, and wikipedia helps me sort thru them. linuxgizmos.com publishes lists of single board computers, every 6 months, I think. I use that also, but it is nice to have a lot of data in one place. I know wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, but I do need a source of data, even if not entirely up-to-date. In the late 1970's, when Intel was producing their 8-bit 8080 chip, there were about dozens of companies building desktop computers that ran the CP/M operating system. Each was a bit different. In 1981, IBM introduced the PC with the newer Intel 8088 chip. The desktop computer hardware marketplace eventually contracted to the IBM PC defacto standard. ARM SBCs today are like the early 8080 computers of the late 1970's. They are all over the place, with hundreds of different options and ideas. It is messy. There are a lot of boards built for awhile, then abandoned. There is no one defacto standard. I appreciate wikipedia organizing at least SOME of the data and presenting it. Simply deleting the page because it is too "busy" or whatever your reasoning is not helping anyone. Thank you for your time today. -A non-registered user, with no wikipedia.org login. 67.41.131.126 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Comparison of single-board computers was deleted for the reasons given at Articles for deletion/Comparison of single-board computers. See, in particular, WP:NOTDIR.  Sandstein   09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Gaurav Bhatia
The arguments made for deletion in second AfD (that Mr. Bhatia is just a spokesperson, not a notable politician) are repeats of the ones made in 2017 AfD. In 2017, it was concluded that Mr. Bhatia is notable politician on his own, even without being spokesperson of Samajwadi party.

My question is: How does a person once judged notable become non-notable just after 3 years? It appears to me that change in his party, and unpopularity of his new party among wikipedians has something to do with it.

As for arguments on notability of Mr. Bhatia, he has donned multiple hats - was Additional advocate general of Uttar Pradesh while Samajwadi Party (SP) was ruling there, in addition to being party spokesperson. He stood apart even as spokesperson - was the only spokesperson who could logically defend SP's position on many fronts.

Mr. Bhatia has only gained popularity as spokesperson BJP. This article has been deleted in 2006 as well, and it will be started afresh - simply because too many people need to look up his encyclopedic profile, and they wil. Mukt (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Bhatia needs to do something that makes him of international reputation. Or his party needs to consider him important enough to give him a ticket "AND" he has to win that election, before a wiki article on him can be created. Until either of these things happen, I am afraid his fans would need to goto his website to look him up. regards.  D Big X ray ᗙ  08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Gaurav Bhatia was deleted for the reasons discussed in Articles for deletion/Gaurav Bhatia (2nd nomination).  Sandstein   09:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article Camidoh
Hi  Sandstein  ,

I just noticed you have deleted article Camidoh without me getting a chance to rebut some of the reasons why the article was deleted in the first place. First of all when it was nominated for deletion by Hog Farm I had a discussion on my talk page and he removed the speedy deletion tag from the article. And then Celestina007 brought back the tag and I have put countless messages on her talk page on both the article that was deleted and her talk page but she never responded to any of them.

In the article itself there are coverage of this musician in MyJoyonline.com, Ghanaweb.com, modernghana.com and a few relevant and respect Ghanaian news websites. The music blogs used was only for his music discography and a simple Google search would show you the relevance of the subject in Ghana music both online and offline. I believe it's unfair since my response in the above mention forums to Celestina007 wasn't responded to yet the article got deleted. I believe I was late in seeing this page Articles for deletion/Camidoh and so I couldn't make my input known there before the article was deleted. I want to request a relist so I can demonstrated once more why the subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.

Looking forward to hearing from you on the way forward.

Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will restore the article if you provide the WP:THREE best sources not already present in the deleted article and thereby convince the AfD participants that the subject is notable.  Sandstein   17:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

- I removed the speedy deletion tag because I decided that it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Articles can still be deleted through other processes, it just requires a discussion. Bringing the article to articles for deletion was a valid step, and AfD discussions with no participation after a certain period of time are sometimes deleted like it was a proposed deletion. Bring your request to WP:REFUND, although it may be a good idea to then move the page to the draftspace to work on it awhile before sending it live. Hog Farm (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Kurt Thielen - Where can I find the article or how can I move the article into my user space to improve it ?
Lieber Sandstein, ich bin sehr enttäuscht, dass der von mir gestartete Artikel zu Kurt Thielen von dir gelöscht wurde, obwohl ich sowohl in der Artikel-Diskussion als auch durch weitere Verbesserungen des Artikels alle Argumente des Antragsstellers widerlegt habe (nämlich dass Thielen sehr wohl Relevanz außerhalb seiner Firma seit 2004 besitzt und dass es sich bei der erwähnten Firma Rough Trade sehr wohl um die in den 70er Jahren gegründete britische Firma handelt). Nun bin ich dabei, weitere Quellen auszuwerten, und finde den Artikel nicht mehr, um weiter an ihm zu arbeiten. Er isr selbst aus meiner eigenen Contributionsliste gelöscht. Daher bitte ich dich, mir die letzte Fassung in meinen User Account zu legen, damit ich weiter arbeiten kann. Beste Grüße, --Fact Loving Criminal (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Kurt Thielen was deleted per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kurt Thielen. As indicated there, you can ask for it to be restored to your user space at WP:REFUND. Please note that you will need to cite coverage about him that satisfies WP:GNG if you want to restore the article. The English Wikipedia inclusion rules are different from those of the German Wikipedia.  Sandstein   21:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I checked (and will check again) the article against Notability (people) and Biographies of living persons. I'm still not sure I understand how “the English Wikipedia inclusion rules are different from those of the German Wikipedia” Best, --Fact Loving Criminal (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the difference is that de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien are a rather detailed list of criteria specific to individual topic areas, while here on the English Wikipedia, WP:N is much more focused on coverage in reliable sources, irrespective of the topic area.  Sandstein   11:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional television shows
Hello, I would like to request for List of fictional television shows to be undeleted and placed at User:Erik/List of fictional television shows. I just saw the AfD discussion, and I found a few sources that could warrant a list of a similar scope. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, but please ask at WP:REFUND, I don't undelete articles.  Sandstein   15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I forgot about WP:REFUND. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I've opened an Arbitration Enforcement request relating to a discretionary sanction you've imposed in the past. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of fictional music groups (3rd nomination)
Hi there, I think this should have been a relist given that there was no opportunity left for response to the keep argument, and the deletion arguments were neither so great in number nor overwhelmingly clear that no keep result could have been possible. Please reconsider. Thank you, postdlf (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I considered that, but decided against a relist. Numerically it's 4:1, and there are valid arguments on both sides, which is good enough for rough consensus. Your "keep" opinion did not bring up any new facts (such as sources establishing notability) but only applied policies to known facts - persuasively so, certainly, but there's nothing in your opinion that the other participants could not be expected to have already thought of. As such, I'm of the view that your "keep" opinion in and of itself isn't enough of a reason to relist.  Sandstein   18:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/International Institute of Business (Ukraine)
Would you kindly explain to me why the sources fail WP:V. The Association of MBAs, a clearly reliable source, confirms it exists and is accredited. The institution's own website is therefore considered reliable for basic information about it as long as it has been confirmed in a reliable source that it is an accredited institution (per WP:ABOUTSELF). I cannot see how this AfD could legitimately be closed as anything other than a no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. ABOUTSELF allows self-published material that is "not unduly self-serving" - which is questionable here, as the article was essentially an advertisement for the subject's services. But more importantly, we cannot base an entire article on self-published material. And in this case, the conten wasn't even referenced, so we don't even know whether there is in fact self-published text that would support the article's content.  Sandstein   11:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should certainly be trimmed to a stub, but not deleted. Of course we can base a stub on self-published material. Many stubs do just that. And it was referenced to an accredited institution's website. WP:V was therefore not an issue. To me, it seems like a bit of a supervote, with you agreeing with the single editor who said delete over the single editor (me) who said keep. I would ask you to reopen the AfD, or I will have to take it to deletion review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. There were two "delete"s to one "keep", counting the nomination. And the accreditation of an institution is unrelated to whether its website is any more or less reliable; it remains self-published material. WP:SELFPUB explicitly tells us that an article must not be based primarily on self-published sources. The closure remains therefore, in my view, correct.  Sandstein   12:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not usually counted in an assessment for closure. I really don't think WP:SELFPUB refers to organisational websites of organisations that have been clearly proved to exist. It doesn't even mention them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you still insisted in this AfD that schools are notable brings into question your suitability for adminship. You're not a neutral party and your arguments regarding ABOUTSELF sound similar to ILIKEIT when viewed in light of your opposed-to-policy inclusionism. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look up the difference between a school and a college. If you're referring to the highly controversial RfC then you should have realised that it only refers to secondary schools and not tertiary colleges. Try rereading it. It never referred to tertiary institutions. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No, I'm not an inclusionist. Never have been. And I suggest you stop these suggestions that admins aren't allowed an opinion before they've even started! They really are not acceptable and are verging on contravention of WP:NPA and WP:AGF and an attempt to shut down another editor's legitimate expression at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Shane Feldman
Sandstein - I see you have deleted a page I was working on titled "Shane Feldman"

Seems to have been deleted on error, as this public figure profile met all guidelines.

Pelase advise / undo?

Siliconeditgame (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Shane Feldman was deleted per unanimous consensus at Articles for deletion/Shane Feldman. There are no grounds for me to undo this deletion.  Sandstein   18:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Any reasoning to delete Shane Feldman would be personal and unjustifiable. As an international source of biographical information, there is more reason to have this profile present than not. I heard of a rise of trolls focused on removing Shane and others from the platform, but we cannot deny the public access to information from valid sources. I was personally working on refining that particular profile and see no reason for the resource to be taken down. The only reasoning I could suspect would be personal, which goes against all Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconeditgame (talk • contribs)
 * Nope. We do have criteria about who we cover, which you will find referenced in the discussion mentioned above, and experienced editors have determined that Mr. Feldman does not meet them. Please find some other way to promote yourself or your client.  Sandstein   19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Southeast Team Handball Conference
Hey Sandstein. You deleted following article two years ago. Southeast Team Handball Conference (SETHC). The reason of the Afd was "No secondary coverage from independent sources." In the meantime I found some articles from independent newspapers: Furthermore I learned that the SETHC was part of the NCAA Emerging Sports for Women program and they were supported by the NCAA. Are this articles enough to recreate the SETHC page?--Malo95 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Constitution
 * 1998
 * The Greenville News
 * 1997
 * 1997
 * S.1 & S.2 2003
 * The Index-Journal
 * S.1 & S.2 1997
 * 1997 (Detail)
 * 1997
 * 1999
 * 1999
 * , I'm not an expert in handball and wouldn't know whether these sources are sufficient to support an article. You can at any time recreate the article yourself with these sources, or ask for undeletion at WP:REFUND, but others may disagree and start a new AfD discussion. As the other AfD contributors, you may be able to offer more input.   Sandstein   10:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Sandstein I created a Deletion review Malo95 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

deletion of single board computers list?
Hi there! I see that you closed Articles for deletion/Comparison of single-board computers a couple weeks ago. The article still exists, though. Did you also mean to perform the deletion? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, what luck! I happened to notice the article when someone was in the process of user-fying it. It's deleted (again), so everything is fine. Sorry about that! -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Peter Wray
Hi, I'm writing about the deletion of the entry for Peter Wray, a writer, filmmaker and new media developer, who also developed numerous significant patents for mpeg technologies and other media related technologies. The particular page was the target of vandalism, untrue statements and general meddling for years to the point of where it was becoming pointless to update it. I noticed this entry got deleted a few days ago and replaced with an entry about cricket player, and someone who evidently likes cricket endorsed the deletion and then promptly placed an article about a cricket player. I would go ahead and post a new article about the "deleted" Peter Wray but I fear it will just get hammered again by individuals with either a vendetta or too much time on their hands. The point being, the original article did cite someone who is NOT obscure at all but all efforts to provide citations or rework the article were consistently vandalized or tampered with. Please advise, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhunter234 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , that page was deleted as the result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Peter Wray (2nd nomination). The article did not cite any works about Wray, as would be needed per WP:GNG, but only works by Wray. If you want to restore the article, you should write a well-sourced draft and submit it to review at WP:AfC.  Sandstein   17:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for the insights, I appreciate it. Mhunter234 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)