User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2016/July

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Sandstein. When you changed The Worst Witch (TV series) into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "The Worst Witch (TV series)" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of World-class manufacturing

Dear Sandstein, Thanks for the explanation of what happened to World-class manufacturing. I am appealing to you, because “nobody cares” may be (for example) because those reviewing the deletion materials are not familiar enough with the subject matter to be comfortable in rendering an opinion, or because I supplied “too much information” (TMI) to want to wade through. Please consider the following, which includes a condensation of all that information:

DGG, a great hunter of puffed-up generic terms, rightfully opined that world-class manufacturing (I’ll abbreviate as WCM) seemed of that kind. It was up to me to demonstrate that WCM is not. And I did so, • first citing a large number of books with WCM in the title (I’ve since found three more); • next, dozens of published articles (many or most in refereed academic journals) with WCM in their titles—and most (to my surprise) dated in the 2000s; • a 2010 article in Quality magazine stating that 120 people or organizations had been certified in world-class manufacturing; • and, from LinkedIn, a list of 30 people whose job title is that of world-class manufacturing champion, coordinator, leader, etc.

It seems doubtful that there is any other use of “world-class” (e.g., world-class athlete, organization, film company) for which a Wikipedia article could even be considered.

I did not know, at the outset, that WCM had that kind of wide and deep presence; I had to find that out through extensive research.

I am especially disappointed in what has happened to this article, because I had envisioned myself as contributing extensively to Wikipedia now and in the future—mostly to help upgrade defective articles (not add new ones)—because I like doing that, as I’m sure you do. Those contributions would be from many areas in which I have wide and sometimes deep knowledge, including (in no order): human-resource management; performance management; management accounting; financial management; quality management; administration and management of manufacturing, health care, home construction, supply chains and logistics; comparative economic performance of countries, regions, and sectors; product design and development; engineering disciplines—I won’t go on.

If the WCM article can be re-opened, I would not just cite sources for enumerative effect—but would include only those that have importance in explaining WCM concepts, development, or history.

Existence of the WCM article would invite other contributors, and perhaps disagreements. For example, Fiat-Chrysler has adopted its own WCM as a way of, in part, managing its business. But some of the academics who do research on WCM these days may label Fiat-Chrysler’s take on WCM to be one-off, and not what they consider to be the essence of WCM. (That kind of controversy, if published elsewhere, would be okay for someone to include in the article; otherwise, as I fully understand, it would not be appropriate in that it would be an example of doing research within Wikipedia.)

Please consider all this in spirit of its intent: to help make Wikipedia an ever-better, more complete, and up-to-date resource.Known and knowable (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I, too, am not interested enough in that topic to form my own opinion about it. Even if I did, that would not change that the deletion outcome has now been confirmed.  Sandstein  05:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your userfication omission of Universal trinity

You just closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 27#Universal trinity and refused WP:Userfication against the votes for userfication of Hobit, S Marshall and Jclemens, and the vote of RoySmith emphasizes the given sources so that at least an AfD process should be applied. In view of the amounts of ongoing religious conflicts religion involving topics should be seen as objectively as possible so that I also asked for deletion discussion participation

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology#Academic mathematics vs. astrology in Universal trinity 2 weeks ago,
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Is a topic like Universal trinity prone to encounter opposing religious fanaticism? 5 days ago, and
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Is Universal trinity discussion attacked by religious fanaticism? 7 days ago where I already explained that WP:HOAX only means a (sophistically hidden but) obvious misinformation which means a lie. (Unfortunately all 3 projects seem inactive at present.)

When

1. theosophic sources exist that use the term,
2. mathematics indeed appear in a separation of (I) calculation, (II) proving of conjectures and (III) registering/listing of famous conjectures without known proof, and
3. the mentioned triplicity indeed categorizes the astrologic signs (in my article chapter 12 position interpretation) found to be associated with the 3 trinity fields, and only they, as Fire signs,

then clear hints are found that the concept of a trinity indeed exists fundamentally and indeed exerts a universal influence, substantiated by multiple specified sources (even if they do not confirm the associations absolutely). WP:USERFY#NO states

By contrast, an article intended as a joke, an essay, patent nonsense — or even an earnest attempt to cover an unencyclopedic topic — can be userfied. [...] These materials may even offer useful examples of things the community has deemed unencyclopedic, and may also reflect the contributor's view about what should be contained in the encyclopedia.

Therefore, I request userfication of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Universal_trinity. --MathLine (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Declined. There was no consensus to userfy, and your confused message above indicates that it would be unlikely to produce good content.  Sandstein  20:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

MathLine, just ask at WP:REFUND since Sandstein has declined to do so. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, the bar to creating this article is really high. I think you are trying to throw too many related ideas together and there just aren't sources to support what you are trying to do. I've been wrong before and I think you should be able to take a shot at it, but I think it's a very high hill to climb. Good luck. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FLC for GoT season 1

I've nominated Game of Thrones season one for FLC here. If you're available to help fix identified issues, that would be helpful and appreciated, since you've been a major contributor to that article in the past. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm not really interested in featured content; it involves too much detail-work that provides little if any benefit to our readers, in my view.  Sandstein  07:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of PASHA Insurance

Marketingislove (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Hello. I would like you to help me with creating new article. PASHA Insurance page was recently deleted. Is it possible if I send you the content which will be on the page so that you can proofread and suggest your recommendation for creating it? I am so passionate to start my first article in Wikipedia, since I already had 2 attempts and failed in both. Please, note that I read all terms and conditions in order to create page according to Wikipedia standards. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm not interested in the topic. Maybe ask at WP:HD for somebody who is?  Sandstein  20:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Marketingislove: I too would contest the deletion PASHA Insurance. By all accounts it is one of the biggest insurance companies in Azerbaijan, with roughly 30 million US$ in assets. ref1 ref2 ref3 ref4 ref5. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please link to the page or discussion at issue.  Sandstein  10:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PASHA Insurance. I can take it to Deletion Review if appropriate. Thanks Jonpatterns (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, you should have provided these references in the AfD, in which you participated. That AfD is now closed and reached a consensus to delete. Besides, the size of a business does not matter for notability, only coverage as described at WP:GNG does, and your sources do not seem to constitute such coverage. I decline to reconsider my closure.  Sandstein  12:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Marketingislove (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your efforts. So, I did post my concerns in the link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PASHA Insurance. Could you possibly check, please? And is it possible if I create new Page "PASHA Insurance"? or it will immediately be deleted or put for deletion? Thank you. @Jonpatterns and Talk:

The topic needs to be shown to be notable enough to have an article, this is done by using reliable sources. There is no point recreating the article until (and if) it is agreed by consensus. I'm not sure the best way to proceed, which is why I posted here. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Susan Templeman article

Good morning. You were the closing editor for the AFD on Susan Templeman who at that time was just announced as a candidate for a future election. The election has now been held and she appears to have won a seat. Is it OK to just undelete the article now that she has a seat (and is therefore implicitly notable), or do I need to put it through some kind of review? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A seat on what? Is there a source?  Sandstein  05:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting our editathons

	Thank you for contributing to our June 2016 editathons There were over 350 articles on Women in Entertainment, 55 on Jewish Women's History and 50 on Women in LGBTQ Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred Our next event: Women in Halls of Fame

--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Skylanders characters

This should have at least been closed with "no consensus". Or at the very least, a simple redirect. A deletion should be a last resort thing. If you look at the "delete" arguments, no one explained why it should be deleted instead of redirect, with a couple editors even suggesting they would be fine with a redirect too. A few of us pointed out that the sourcing is available (such as Satellizer and I), so our arguments should have been considered too. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, nothing stops you from creating a redirect now - but redirecting wasn't discussed in the AfD.  Sandstein  06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is that it shouldn't have been deleted at all. It should have been kept and redirected. Also there was at least one "redirect" vote. And what about my "no consensus" argument? Kokoro20 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Please undelete the revisions and make the title into a redirect, so that content can be merged into the main article per WP:ATD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hm; there was no consensus for a merger in the AfD because that was not among the options being discussed. But if you think you can get editorial consensus to put some of this stuff elsewhere, after finding appropriate sources for it I hope, who am I to stand in the way of this essential contribution to human knowledge. Accordingly, I've undeleted and redirected the page.  Sandstein  10:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think the boolean nature of the AfDs tends to preclude the reasonable middle ground, which is often that things don't belong as separate articles, but could be merged SOMEWHERE. At any rate, thank you. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Stump game page

Please bring back Stump game page. 75.234.45.123 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me why, and link to the article or discussion.  Sandstein  05:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Italiaonline

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Italiaonline. 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to create wikipedia page of Aniyan Midhun

I need to Create Wikipedia Article of Athelt Aniyan Midhun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.249.169.204 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Very good, but that does not concern me.  Sandstein  12:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Ramadan attacks

Sandstein, you deleted 2016 Ramadan attacks a few days ago. I am formulating an Arbitration Enforcement action against an editor who edited that article, and I need to supply some diffs from it. Could you restore that and its talk page? I am happy for it to redirect to List of terrorist incidents, 2016. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that is in my view not a sufficient reason for restoring content the community wants deleted.  Sandstein  20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be do-able, but I do wonder whether it would be possible for you to give AnotherNewAccount access to the diffs he wants in some other way. Assuming that User:AnotherNewAccount demonstrate a need for them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is now addressed, see WP:AE#Result concerning Sepsis II.  Sandstein  15:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico

Sandstein, I am writing to request that you restore Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico on the grounds that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. Major new attention is being given to this "poster child" for anti-offshoring sentiment because Mike Pence is now Trump's running mate. Here:[1].

And at the top of the editorial page in yesterday's hard copy of the New York Times, there was this: [ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/opinion/donald-trump-and-mike-pence-the-political-reality-show.html], lede (ex cathedra) editorial:"That’s more than can be said for Mr. Pence. Take the Carrier heating equipment factory in Mr. Pence’s own state. When it announced this year that it would move to Mexico and cut 1,400 Indiana jobs, Mr. Trump predicted that if he were president, Carrier would call “within 24 hours,” to say, “‘Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.’” What was Mr. Pence doing while workers in his state were worrying about their futures? He and the State Legislature were busy waging battle against same-sex marriage and passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act..."

In this: [2] search of the New York Times, you can see that coverage of this move has been ongoing since the announcement. Similarly with this very simple News google search: [3]. More to the point, some of this coverage has been in-depth: [4], [5] and by no means pro-Trump [6].

I will, of course, undertake to expand the article if it is restored. Thanks for reviewing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why can't this be expanded as part of Carrier Corporation? Seems that was the gist of the AfD.  Sandstein  17:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the closing of the plant is is a business decision, but most of the press coverage is focused on its use as a campaign issue - at first by Sanders and Trump, then on an ongoing basis by Trump. As a campaign issue it has drawn substantive and ongoing media attention different from that drawn by a routine offshoring, and adding that sort of coverage to Carrier seems to me to violate WP:UNDUE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why can't it be covered as part of the campaign articles? Asking the other AfD participants: @Neutrality, CrayonCreations, and AusLondonder: what is your view?  Sandstein  20:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• For the same reason that has a couple of dozen sub topic articles, one of which Stop Trump has another 6 all by itself. This has been an, er..., unusual campaign. And to put all of that material into the main article would overstuff the main article, creating a WP:UNDUE problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest, as an alternative, expanding the article economy of Indiana, or creating a new article, manufacturing in Indiana? Neutrality^talk 20:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be a fine article, but the topic here is the use of an otherwise routine decision ot move a manufacturing plant offshore as political issue. I think it is better addressed as a discrete article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, on the basis of this discussion, I decline restoration. The AfD determined that this political controversy - one of very many generated in any election campaign - should be covered in existing articles. That it continues to generate media coverage, as almost everything does in US presidential politics, is not a sufficient reason to overturn the AfD, especially in view of WP:NOTNEWS. Otherwise we'd have hundreds of articles on such topics as Donald Trump's genitals, his wife's convention speech, etc.  Sandstein  12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED at Railpage Australia

As the nominator of AfD 2, diff, you also used admin tools in AfD 2, diff, diff.  Now you have speedily closed a Railpage DRV, diff.  The text of the close included the words "ill-considered" and "unanimous", but these two words have unclear antecedents.  The nature of the DRV request was that the AfD was unfair because it had no delete !votes.  SmokeyJoe challenged those opposed to the "keep" result to "briefly summarise all of the previous AfDs and explain why they were all wrong."  But, no one engaged in the issue of the consensus supporting the close.  The speedy DRV close prevented me from participating.  After I discovered that you were WP:INVOLVED, I made a proposal to you on the talk page of the AfD, but you told me improperly to !vote a 2nd time.  Why did you treat me dismissively?  Why do you refuse to take responsibility to support WP:INVOLVED?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues of involvedness arise where a person is first involved in an editorial capacity (voicing an opinion, engaging in a dispute) and then acts as an administrator. In this case, all my actions (limited to closing the DRV and relisting the AfD in consequence thereof) have been administrative in nature. I see no problem and no need for any further action.  Sandstein  08:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that Unscintillating has a point, but the opinion expressed was 6-7 years ago, I am sure he had forgotten, and the administrative decisions recently were not contentious. The DRV close and relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia (9th nomination) is more or less what had to happen (a fresh AfD#10 would amount to a very minor difference). The current AfD has good participation and I think everyone should be looking forward from here. The page is going to be deleted unless some pretty good new arguments are posted soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The DRV close could have simply added WP:NPASR to the NAC close, nor was there any purpose to a speedy close.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see now. I did in fact forget that I was the AfD nominator in 2007; I had no recollection of that article or the AfD. I'll comment further in the recent AfD.  Sandstein  09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My previous post stated, "As the nominator of AfD 2, diff, you also used admin tools in AfD 2, diff, diff.  Now you have speedily closed a Railpage DRV, diff.  The text of the close included the words 'ill-considered' and 'unanimous', but these two words have unclear antecedents."  Your response was, "I see no problem". 

It now appears that you didn't see a problem partly because you didn't click on the links.  Since your claim now is that you forgot that you were the AfD nominator in AfD 2, this also means that when you closed the DRV, you did not check your facts by reviewing the AfDs about which you issued the ruling. 

After stating in the AfD that you would make no further comments or administrative actions, and after I thought this issue was closed, you have decided to try to cover up your improper prior involvement at the DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note

The closure re Hallel Yaffa Ariel just made observed, generally correctly, that sadly judgments fell out along partisan lines, as far as you could observe from prior knowledge of editors. I would just like to note here that the promoter of the deletion, User:Bolter21 is a promising young editor from Israel who generally does not make reflex votes along partisan lines, but decides case by case, quite independently. He's new to the area, and is a net gain to the I/P area. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nishidani, regarding your statements about User:Bolter21, where are your verifiable sources that Bolter21 is young, male, and from Israel, other than his self-promotional userpage? [please see:Essjay controversy] KamelTebaast 18:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You know, we have an article for terrorist attacks, and article for violent incidents and an article for the conflit the incident is part of. That will possibly be four articles concerning the same topic, that generally has no major significance on the human race or the humans (questionable) in Israel-Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Everybody, please discuss each other and the issues with these articles elsewhere than on my user talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Restore Worksoft

Can you either restore the Worksoft page or provide an explanation of your decision to delete?

The article had been re-written since coming up for AFD to pass WP:CORPDEPTH with plenty of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources with significant audiences WP:INDY. The AFD process was not followed according to WP:GD - there was no effort from anyone else to improve the page, and adequate consideration was not provided for the improvements that were made.

The company is widely recognized and highly ranked by industry analysts in the software test automation industry. It seems odd that this is now the only company recognized as a leader in the Gartner, Inc. Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation without a Wikipedia entry. Please see additional references on the pages AFD page, and help improve the page rather than deleting it. Gregrws (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I found a consensus to delete the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worksoft is that nobody advocated keeping the article - except you, but I do not take your opinion into account because of your conflict of interest. The AfD process was followed: the article was properly tagged, and the discussion lasted more than 7 days. That it did not reach the outcome you hoped for is not a procedural error. Nobody is obliged to edit the article in accordance with your suggestions, or to agree with your arguments. Your arguments regarding the company's importance, etc., belong in the AfD; if they were not made there or did not convince others then I cannot take them into account now. Restoration declined.  Sandstein  20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion

After this AfD [[7]], "Turkish genocide" was deleted. However "Turkish Genocide" was forgotten about and was not deleted, and is causing the same pov redirect problems. It should have been deleted under the same AfD result. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Link, please?  Sandstein  14:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is here, but I have nominated it for discussion at RFD. Sro23 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so the RFD will decide that.  Sandstein  17:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)