User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/January

T-ban-related question
Does the following scenario presents a T-ban violation? Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) And editor is T-banned from some topic area.
 * 2) They leave messages unrelated to the topic on several editors' TPs.
 * 3) These editors (most of them new) are active mostly or solely within the topic area, and there seems to be no other relation between them and the editor.
 * 4) One can conclude the editor is following articles in the topic area and reacting to them, albeit indirectly.


 * Does tedious block shopping constitute some form of bannable offense? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In both cases, it depends on the specific circumstances. That's why I don't like answering such questions in the abstract.  Sandstein   10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. If only we had a venue where one could freely consult on these things... 🤔 François Robere (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Tedious shopping" is a bit too much. IIRC the last 4-5 cases I've been involved in at ANI/AE ended in my favour, in part because I take the time bothering Sandstein et al. with questions... François Robere (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are over 520 active administrators on Eglish Wikipedia including these, you know very well, because they have either blocked, or warned you , , in the past. You also asked many other administrators questions: ,,  to name just a few. Could you explain why you have chosen this particular administrator to ask this unique question, and what response were you anticipating?  GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sandstein, I was the one recently greeting a few new users to Wikipedia. François Robere is indicating my welcome messages in his inquiry. GizzyCatBella 🍁  16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Groww
Sandstein, As per our previous discussion in Nov 2019, I have recreated the page with updated details. Please take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groww Ashok Bhat 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I leave it to another admin to decide whether this is sufficiently different from the deleted version, or sufficiently promotional to speedily delete, as it has now been tagged.  Sandstein   21:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Close at AfD
Hi Sandstein, A quick question regarding your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (2nd nomination). The last two sentences, They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. are being interpreted as establishing a consensus that the article should be moved or renamed. Is this an accurate reflection of your close? Or should a consensus on this point be established through normal means (WP:RM, etc)? Thanks in advance for any reply. - Ryk72 talk 23:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied on the article talk page.  Sandstein   09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Apologies for the trouble. - Ryk72 talk 09:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of my ban to post at WP:AE
You banned me 9 months ago from creating WP:AE appeals or commenting at them.

I have to admit, that I am still not happy with that decision, as it ignored the hounding as well as the violation of my user talkpage, even if those were only indirectly related to WP:ARBPIA, and in addition in my opinion was made without proper discussion.

However that may be, nine months have passed, and maybe it is time to review that decision.

As you wrote in the ban notification, one of the options of appeal is to write you on your talkpage, and it is my custom to indeed contact the sanctioning admin in first instance, as a matter of courtesy, rather than go to the other venues mentioned at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions.

I would like to ask you to consider at this time to either rescind the sanction completely, or change it to creating WP:AE appeals only but allowing me to comment at them.

Thank you for your consideration. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not banned from "creating WP:AE appeals". You are instead "banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if you are the editor against whom enforcement is requested." This does not prohibit appeals by you with respect to sanctions against you. I decline to lift the restriction because you do not indicate what has changed (other than the passage of time) such that the restriction is no longer necessary.  Sandstein   18:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, that is what I meant.
 * What changed is that you got across the point that you will not allow me to post reports as the ones I posted before. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The appeal is still declined. This explanation is perfunctory and unconvincing. It does not address your conduct for which the sanction was imposed, and how exactly Wikipedia and our editing environment would be improved by rescinding the sanction. Together with the defensive and confrontative tone of the message above, this does not convince me that the sanction is no longer needed.  Sandstein   22:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The sanction was not needed in the first place. What was needed was simply saying: you have a valid issue, just don't raise it here. Instead you came along and decided to ban me from WP:AE. You can't be the proverbial elephant in the china shop and expect to be appreciated. The only thing you will ever get across to me is that you are stronger than I am, and will not defend the weak from bullying editors. You got that across. Now the ban is not needed any more. I have right to being confrontational about that, as long as I got the point. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Tsimerman
New to Wiki so please bear with me. Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tsimerman was just deleted and I'm confused as to why since nobody was talking about how notability was not reached. My history around the subject was stated on the page along with my understanding of how notability was established. Could you please let me know how the general guidelines were not met? I feel like SounderBruce was abusing his powers to attack Alex with no clear objection to why the news articles, government links and independent thoughts of others did not meet the wiki rules? Thanks for looking at this again! 70.181.151.175 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What relationship do you have with Alex Tsimerman?  Sandstein   10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I lived in Seattle I would attend political meetings with him regularly. Now, I live too far away to be bothered with Seattle politics (up until now, lol). At this point I'm just curious to how the whole Wikipedia thing works from the inside because it looks just as political as real life hahaha. Sam4Seattle (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sam4Seattle, thanks for clarifying this. Consensus among established editors was that the person is not notable. I don't have an opi nion myself, my job as closer is merely to assess consensus.  Sandstein   07:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit
It is kinda funny that when you revert an editor adding unsourced content (with citations that don't verify the content) you can issue them with a warning about edit-warring when they revert back and no one bats an eyelid, but when I do the same I get threatened with a block for edit-warring if I don't self-revert and subject myself to two months (and counting) of talk page abuse. More admins willing to look at sources and soberly assess who is engaged in bad-faith edit-warring and who is going well beyond the bounds of reason in attempting to engage in talk-page discussion (rather than what happened there, which AFAICT was an involved admin with a bone to pick not looking at the context so much as the usernames of the editors involved) is what this project really needs. Your work on the Otokonoko (cross-dressing) article and at RSN is most appreciated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Overturning Bachelor Lake
I just became aware that the close was challenged. You overturned it saying Andrew’s close was inappropriate - what did I miss? What was inappropriate when the article clearly meets N:GEOLAND?? Atsme Talk 📧 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Deletion_review/Log/2020_January_8.  Sandstein   16:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that, Sandstein. My question is what did you see that was inappropriate about the close beyond the fact it did not appease the opposition? I just learned of the challenge today but you closed it too early; therefore, not all of us who participated knew the close was challenged.  Also, the arguments to keep are much stronger because they align closely to N:GEOLAND - much more so than the IDONTLIKEIT arguments - make it a list because I don't have time to find more RS.  Andrew's close was detailed and well thought out, and followed our guidelines.  what argument convinced you that it was an inappropriate close? Atsme  Talk 📧 17:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admins should not close contentious or close AfDs.  Sandstein   17:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers
I hadn't seen you close the latest AfD debate on the articles for the initialed cricketers I created. It still frustrates me that there are some of these remaining. Bobo. 17:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

BigPicture and BigGantt
I'm disappointed by the result, but I agree with your close as the proper summary of what little community input there was. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

K. Narayanan (film editor)
Hello admin, you deleted the article K. Narayanan (film editor) created by me without mention any reason here. Kindly explain, why the article doesn't meet criteria for WP:Notability (people) and if you can do this, it will be very helpful to me for further biographical articles.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the deletion were given by the editors who participated in the discussion Articles for deletion/K. Narayanan (film editor).  Sandstein   08:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think, the reasons which are given here by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note.

One thing also, I think, how many participants stand for 'delete' or 'keep' is not a criteria to take a decision in a deletion discussion. Wikipedia has its own policies. In the case of a deletion discussion, after the discussion,  an admin should be take decision with Wikipedia's policies and, not with majority of participants. The reasons which are given here by the participated editors in the discussion mainly point out in 2 things that about the award merit and merit of sources.

Then, my humbly doubts are:
 * 1) Is it compulsory that, an 'award achievement' for an article of living people in English Wikipedia?
 * 2) Malayalam printed media sources are reliable sources or not in English Wikipedia?

I expect your valuable information with thanks.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is in principle true that AfD is not a vote, but numbers do matter. In this case, you failed to convince everybody else of your view, and I'm not going to overrule all other AfD participants, who concluded that the sources are insufficient. I therefore decline to change the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein   13:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear admin, I think, it is not necessary that, a participant or the article creator should convince everybody else with their own views in a deletion discussion. Because, besides the session of a vote discussion, it was not also a discussion for the making of policies here. In a vote discussion or a policy making or such as, every participants can contribute their own views and that are important and considerable. But, In an AfD, except in a not policy or

Incomplete policy subjects, the participant's views are no more relevant; the written policies are only relevant in Wikipedia. the participants should be convinced themselves with written Wikipedia policies. If take a decision only depended with participant's views in an AfD, it is caused to the frailer of Wikipedia policies. For example: suppose, if major participants, except one, supported and wanted to keep the article (K. Narayanan (film editor)) and one participant not supported and wanted to delete it, what decision will you take? Can I expect, according to your statement, 'the other one who argued for deletion has failed to convince everybody else of his view, and I'm not going to overrule all other AfD participants, who concluded that the sources are sufficient. So, the result is kept.'?

And, further matter is, as you stated above, if I won to convince everybody else with my view, the result may changed? If the answer is yes, you depend or believe in 'majority opinion' of the participants in AfD. But, I believe in Wikipedia policies. In my best knowledge, An admin can say in an AfD deletion discussion that, what is relevant or not followed with Wikipedia policies. In an AfD deletion discussion, the participants are not judges and they are just helpers like lawyers to find out or to remind the proper guidelines of Wikipedia to the admins. Here, the admin who closed the discussion is the responsible person like a judge and all responsibility about the decision of AfD to the admin, not to the participants.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , admins who close AfDs are not judges who determine what the "right" outcome is and who are responsible for that outcome. Their job is merely to establish whether there is consensus among the participants in the discussion to delete an article or not, and act on that consensus, for which the participants in the discussion are responsible. It is true that in assessing consensus admins must take the strength of the arguments being made into account. They discount, for example, pure votes that make no argument, or that make arguments that are at odds with Wikipedia's established rules and practices. But this does not allow me to find a consensus for deletion in this case, because everybody except you concluded that the sources about this topic are insufficient for notability. That is a perfectly valid argument in terms of our rules and practices and so I cannot discount it. Whether I agree with it or not is immaterial, and in fact I have not even formed an opinion about it myself. All I need to know is that there is a vast majority of pepole making a valid argument for deletion, which is more enough for the rough consensus we are looking for.  Sandstein   10:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jass Manak
Hello. Is the new article Jass Manak (singer) substantially different from Jass Manak, which was re-deleted (G4) and salted in March? Thanks. Freezer Bernie (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it has more sources and more text.  Sandstein   18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Newbee on Wikipedia looking for support
Hi Sandstein,

I've seen you've created some BLP on Andrea Štaka a Swiss Film Director.

I'm new to Wikipedia and have tried a draft on a Swiss filmmaker with lots of references in German language... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ogcgn/sandbox

Now I'm looking for help with the next steps...

Can I just submit it for review or do I need to ask the help desk first to optimise or correct things?

Is there a way to find a film enthusiast, who may also assess German references?

Thanks a lot in advance! Olaf Ogcgn (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no review is needed. You can directly move the article to Roger Steinmann. Note that we do not use title case, e.g. use "First successes" instead of "First Successes".  Sandstein   18:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for your your prompt response!! Hope anything is fine?! Ogcgn (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Reopening AfD process
Hi Sandstein, you closed the AfD discussion on Peppermint Park today, and nine hours later, it was reopened for a second nomination by User:TenPoundHammer, who wrote that the "last AFD was open for three weeks with zero participation." As one of the people that participated in that discussion, I feel like that's unfair. I'm fairly new to deletion discussions, so this may be something that happens frequently, but I want to ask if you have any thoughts about your close being overturned so quickly. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I invoked WP:NPASR because I felt that Toughpigs' discussion did not help to obtain a consensus in any way. Nor did they acknowledge why WP:IAR should usurp WP:GNG here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , because the AfD I closed generated little discussion, I think that starting another one is not a problem.  Sandstein   20:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for weighing in. :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Articles
Hello admin, you deleted the article King Cid, Toks Asher Young, Blessing Williams created by me without mention any reason in the deletion discussion. Kindly explain, why the article doesn't meet criteria for WP:Notability (people) and if you can do this, it will be very helpful to me for further biographical articles.(Techwritar (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC))
 * , the reasons can be found in the respective deletion discussions.  Sandstein   14:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think, the reasons which are given in the deletion discussion by the participated editors are not a final thing or not to be the main reason/reasons (Judgement) in a deletion discussion. The participants share only their knowledge/thoughts/arguments in such discussions. The final or a conclusion reason/reasons should be taken by the admin who closed a deletion discussion and if mind, it should be indicated in the discussion result note. One thing also, I think, how many participants stand for 'delete' or 'keep' is not a criteria to take a decision in a deletion discussion. Wikipedia has its own policies. In the case of a deletion discussion, after the discussion, an admin should be take decision with Wikipedia's policies and, not with majority of participants.(Techwritar (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC))
 * , see my response to a similar concern at User_talk:Sandstein, above.  Sandstein   15:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking Techwritar (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the articles I created, I only copied his write up because of after I read all the complaints on your talk page, I discovered we both have similar complaint. So can you kindly answer my question Techwritar (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did.  Sandstein   18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What you're insinuating is that the reason you gave him is what you're also giving me Techwritar (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so.  Sandstein   18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Techwritar (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:GoogleMeNowPlease
Perhaps best to revoke their talk page access too? Theroadislong (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed. I did that.  Sandstein   22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Toks Asher Young
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Toks Asher Young. 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. Techwritar (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Cid
An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Cid. 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. Techwritar (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Blessing Williams
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blessing Williams. 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. Techwritar (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent deletion
Can you please restore the article P. K. Parakkadavu. We have a clear consensus here on AFD to keep the article. Thank you...- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very weird. Apparently Articles for deletion/ P. K. Parakkadavu (with a space before the "P.") ran in parallel to Articles for deletion/P. K. Parakkadavu and resulted in "delete". I'll be undoing that.  Sandstein   20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeff Burningham
I believe Jeff Burningham page was deleted in error. He meets the criteria for notability outside of his political candidacy. He was winner of the Ernst and young Entrepreneur of the Year award. He has been featured for his entrepreneurial success in major publications including Deseret News, Forbes, Tech Crunch, and Entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.carl22 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but Articles for deletion/Jeff Burningham was not of this view.  Sandstein   16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Help for deletion review
Dear admin, I want to submit a deletion review for the article K. Narayanan (film editor) and what can I do for it? Please, tell me its procedure. And, I was too busy in past 4 days; but, the conversation of K. Narayanan (film editor) was shifted from here. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read the instructions at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Already I have read WP:DRV. This is my first time for a deletion review. So, my doubt is that how the code apply. copy past this template, like "subst:drv2 |page=K. Narayanan (film editor)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Narayanan (film editor)|reason=reason" in the deleted page, K. Narayanan (film editor)? And, copy past this template, "subst:DRVNote|K. Narayanan (film editor)" to your (the editor who closed the deletion discussion) talk page? And, only this 2 procedure? There are 5 templates Here. So, I was confused. Please help me.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry to be blunt, but if you cannot follow these instructions, I do not think that you have the skills required to contribute to Wikipedia.  Sandstein   20:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Meat eating
The paragraph on meat was unsourced, but it is not a speculation. It is a well thought observation. Any one can consider thinking about it. There are many other portions in Wikipedia articles, that are unsourced but are still allowed to remain, so how is that? Thanks. Polytope 4D (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , which article or edit do you refer to?  Sandstein   17:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yaw Ofori Debrah
Three keep !votes, one undecided comment and no support at all for the nomination. Could you please explain why you closed it as delete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, that was a misclick, I meant to close as keep. I have now done so.  Sandstein   17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Methodist churches in Leicester
It's a bit rude of you to just suggest that editors are "just" making keep votes and not explaining themselves - you should assume that editors are acting in good faith and with Wikipedia policy in mind when they add comments. I added a suggestion for keep because I think it does meet the criteria for Wikipedia lists. Bookscale (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not question your good faith, but your comment at Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester did not address the sources about the topic or the reasons given for deletion. I therefore had to disregard it.  Sandstein   17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons for deletion were about it not meeting WP:LIST. And that was what was being discussed for the most part. Bookscale (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this correct?
Are mainstream newspapers ok or not for Poland WWII tppocs? Please see referring to. In light of the fact that I explicitly noted and asked about your AE ruling at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland.where I even named that newspaper in particular, but I am unsure if that request for clarification addressed the at all as it seems the arbs did not issue any clarification whatsoever. Your relevant ruling was wj [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=926668607#MyMoloboaccount |(B.1) Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy.]. Do you still uphold that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have any authority to make "rulings" that are binding on others. I expressed my own view, and other admins and arbitrators may see it differently. So far, I have had no opportunity to revisit the issue, and as a result, my view has not changed.  Sandstein   14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, for now you'd concur that in general, an article from Rzeczposplita should not be removed solely upon an argument that it is no reliable in the light of the cited ArbCom ruling? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in general, yes, but I am reluctant to give AE advice in the abstract, because any AE complaint would address a specific case that would need to be addressed on its own merits. For example, an opinion article or a very brief notice might not qualify as a "high quality source". Or the ownership or practices of the newspaper could change, etc.  Sandstein   14:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Sandstein, just making sure you saw this suggestion by an Arb that the original ruling did not in fact include newspapers ("On the suggested amendment... I'm not willing to expand to news sources at present."). If you're still of the opinion that it has, what do you suggest would be the next best venue for clarifying the issue - RSN, AE or ARCA? François Robere (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , only ARCA can provide authoritative guidance, if arbitrators feel like doing so, which they may not. AE is for enforcement, not discussion. And RSN will get you a lot of people giving their individual views about reliability, which is likely not be helpful, because the remedy's bar seems to be higher than what we would normally qualify as a reliable source.  Sandstein   20:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Methodist Churches in Leicester
With regard to Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, I ask that your reconsider your closure on Jan 18, which I believe is premature. Indeed NO Consensus has been reached and the closing appears focused on a narrow point of the discussion. There have been various suggestions offered as preferred alternatives to deletion, including merging, partially merging, dratifying that are not addressed in the closer's statement, including an extensive one made the day before on Jan 17. Furthermore, it does not take in consideration two very similar AfDs, which are mentioned: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, which have bearing here. Would you kindly Wikipedia:RELIST? Taking into account the fact WP:LIST that there no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, the discussion at this particular AfD is not complete. In good faith, it would seem that a AfD of such complexity needs more time for more voices and ideas to be heard as a courtesy for the benefit of Wikipedia. Thank-you.Djflem (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, the closure was not premature. AfDs run for seven days, and this time has elapsed. They can be relisted if there is little discussion and more discussion can lead to a clearer consensus. That is not the case here, since many people have expressed their view. Each AfD is a separate discussion, and it takes other AfDs into consideration only insofar as the participants do so in their comments.  Sandstein   18:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I happened to look at this earlier and the close seemed especially bad. The "only one editor, Pontificalibus" reasoning is wrong because it's strength of argument that matters, not head-counting.  And other editors had other valid lines of arguments such as pointing to WP:CLNT, and there was no reason to ignore those.  This was essentially a supervote and so I expect the matter to go to DRV, if Sandstein doesn't revert. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw this AfD and thought "my head hurts". I was going to relist saying something like "There is lot of cross talk and not much in the way of converging opinion - further discussion is needed". I think the AfD should be reopened and relisted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The other two parallel AfDs have been closed as Keep: Baptist; Congregational. As we also have pages for the Anglican and Roman Catholic denominations and an umbrella page for all religions – Places of worship in Leicester – it makes no sense for the Methodist denomination to have been singled out for deletion.  Please reconsider. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Deletion review/Log/2020 January 22: I had fully intended to notify you once it was sorted, as there appears to be some problem with the template.Djflem (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Danexit
Could you maybe check and give the solution for this new article: "Draft:Danexit", regarding "Citation needed", "who?, "when?", "clarification needed" and "which?"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danexit Wname1 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC). Thanks for answer.
 * , I am not interested in the topic and so cannot give any useful advice.  Sandstein   13:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since-reverted sock allegation
There was by. It was later self-reverted and then, so I presume that nothing needs to be done now but you should be aware. — MarkH21talk 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not ever intended as an allegation of sockpuppetry (I used the word "proxy" in the voting sense as in someone who speaks on another's behalf) but the comment was nonetheless uncivil and was entirely withdrawn for that reason. I apologise to you both. Bookscale (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of FISBA


A tag has been placed on FISBA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , don't you think slapping an A7 template on Sandstein's talk page is a bit daft? I'm pretty sure Sandstein is familiar with our deletion policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FISBA


The article FISBA has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Seems to fail GNG/NCOMPANY."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)