User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/December

Articles for deletion/Shooting of Ashli Babbitt
Hi there, it looks like we inadvertently overlapped each other a bit. I was in the midst of closing this AfD but you beat me to the punch. It happens. I should be less lazy about putting a Closing tag at the top for the long ones.

I was actually going to close it with consensus to redirect, so I was interested to see your NC closure. I understand that interpretations can vary, and it certainly wasn't a clear-cut discussion. My opinion is that this is a clear content fork, and no compelling reason was given for why this event can't be adequately covered within the context of the main article. The majority of content that has been added to this article is biographical info about Babbitt, which isn't necessary or appropriate since Babbitt isn't a notable person. However, what really struck me was that this wasn't a typical AfD discussion, even though it took place on an AfD page. No one was challenging the notability of the shooting event. Obviously, the event is going to be covered somewhere on WP; ultimately, this discussion was to determine whether it should be covered in the main article or in a standalone article.

Had this discussion taken place on the talk page of the article before someone decided to split it into a standalone article, a no consensus closure would have resulted in keeping the status quo of a redirect. However, since someone took it upon themselves to recreate the article, and then the AfD happened 2 days later, does that really change what the "status quo" is? Considering the article had been a redirect for 11+ months prior to an editor's decision to create a clear content fork, wouldn't the redirect be the status quo that should be restored in the event of a no consensus discussion? Otherwise, we'd be allowing editors to game a kind of "first mover's advantage" by creating a questionable article and then creating enough noise at an AfD to obscure a clear consensus.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I second the above stated concerns. In addition, 11 to 7 seems like at least rough if not clear consensus, irrespective of relative strength of arguments when no !votes are discounted. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for having a discussion. It looks like Alalch Emis has already started a DRV. I suppose that was probably inevitable, but I would have greatly preferred to have a discussion here first. I'll weigh in at the DRV.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shooting of Ashli Babbitt
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shooting of Ashli Babbitt. 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.I had a nomination written up, so I just went ahead and started not waiting for your reply here. Please forgive this apparent rashness on my part. This is not my anticipating that your reply would not be forthcoming and adequate. It's just about me wanting to formulate the review case in (what I personally see as) strong terms, to preclude someone making a relatively weak nomination, which I intuitively feel could happen any second. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD discussion
I saw this closure that you closed as "no consensus". But AfD should be more than vote counting and it should consider policy reasons behind each vote. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The most relevant policy here was WP:GNG, which requires the existence of multiple secondary sources giving in-depth coverage, but during the AfD only a single such source was provided. Other sources provided were WP:Primary sources, which can't satisfy WP:GNG. How can keep possibly be justified if WP:GNG is not met? VR talk 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody in the AfD agreed with you that deletion was warranted, so there was no way that I could find a consensus for deletion. The option of merging the content to a related article remains open, and seems to be well supported by the AfD if a suitable target article can be found.  Sandstein   07:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandstein's close was absolutely correct, and specifically suggests bringing the question of a merge to the article talk page, which is the appropriate next step at this point. The discussion certainly could not have been closed as having consensus to delete. BD2412  T 07:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your responses. Can you explain why the "merge to Banu Fazara" would not have been a better close? It was suggested by one person and supported by me and no one objected to that destination nor suggested an alternative one. I'm also not seeing how a talk page discussion on keep vs merge would be any different than the discussion that just took place. And I still don't understand why the keep votes are being given any weight at all? I might be fundamentally misunderstanding policy, but shouldn't votes that are not based in policy be discarded? VR talk 13:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, "merge" would be the more consensual outcome; I'm changing the closure accordingly. I can't discount the "keep" opinions because they make prima facie valid arguments.  Sandstein   14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How "merge" is the correct option here? My "keep" was discarded by Vice Regent with very misleading comment that this scholarly publication by Routledge is not "secondary source". I couldn't bother to respond such a misleading comment also because the participation of Vice Regent looked nothing more than WP:BLUDGEONING on entire AfD. Interestingly, the scholarly source in question discusses "Umm Qirfa", but makes no mention of a "Banu Fazara". Same with other good sources that discuss the subject, but again, makes no mention of "Banu Fazara". A 'merge' would make no sense. Even if merging was a viable option then still, like BD2412 said, it should be better discussed on talk page. You should restore the original closure or just relist the AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That "scholarly publication" is an English translation of an ancient Islamic text, and thus not a reliable secondary source. Remember, that an English translation of the Bible is not a reliable secondary source per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. And that source does indeed mention Banu Fazara, page 564, first paragraph, 6th line (although, as I said, it is not a secondary RS).VR talk 05:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Georgethedragonslayer, I think "merge" is the option that most reflects what most people in the AfD thought best. You can of course appeal this at WP:DRV.  Sandstein   07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have just carried out the proper merge though. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum
Is the obituary of the blog's founder encyclopedic content?--176.77.136.98 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are talking about.  Sandstein   21:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to be referring to new content at Hungarian Spectrum, which they removed themselves . — MarkH21talk 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The person who wrote the Hungarian Spectrum blog died recently. For some bizarre reasons, the IP address that contacted you is aggressively removing all mention of her death from the article, saying that Wikipedia "isn't an obituary". He's been now reverting multiple users who tried to preserve the section mentioning her death and the reaction from public figures. Can you please help us stop this vandal? --Azure94 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a legitimate content dispute that should in the first instance be discussed at Talk:Hungarian Spectrum.  Sandstein   14:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it a legitimate content dispute? Which wikipedia rule is being broken? Azure94 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A content dispute means that people disagree about what should be in an article. It happens all the time and does not mean anybody broke any rules.  Sandstein   15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Sandstein! Our argument stranded: we are in an Edit War. We could not reach consensus. Would you and Mark21 ≠be so kind as to present us a Third Party Opinion?--176.77.136.98 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and I'd like to ask the same concerning the bio of Kim Lane Scheppele... same editor, same problem.--176.77.136.98 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who's causing problems is you. You've been now baseless accusing another editor here in your little crusade. You seem to have also tried to contact a permabanned troll to help you. You yourself only started to edit on wikipedia to remove factual information. Stop this vandalism. --Azure94 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * please stop lying. user Paisarepa warned you not eulogyze in the WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_Spectrum#Section_on_the_author's_death_and_reaction_to_it


 * plus, you just keep removing sourced item from the bio of Kim Lane Scheppele, calling the source propaganda, but you don't explain at all, why it would be, a testimony of someone who knows her, had many encounters with her. nothing. plus the link u provided proves that Harnad started to call me troll. Assume good faith. And concerning Harnad, please check the talk page of the Hungarian Spectrum, he tried to turn it into soapboxing,so no, i won't accept it, plus he started a bounty hunting after me on Hungarian Spectrum.org, which is, again, not in accordance with WP principles. --176.77.136.98 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bitkub
With the recent barrage of news coverage over its acquisition, I believe the subject is now clearly notable. Since you closed its AfD from last year, I'd defer to your opinion on whether it would be better to restore and work on the previous version or to start entirely anew. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on that, sorry, as the topic does not interest me.  Sandstein   12:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In that case, could please you restore the article to draft, and I'll see if it can be worked on? Or would you prefer I try establishing consensus at DRV first? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   13:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure previously AfD-deleted articles are likely to be restored (even to draft) at WP:REFUND, but never mind; I've gone ahead and written a new article from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Zack Enfrentamiento Mortal
Hello, Sandstein. I recently saw that the page i created, 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal', was deleted. I do not condone the deletion of this page and would like to search for ways to reinstate it. Please, provide me with details so that I can learn how to do so. If possible, please provide me with a copy of the page's information to keep. OtherPancakes OtherPancakes (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles.  Sandstein   19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossing the Line
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close of Articles for deletion/Crossing the Line (2008 film). You were quite right to point out that an awful lot of people used the rationale "Jackson=notable" and that this is an invalid reason under our guidelines. However, from the point at which I offered sources, there were five further participants, all for "keep". Three of them directly referred to the sources I found and Jamesallain85 might have meant that. Those are valid, policy-based rationales and should not have been set aside. SpinningSpark 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Spinningspark: Thanks for pointing that out; I've changed the closure accordingly.  Sandstein   20:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. SpinningSpark 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Breast physics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Breast physics 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/Breast physics 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. Jtrainor (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary relist
Hi, you really needn't have relisted this. It was pretty clear that this was more a procedural issue than a content one, and all but one of the voters had already agreed that the article could go--the sole outlier having commented before this was pointed out. Avilich (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If that is so, the relisting will make it clear(er).  Sandstein   18:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering why the review I began couldn't at least have had a discussion? You don't think any of what I wrote merits one? And if an 'action' makes all the difference, well, I think it was implied in what I wrote, but re-running it would have been a better choice than closing it. But, really, what's procedural about such a seemingly structural issue? 88.109.68.233 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by that.  Sandstein   07:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes DRV

 * Why couldn't my review at least have had a discussion? 88.109.68.233 (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which review?  Sandstein   11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , but I suppose people are still discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion now, which might be a more appropriate venue for the process itself... 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, your comment didn't make clear that was about Deletion review/Log/2021 December 3. I've added a header to that effect. As I explained in my closure, DRV is for making changes to deletion-related decisions. This requires that the person who requests a review says what they want to change; i.e., how the AfD should have been closed differently. Because you did not provide this information, a review was not possible. There are other more appropriate fora for general discussions about the problems you raise.  Sandstein   14:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Creation of sub-list
Hello ! Could you please help me out with two questions? After the deletion decision of List of fictional institutions, is there prejudice against the creation of a List of fictional medical institutions based on the former list as a sub-set? Such sub-lists were also embraced by some deletion !voters. If there was not, would it be fine for me to go about it like that: Ask for restoration of the List of fictional institutions at WP:REFUND in draftspace, trim to a List of fictional medical institutions, restore to mainspace? Thanks a lot for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don‘t have an opinion about that.  Sandstein   22:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hardiness zone, & many others
While "SDs should be below 40 characters", it is more important that they are accurate! Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:HOWTOSD, "Editors adding or amending short descriptions should bear in mind that they are not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered, a short descriptive annotation, and a disambiguation in searches".  Sandstein   17:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But they need to be accurate! Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not incompatible with being concise and descriptive.  Sandstein   16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My point exactly - so do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination)
I'm probably going to DRV this, and since you've provided a detailed set of arguments, I'm posting this as a formality rather than expecting you to reconsider your close. My argument, in short: I think you're both very consistent in how you interpret policies and guidelines, but that doesn't stop you from having lost sight of the goals of Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:POPCULT, as a content presentation guideline, can never be normative of influential in a deletion discussion: It tells us how to present what we have, not what to have.
 * WP:TNT is an essay. It's been relied upon too much by deletionist editors and admins, including you, who accord it any weight whatsoever, and is fundamentally in conflict with Wikipedia core values and policies, to include these final three bullets, which favor keeping sub-par content so that it can be improved.
 * No WP:V or WP:IINFO issue existed that couldn't have been solved through regular editing, i.e. pruning.
 * None of WP:DEL-REASON are met.
 * WP:ATD is policy.


 * Well, the ATD was and is in your own hands: it means rewriting the article from scratch, which you or anybody else is free to do. But until that happens, there is a policy-supported consensus in this AfD that a list of unsourced arbitrary observations such as, to pick one at random, "The Systems Alliance serves as the future iteration of the United Nations in the Mass Effect video game series", does violate the goals of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Sandstein   19:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Bad merge
Now this! Wtf???? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, if you are unsure of the difference between prehistoric and the dark ages (!?!), you should probably stay away from related areas. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod and @Ceoil: What are your objections, exactly? If you look at the content I merged, you will see that:
 * the period called the ‎Irish Dark Age (100 BC – AD 300) is in fact part of the period covered in Prehistoric Ireland (up to AD 400), and
 * the content that I merged was already present, in substance, in the tenth paragraph of the section Prehistoric Ireland.
 * Also, happy holidays!  Sandstein   09:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging @Asarlaí, who thanked me for the merger; maybe they can comment on these concerns also.  Sandstein   09:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGE: "Any editor can perform a merger. No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below." If you thyought that would be uncontroversia;, you were clearly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod, I know that, but again, why do you object to the merger? Why do you think it is bad?  Sandstein   11:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I have continued this discussion at Talk:Prehistoric_Ireland; please add any replies there.  Sandstein  09:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Victory Obasi
Hiya as the closing admin at Articles_for_deletion/Victory_Obasi I wonder if you could put the article into draft form in my userspace where I can continue to work on it. Thanks for any help! Mujinga (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   19:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

DRV
Been over a month and I had no response from you regarding this discussion. May I know what is your opinion about that? I note that the subject is apparently still getting frequent coverage. TolWol56 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Earliest_serving_United_States_Representative
And List_of_oldest_surviving_members_of_the_House_of_Representatives

And Oldest_living_United_States_governor

I was very disappointed to see that these pages had been deleted because they are not sufficiently notable. First of all, probably 90% of what's in Encyclopedia Britannica is mundane rather than notable too, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

I do a significant amount of research and writing on legislative history, and I have frequently contacted former legislators for their comments. To that end, it is extremely useful to me to know who, from the 1970s and 1980s, is still alive and participated in the process for specific pieces of legislation. When those pages were active, I could see in ten seconds flat who was still alive from fifty years ago that might be able to talk to me about a bill they sponsored or helped pass. Without those pages, I can do a name by name internet search but that means it now takes me several minutes at minimum to get the information I used to be able to see from those lists almost instantaneously. So in this case, your deletion of those pages is not merely annoying; it makes it harder to do research of the type that I would expect to find in an encyclopedia.

To a certain extent, notable is in the eye of the beholder. Please reconsider. Thank you.

Abewoelk (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please link to the pages or discussions at issue.  Sandstein   14:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)