User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/May

Unprotect Ananya Panday
Hi, you applied extended confirmed protection on Ananya Panday article 2 years ago. Now it is not needed so please unprotect( or semi protect) it -- Parnaval (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , done.  Sandstein   13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Pešta
Hello Sandstein. Could you refund the above page, if possible? Someone has been asking for a refund at my talk page. Here is the original AfD. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I don't undelete articles.  Sandstein   19:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I would not request myself. Now as I see there was a discussion of more than one editor. I think the article should be rewritten first. But thx anyway. Juandev (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you semiprotect my user and user talk page
An IP who seems to be related to the debacle just vandalized my user talk page with a Turkish flag. Thanks in advance, (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , done.  Sandstein   07:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also be glad if you protected my talk page too, since it is being vandalized.--Visnelma (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just commenting here that that was ✅ by wrt  TP. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

How the page Prakash Neupane is still not deleted despite of 4 Delete discussions?
Hello there Sandstein, I saw that the page Prakash Neupane was voted as Delete in the last discussion which eventually was the 4th disussion and all of them were voted as Delete in the final conclusion please have a look, Iam surprised that despite of all the discussions its still there!!

Suryabeej (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (musician)
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (3rd nomination)
 * , this is because somebody recreated the article and it is now being discussed at Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (4th nomination).  Sandstein   12:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ohh thanks, My mistake I didn't checked the date of this pages creation.

But would you mind having a look at these two pages: it seems like someone is too desperate to hide the evidence of the non notability of the subject and save the page. Can we blank any page like this? also I have a very strong feeling that user:SS49 and User:Owlf both are operated by a group of people involved in a UPE, I request you to Kindly have a look on their Interaction Timeline. Thank You Suryabeej (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (3rd nomination)
 * , we are not blanking previous deletion discussions. You can bring up any relevant evidence in the new one.  Sandstein   16:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Blanking short descriptions
Hi Sand, I was just curious why you removed the short description here amd replaced it with "none", as you didn't give a reason in your edit summary. (It's probably too much to hope that. this is the first step to ridding ourselves. of the short descriptions!) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this was a case of WP:SDNONE. Sadly the SD gadget does not allow for custom edit summaries.  Sandstein   08:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hello!

Some time ago you closed this Deletion Review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_April_8. Thank you for your work on doing that (I was the nominator).

In the nomination, I mention two other pages that also were delted by that editor Articles_for_deletion/Alumni_Hall_(University_of_Notre_Dame)_(2nd_nomination) and Articles_for_deletion/Carroll_Hall_(University_of_Notre_Dame). Since the reasons are the same (and most importantly the editor that closed them is silent and did not respond to me reaching out to them and this, as other users pointed out, is grounds for relisting. My question to you, since you are an admin, is this: do you think yourself or another admin can revert the closure (since it was challenged and not answered) or should I list them both on Deletion Review? I'm happy to do the latter, but I think it saves time if an admin reverts the closure. I think the grounds are solid since the closing editor won't answer the challenge. What do you think? Eccekevin (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , nobody should unilaterally undo an admin's AfD closures, see WP:NACD. But you are free to appeal them at WP:DRV if you think the closer misread consensus (not merely because you disagree with the outcome).  Sandstein   08:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Happiest Minds
Hi Sandstein. You closed Articles for deletion/Happiest Minds as "delete". Based on the strengths of the arguments in the discussion, there was no consensus to delete. The "delete" participants did not explain how the analyst reports I provided were "routine". The AfD nominator discussed how American companies and American CEO articles were being kept "even though they are entirely common and non-notable" and said this was Systemic bias but did not explain how this applied to Happiest Minds, a company founded and based in Bangalore, Karnataka, India. The AfD nominator wrote "the list above is another collection of routine coverage that completely ignores WP:NCORP, like it doesn't exist, and makes a mockery of notability and the five pillars. I'll see what Arbcom says about it" but did not explain how the analyst reports were routine. The AfD nominator did not address the fact that WP:NCORP says analyst reports can be used to establish notability.

The second "delete" editor wrote "Run-of-the-mill company in its run-of-the-mill sector", which did not explain why the sources were inadequate. The third "delete" editor said "per the second delete editor" and did not explain why the sources were inadequate.

Your closing statement said, "Although analyst reports are mentioned as possible sources in WP:NCORP, that guideline also excludes 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage', so excluding routine analyst reports is guideline-compliant." But no one explained how these were routine analyst reports. No one explained what analyst reports would be considered non-routine. Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no. While you made a reasonable argument in favor of keeping the article, you were the only one in favor of keeping it. As I explained, I cannot discount the "delete" opinions, because the relevant guideline instructs us to disregard routine reporting, which is the argument they invoked. And whether something is routine coverage or not is a matter of editorial judgment, for which I must defer to local consensus in the discussion.  Sandstein   08:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I started Deletion review/Log/2021 May 18. Cunard (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10
The delete wasn't the problematic part. The problematic part that needs overturning is the extraneous conditions that no similar category can be created and declare the discussions about naming held at Help talk:CS1 to be void and null. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the extent of the authority of any XfD discussion closure is to determine whether there is consensus to delete, merge or redirect a given page. I don't see what would give any other conclusion of the closer any force other than that of an individual editor's view.  Sandstein   22:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Page protection
Can you please look into this?. TheWikiholic (talk)
 * Sorry, I don't currently have the time.  Sandstein   14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Barefoot Catalogue
I disagree with the recent deletion of the Barefoot Catalogue article. Barefoot is the leading catalogue of revenue stamps from a wide variety of countries, and if that's not notable, then neither are many of the other entries in Category:Stamp catalogs (the sources of many of these are similar in quality to those in the now-deleted Barefoot article - why not go ahead and delete these too while we're at it?). I would have tried to find more reliable sources for this article but at the moment I am quite busy so I do not have much time for Wikipedia, and as and myself have stated in the AfD, it is difficult to find reliable online sources on stamp catalogues in general. I am actually still not sure what could be regarded as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about a stamp catalogue. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources are the one conditio sine qua non of an article, see WP:V. If you want there to be an article, you need to take the time to find appropriate sources.  Sandstein   20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do take the time to find appropriate sources for my articles - the Barefoot article was just one of my earlier contributions to Wikipedia, at a time when I was not very familiar with referencing. Since Linn's Stamp News and The Revenue Journal (the sources cited in the deleted Barefoot article) are apparently not regarded as reliable sources, what I am asking is: What would be considered as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on a stamp catalogue? For example, would this be a reliable source or not? --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a blog. WP:BLOGS indicates under which (rare) circumstances these are acceptable sources.  Sandstein   21:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a blog affiliated with the American Philatelic Society - which I would consider reliable - but since there are no guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source for a stamp catalogue article I don't know. Anyway, this is clearly not worth the effort since apparently nothing is a reliable source in philately. You can go ahead and delete Stanley Gibbons catalogue, Zumstein catalog and most (if not all) of the other articles in Category:Stamp catalogs while you're at it... --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources in philately are the same as reliable sources in any other field, see WP:RS. You just need to find them, cite them, and make a case for why they are reliable according to that policy. I can't do that for you because I know nothing about philately. That's why I also refrain from voicing an opinion about the reliability of that blog.  Sandstein   07:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are the sources in the article - Linn's Stamp News and The Revenue Journal - considered unreliable? I'm not saying that the article prior to deletion was perfect, but it acutally had more sources which I consider reliable than other articles on similar catalogues with self-published sources, so I cannot understand the logic why it was deleted. Perhaps decisions on deleting vs. retaining an article about any given topic should be left to people who at least know something about the topic? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a view, myself, about whether these sources are reliable. As the AfD closer, my job is only to determine consensus among whoever happens to show up in the AfD discussion. And in this case, you didn't succeed in convincing these other Wikipedians that these sources are reliable. Sorry, but that's how it works. Sometimes it's just bad luck.  Sandstein   09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both original source are publications and as I stated in the deletion discussion, Linns Stamp News, a well respected independent philately news source, already quoted in the article is most likely one of the best you will find for now. With access to hard copy philatelic magazines, which are hard to get without visiting a philatelic library. If you don't consider Linns, in publication since 1928, a WP:RS then you need to tell us what is but it appears you don't even know what would be, so that's not constructive. Please remember we are all here to make articles better not just delete them. ww2censor (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , these are valid arguments for the use of this source. But they didn't sway consensus. I can't influence that.  Sandstein   14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Brent Armitage
Hi Sandstein, You deleted the Brent Armitage Wikipedia page back Feb 2020. I think this deletion was done in error. The reason given was incorrect. Had I been notified of the discussion I would have joined and rectified the error. The Brent Armitage page had been on Wikipedia since 2012.

Brent Armitage is an established movie producer, writer, director and actor. He has been active in the entertainment industry for nearly 50 years and has been in partly responsible for a couple of my favorite movies, Grosse Pointe Blank and Miami Blues. He's worked with some of the finest filmmakers in Hollywood, including Gary Goetzman, Morgan Freeman, Alec Baldwin, Owen Wilson, Roger Corman, Academy Award winners Jonathan Demme, Edward Saxon and Ron Bozman, to name just a few. Check out his credits on IMDB too. He also created StudioNotes. A service that provided Hollywood outsiders with the ability to develop their projects directly with established studio executives. This was revolutionary access 20 years ago. He also created one of the largest screenwriting competitions, partnering with Final Draft Software and The Writers Store. I worked with Mr. Armitage in the past and his writing and producing contributions should not be overlooked. He also gratuitously added several photos to wikipedia. One of which appears on Owen Wilson's page, with Mr. Armitage cropped out. I could go on if you'd like.

I tried to reestablish the page yesterday but was turned down because the new page too closely resembled the original page. I think it's a disservice to our community to delete this page and I believe it should be undeleted.

Thank you for your time, David DavidQ2012 (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this does not address the reasons for which Brent Armitage was deleted per Articles for deletion/Brent Armitage. See WP:GNG for our inclusion criteria.  Sandstein   08:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein The argument for deletion, as stated in the linked discussion, was that Brent Armitage’s career is somehow without merit but as listed above and below that simply isn’t the case. He has extensive credits over 50 years. He was also an actor in another favorite film Miami Blues where he plays in a scene alongside Alec Baldwin. He also played a kid in an early Jonathan Demme classic “Women in Prison” genre movie Caged Heat. These are of course in addition to the others mentioned. He's listed on many other internet sites.

I understand that subjectivity plays a large roll in these decisions and you’re trying to do the right thing, but even in his comments, dflaw4 doesn’t seem to have much conviction in his decision, stating “His work, albeit in two well-known films, seems a little too minor to me to sustain an article.” Hardly the conviction needed for execution. The only other comment listed was by natg 19 stating “I do not think that Brent has any independent notability” but his extensive credits and his creation of StudioNotes, a service that helped 100s of aspiring writers develop their projects, discredits that too. Furthermore, a photo from the Brent Armitage page featuring Mr. Armitage and Owen Wilson on set during the making of The Big Bounce was then taken from the page, cropped and placed on the Owen Wilson page by someone. This photo is 2nd from the top on the Owen Wilson page and still there today.

I believe if I could have made the points above and others at the time of deletion, the deletion would not have been implemented. This was a page that was on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years.

I’m a huge fan of Wikipedia and have been from the start. I respect your work as an editor and understand that no good deed goes unpunished, but I do feel that a disservice was made in this case and that the page should be reinstated. Thank you again for your time Sandstein Best, DavidQ2012 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I get what you mean but these are not the criteria we use to evaluate articles. The criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ENT are. If you can't convincingly show that the decision at Articles for deletion/Brent Armitage was mistaken in terms of these criteria, the article is not coming back.  Sandstein   22:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, I have listed many of Mr. Armitage’s contributions to the entertainment industry in the discussions above, contributions that I believe more than satisfy the criteria listed at WP:GNG and WP:ENT. These contributions are verified at Brent Armitage’s page on International Movie Database https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035497/ as well as other sites throughout the internet. His contributions are extensive, his career has endured over a long time span and his movies have millions of fans. Bios and photos of him appear all over the internet. Again, here are just a few of the movies he has been a part of either through producing, writing, second unit directing or acting. Grosse Pointe Blank, The Big Bounce, Miami Blues, Caged Heat Jury Duty, Vigilante Force. If you haven't seen Grosse Pointe Blank or Miami Blues lately please check them out. Great. Here is just a short list of some of the people he has worked closely with Gary Goetzman, Morgan Freeman, Alec Baldwin, Owen Wilson, Roger Corman, Academy Award winners Jonathan Demme, Edward Saxon and Ron Bozman. I could go on and on. Then you add in Mr. Armitage’s creation of StudioNotes and the need to reestablish is clear. I can point to the lack of conviction in the earlier deletion discussion Articles for deletion/Brent Armitage as even further evidence. Even with a conservative assessment, it seems clear the evidence to reestablish is there. This was a page that was on the Wikipedia site for nearly ten years. I understand there is an element of subjectivity and appreciate your hard work. I hope the evidence above, the verification on many other sites, and the longstanding nature of the original page make the evidence to reestablish straightforward and clear. Thank you again for your time Sandstein. Best DavidQ2012 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , accomplishments don't matter. Only sources matter. You cite only IMDB, which is unreliable. Please read WP:THREE and follow the advice there.  Sandstein   19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Yes, I had reviewed the WP:THREE article before. Thank you. You ask for three sources, here are the three sources as listed on the page and the IMDB link. I can't imagine any of the above credits are in doubt and I don't think you can get a more reliable source in the entertainment industry than Variety. This page is deserving of another look. Thank you for your time. Best, DavidQ2012 (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [1]Chang, Justin (2005-11-03). "Brent Armitage". Variety. 2012-03-01.
 * [2]Harris, Dana (2002-08-22). "Freeman's bound for Warner 'Bounce'". Variety. 2012-03-01.
 * [3]Lyons, Charles (2001-06-05). "Armitages set service for scripters". Variety. 2012-03-01.
 * [4]
 * , thanks. as AfD participants, what is your view? Do these sources establish notability?   Sandstein   09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The third Variety article doesn't look too bad at all. I can't view the first, for some reason, and the second is just a passing mention. But maybe the page does deserve a closer look, because the third article appears to support WP:GNG. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dflaw4 that the 3rd Variety article looks okay. However, I also cannot view the first article and agree that the 2nd is a passing mention. Overall, I believe that the only 1 good source does not meet our notability standards. Even though DavidQ2012 lists a number of "accomplishments" that Armitage has done, I am not able to find information on them, and do not feel that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. As to his IMDB page, in my opinion, his list of credits (5 acting roles, 7 production-related roles) fails WP:NACTOR as he has only had minor roles in acting, filming, or producing. Natg 19 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Thank you all for taking another look. I appreciate all of your time and the thankless tasks you perform. Along with the information below, I have two new source links for you from the Directors Guild of America and the Writers Guild of America West.

If the initial deletion discussion hadn’t taken place the first weeks of Covid, when we all had more important things on our minds, I would have been able to express the many points listed above and I believe a more robust discussion would have taken place. This is a page that was on Wikipedia for nearly ten years and there was clearly not a lot of conviction in the discussion. You asked for a list of credits, I’ve provided them. The quality and relevance is there. Some of these are great movies. Please watch Grosse Pointe Blank and Miami Blues if you haven’t. They are fantastic. You asked for sources, I’ve provided them. Variety and IMDB. Both industry standards. Mr. Armitage is also a member of all three major industry guilds, the Directors Guild of America, Writers Guild of America West and the Screen Actors Guild. Here is a new source link to the Directors Guild of America https://www.dga.org/The-Guild/Members/Profile.aspx?mid=GxHcJ3tQlzU%3d. I can include this DGA source along with a Writers Guild of America West https://directories.wga.org/member/4772336f-af75-4c82-8931-d4dcaa4ccc07 source if you think that would be helpful in further validating the page. I have pointed out his relevance through the countless amazing people he has worked with, including Gary Goetzman, Morgan Freeman, Alec Baldwin, Owen Wilson, Roger Corman, Academy Award winners Jonathan Demme, Edward Saxon and Ron Bozman, to name just a few. Clearly they have found his input important. The photos on Brent Armitage’s page also have relevance as they have been used by others on their Wikipedia pages, Owen Wilson’s page included. I believe this further validates inclusion. I hope I have provided you with a better understanding of Mr. Armitage’s relevance, body of work and reason for inclusion. Maybe including the new source links to the Directors Guild of America https://www.dga.org/The-Guild/Members/Profile.aspx?mid=GxHcJ3tQlzU%3d and Writers Guild of America West would be helpful as well. Both of which can be included as sources on the page. I can certainly do that. The sum of all this as well as the new source links I believe shows that Brent Armitage deserves to have a page. I understand how important his input has been, I hope I have expressed that in the many facts listed above. Again, I thank you all for your time and I hope you reconsider and reestablish the page. Best,DavidQ2012 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Working with notable people or having a role in a notable film does not inherently make someone notable, as notability is not inherited, and having membership in different industry guilds does not make someone notable. As Sandstein has mentioned, we are looking for significant coverage from at least 3 sources. Significant coverage means not just a mere mention of a subject, but a detailed writeup of him. Additionally, he could meet WP:NACTOR by having "significant" roles in multiple notable films/TV series/productions, but I do not believe he has had any leading or supporting roles. Natg 19 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , we are volunteers trying to write a neutral encyclopedia. You, on the other hand, are clearly here only to promote the amazing, talented Brent Armitage who is in so many great, fantastic movies. That's not what Wikipedia is for. I am blocking your account per WP:NOTHERE. Anybody else who is not Brent Armitage or working for him is free to recreate the article with substantially better sourcing than in the AfD.  Sandstein   21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2021 May 10
I requested this DRV, about the CfD close of a tracking category discussion, and have some questions about your review decision.

The DRV is supposed to ask for a review of the CfD closer's opinion, based on the rationale provided by the DRV requester. Nowhere do I see your input about that. Has my request for a DRV any merit? If it does not why? If it does, is my rationale (misrepresentation of consensus) valid? If it is not why? If it is valid, do you think there was misrepresentation as described? Nothing about that. I wonder if in good faith you thought you were reviewing something else.

The following is not related to the main issue, above. I include it because to me it seems strange: The review starts with a vote count (2-1 against, clearcut and overwhelming if it is to be decided by count) and ends with an inexplicable decision of "no consensus", because... why? This is deemed to favor the CfD close. Note that "no consensus" decision may also recommend "relist". Your review decision includes unnecessary comments about the purported "complexity" of the unrelated issue of the CfD discussion (as opposed to the relevant issue of the CfD closure). This approach is flawed. Even if (strictly academically) it wasn't, one would think relisting to be the obvious decision in such case.

I ask that you reconsider your decision regarding this DRV. 67.254.224.137 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 67.254.224.137, I can't answer these questions which you expect the DRV to answer. As DRV closer, I can answer only one question: is there consensus to overturn the contested closure? That is clearly not the case here. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. I can tell you, though, why I've not relisted the CfD. I only do that if the original discussion had little input and relisting could help clarify consensus. I don't think that is the case here, given the length and complexity of the CfD.  Sandstein   22:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If your function is limited to determining consensus then please explain your decision. According to your closing review, and your comments above, you should have found a consensus to endorse based on vote count (no other reason was given). According to the DRV instructions re: closing reviews. Instead you found no consensus for either undelete or endorse. How did you arrive at that? 135.84.167.210 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia discussions are not votes. A majority is not consensus. See WP:Consensus.  Sandstein   08:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, why did you use the vote count as the only justification for your decision? And how exactly such a one-sided endorse vote becomes no consensus? 64.18.9.192 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The vote count was not the only basis for my decision. I explained that, the arguments on both sides being broadly reasonable, I could not give either side's arguments determining weight.  Sandstein   13:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems we are going in circles... Above you stated that the underlying arguments for the DRV (misrepresentation of CfD consensus) were not part of your decision. That you only had to determine where consensus lies. The only pertinent item in this was your review's opening statement that the endorse position had a 2-1 advantage. Somehow this morphed into a no consensus decision. There was a black-and-white choice: either the CfD closer misstated the consensus by inappropriately "interpreting" votes or s/he didn't. There is nothing reasonable or unreasonable about that. 68.173.79.202 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose this makes little practical difference, as the effects of "no consensus" vs "endorse" are the same. But I do think 68.173 has a point here. If the two viewpoints have equal weight, but there is a 2:1 ratio supporting one of them, then that viewpoint has the consensus. That's how WP consensus building works. (And I know that people like to quote WP:NOTAVOTE, but that doesn't actually say "don't use vote counts", it simply says that discussion and policy are the key avenues to consensus building, ahead of simple polls). Put another way, a viewpoint held by a minority needs to have very a strong underlying argument in order to overcome the numerical evidence that many more Wikipedians agree with the majority viewpoint. I've never seen a "no consensus" result from such a discussion before, but maybe there's something I'm missing. Anyway, as I said, at least the correct outcome has been reached. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , in my practice, majorities above 2:1 are normally indicative of rough consensus, ceteris paribus. That threshold hasn't quite been crossed here. Other admins may have different standards.  Sandstein   07:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, fair enough I guess. Of course, I agree there is always a threshold for which point "equal weight" arguments cease to balance out, but probably my bar is more like 3:2 than 2:1. Cheers anyway, and have a good day &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that supports statements such as "in my practice" or that allow one to contort vote counts so that they fit a certain outcome, and then assign consensus to such contortions. So 2:1 is not "rough" (???) consensus but presumably 3:2 is? Where do you find such guidelines again? And again where do you see the " equal weight arguments" here? I specifically stated that the CfD close misrepresented consensus and gave clear reasons why I think it is so. One either agrees I was correct or not. There is no "weight" to be applied anywhere. And if you follow the DRV comments that are on topic (most of them are not) it is clear that the opposing positions are irreconcilable. They cannot be weighted. The reviewer's decision is opaque, and a fudge. 71.167.45.141 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've adequately explained my reasons for closing the DRV and will not comment further.  Sandstein   14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request review of DRV close. Thank you. I have requested a review of your DRV close at WP:AN. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hasan Moghimi
Hi Sandstein, I am the one you described as a bludgeoner []. I wonder if this is a common label for someone who is looking for a clear answer on WP or not. During and after creating Hasan Moghimi page, I gradually started to learn how to refer to WP guidelines and reply with WP terminology. Combination of learning and being ignored were reasons why I had to repeat my reasons -every time with more references to WP. Lack of enough knowledge about WP guidelines works like a trap for new users. Anyways, I clearly mentioned that no one asked for a quotation of non-English references -not the one who deleted the page in the first place and none of the other editors on the review page. Without evaluating references, how can an editor decide about notability? I learned that consensus is not like voting, but reasoning. This is why I'm still looking for an answer.I would appreciate if you could only clarify about "how those in favor of deletion realized that GNG is not met without asking for quotation of non-English references". Erfan2017 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand what exactly it is you are asking.  Sandstein   15:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * . Sorry if I was not clear (this is another reason why I had to repeat myself! for clarification -so you called me bludgeoner). Based on WP:NOENG: "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided..." The main issue with my article was notability (no one talked about number of references, quality of English language, number of paragraphs, etc). My question is: Where most of the references were in non-English language, how they can judge about the quality of the references and/or notability of the person (unless they ask for it -they did not)? The judgement had happened without looking at non-English references, that means without properly evaluating notability. I am asking you to help me understand: How an editor can judge and say "delete" without knowing the subject?Erfan2017 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's a regrettable fact that most users here cannot read non-English sources, so these sources tend to be dismissed quicker than others. In such cases, when attempting to establish notability, it is important to not overwhelm others with a lot of references, but focus on the WP:THREE most important, explain why they are reliable and in-depth, and summarize them in English.  Sandstein   18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for your comment. I beleive my article failed because I was not able to present it properly. Also, other users expected me to talk to them like a pro while I'm not. It seems that I have to recreate the page in a better shape few months later and present it more properly.Erfan2017 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies
Hello. You deleted an article that I created in draft based on the recommendations of the participants. I submitted a recovery request earlier, where I was told to create an article in draft. I did so. The participant moved it to the main space. On what basis did you delete it?2A00:1FA1:1E8:99A5:D01A:CA1:80EA:F90D (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the basis of WP:G4.  Sandstein   15:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article in the main space. I created an article in draft. I was advised to do so. I didn't create an identical article that was deleted a year ago. I managed to look at that old version when it was temporarily restored. Once again, I will ask you on what basis you deleted this article. G4 is not suitable here.2A00:1FA1:79:C753:48CC:A99B:34F5:3213 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody moved it to main space and then I deleted it because it was substantially identical to the previously deleted article. And that's that.  Sandstein   16:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nearly identical. It was different from the previous text. Advertising phrases and the like were removed. I ask you to move it back to the draft and I will try to rework it more efficiently by consulting with you. I didn't break the rules, I followed the recommendations of experienced participants. I changed the text and wrote it in a more high-quality and encyclopedic way.2A00:1FA1:3B4:F3BF:48BE:D39C:D24F:4E8D (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it was sufficiently identical in terms of sources and content to be deleted. You'll need to find some other website to advertise your organization. I'll not comment further.  Sandstein   16:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good day! Worked a bit on that draft (few sources, cleanup and a bit of rewriting), now, at least, it does not look like the deleted version (I think so) and maybe shows enough notability to leave it. Check it, please as a person who deleted it before. Red wanna talk? 15:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can't read the Russian sources. You should ask the AfD nominator,, about their view.  Sandstein   16:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is just advertising, deleted in Russian wikipedia before. No have valid sources, not subject for restore. Should ask author about WP:PAID. Кронас (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Claude Napier
Could you please recreate the deleted article to Special:Mypage/Claude Napier under my user so I can continue working on improving it? Vogler (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I don't undelete articles.  Sandstein   07:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it says now on the deleted page: ”If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.” So who should I contact then? Vogler (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   07:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Shikha Talsania
Hi, I wanted to create a page on Shikha Talsania and observed that creation for the same has been restricted by yourself. This restriction was imposed in 2018. Please note that now Shikha is relatively much more well known actress and must have acted in more than a dozen films. In one movie, she has even played the role of second heroine. Request you to please revoke the restrictions so that the page can be created. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please link to the page.  Sandstein   13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't understand my actionable. Can u please explain. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you don't know how to link to the page this is about, you are unlikely to be able to create it competently.  Sandstein   17:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Trust me, I have enough data and I can create the page. Infact, I have created a few before as well. I know internal linking, external linking but what I cannot figure out on how to edit Shikha Talsania page. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I decline to unprotect the article because you do not address the reasons for deletion in Articles for deletion/Shikha Talsania.  Sandstein   07:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Back in Jan 2018, Shikha did not appear in a lot of films. But, now Shikha is relatively much more well known actress and must have acted in more than a dozen films. In one movie, she has even played the role of second heroine. Can this be a valid reason to allow me to create the page, which you can review later. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no. For us, what matters are sources, not roles. See WP:GNG.  Sandstein   07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sharing one link from website of India's largest selling newspaper, Times Of India. This page itself contains a lot of links directly or indirectly related to the actress. There are many others on other web sites like NDTV, Hindustan Times etc. Please look into these and reconsider. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:THREE.  Sandstein   11:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo redirect
Howdy, Sandstein. Since your closure of Elizondo's Afd over a year ago, with your decision to merge the Elizondo BLP to the article To the Stars (company), Elizondo's notability has grown substantially, and I believe an article on this public figure is merited. Also, it appears Elizondo is not currently listed as a founder or board member on the company website at https://home.tothestarsacademy.com. This fact alone should negate the redirect, in my view.

While I am often bold on Wikipedia, I am not so bold as to recreate the Luis Elizondo article without discussing it with you. So, your thoughts? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , to change the outcome of Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo we'd need new sources that establish his notability per WP:GNG, and you ndon't provide any here.  Sandstein   07:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Very well. Results from a Google search for "Luis Elizondo" made May 20, 2021:

1) USA Today, May 17, 2021 - Title and link: Sightings all over the world': Another former federal official discusses UFOs, upcoming congressional report The second paragraph reads "Luis Elizondo, former director of the defense department's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, told "60 Minutes" that some reported sightings don't have explanations." (Elizondo quote follows.)

2) NBCnews.com, May 19, 2021 - Title and link: 'UFOs are about to make their way to the U.S. Senate. Here's what to know: The article includes these paragraphs:

"Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

“They have the responsibility to always act in a manner that is in the best interest of the United States and the American people,” Elizondo told NBC News. “This topic is no different than any other national security issue, and we must remain diligent, deliberate and discerning.”"

3) CBSnews.com, May 16 2021 - Title and link: UFOs regularly spotted in restricted U.S. airspace, report on the phenomena due next month Elizondo interviewed by 60 Minutes at length.

4) Newsweek.com May 19, 2021 - Title and link: What Trump, Obama and Clinton Have Said About UFOs Luis Elizondo leads off the article: "There has been renewed attention on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in recent days following comments by former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (ATTIP) Luis Elizondo."

There is much more, and if you require them I will resume, but I believe Elizondo's notability is firmly sourced by these four reliable sources. Combine the provided links with my aforementioned observation regarding the stale nature of the redirect, and I submit that reestablishing the article is warranted. Again, your thoughts? Thank you. Jusdafax (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not persuaded. These sources are not about Elizondo as a person, but about UFO sightings, and he is merely mentioned or quoted as a supposed expert on these. That does not support a biography of Elizondo, but at most articles about his UFO-related activities. But these already exist at To the Stars (company) and Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. I don't see the basis for yet another article.  Sandstein   14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply from Jusdafax
5) This is a source that I believe meets your biographical requirements for an Elizondo BLP in another reliable source, the respected Sarasota Herald-Tribune - title and link: From the shadows into the light – the man who broke the UFO embargo grew up in Sarasota. This reference source gives a reasonable number of details on Elizondo's JROTC and military experiences, family details, his work as head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and his eventful resignation from military service at about the time of the release of the Pentagon UFO videos. I find it substantial for a BLP.

Again, I would appreciate your thoughts on the propriety of a living person's name being redirected to an organization he has no current involvement with. To quote from the article above:

"In December [2020], Luis Elizondo, Chris Mellon and Steve Justice parted ways with TTSA. Some DeLonge-watchers suggest the departures may have been precipitated by TTSA’s appointing of private equity entrepreneur Christopher Mizer to its board of directors. Elizondo says it was just time to move on.

''“Tom (DeLonge) is really focused on the entertainment side, so there’s not a whole lot for Chris, Steve and I to do,” he says. “We're not entertainers. Our talents lie in engaging governments, Congress and international organizations, and we’re ready to shift into second gear. Entertainment is one way to do it, but it’s not comprehensive.”''

To be frank, I'm seeing very little about Elizondo in the To the Stars (company) article that is the current redirect target for Luis Elizondo, that you cite. Nor is there much on him in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, two disjointed paragraphs. Rather than continue in this reply, I will simply ask if you still disagree that Elizondo as a biography of a living person (WP:BLP) is worthy of "the basis for yet another article." I submit that the redirect was understandable a year ago, but subsequent events, in my view, render the decision currently inappropriate. I do appreciate your willingness to engage, and await your additional thoughts. I am leery of creating walls of text but will supply further refs if you wish. Thanks again. Jusdafax (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that does look more substantial as a source., as the AfD nominator, what is your view?  Sandstein   18:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be worth noting that the AfD nominator you have pinged templated me on my Talk Page in July, 2020, and my attempts at the time to dialog in response went unanswered. Jusdafax (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and : Elizondo has definitely been making the rounds lately (was interviewed on 60 Minutes, for example). However, I think it may be useful to start with a draft article. I have no objection to documenting the split between Elizondo and TTSA in the company's article. I am inclined to take a "wait and see" approach to this. We've been burned in the past by UFO flashes in the pan like the Sirius Project of Steven Greer fame and so forth. If his new ventures pan out, we can always create an article as I believe WP:NODEADLINE tethered with WP:SENSATION is relevant here. If Elizondo starts a new company or organization, then he very well may become a UFO star in his own right. Hard to say right now what's going on. jps (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that assessment., if you recreate the article based substantially on the above source, it is likely to escape WP:G4 deletion, but I don't know if it will survive another AfD. That's all I can say, really.  Sandstein   22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your replies. I'm going to carefully review Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo again and in a day or two make a decision on how to, or if to, attempt a recreation of the Luis Elizondo article. I'll check back here, since you are the Elizondo AfD nominator and closer. I will say again that I consider the current redirect a considerable disservice to Elizondo as a person, and to Wikipedia readers seeking information about him. Thanks again for your time! Jusdafax (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

We could also redirect to the Pentagon UFO videos article if you think that would be a better target. jps (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than continue with this matter, I felt it was best for me to stand back. I see the article has now been recreated by another editor. Sandstein, if you have no objection, I will link this discussion to the article Talk page, where various parties are engaged, for perspective. If you feel it inappropriate, I'll refrain. Thanks yet again. Jusdafax (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no objection. The guy seems to be in the news now, e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/28/ufos-secret-history-government-washington-dc-487900, so a new AfD would probably be warranted if somebody still thinks the article should be deleted.  Sandstein   14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Question on XFDcloser
re this AfD, there is almost always some additional cleanup when XFDcloser is used. I'm hoping you can shed some light, particularly as I haven't used XFDcloser.

So XFDcloser is removing the link, but not the piped text. See. Note the inline text left in the table of "rivalry". That text can be cleaned up via AWB, but AWB left an empty new line in the markup.

Is it possible to tweak XFDcloser such that all of the markup is removed? This issue often seen in AfDs and the schedule table markup. If there is a solution, I'm happy to leave a note for the closing admin. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that this is the script's intended behavior, not a bug. It removes the link, but leaves the unlinked text in place so as so not remove content from an article. But you can ask the dev at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser.  Sandstein   14:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that default behavior makes sense. It should preserve the piped text in the common case, such as a piped link used within a sentence. This edge case is more like a cell within a table where the cell content needs to be fully removed. Thx, UW Dawgs (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Unblock my user account
Hello! Is it possible for you to unblock my account mainly because it has been blocked for a long time now. I will use my account rather than IP-adresses which change continually. See what you can do about that?. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Declined, because you do not link to your user account and address the reason for the block.  Sandstein   13:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)