User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/July

Deletion review/Log/2020 June 25
Would you restore the redirects, talk pages, and file I linked to in this edit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, no. You are free to recreate the redirects yourself. As to the image, it is still not used in the restored version of the article, and it's not up to me to determine whether it should be.  Sandstein   08:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not want to recreate the redirects myself as I want the previously deleted pages to be restored. Do you object if I request restoration at WP:REFUND? Cunard (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , not at all.  Sandstein   08:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

something for your attention
Hello, Sandstein. A non-sysop user relisted a bunch of deletion discussions a week ago (some of them were relisted for the third time): To what extent is this a problem? Kind regards from PJvanMill  ( talk ) 14:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:articles for deletion/Battle On Broadway
 * WP:articles for deletion/Lur Berri
 * WP:articles for deletion/Harris J (2nd nomination)
 * WP:articles for deletion/The Wicked 7
 * WP:articles for deletion/Phase (band) (2nd nomination)
 * WP:articles for deletion/Blair Longley
 * WP:articles for deletion/Kyriakos D. Kassis
 * WP:articles for deletion/Boris Shlikhting
 * WP:articles for deletion/I Knew Them
 * WP:articles for deletion/Birthmark (band)
 * WP:articles for deletion/Crystallia
 * WP:articles for deletion/Dimlight
 * , it is., please do not relist AfD discussions more than two times. Instead, let an admin close them. Generally, you should not try to administer deletion discussions unless you have much more substantial experience on Wikipedia than you currently seem to have. Thanks!   Sandstein   14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess a better question is "What should be done?" Kind regards from PJvanMill  ( talk ) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sorry about that.  Thank you!   The creeper2007 Talk!  18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Camilo Prieto Valderrama
Hi Sandstein, I'm an editor, mainly at Wikipedia in Spanish. I have written this article Camilo Prieto Valderrama about a Colombian environmentalist with publications and awards, as well as being an outstanding activist. I wish you could support me in keeping the article. Thank you very much. --3erres (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not interested in the topic, sorry.  Sandstein   21:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Simon Cooke
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Cooke. 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. Ambrosiandelight (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination)
Hi Sandstein. Thank you for your detailed closing statement in Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination). The last paragraph of your closing statement says: "While we are fond of saying that AfD is not cleanup, I am ultimately convinced that the 'delete' side's argument that the lack of consensus about inclusion criteria prevents us from writing a high-quality list with this title is a strong one. Together with the 'delete' side's numerical majority, I am satisfied that we have rough consensus for deletion until there is a solid consensus among interested editors for establishing inclusion criteria. To establish such consensus, the article can be draftified or userfied, and if such consensus can be established, the article can be restored." Would you draftify List of sex symbols and Talk:List of sex symbols so that the community can work on establishing inclusion criteria for the list? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you are free to ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   09:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for restoration at WP:REFUND and started a discussion at Draft talk:List of sex symbols. Cunard (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Following up on this. I have doubts about until there is a solid consensus among interested editors for establishing inclusion criteria. I think this looks past the perspective that there is no workable inclusion criteria, and those who hold that perspective are unlikely to participate in a discussion refining inclusion criteria. With this process, it's most likely that those who supported keeping will be the most involved in the discussion and will form consensus for inclusion criteria that way, and we'll wind up back at AfD before long. Something a few of us mentioned which doesn't seem covered by the closing statement is about just covering the subject in the main sex symbol article. The degree of sourcing/context that Cunard added to the shorter list is the sort of thing that would be good in the main article rather than as a list. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it may well be as you write, but those who are of the view that there are no workable inclusion criteria are free to voice that opinion in the discussion started by Cunard. Apart from this, as you write, anybody is free to resubmit an eventually recreated list to AfD. As to a possible partial merger, that remains a possibility, but I didn't see enough support for this option to highlight it in the closure.  Sandstein   15:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Theresa Greenfield
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Theresa Greenfield. 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. KingForPA (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hello, Sandstein. This query is regarding an AfD you closed today: Articles for deletion/Dhruv Rathee. Can you explain to me how you reached to your 'delete' decision rather than, let's say, 'no consensus'? The WP:BLP1E rationale is flawed and that has already been pointed out by the AfD participants. Similarly, the remaining delete !votes never bothered to analyse the actual sources and the persistent coverage pointed out by others to assert his notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the discussion turned on whether this is in fact a BLP1E case. A majority of participants concluded that BLP indeed applies. While AfDs are not votes, I find many "keep" arguments less than persuasive: to rebut a BLP1E argument, the "keep" side would have needed to argue, with sources, that the subject received coverage for more than one event, or that the event was so important that it merits coverage nonetheless. While some (such as you) did make such arguments, other "keep" opinions only generally referred to the existence of sources and to WP:GNG. But, as mentioned, this is not enough to refute a BLP1E argument for deletion. In addition, many other "delete" arguments questioned the reliability of the sources in the article. Except by you, these concerns also mostly remained unaddressed.  Sandstein   09:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, things seem the other way around, i.e. no one analysed & refuted the sources/analysis provided by me. At the same time, I am unable to locate any valid, policy-based delete !vote which actually discussed the provided sources or the keep arguments. Most of them are either frivolous or "per nom/X" type. Those deletion arguments which actually had some valid point were discussed & refuted by me.


 * Similarly, the BLP1E argument is outrightly wrong, as the subject practically didn't get any coverage for the event in question. And that point was clearly made by me multiple times. And no one refuted it with their own analysis. Similarly, user PainProf also refuted the BLP1E argument from an entirely different perspective, and his point wasn't refuted as well. It is also clearly mentioned in the AfD that practically all of his coverage happened outside the event in question, and the relevant links of coverage are provided to support that claim. And again no one refuted that point with a proper analysis. So, why the unchallenged analysis/points of the keep !voters neglected in favour of the delete !voters who didn't bother to even search about the subject? - NitinMlk (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that this is also a possible reading of the discussion. I have therefore re-closed the discussion as "no consensus".  Sandstein   07:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources presented by NitinMlk were barely the same interviews and coverage from ideologically related partisan sources which had been already rejected. Fact that NitinMlk was exhibiting WP:IDHT and still is, that should be really not be enough for overturning a valid deletion. Nearly 2 times more people supported deletion than keeping the article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you should be careful with this type of aggressive comments and misrepresentations. Your delete !vote was a misrepresentation of my comment at the AfD, and I have already mentioned that in my reply to you. Now you are accusing me of WP:IDHT when all I did was to clarify my reply to the participant. I guess you know that all South Asian topics are covered under discretionary sanctions, although you have been alerted only about a specific area by an admin. So please be careful. Secondly, consensus is reached by the strength of the arguments, not by the !vote count – see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a misrepresentation but a summary of the comment you made initially. Your rest of the bludgeoning of comments on AfD didn't change my comment, just like it didn't change any delete !votes. But I am not going to doubt why you are ignoring it.
 * I think you should consider re-listing the AfD. That will settle the issue here. Since argument by Nitimlk mainly tells that there was not "a proper analysis" of the argument he made, it can be relisted for 2nd time. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't relist the AfD because it was already relisted once and received plenty of input.  Sandstein   09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Java version history closed as delete (XFDcloser)
Could I get you to comment on User talk:Spartaz? Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

relisted article
Hello I happen to be the subject matter of the article Terje Gerotti Simonsen, which was suggested deleted. As I understand it, the original reason for the suggested deletion was lack of good references, meaning references not listed by myself (I was not aware of the rules against writing about oneself back then). The asked for references have been provided in the process afterwards and during the process the article has also been completely rewritten by others.

It has thereafter been relisted twice, last time 10 days ago. In the former relist-round there was set forth a claim that the undersigned's work had not had any impact outside Norway. This was countered in a post in the second relisting 9 days ago, pointing to the fact that one of my works has been awarded a literary prize in USA. And another one is being referenced in an international research bibliography (edited by prof. John J. Collins, one of the most respected scholars in the field in question, re the Wiki-article on him).

After this, there has not been any posts. So 9 extra days with no new posts during a second round, and the last delete-argument being countered by the mere facts, could perhaps be enough due process, so that the matter about the article's relevance could be considered setteled? Or do we need still more rounds? Thanks Best Aureus (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand that the deletion of the article about you at Articles for deletion/Terje Gerotti Simonsen is frustrating, but per WP:COI you should not attempt to write about yourself on Wikipedia. I will therefore not restore the article on your behalf.  Sandstein   07:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ali Akbar natiq
Ali Akbar Natiq is a award winer short story writer and poet.
 * please chek and Restore articleObaid Raza (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, unless you provide the WP:THREE best sources not already available in the AfD .  Sandstein   07:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please chek and Restore articleObaid Raza (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, unless you provide the WP:THREE best sources not already available in the AfD .  Sandstein   07:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

deletion of the "comparison of single board computer" page
Hello,

why did you delete the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers"? it was a reference for those who would like to know the evolution of these cards, or who would like to get them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlotho (talk • contribs) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article was deleted for the reasons discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of single-board computers.  Sandstein   07:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 20
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 20. 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. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

deletion of multiple pages
Hi You have deleted the article about Jason Barnard, and have tagged the one for Boowa & Kwala for deletion and looked into the Barking Dogs My interventions on all these articles were in good faith at the times I did them (hence I didn't hide my identity). All three seem to me to be notable in the sense Wikipedia requires (hence the fact that I didn't even think to try to hide my identity when editing).

There is a fear in the Wikipedia community that digital marketers use Wikipedia unfairly and unhelpfully to influence Google I am working hard to find and make available to my peers other routes into the Knowledge Graph that should help alleviate that problem. I am honestly interested in changing that approach by providing alternative paths (there are many, as it turns out)

That said, I would argue I am notable and that an article about me has a legitimate place on Wikipedia (6 physical CD album releases and a 52 episode TV series that aired in France, Canada, NZ, Poland, Israel, and was released on DVD in the USA)... I come across fans of the TV series / cartoon characters and the Barking Dogs quite often - people DO look this stuff up (especially Boowa and Kwala fans who grew up with the characters and are now in the early 20s)

Would you be open the discussing these articles with me before taking further action?

Thanks ! Jasonbarnard (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Articles for deletion/Jason Barnard concluded unanimously that the article about you should be deleted. I will therefore not reconsider its deletion. I have not taken any action with respect to the other two articles you link to, and therefore see no grounds to discuss them with you.  Sandstein   14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I see now that the activity I saw on the other pages was simply the automatic removal of the links Jasonbarnard (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne
I am waiting for your nominations of delete Line of succession to the former Romanian throne, Line of succession to the former throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Line of succession to the former Iraqi throne etc. It was clear double standard and anti-Austro-Hungarian sentiment from your apart. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:WAX.  Sandstein   12:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:CYNICISM. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Fundera
Hello,

Back in 2018 you deleted this article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fundera

I read over the reasons for the deletion and I agree with them. Since the deletion, there have been a number of changes that would warrant a discussion around restoring this page.

It looks like the main reason for deletion was around notability. In between the time this page was deleted and now, the company grew substantially and is one of the largest small business loan aggregators in the United States. The company also played a substantial role in the recent Paycheck Protection Program.

I carefully read over all the reasons why this page was considered for deletion. I have taken the time to re-write the page in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and I have thoroughly vetted the sources in an attempt to provide a true and unbiased synopsis of the company, while also ensuring the sources provided are acceptable under Wikipedias terms. I would also argue that this article would definitely not violate any rules around notability.

Here is a draft of the new page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2600:1700:B8B0:D50:6027:AC7B:1D4B:64C5/sandbox

I would like to open up a conversation here on restoring this page and replacing the content of the older deleted article with this new version. I am willing to make any changes to the new draft of this page that are required for the pages undeletion.

- Clay ClaySmithWiki (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you in any way affiliated with this company?  Sandstein   20:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am affiliated. I am fully aware of any potential Conflict of Interest and I am not trying to violate that here. I am not explicitly asking that the page I linked to be used as a replacement, but rather I am hoping that the information provided on that page can aid in the conversation in the community around un-deletion, and act as a demonstration that the page can operate within Wikipedias guidelines. If needed I can provide more resources. ClaySmithWiki (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You will have to comply with Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy before making any further edits. Also, why are you constructing your article in the userspace of an IP editor, and not your own (e.g. User:ClaySmithWiki/sandbox)? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , because of your conflict of interest in this matter, see WP:COI, I will not assist you in restoring the article.  Sandstein   05:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"IPhone 12" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone 12. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. the ultraUsurper 06:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review (DRV)
Hi, you speedly deleted this article. Please restore the article and nominate it for deletion again. Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works at all. There has not been a discussion to review the deletion for this article at WP:DRV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I decline to undelete that article, because you do not tell me why.  Sandstein   15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I telling why. If I'm not mistaken, it is not correct to delete this page.

Article is written from a neutral point of view. The rules say/ If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion.

If this draft is moved into article space again, it should be nominated for deletion.

You event is a violation, please restore the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , this makes no sense and does not address the reason for the speedy deletion (WP:G4).  Sandstein   17:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you restore it and move it back to draft space? I'm not going to move it to mainspace without addressing the AfD concerns!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I won't do that because I have no reason to believe that there are other sources with which the article could be improved.  Sandstein   15:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Time Trapper, moved from Legion enemy to List of Minor DC Characters?
Mind if i move the article Time Trapper to List of Minor DC Characters? JosephWC (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , why should I care?  Sandstein   15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, okay. JosephWC (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DRV
Hello, you closed delete this Articles for deletion/Banking on Bitcoin. I would too have voted keep. Note there are other sources that all appear to be RS, such as The Sun, 9 Australia, Fox News, Gizmodo, etc. These are 4 different major mainstream news sources, and I found them in a 3 minute search, there might be others. Would you consider re-opening for more comments? These sources plus the indepth in GQ are sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. The discussion ran for a month, that's more than enough time to provide sources.  Sandstein   22:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The vote on this was 5 keep to 4 delete (counting the nominator), 1 weak delete... and now I am raising 4 more high quality RS. This should be relisted as at best it was 50/50, and I have rasied new sources and another editor also raised sources like CNBC, the street, etc. Probably ~10 quality RS here including in depth coverage in GQ, more than enough to clear the WP:GNG... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will not relist a discussion that was already relisted thrice. What's more, your sources would not have changed the outcome, as they contain merely passing mentions of the film.  Sandstein   10:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources I listed were not the kind that help establish notability. I noted that as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)