User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/March

Reinstate an old page?
Hi,

My old wiki page was deleted and I'm trying to have it reinstated. What is the process for this?

Thanks, Lesa Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesaWilson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, please link to the page and explain why it should be undeleted.  Sandstein   07:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesawilson. Requesting it to be undeleted as a part of requests from people who have searched my name regarding my acting career. It was originally created when I was competing on American Idol and was deleted because of an issue with my publicist a year or two ago.. not sure of the timeline exactly. I'd like to have it reinstated and update it with current information so it's available in searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:C300:84F0:11C2:6EBC:BC6F:3291 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you know, the deletion discussion determined that the subject (Lesa Wilson) is not notable. There would be no point served in restoring the article. I would recommend you cease using Wikipedia to promote yourself as you clearly have a conflict of interest. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @LesaWilson, I agree with what @Chris troutman writes.  Sandstein   09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, what determines notability? I'm not trying to use it to promote myself as Wiki can have incorrect and outdated information. Previously when the deletion happened, the goal was to update/correct that outdated information which resulted in unnecessary insults to my work by the moderators of this site. If there is no notability, then why was there ever a page created in the first place? The reason cited does not make sense.
 * See WP:N.  Sandstein   12:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Aka II of Commagene
Um, there is no consensus for a redirect/merge here either. I explicitly argued against twice, nobody argued for a merger (those whi did crossed out their votes), and a supermajority voted to delete. You have closed less obvious discussions as delete before. What explains your decision here? Avilich (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You will find this explained in the closure.  Sandstein   14:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your closure is the same as your other supervote that is about to be overturned in the DRV. YOu closed this as delete because there one person argued against a redirect, so tell me what is different about the current one, which is essentially the same thing. You're not applying standards consistently as far as can be gathered. Avilich (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of A.Albert, there were well-substantiated arguments against a redirect. Not so in the case of Aka II of Commagene: she is mentioned in the target article, which suggests that a redirect is helpful (if only to explain to readers that she may not in fact have existed), and in the AfD you were the only person explicitly against a redirect, but without advancing any arguments against the redirection. This means that a redirect better reflects the outcome of the discussion about Aka II of Commagene than in the case of A. Albert.  Sandstein   15:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's right here: "". The redirect "vote" does not itself advance any particular reason for one, at least for the specific term "Aka II of Commagene". The discussion has more arguments against than for "Aka II of Commagene" specifically being a good search term: it may be, or another redirect may be created, but this decision should be deferred to editorial discretion and RfD, as in A. Albert. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you're free to find a more specific consensus for this question at RfD, as noted in the closure.  Sandstein   15:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to need some more goodwill and better explanations from you here. In A. Albert, an argument was made against a redirect and you closed as delete. Here, an agument was also made against a redirect and a supermajority voted delete in addition to that, but you redirected. I can't see this as anything other than a double standard. Avilich (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I take note of your disagreement, but will not comment further, because I have seen in previous discussions that you appear to unwilling to accept views other than your own.  Sandstein   16:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Try arguing your double standard in the deletion review, if you feel like it. Avilich (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Made In Baltics singles
You deleted Made In Baltics, which had the singles list in it. So technically, shouldn't the list also be deleted?? Govvy (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it wasn't nominated for deletion.  Sandstein   19:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I decided to send the article to AfD. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Members of the Swiss National Council/Thurgau
Template:Members of the Swiss National Council/Thurgau has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/No. 14 Instrument Flying Squadron
Dear Sandstein, Would you mind dropping the last version of this article into User:Buckshot06/Sandbox, so I can add the references to the Swiss Air Force article and look for alternate sources for any vital text? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Buckshot06, sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.   Sandstein   19:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Radoš Ljušić
I don't really disagree with your close of Articles for deletion/Radoš Ljušić, but since it amounts to a "conditional" delete, would it not be much simpler for everyone to draftify it instead?

P.S. Your signature seems to be missing a direct link to your talk page, as required by WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. No such user (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Anybody who wants to work on it can require draftification at WP:REFUND. My signature has the required link.  Sandstein   15:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that a link to the user talk page is now apparently required. I've changed my signature accordingly.  Sandstein   15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully works now.  Sandstein   15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC) - Manual sig:   Sandstein   15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For some reason the link to the user talk page in the sigs above doesn't work, so I've rerted the change for now.  Sandstein   15:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump (2nd nomination)
Is this AFD a WP:NPASR in your eyes? Only one participant in three weeks, and their reasoning to keep didn't meet policy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "keep" argument was poor, but even if we discount it, we don't have anybody supporting the deletion request either. Consensus to delete can't consist of only one person. I suggest renominating the article.  Sandstein   17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs
Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Marina Ovsyannikova AfD
You closed this AfD as keep, however the subject fails WP:BLP1E and is not different than any of the 100s of protestors who have been arrested.

You should know that the subject falls under AC/DS of Eastern Europe and as such, the AfD had to be ECP protected in order to suppress the SPAs who can't say anything more than WP:ILIKEIT. Are you willing to entertain another AfD with ECP protection? Orientls (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we protect AfDs if they are at a risk of socking. What I saw in this AfD was not socks or SPAs, but normal readers or editors who wanted to express their view, as they have every right to do.  Sandstein   15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank you for closing this AfD in a fair and responsible manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers
Hi, I am Exukvera and I request undeletion of this article as there are new sources that address the lack of notability and verifiability that was the reason why the article was considered for deletion at first place. (Exukvera (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC))


 * And these new sources are?  Sandstein   05:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The show already started and there is new sources at the official site. We can put them there once the article can be re-created without being deleted. (Exukvera (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC))
 * If you don‘t provide citations to independent reliable sources here, the article will not be restored. See WP:THREE.  Sandstein   05:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "independent"? There are the official sites [] and [] with episode list, character list, etc. There are press releases and news from dedicated sites such as Tokunation. This was enough for any TV/film but not for this? (Exukvera (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Nope. See WP:THREE.  Sandstein   18:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll make a draft with independent sources. Can you take a look on it for me once it's ready? (Exukvera (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Sorry, not interested in the topic.  Sandstein   17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there someone else I can talk to so I can have the article undeleted then? (Exukvera (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Nope.  Sandstein   19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can talk to any number of people, but I doubt that many would be willing to undelete an article that has been properly deleted unless you can provide new, reliable, independent sources that indicate notability.  Sandstein   19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A new draft was created with new sources. You can check and decide if the article should be undeleted or not if you want (Exukvera (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC))

March 2022
Your edit at 2022 invasion of Ukraine for the CoE states: "by the end of 2021." Are you sure of this dating? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @ErnestKrause: Yes, see : "A country’s membership of the Council of Europe is terminated at the end of the current fiscal year, if a notification to this effect has been sent to the organization during the first nine months of the year, Federation Council Deputy Speaker Konstantin Kosachev said on Thursday."  Sandstein   18:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "at the end of the current fiscal year". Why are you writing '2021' in your edit and not '2022'? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, sorry, that is a typo, I'll fix it.  Sandstein   18:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amby Paliwoda
Hello. You closed Articles for deletion/Amby Paliwoda. I have found sources on him and I would like to see the article as it existed before so I can see if it can be improved and resurrected. Would you mind draftifying it to my userspace? Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   19:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. 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. Abs11a (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Review
Hello, Sandstein,

I just wanted to thank you for your closure statement in Deletion review/Log/2022 March 11 regarding Rachelle Bukuru. I think the one true statement in all of the words spilled over this AFD and its review is that the situation about notability with sports figures is currently in flux. I don't think the resolution should be rushed but the sooner the policy is revised, the fewer AFDs about athletes will appear at Deletion review. Or, at least, that is my hope. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian fascism
Hello. The article Russian fascism (ideology) whose AfD you closed is still a house full ot trouble. Those troubles are: I feel this situation cannot continue, but do not know what is to be done. I am thinking about doing an RfC to at least define the scope of the article, which - in the hopeful case a consensus is found - would be at least aminimal basis. Do you have any advice to give or intervention to make? I feel an intervention, as an exterior opinion, on the article's talk page would be useful. Veverve (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * users buying into a narrative ("Fascist Russia invades Democratic Ukraine because Fascists are hateful") rather than following sources
 * the inability to agree on or undestand what the scope of the article is (see Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)); this creates an inability to juge which source pertains to the article and which do not
 * a metastasis of the article, as the WP en article keeps being translated into other foreign languages (see Q15975478)
 * a disregard by users for having sources which support what the article says; a prime example is the "such as Moscow as the third Rome" which is neither mentioned in the body of the article nor in the inline refs.


 * Sorry, I don't follow the article or topic and therefore have no specific advice. See generally WP:DR for dispute resolution options.  Sandstein   13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

White-blue-white flag
Hi Sandstein, you recently closed an AfD for the White-blue-white flag article as "Merge". I wasn't aware of that discussion until someone retagged the article yesterday, but in the past days I acted upon a "notability" tag someone had put on the article removing the other tag. Either way, I did some research on the topic and added a handful of WP:RS. In your summary you mentioned that the "Keep" party would have only presented the "Meduza" source for sources discussing the subject at a deeper level. However, while there are meanwhile many sources mentioning the flag in passing, there are also several more reputable and independent sources discussing it in detail, including a Watson article, a Spiegel article and the ex-press.by article, and there is also a 12 minutes video report by Rockwell giving some background info. There are also articles about the topic in more than 2 dozen other WPs now. I think, all this demonstrates notability beyond our sustained notability threshold per WP:GNG, so that merging is no longer necessary, nor would it be desirable from an organizational point of view (the anti-war article is already at 165 KB so it is more a subject to identify sub-topic to be split out into separate articles rather than to merge more stuff into it). How is our procedure in cases like this? Can we just delete the tags as no longer applying? Do you as the closer would be willing to have another look and, if you come to the same conclusion as I now, update the summary, or what else needs to be done to keep the article further developed as a separate topic? Thanks for your time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, the AfD closure at Articles for deletion/White-blue-white flag is my reading of the consensus of the discussion at that time. If you think it no longer applies, you should seek consensus on the article talk page(s) to that effect.  Sandstein   12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

General question regarding AfDs closed as redirects
Hello, if I understand correctly, when an AfD is closed as "redirect" and the nominator's arguments that the subject did not meet GNG were not successfully refuted, that means it is acknowledged that the subject does in fact not meet GNG on its own.

So with that in mind, how are redirects handled that are turned back into proper articles at a later point in time? Is there a similar mechanism to WP:CSD in place? Should another AfD be opened or should it simply be raised at the talk page? It seems to me that, without any mechanism, anyone disagreeing with the deletion discussion could simply reinstate the article. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 15:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In my view, the recreated article should be substantially different from the one subject to AfD in that it addresses the reasons for deletion. If it is not, an admin may revert it to a redirect and protect it (WP:G4 by analogy).  Sandstein   16:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD decision about BJ Dichter
Hi and thanks for your work. I was surprised that you closed the AfD saying there was consensus, as it seemed clear to me that there was not consensus. Am I allowed to ask you to reconsider? - it seems so clearly no consensus to me. CT55555 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @CT55555, hi, my reading of Articles for deletion/BJ Dichter is that twice as many people were against keeping the article as were for keeping it. And one "keep" commentator, Nfitz, was also ok with a redirect. There being reasonable arguments on both sides, that's a sufficient supermajority for me to amount to rough consensus.  Sandstein   07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there were more quantity of arguments against keeping, but there were a majority of arguments against any of the three options. A majority were also against deleting and a majority were against merging. There are overall three main options, not two, so the majority were against every path.
 * With specific regards to the votes against keeping, two of them have problems:
 * (The nomination) was made before a major rewriter, and the nom did not comment after the rewriter
 * One person who voted to delete also voted to re-direct, therefore taking two contradictory positions
 * If we eliminate the double vote and the lack of re-assessment after the re-write, we are left with a majority against keeping, but the arguments to keep appear to be policy driven, the the arguments to delete are less compelling and appear to include "I don't like it" type of arguments. So, I think the quality of the arguments to keep were stronger. There absolutely was not consensus for my preferred option (keep) but I don't think there was consensus to merge either. I don't think we should vote count, but as you mention that, here is my count:
 * Delete 4 (including nom who didn't update after I re-wrote, including a double voter)
 * Keep 3 (including me)
 * Redirect/merge 3
 * The above does not factor in the quality of the arguments, and it seems clear to me that clear explanation after the relist is the most policy-driven argument.
 * I cannot see how this can be seen are consensus for redirect and I therefore seek your permission to trigger the AfD review, I am reluctant to do so, because that might cause stress for you, so please know that I am trying to disagree as politely as possible and with no bad feelings. CT55555 (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there was no consensus as to whether to delete or redirect/merge, but there was consensus to not keep. In implementing this consensus, I chose the less destructive of the three options of delete, redirect or merge: I redirected the page, which leaves the page history accessible. "Delete" and "redirect" are not contradictory positions, because both are variants of not keeping the article, and can in fact be implemented concurrently (first delete, then redirect). That the nominator did not comment after a rewrite is immaterial.
 * I therefore decline to change the closure. You don't need my permission to request a deletion review; you can do that at any time.  Sandstein   17:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining how you approached this. I respect your choices, even though I disagree on the main point of there being consensus. I will ask for a review, but it's also important to me to acknowledge the good faith of your decision and your approach here. Thank you. CT55555 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for BJ Dichter
An editor has asked for a deletion review of BJ Dichter. 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. CT55555 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Diesen
Sorry to bother, but did you look at VRT Ticket #2022031910000677 before you closed?  Atsme 💬 📧 19:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please link to the page this refers to.  Sandstein   19:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's at ticket.wikimedia.org - do you have access to VRT tickets (formerly OTRS)?  Atsme 💬 📧 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia page.  Sandstein   04:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing :)
Comments here [] appreciated. Springnuts (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Golf del Sur
Hi. Could you please restore this article and redirect to San Miguel de Abona per my comments in the AFD? I would like to copy a sentence or two, so we would need the history for attribution per WP:ATD-M and WP:CWW. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND.  Sandstein   15:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'll just create new content. Would have been nice to save the time though. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ghost train (folklore) chronology
While it's debatable whether Uncle G was, in fact, incivil, he edited the article substantially before making comments in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)