User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2015/December

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Draft:Alex Gilbert

Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 29#Draft:Alex Gilbert as "No consensus to allow recreation. Please don't renominate unless something significant changes."

Would you take a look at this request and list of sources by DmitryPopovRU at User talk:Cunard#Alex Gilbert and give DmitryPopovRU your advice? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't currently have the time to look at this in the depth required. Also, I don't read Russian, and it's not clear which if any of these references were not previously discussed. So I'll have to refrain from expressing an opinion.  Sandstein  08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Annie Butler

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has asked for a deletion review of Annie Butler. 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. —Cryptic 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am about to endorse at DRV the delete and redirect closure of the AFD debate of the above stub, but in order to gain a better understanding of the arguments put forth by the editors suggesting the restoration of the article history would you temporarily restore the article incl. its history to User:Sam Sailor/Drafts/Annie Butler and tag it with {{Userspace draft}} and {{NOINDEX}}, please? Should there be an objection to my request, I would welcome an email with the same contents. MfG, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: OK, I've mailed you a copy.  Sandstein  12:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please append the history or post it here? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I've sent you the history.  Sandstein  15:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Self-balancing two-wheeled board article

Hi Sandstein,

There is a conversation going on at the talk page for the article Self-balancing two-wheeled board that directly involves you. I know you've tried to help watch and contribute to that article. So would you kindly please review the discussion there and offer some input and guidance? Many thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:D45F:D14F:90AC:5DBA (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Responded.  Sandstein  08:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:D45F:D14F:90AC:5DBA (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cricket AfD closure rationale

Hi there, can you please explain what you meant by "Contrary to arguments made here, WP:CRIN is not labeled as a community-adopted guideline and therefore carries no particular weight in this discussion." CRIN is just the more detailed version of WP:NCRIC, and if that isn't a community adopted guideline then you might as well delete every single NPERSON guideline that exists. The concept of playing one first class game makes you notable has stood for many years, and I don't think it should be overturned by a confusing possible misinterpretation of the legitimacy of the guideline. The-Pope (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the discussion did refer only to WP:CRIN, which is in fact not a guideline. Nobody mentioned, and I wasn't aware, that there is also an actual guideline at WP:NCRIC.  Sandstein  08:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that being aware of the notability guidelines would be a good first step before you start closing AfDs on notability arguments. Can and will you self revert or does it have to go to DRV? The-Pope (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, I'm not really interested in a conversation in this tone. Do whatever you like.  Sandstein  10:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). 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. The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Business Model Canvas

Hello,

I'm writing about the deletion of the "Business Model Canvas" page. I read some of the comments from the discuss, and I feel the arguments for deletion were made with incomplete information. "Business model canvas" is, as one commenter said, a neologism, but it has significant use in the business and professional environments. The book by Alexander Osterwalder (and many other authors) in which the business model canvas is explained ("Business Model Generation") has sold over one million copies . The Business Model Canvas has seen a steady growing trend in searches on Google, particularly in Europe . It is a well-recognized tool for organizing parts of a business's operations. For these reasons, I believe the page is a valuable and appropriate topic to keep on Wikipedia.

86.214.225.82 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Will you userfy this article in my userspace please? riffic (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• 86.214.225.82, please link to the discussion at issue. Riffic, why should I?  Sandstein  08:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have a track record of taking deleted pages and making them fit for the project through user drafts. It seemed notability wasn't a problem with this particular article and my plan would be to rip out content that was more instruction manual and add references stating notability from reliable sources. I'm reaching out to you rather than jumping immediately to a DRV. 76.175.185.224 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [oops, I'm u:riffic, I forgot to log in on this device.]
• confirming the above was me. riffic (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, now at User:Riffic/Business Model Canvas.  Sandstein  18:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Duggan

Hello, I read that you deleted the above due to WP BLP and notability. WP BLP does not apply as he died in 1998.In the circumstances could you change your decision to no consensus?84.92.84.254 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no deletion record for Tommy Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Sandstein  15:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, it is Tommy Duggan (actor)84.92.84.254 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tommy Duggan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Duggan (actor). While he is in fact dead, the point made in the closure also applies to WP:V. Sources must be specifically named in order for an argument based on them to carry weight. Restoration declined.  Sandstein  20:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Articles for deletion/Caesar & Loui"

Hey nice to meet you Sandstein. It seems that you have chosen to delete my article Caesar & Loui.

On the "Articles for deletion/Caesar & Loui" page I find 2 comments.

One comment for deletion says: "Non-notable songwriting duo. I could not find anything on them from a simple Google search. " This is not true at all. If you search for Caesar & Loui on google, at least four links pops up at the top proving that we are indeed a legit songwriting duo...

Here is one for example. Our record labels website: http://www.thekennel.se

The other comment: "No, THEY don't have charted hits, the performers who performed those pieces have charted hits ... if, of course, they did indeed chart, which I can't find. There's a difference. No evidence of notability. "

Here are a few links that proves that we indeed have charted hits and that we are credited for it. Scroll down to song "Pretty Boy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_(Taemin_album)

Scroll down to song "Special One" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_(album)

Sometimes though they credit us with our real names and not our songwriting duo name "Caesar & Loui" Here is an example for a single we wrote for one of the biggest boybands in Asia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(EP) Here we are credited as "Daniel Caesar and Ludwig Lindell and not as "Caesar & Loui"

Here is another example: Scroll down to song "Wait a Minute" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Minute_World

Sometimes we are also credited with our old trio team D3O. Like in this case: If you scroll down to track listing and find the hit single "Hyde" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_(EP)

I see no reason for this page to be deleted...? Thank you for your time.

Very Best

/ Caesar

Danielcaesars (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I do not act on requests made by editors who have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI – in this case, your understandable desire to promote yourself through Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar & Loui was unanimous, and your comments do not call the outcome into question. Only substantial coverage in reliable sources as described in WP:GNG could do that.  Sandstein  20:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexism in Video Gaming Rollback

Hi there,

Just wanted to say that I was not even halfway done my edit before you rolled it back. There were several other publications and developers I wished to write on. However, this is my first edit, and I respect and appreciate your feedback. I'll try to find another way to host it elsewhere.

I am curious what you meant by "broadly unsourced", since I felt I was citing the relevant articles to what I was talking about. Is it necessary to cite each and every line, even when they are reusing the same source?

Cheers, Fabarooni

Hi, I'll respond at Talk:Sexism in video gaming later today.  Sandstein  16:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30

• Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)

Please userfy + talk page so I can add the sources provided by Cunard and relist. It appears the consensus generally favored overturn. If you felt the consensus wasn't strong enough, isn't relisting a better alternative? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, now at User:Valoem/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863). We can relist a discussion as a result of a "no consensus" DRV, but in this case there had already been two relists, the normal maximum. Also, if the same discussion is now again relisted, determining consensus will be difficult because it's not clear to which extent the earlier opinions, reflecting a different state of the article, still apply. It's easier to recreate the improved article from userspace and allow for a fresh AFD if somebody still wants it. I recommend expanding the article somewhat from the new sources beyond just adding references, or else somebody might still want to request G4 deletion.  Sandstein  16:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page as well please. I notice you overturned an NAC DRV as well. Per WP:AGF there could not be any other outcome, therefore the only reason to overturn this is to assume my judgement is not allow and my judgment is not sound. That is not good. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is empty except for project tags, no point in restoring that until the article is back in mainspace.  Sandstein  17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a second here, I am reviewing the discussion I am see 5 to 2 in favor of overturning, with 1 vote endorsing but allowing restore and relist. How did you not see consensus? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• So, 5 to 3? That's not consensus in my book. Anyway, the article is userfied now, I encourage you to work on that rather than on continued discussion about the now-finished deletion process.  Sandstein  21:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Its 6 to 2 in favor of allowing the content to remain in mainspace. The issue is that I questioned Spartaz's close and based on the discussion the the majority favored overturning. Your close de-legitimizes my questioning perhaps to protect a fellow administrator. This is further exemplified by your overturning of my snow endorse. Am I misinterpreting? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has helped expand the article and I added a source. Its ready for mainspace can you restore the talk page now? I'll ping all the editors involved to see if a relisting is necessary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have moved this back to userspace after Valoem moved it to mainspace without waiting for your comment. I dispute that there is significant improvement and would be grateful for your ruling on whether this is ready for mainspace, Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Valoem, you really need to decide whether you want my help or whether you want to challenge my actions as taken in bad faith. The two don't go well together. Anyway, I do not have either the time or the interest to deal with this matter further. I've closed a DRV and userfied the article, the rest is up to any editors who are interested in it.  Sandstein  23:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I've been bitey, I thought it was a clear overturn to no consensus and the decision at DRV makes it difficult for me to proceed. I'll give you a little backstory, my DRV track record nears 100% until this, my original goal was to run for adminship solely on the bases of viewing deleted material and creating a new privilege called custodian which allows high content creators to view and restore articles which have been deleted. I've never had any discretionary sanctions and never been to ANI. I also desired to change our AfD policy I had a discussion on DGG's talk page and the reasons are there. That article, involuntary celibacy, has complicated things. Since then I've been repeatedly attacked because of the subject's political connections and its deletion is not policy based. Its been frustrating to say the least. Anyways sorry for being bitey. I was hoping you could input whether or not my restore was in anyway improper. Sources were added and changes were made. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Amit Kochavi

Hi, I'm querying on the deletion of Amit Kochavi. I don't have major skin in the game, but if you look at the AFD, several of the votes were not being altogether truthful. The nom, and one of the delete votes mentioned coverage in a "tabloid" or second rate newspaper that is not RS. When in fact, the mention was in the newspaper with largest circulation in Israel that is most certainly RS. The article is not the greatest and could use more references, but it had sources and met notability and the nominator has, imo, a history of nominating AFD that might not really need it. I ask you take another look. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell whether participants were truthful or not. What matters to me was that the "delete" argument managed to convince enough editors to arrive at a "delete" consensus.  Sandstein  07:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Giuseppe Prinzi

Hallo Sandstein

I note that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Prinzi (ceramist) as "Delete and Salt", quite appropriately. Giuseppe Prinzi has also been salted.

Could you please unsalt Giuseppe Prinzi, to make it into a redirect to Giuseppe Prinzi (sculptor), and then apply full page protection to that redirect? Without this, the page on the 19th-century sculptor is hidden from view. In theory the sculptor ought to be at the base name, but someone pointed out somewhere in the discussions that that might leave it open to being overwritten by yet another article about the modern ceramicist. A protected redirect would be useful. What do you think? PamD 23:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. I chose to move the sculptor's article to Giuseppe Prinzi instead, because the parenthetical disambiguator is only used if there are other pages of the same name, which is now not the case. I'll keep it on my watchlist.  Sandstein  09:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialogue Australasian Network

This page was deleted because it is supposedly promotional. This article was written by me some 9 years ago. Is was not written as a promotional article article but as a history of the organisation. It received a "B" rating when it was first written and it has been improved since then. I do not understand why editors are not following the rules. Editors are reminded that as far as neutrality is concerned ; "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."Sydney59 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialogue Australasian Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dialogue Australasian Network. That you disagree with the consensus outcome of that discussion is not relevant to me. You'd need to show why I erred in finding a consensus to delete.  Sandstein  16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There were several editors that indicated the article was worth keeping or at least cleaning up. Those that indicated it was not notable seem to think that the English section of Wikipedia in confined to popular issues in the US or UK. "Not notable outside its region" is a telling comment by Vanamonde93. The network in notable in Australia and New Zealand with 350 member schools and universities. When you receive an indication that this article it not notable from people working in education and who have some idea about the world beyond the northern hemisphere then I will accept the assessment. In the mean time this assessment only reinforces Plato's condemnation of popular opinion as the means to make poor decisions. While your assessments are based on the sort of system evident elsewhere on this page (6/2 delete or 1/5 delete) then Wikipedia will continue on its journey towards triviality and a lack of academic credibility. It is not the number of responses that matter it is the credentials of those making the assessment that matters58.110.161.91 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Noted, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We weigh opinions according to their basis in Wikipedia policy and practice, not according to credentials.  Sandstein  15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I started this conversation pointing out that editors were not following policy and practice. I went on to show that these editors are not in a position to provide a balanced view on whether the organization deserves a space on Wikipedia. Wikipedia also works on the basis of common sense not just popular opinion. If an organization has a membership of 350 institutions in an area the size of the US and the UK combined then it deserves a space on Wikipedia. If the article is not up to scratch then they should be offering to improve it (that is what editors do) Instead they seem to want another notch on their deletion belt. You as an administrator have the call on whether the deletion was appropriate.You can also call for a clean up so why not clean it up?58.111.102.7 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That may be your view, but it's not how Wikipedia works. If you think that a web encyclopedia based on other principles would lead to better results, you're welcome to create one or to contribute to one of the several other projects that do give expert opinions more weight. Administrators do not have any particular authority to "call for a clean-up".  Sandstein  08:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Starting up my own Wikipedia is Reductio Absurdum. Again this is not my "view" but the principles and policies of Wikipedia..."As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." I am appealing to Wikipedia's principles here.Sydney59 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore I quote from Wiki's deletion guidelines "consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." The arguments presented by editors wanting to delete this article are fallacious and or not cogent. If you look at the arguments presented they are usually statements, not arguments. They make the claim that the article is promotional but there is no reasoning given. "It is promotional because it is promotional". This is a circular argument....or rather it is not an argument at all. I teach students to put together arguments and distinguish good arguments from bad arguments. They would have a field day with some editors comments. I have already shown the problems with Vanamonde93's argument. "does not have sufficient notability outside its region". Well Wikipedia is meant to represent the whole world not just the northern hemisphere. (poor argument) He/she also accuses the page of being promotional without any reasoning to support the proposition. Likewise Joseph2302, DuffBeerForMe and Tomstar81. None of them provide arguments, not one of them. 101 Argumentation involves a conclusion being supported by a reason....but no reasoning is provided.....therefore not an argument. If Wikipedia's deletion process is going to work as per its own guidelines then surely its own editors need to use better arguments than these.58.111.102.7 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In the end, a good argument is one that convinces others. Yours didn't. You can contest the closure at WP:DRV, but I won't reply further.  Sandstein  11:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

... Rubbish.. Hitler convinced others. That did not make his arguments good. Popularity, authority, lethargy, faith and trust can convince others about the truth a proposition. Reason requires more than unsubstantiated claims. I was not the only one arguing to retain this page. Respectfully you just chose to listen to the arguments based on vacuous claims, ignorance and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.102.7 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

@Sandstein: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Sandstein: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Undelete / userfy request - Puttana Venkatramana Raju

You deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puttana Venkatramana Raju. At WP:OTRS Ticket:2015120910007481 there is a request for userfication.

Could you please restore this article to the user's own space? Thanks. I am giving the user the link to your userpage here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can be done if the user themselves (who is it?) explains here, onwiki, what they intend to do with it.  Sandstein  17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama

Hi! Could you look at this: [1]. (It's an article you closed an AFD for just a few days ago.) What should I do? When I removed everything that was either irrelevant or unsupported by sources, there wasn't much left. Now the author reverts with no explanation given.
And, by the way, I've also nominated the photo for deletion: [2]. Now I think that I should have probably speedied it as a copyright violation.
I know I should always assume good faith, but what should I think about the sources that don't support what the article says and the photo... --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't help you there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama chmo! resulted in no consensus. You'll have to proceed per WP:DR as concerns the contents.  Sandstein  23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't this be No consensus?

[3] EEng (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, or I would have written that.  Sandstein  09:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not looking to pass judgement

...just wondered if I could get you to elaborate a little on your decision to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosothon (2nd nomination) as no consensus when the first afd was closed as delete, all the more so in the face of COI evidence from the contributors. I'm puzzled to say the least, from where I sit it seems more logical to adopt a TNT approach under the circumstances, hence the question. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Look here: "Keep votes: 6 (Cunard, Oshwah, Bluerasberry, JMWt, Appable, SmokeyJoe); Delete votes: 4 (Ceosad, TomStar81, S Marshall, Stifle); Merge votes: 1 (QuackGuru)". Now, AfD is not a vote, but in order for a delete consensus to be found in the face of a numerical disadvantage, the "delete" arguments must be considerably stronger. I don't see that here. Rather, the contrary: the "keep" side has pointed to sources that seem to meet WP:GNG, and the "delete" side has not seriously contested these sources. The previous AfD does not matter, each discussion is assessed on its own.  Sandstein  10:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose there is always next time. Anyway, thank you for the reply, I got a better idea of what to contest next time this goes up at afd. If it goes to afd... TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello Sandstein: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 21:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Convulsive therapy

Hi, I noticed that Convulsive therapy article is a redirect page to Electroconvulsive therapy. I assume that they are different concepts as the Convulsive therapy can be pharmaceutical (not electrical). I think we need to reintroduce the article.

You can notice there are two other articles from other Wikipedias linked to Convulsive therapy (Hebrew and Serbian). Regards --محمود (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, there was a deletion discussion just now that resulted in redirecting.  Sandstein  17:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect Internet Horror Movie Database

Hello Sandstein, is it possible to unprotect the page Internet Horror Movie Database? Actually the website has been cited even by the newspaper Il Secolo XIX. It has a lot of new citations on the web and a very good Alexa rank. What I need to do? Thank you--Pizzole (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to wait until another established editor makes this request. Considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database, I'm of the view that we've spent enough time with your attempts to promote this website.  Sandstein  17:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Anfrage Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen

Hallo Sandstein

Weil Wikipedia im kommenden Januar 15 Jahre alt wird, bin ich vom Schweizer Radio SRF sehr interessiert an Schweizer-Wikinutzern - besonders natürlich an jemandem, der Admin ist. Darf ich fragen, ob Du Dir vorstellen könntest, mit mir zu reden?

Danke für die wohlwollende Prüfung!

Andrea Martin Christen, Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SRF 4 News) andrea.christen@srf.ch über die Festtage: andrea.christen82@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C08:F070:B423:3491:45B5:13C1 (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider this, thanks.  Sandstein  11:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Undelete / userfy request - Puttana Venkatramana Raju

Undelete / userfy request - Puttana Venkatramana Raju You deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puttana Venkatramana Raju. At WP:OTRS Ticket:2015120910007481 there is a request for userfication.

Could you please restore this article to the user's own space? Thanks. I am giving the user the link to your userpage here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can be done if the user themselves (who is it?) explains here, onwiki, what they intend to do with it. Sandstein 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Sandstein, In 2009 I had attempted to write my first article which was a biography. I had over the course of the past years collected additional published sources of information to back up the facts in the article. I had tried to write to all the editors who had interacted with me in 2009 and communicated with them earlier in 2015 with the new published references but perhaps they did not get a chance to read the communication.

I am therefore interested in reviving the article after being reworked in line with earlier suggestions by editors, I would like to rework&rewrite the article and provide the additional new references and would appreciate your support in this regard.

The additional references are mentioned here for your perusal: Reference 1985 "Eminent Indians Who was Who 1900-1980" Publisher :Durga Das Pvt. Ltd., 1985.New Delhi, Language: English, Dewey Number: 920/.054. Page 262 1938 VIIIth World Road Congress - The Hague 1938 - Proceedings of the Congress.published reference http://irc.org.in/ENU/knowledge/archive/Annual Sessions/List 1954 Masonic LodgeDistrict Grand Conclave of Southern India published reference https://sites.google.com/site/dgconclavesi/trivandrum-conclave-history

Looking forward to your positive response. (The recent discussions by Blue Rasberry and Sandstein are mentioned above for your reference) Regards, Rajendrarajun (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored the article at User:Rajendrarajun/Puttana Venkatramana Raju.  Sandstein  11:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Moana

Moana is a nearly two thousand year old name from Hawaii and Hawaiian legend leading to nearly all of the kings of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is indeed the primary subject. Is there a manner to demonstrate what is the primary topic? If not, cool. But the title could be a little more precise I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Why do you think the name meets these criteria?  Sandstein  11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Hope your holiday season is going well. Thank you for engaging me here.

• According to the guideline there is no single criteria for a primary topic, however it does state that if a topic has more educational value than others it may be primary. It also states that if the topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" it may be the primary topic. Even the first criteria suggested states; "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term".

While a film will have some influence on the topic's short term search requests, making it more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, that is a very limited in the overall history that is likely over time. Even with the release of a new Disney film, Moana as a topic is of greater EV than the other topics and has sources and history to can support that. While the word "Moana" has a meaning in many Polynesian languages for "deep ocean", Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the primary encyclopedic topic would be the topic which has the greatest amount of historic value and sources than the foreign language use. Other than blogs and reviews, films do not have the sustainability over historic use.

• An option is to have Moana as the primary topic for its encyclopedic and educational value that none of the other topics have, and then create Moana (disambiguation) per: "The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses." I believe the that following the precedence of the article Pocahontas is best for this topic. Thanks for letting me discuss it with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy this thread to Talk:Moana and reply there.  Sandstein  10:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016 . . .

Sandstein, may you continue to make Wikipedia a better place in the New Year, while we remember those who came before. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Firehouse, Hook & Ladder Company 8

Hello! Your submission of Firehouse, Hook & Ladder Company 8 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD protection

Can you protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praise and veneration of Muhammad now? It is still being edited by IP hopper.[4] Capitals00 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

One instance of disruption doesn't justify protection just yet.  Sandstein  16:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Muhammad, as suggested in that close. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Silly question

Mainly curious how you didn't see my comments at the Involuntary celibacy DRV to be related to the AfD. I think David and I said more-or-less the same thing and I solely discussed the AfD. Starting to think I'm just being unclear. Hobit (talk)

Or I misread you, it seems. Sorry, then.  Sandstein  08:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I'm working on being less verbose in an attempt to be more clear here. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

British Airways flight 2157

Hi Sandstein,

Three years ago almost to the day I wrote an article about the incident on British Airways flight 2157, in which an access panel detached from the aircraft on ascent after take off and struck the windows causing decompression. Shortly afterwards and after some discussion the article was deleted, as not being noteworthy.

I would like to request that you might now consider undeleting this page for two reasons. First, the unexplained loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could have occurred by a similar mechanism as sudden decompression and loss of consciousness of the crew shortly after take off could explain the loss of contact despite the plane flying on for several hours afterwards. It was also the same 777 version (200ER) as in BA2157. Second, another potentially serious but non-fatal BA 777 incident which occurred before take off does have its own page on Wikipedia (British Airways Flight 2276), hence the question of 'notability' is not really consistent. However the main reason for undeleting the article is that anyone researching Wikipedia to try to find clues to the reasons behind the MH370 tragedy would not come across the page on British Airways Flight 2157, which seems a great shame as it might be highly relevant.

Please help and Happy New Year!

BritAirman BritAirman (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please link to the deleted article?  Sandstein  23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

I hope I have got this right! I cannot access the page as I am not (yet) an Administrator. But I guess the link would be: British Airways flight 2157, prefixed with whatever you need to add to see a deleted article.

Happy New Year to you and the Wikipedia Team!

BritAirman (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but this information is not relevant for overturning the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Airways flight 2157. The problem was lack of notability, so you'd need to provide new coverage of this topic in reliable sources. Please read WP:N for more information. However, information about this topic may be included in any other relevant article.  Sandstein  20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Brit, I've provided you with a copy of the deleted article. That way you can extract any relevant, verified facts and add them to other articles such as Boeing 777. If you find substantial new coverage of the incident you might be able to justify recreating the article, but I suggest you show your new references to Mr. Sandstein before going that route. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)