User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/January

Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics
Hi Sandstein. At Articles for deletion/Elephant Robotics, you wrote, "There are valid reasons for both points of view, such that I can't determine whose arguments are stronger. But in terms of numbers, we have 7 delete to 3 keep (including a "weak" keep"). This is above the two-thirds threshold that I use as a benchmark for rough consensus, ceteris paribus." Three of the comments were made before any sources were provided. Two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses.

From Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Administrators must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such 'bad faith' opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion." The IP addresses are indistinguishable from "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion" as they have no other contributions. As your close is heavily based on a vote count where two of the "delete" comments were from IP addresses, would you change your close to "no consensus"? Cunard (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, because the IP addresses engaged in a reasonable (if brief) analysis of sources, similar to Deathlibrarian on the "keep" side, such that I can't dismiss their opinions.  Sandstein   13:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this for review at Deletion review/Log/2022 January 1. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Input
A closing statement of yours in a past AfD is being used as justification for one administrador's supervote RfD close here. Please consider giving an input, telling whether or not you endorse the interpretation. Avilich (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Providing a copy of deleted page.
Dear SandStein: If you recall, last month (and year) you deleted the article that I created titled ‘Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal (2021 film)’ I have not come here asking for the undeletion of said page. I simply wish, if possible, that you provide me with a full copy of the writing for the page. I will not post this again, I promise. I simply wish to keep this page for my personal viewing as well as to view the ‘Plot’ section of this deleted page. Thank you, OtherPancakes (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)OtherPancakes


 * Sorry, I do not undelete articles. You can ak at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   09:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Inverse Warburg Effect
Dear Sandstein I would like to pass on to you a message I had sent to Mr. Haworth yesterday. I have just noticed, however, that he has been “de-sysopped”, as he calls it. Hence I would like you, as an administrator, to attend to this matter. In the light of recent publications, such as "Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease: metabolic reprogramming and therapeutic intervention" (2021), I would like you to revisit the deletion of the Wikipedia text on the Inverse Warburg effect (2017). Sincerely Cordula (Hasperasperagus)

Dear Mr. Haworth, I would like you to consider resurrecting the Wikipedia article on the Inverse Warburg Effect, deleted 31 July 2017. The main reason given for its deletion was that the phenomenon described was "too fringe". National newspapers in Germany and Switzerland, however, have published major articles focussing on this novel metabolic approach to explaining Alzheimer's Disease, based on the Inverse Warburg effect. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/streitgespraech-alzheimer-heilung-wie-nah-ist-man-wirklich-dran-13722068.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2 / https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/gestoerte-energieversorgung-im-gehirn-1.18483527) A similar article in English, likewise addressed to the general public, can be found in the Harvard Gazette (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/a-new-understanding-of-alzheimers/) The fundamental publication "Alzheimer's disease: the amyloid hypothesis and the Inverse Warburg effect" by Demetrius, Magistretti and Pellerin (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00522/full) has had 30.732 views (This is more than 98% of all Frontiers articles), and so far has received 138 citations. Is that "too fringe"? The most recent publication based on the Inverse Warburg concept is "Sex differences in Alzheimer’s disease: metabolic reprogramming and therapeutic intervention", which came out in 2021 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276021002198). - The theory is very much alive! In view of the current rejection of the Amyloid model for Alzheimer's disease, the major competing theory of the origin of neurodegenerative disorders, the bioenergetic model, based on the Inverse Warburg effect, would be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Sincerely, Hasperaspaeragus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasperasperagus (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please link to the article at issue.  Sandstein   18:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein Thanks for your prompt response. Alas, I cannot link the article at issue, concerning the Inverse Warburg effect. It must be in the Wikipedia archive for deleted texts (cf. “The result was delete and redirect to Warburg effect#Alternative models. Consensus is that this is too fringe and WP:COI to merit treatment at the article level, but can be covered as part of a broader article. Sandstein  08:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)”) And since I am not the author, I do not have the text. Sincerely, Cordula (Hasperasperagus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasperasperagus (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked you to link to Inverse Warburg effect or Articles for deletion/Inverse Warburg effect so that I don't have to search for whatever it is you are talking about, which I have now done. I suggest that you use any new sources to improve the coverage of the concept at Warburg effect (oncology), where it is now covered. Not every term needs an article of its own, and the deletion discussion concluded that this one does not.  Sandstein   10:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein In Wikipedia there is, indeed, a subsection of the Warburg effect (oncology): Alternative models > Inverse Warburg effect. However, this subjection pertains to the phenomenon in C a n c e r. An analogous, but distinctly different phenomenon exists in N e u r o d e g e n e r a t I v e  diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS), and also in Immunology. The description of this phenomenon deserves an article on its own. Its insertion in ‘Warburg effect (oncology)’ would be misleading. Sincerely Cordula (Hasperaspaeragus) Hasperasperagus (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please use proper talk page practices and respond in the existing thread, to which I have copied this message. Your views are noted, but they are at odds with the outcome of the deletion discussion. I will not respond further in this matter.  Sandstein   14:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sandstein In your response you point to the decision from 31st July 2017. It would appear that you have overlooked the real c o n t e n t  of my message. I realize that you are a very busy person with many demands on your attention. However, if you took some time to revisit my message and advise me, I think the matter could be very quickly resolved. Sincerely Cordula (Hasperasperagus) Hasperasperagus (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pete Vainowski
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pete Vainowski. 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. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita
Hi, Sorry, I didn't know I couldn't react below your message. So I copy/paste my message here: "I don't understand why "the result was delete" as in the discussion below we agreed (or at least that's what I understood) with BD2412 (who initiated this process) to "Keep the current name (or rename as "List of metropolitan areas by GDP per capita") but add other sources such as Brookings' "Global Metro Monitor"." Could you please elaborate?"

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While it is true that you discussed a solution with, they did not withdraw their nomination for deletion, and the two other people who commented were also in favor of deletion.  Sandstein   14:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift reply.
 * The discussion with BD2412 was still ongoing as I asked them a precision on Jan 5th and was waiting for their answer.
 * Regarding the two other people, I answered their remarks and offered to improve the article as they suggested: they complained that the article wasn't up-to-date (it can be updated) and based on one source only (at least another one can be added). So I think their comment are moot.
 * I don't know the rules of the deletion process: is it a mere vote or a decision based on the soundness of the arguments provided by the participants in the debate? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We determine rough consensus both on the basis of the arguments made and the number of opinions expressed. Both favored deletion. You were the only one in favor of keeping, and I considered the WP:SYNTH arguments convincing.  Sandstein   16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not object to restoring to draft to permit an opportunity to rework this into something that fixes the problems identified in the AfD. BD2412  T 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. So what should be the next steps? Your last message in the discussion page was: "I think we could have a list of 150 or 200, if the list was comprehensive in listing all cities with sufficient GDP's worldwide." Did you mean "all cities with sufficient GDP" or "all cities with sufficient GDP per capita"? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * poke (I don't know why the discussion was archived after only 3 days...) A455bcd9 (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Draftification of Elephant Robotics
The outcome of the DRV raised by Cunard was to endorse your close; I'm currently looking out for a number of AfD-draftified articles and, while I'm not super-optimistic about the prospects for this content, I'm willing to take on the tasks of informing the author of the article on the AfC process and encouraging them to follow it.

Would you be willing to draftify this article? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete pages. But you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   07:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm a little surprised: my impression, perhaps false, is that most admins who get into deletion policy also deal with draftification. REFUND application made; I was aware of the page, but I generally prefer to approach admins who have some familiarity with the page in question. Thanks anyway. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Simple series video games
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Simple series video games. 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. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

vampire traits article
why did you delete the article about vampire traits in folklore and fiction? 86.27.242.33 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please link to it.  Sandstein   10:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Undelete request and copy of deleted page
Dear Sandstein, HNY to you. Noticing you deleted the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geire_Kami as discussion was still taking place. Could you please reconsider this, as there is merit to the page, as per the discussion on the suggestion for deletion. Among other things we were considering that the national award was WP:NCREATIVE. Sincerely, MagentaSwann (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't undelete pages. Articles for deletion/Geire Kami resulted in consensus to delete the article. The discussion ran for the required length of seven days.  Sandstein   10:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Try WP:DRV. --94.191.152.64 (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As per the page: 09:54, 7 January 2022 Sandstein deleted page Geire Kami (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geire Kami (XFDcloser)). Please advise. MagentaSwann (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to advise. The article has been deleted according to AfD consensus and will remain deleted.  Sandstein   14:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Requesting a copy of the deleted page. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I don't undelete pages.  Sandstein   07:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quioting wiki: "Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request." As there are no (C) issues here, can I request a copy of the deleted page. Quote used above can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Undeletion MagentaSwann (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can request, but as a volunteer administrator I am not obliged to comply. Other administrators may be more amenable.  Sandstein   10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Try WP:REFUND. Specify refund to userspace, draftspace, or sent by email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for RfD comment
Hello! One of the articles which was voted for redirect was kept by you as a redirection. I have now RfDed this redirection as well as another related redirection. You can find the RfD at: Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9. Could you please give your opinion on this RfD? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu. 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. DareshMohan (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RE closure of Articles for deletion/FitGirl Repacks
Hi, I would like to ask that this AfD be relisted rather than closed. With only two !votes besides the article creator, I simply don't think there has been enough participation, nor the arguments obviously definitive enough to merit an immediate close. I just don't really see the clear notability that others are claiming exists (with only one full length article, and another that makes short mention of the subject) and think more people should at least weigh in. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I considered a relist, but concuded that the number of opinions and the depth and quality of the discussion was sufficient to establish rough consensus. In particular, the issue of whether the sources are sufficient was adequately discussed (irrespective of whether or not you agree with the outcome).  Sandstein   08:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dell History decision is a mess
Hi there. The whole process around what to do with History of Dell has really been mishandled. I screwed up the original nom, it was improperly closed, and now its resulted in a massive article way out of scope. Could you take a look at the summary of issues on the Talk page and help sort this out?  Spurious Correlation  16:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure what exactly here needs admin tools to fix.  Sandstein   17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notification and indirect mention at VP
A discussion has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Article still around six months after delete close
Hi, Sandstein. In July, you closed Articles for deletion/List of celebrated domes as delete. However, while the AfD was ongoing, Giano had moved the list to List of notable domes. XFDcloser thus deleted only the redirect, and not the actual content page that there had been consensus to delete. Giano seems to have been aware of your close, but responded only by removing the AfD tag from the article. There have been no significant improvements to the article since then, so I would think that the July consensus still applies now, and that the page can be belatedly deleted. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tamzin, done, thanks for the notification. @Giano, could you please explain why you moved the article and removed an AfD tag from the article while the AfD was ongoing? As an experienced user, you should know that it is improper to disrupt the deletion process in this way.  Sandstein   08:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

United Nations in popular culture
Hello Sandstein,

I have begun the process of rewriting United Nations in popular culture following the AfD discussion which took place a while ago. It was deleted on WP:IINFO and WP:V grounds, and I wanted to ask if it was possible to have access to the article draftified so that I may pull out the sourced and discriminate material that was vastly improved during the AfD discussion. I am in particular hoping to retrieve the content about the movie the Interpreter. Happy to discuss the specifics of the draft if you have questions. Thank you! Pilaz (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   08:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's alright. But I think I should be going to WP:DRV instead of WP:REFUND, since REFUND told me to go there if you said no! :) Pilaz (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote (and pinging REFUND admin Liz for additional guidance), is DRV the best place to go for this? DRV states that deletion review should not be used "to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests)". Help! Pilaz (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixing failed ping for Liz. See Help:Fixing failed pings for why your ping won't have sent. My preferred approach is to just make a dummy edit and ping by edit summary.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * very helpful. Thank you!

Michelle Alyssa Go
Good day! I just started a move request for Michelle Alyssa Go. If you do not mind me asking, is there a reason why you did not relist the AFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Because many people contributed, enough to ascertain no consensus.  Sandstein   15:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)