User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2018/October

In Win Development

Would it be possible to email me a copy of the article prior to deletion? I think it may potentially be appropriate for Wikipedia if rewritten from scratch. feminist (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Feminist: At https://pastebin.com/4HMjEUKc. Expires in one week because of copyright. Sandstein 10:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. feminist (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Deleted: Duke Greenhill

I was saddened to see this article was deleted. I felt I made a compelling argument on the talk page for preserving the article, although it appears that argument may never have made it to the talk page.

The subject of this article is "notable," as defined by Wikipedia (significant and reliable coverage). The subject has appeared as an "expert" and/or "thought-leader" in reliable external publications like Fast Company, HBR, The Telegraph (U.K.) and many more. His marketing and advertising bio is captured in numerous reliable sources and his film work is backed up by IMDB.

Furthermore, the article had been revised recently to be even more objective. There is no question that the article is non-promotional.

Why should it have been deleted? What are the steps to having it restored?

Thanks for your time and consideration, Sandstein.

Cheers, Iago Iago1608 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Duke Greenhill was deleted because of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Greenhill. What are the three best sources that in your view make him pass WP:GNG? Sandstein 20:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the best three arguments (including sources) supporting WP:GNG for a :Duke Greenhill article are the following: (1) THE TELEGRAPH: A top-circulated daily newspaper across the U.K. features the topic as a contributing and quoted expert. The Telegraph is RELIABLE; the content is SIGNIFICANT, and it's INDEPENDENT. By publishing feature articles in which the topic is an expert source, The Telegraph is endorsing the topic's notability. (2) WP:GNG states: the "availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." A collection of links exist supporting the topic's notability as a filmmaker. The topic (or his work) have been covered in three of the top entertainment industry publications, Variety, Playbill and Hollywood Reporter. The topic's work is available on AmazonPrime. There's also a Wikipedia article about one of the films the topic executive produced. (3) This collection of links supports the topic's notability as a marketer and writer. The topic is a contributor to Fast Company , Mashable, HubSpot, MarketingProfs, Luxury Society, and the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review — all INDEPENDENT, SIGNIFICANT and RELIABLE, and all publications that by choosing to publish the topic's content are also endorsing the topic's thought leadership and notability. Iago1608 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Iago

TL,DR. Just the three best sources, please, in the form of hyperlinks or {{cite news}}. Sandstein 07:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In that case: (1) https://blog.hubspot.com/agency/author/duke-greenhill (2) http://www.playbill.com/article/tony-winner-cumming-joins-cast-of-indie-film-shifting-the-canvas-com-150297 (3) http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG9694181/Burberry-entrenched-in-the-digisphere.html Iago1608 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Iago

@Iago1608: I decline to restore the article. (1) is self-published, (2) is the most minimal of passing mentions, and (3) is also not about Greenhill, but about the fashion label Burberry, and Greenhill is quoted a few times in the story. This is clearly not the kind of substantial, independent coverage that could be the basis of a well-sourced article about Greenhill, see WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Topic Ban Question

Please excuse my bumbling Good Faith errors. I simply have no idea how to approach this Topic ban. The last edit I made to the Su-25 article was almost one year ago. I changed the engine type from "R-195" to "Soyuz/Tumansky R-195". The edit wasn't contested, and is still in place. It didn't connect to the WP source properly, and I'd still like to fix it. The next edit I was trying to make (one year later) caused some differences of opinion, so I spent quite a bit of time searching for consensus on the Talk page. All in Good Faith, and with respect, as anyone can see when viewing the page. Several editors agreed, and some disagreed. So I didn't make any edits to the article. Was I banned for joining the discussion on the Talk page? I always thought that's what the Talk Page was for. I'm not sure how my discussions required such an extreme Topic Ban, and since you endorsed the Topic Ban, I'm appealing to your advantageous position to help me understand the reason for such a wide-ranging Ban, with a view to setting things right. Since the reason for the topic ban wasn't provided (other than not understanding), I'm at a disadvantage when appealing. Santamoly (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been ample discussion of your ban and I have nothing to add to it. Sandstein 20:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your brief reply. Since you were at the center of the discussion, and nothing was discussed. I was hoping that you could shed some light on the ban. I've never heard of anyone being banned for a Good Faith, civil, polite, Talk Page discussion. Since nothing was communicated to me concerning mistakes or errors or lack of Good Faith, I was hoping that you might have some insight. It would help me in formulating an appeal. Santamoly (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any insights to share. Sandstein 10:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Baseball?

Are you a baseball fan, Herr Sandstein? User:Germanboi87 is working on a draft. If you have any books on your bookshelf about the history of baseball in Germany, I'm sure he'd love to have those titles. (I came here because I borrowed the code of your Babel box to put on his user page; he's from Neuenburg am Rhein but I don't know if, like you, he speaks French and/or Schwiizertüütsch.) Dr Aaij (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about baseball, sorry. Sandstein 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Emerald Mine

I saw too late that the article was nominated for deletion. I have added now two reviews in the german Emerald Mine article of which one states that it has outstanding graphics and excellent sound (no score is awarded in the tests from that magazine), and the other was a Classic of the month review which awarded a 85% yesterday-score which would have been a Hit-award if Amiga Joker (the largest german Amiga game magazine) existed already at the release of Emerald Mine. So this game is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koren (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot to sign my request. Koren (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What are these sources? Sandstein 21:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Commercial German printed computer magazines from the 80's and 90's. As english is not my native language, please write a more detailed question if that is not the answer you expected. -- Koren (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are the links ASM - Aktueller Software-Markt, Amiga (magazine), Amiga Joker -- Koren (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to the German Emerald Mine article. -- Koren (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi, Izno, PaleAqua, and Ferret: As AfD contributors, what is your view? Sandstein 09:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia page has the same flaw, which is that it lists the entire series, while all sources (the three listed above) only talk about the very first game in that series. That said, if these sources were used to just create an article for the first game, I'd be fine with that, but undeletion would just cause the poorly written and unsourced series article to return. Re-creation with new content is probably the better option here. Lordtobi (✉) 09:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this showing enough notability. Two platform specific magazines of the era did a review, and zero coverage outside of the platform or since. Those sources could be used at the developer's page to mention the game in a sentence or two. This will never leave stub status, so just merge it there. (I know opinions differ greatly in this area, but if more sources later turn up, it can be unmerged). -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I like it when we get foreign sources! That said, I tend toward ferret's POV. I was pretty sure that Lordtobi was going to include a games list on the developer article, so that would be a start. I would generally oppose an undeletion. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I can add one more source for the second part, and two for each the third and fourth game of the series. (Let me see if I find the time this weekend to add them to the German article.) Never thought this would be so complicated, so I will probably throw in what I find. And the C64 version is not worth mentioning, so this effectively an Amiga only game. Let us talk again soon when I added the reviews. -- Koren (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added now all the sources I know of to the german Emerald Mine article. Please look there (I don't want to copy all the links here again), it provides now a good coverage of all parts. -- Koren (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Still a comment about notability: Emerald Mine has got one Hit-award [in ASM] and reached the yesterday-score for another one [in Amiga Joker]. If such a game is not notable you can just delete 80% of all video games articles here. -- Koren (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And as for coverage since then, there's an article in the Amiga Future (table of contents here) but I don't have that magazine and the magazine is too new for a scan to show up in the www. -- Koren (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Koren: Based on the comments above, it seems that even with your sources there is no consensus to include the article. I'll therefore not restore it. Sandstein 16:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have listed the article on the request for undeletions.

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 7

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 7. 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. -- Koren (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Streamdata.io

Hi, I was recently told our wiki page for our company, Streamdata.io had been deleted. You are the admin in this case. can you please tell me why or how I can get it re-listed? Any help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streamdata.io — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyDrew418 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot do anything about this, see WP:COI. Sandstein 17:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Espen Gaarder Haug

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Espen Gaarder Haug. 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. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Streamdata.io Update

Hi there,

You said there is nothing that can be done about the deletion of our page. Can you tell me why it was deleted? Also can I recreate a new updated Streamdata.io page?

N- — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyDrew418 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Because of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streamdata.io. And no, you may not, because you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. Sandstein 15:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Zensar Technologies

Hi, Sorry to trouble you.

Can you please confirm Nosebagbear's interpretation for your reason to relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zensar Technologies.

Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why I should comment on a particular user's comment. Sandstein 09:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps because how they have interpreted your mind and reasoning. But I respect your decision. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Multi-tendency

Hello, I was recently made aware that the Multi-tendency article has been deleted. I would like there to be a deletion review, but, as the administrator who carried out the deletion, I thought I should talk to you first. Now I'm not saying the article needs to restored exactly the way it was, but I do think at the very least it's content should have been relocated elsewhere (preferably Socialist Party).

Thank you. Charles Essie (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-tendency: @Czar, Orangemike, Namiba, Vorbee, and E.M.Gregory: what do you think about this merge proposal? Sandstein 15:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would be happy with a merge. Vorbee (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think it should be restored or at least merged. I didn't agree with the close.--TM 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• There was nothing sourced to merge. The first refs were instances of groups to which the term has been applied. The last didn't even mention the term and the one before it was a primary source. If someone can find sourcing that applies to Socialist Party or any other article, they're welcome to recreate a redirect and do so, but let's not pretend that there was content that could be usefully "relocated". To the replies above, Deletion Review is for determining whether the close was appropriate, not another opportunity to relitigate the AfD itself. I stand by what I originally said in the nom: "a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:multitendency would be sufficient." No new info has been presented to warrant a different view. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles Essie: Based on the discussion above, I decline to restore the content for merging to Socialist Party. The proposal did not change the view of anybody who was not already for keeping the article, and the content does indeed appear quite unrelated to Socialist Party. Sandstein 08:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Baba Khan

With due respect, but I'm considering a request for a deletion review, because I believe the "keep" was not justified. Atleast two established editors cited coverage from Dawn, The Express Tribune to establish the WP:N, however these news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me, but there was no consensus for this point of view. Sandstein 17:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just filled the SPI for this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faridullah zargy‎. Sound like a case of undisclosed paid editing to me. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ali Baba Khan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ali Baba Khan. 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. Saqib (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion log of Odd1sOut

Was there any reason to call me out? It seems like you don't think my two cents have any backing, which is fair. You can have that opinion all you want. Just don't throw me under the bus specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesumIndustrys (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you refer to? Sandstein 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Space Launcher System

"an article with zero sources in the actual article even after three weeks of AfD will realistically never get any" is a rash thing to say and a poor rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding sources is good, but doing so during rather than after an AfD is even better. Sources are useless to readers unless they are presented as part of the article. Sandstein 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it only became clear that there were good sources accessible online after StrayBolt pointed out a variant in the name right at the end of the AfD. The discussion was closed just a few hours later before I saw it; another relist would have been in order to my mind. Secondly, it is a widely accepted principle, enshrined in WP:NEXIST, that notability is established by the existence of sources, regardless of what is in the article. It should be enough just to point to them in the AfD. Personally, I try to resist editing articles at AfD until it is certain they are going to be kept. It could be a wasted effort and needlessly add to my my deleted edits count. My point remains that your rationale was highly faulty and this page is a good example of why that is. SpinningSpark 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, notability depends on sources existing. But notability is necessary, not sufficient, to keep an article. It’s not what my comment in the AfD was about at all. An article that contains no sources is worse than worthless, and I‘m not for keeping worthless content. Sandstein 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a million miles off what NEXIST says, so that is not a policy-based opinion. SpinningSpark 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I‘m not contesting the topic‘s notability. A topic can be notable and the article about it can still be deleted – if e.g it is a copyvio, or created by a banned user, or as in this case it is unverifiable because it lacks references. That‘s what I mean when I write that notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for keeping an article. Sandstein 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Huguenot descent DRV

Hi Sanstein

Please can you explain your closure[1] of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 9#Category:People_of_Huguenot_descent.

I reckon there was definitely a consensus to endorse the original CFD close, so I am not disagreeing with that bit. However, I thought that there was also a consensus to relist. So would you have a moment to explain why you thought there wasn't? Or did you just overlook that aspect?

Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, but I've undone my closure; see my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 9. Sandstein 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My fears that Sandstein might be overwhelmed by an enraged horde of prolix descendants of Huguenots are now averted. Oculi (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Craig Sawyer

Why was Craig Sawyer’s wiki page edited? Why was his connection to McCain & Clinton removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.71.123 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

And why do you think that I know or care? Sandstein 17:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol

Hello, Sandstein. Please re-open the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol. I missed the notification due to some running errands. Also, one user who commented is blocked now and I'd like to add my rationale. Thanks. Störm (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your rationale? Sandstein 18:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Leslie

Could you please semi protect Hurricane Leslie (2018)? IPs keep vandalizing by adding pictures of male genitals. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sandstein 16:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hugin post

The section in question on the Wikipedia page is titled 'Political Positions'...the content proposed for the 'LGBTQ' heading under Political Positions was sourced from his campaign's website section on his positions. Doesn't it make sense to provide the most accurate take on his actual positions, as opposed to partial takes that may or may not accurately reflect his views? EurekaMid (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, you used or copy-pasted vapid promotional language that sounds like it comes straight from a political ad ("seeking to be a proactive leader", "to pursue the American dream"). Yes, reporting a candidate's position on an important issue is a good thing, but this should be done in neutral language (see WP:NPOV), and preferably based on an independent reliable source, because political positions are often changing and complicated and a candidate will want to portray them in such a manner as to omit any changes, contradictions and unpopular aspects. – EurekaMid, are you affiliated in any way with the political campaign of Bob Hugin? Sandstein 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, in both the 'Education' section and the 'Political Positions: LGBTQ' sections, another poster(s) spends time talking about Hugin views from 30-40 years ago, yet only 1 sentence in each section is devoted to current views. So while something decades old is covered 2x, his current views are barely addressed. EurekaMid (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

EurekaMid, can you please reply to the above? Sandstein 18:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No - an independent who had not looked at either candidate's page until 3 days ago. But when looking at this page and then comparing to various articles and campaign homepage and what I knew, the information was very different and seems to be slanted (see my last comment). Lot of talk about views on a subject from 30-40 years ago, but almost none from current day. Figured his position statement would be viewed as good place to start for Positions section. EurekaMid (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

All right. As I said, WP:NPOV requires that we cover topics from a neutral point of view, which includes significant policy positions - but WP:V requires that we use reliable third-party sources to do so. Therefore, copy-pasting promotional language from the candidate's webpage isn't the way to go, if only because this is also a copyright violation. Find a neutral, reliable source that relates Hugin's policy positions, and summarize them in your own words in the article. Sandstein 20:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Last 2 questions: 1) Under 'Political Positions: LGBTQ', does the first sentence belong there? It has nothing to do with current position, and in fact it is covered w/ a full paragraph above. Also, I had read about (& sourced) Celgene being ranked one of the country's and world's best companies per Forbes in his last year in charge ('17). Given that he was the top executive at a company called a top employer, why would that be taken out? Seems it is a reflection of his leadership. Just want to understand. Thanks. EurekaMid (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You should ask questions like these, which concern a specific article, on that article's talk page, Talk:Bob Hugin, so that other editors working on the article can read them. If you want to discuss specific articles, you can use the {{ping}} template to notify the users who made these edits so that they know that they have been asked something. Sandstein 08:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rumah Sakit

Hi, you closed an AfD on this article not long ago. It looks like the participants in the AfD did no WP:BEFORE (e.g., [2], [3], [4]), so I would like to restore it with additional sourcing. Could you please userfy the deleted article in my space? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Driving licence in Switzerland

Hello, Sandstein. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Driving licence in Switzerland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversing the deletion of the Curtis Jones Jr. Page

In answer to your question re the page Curtis Jones, Jr., I am affiliated with the municipal legislative body of which he is a member. Your deletion has made him one of only two active members of seventeen with no active profile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Council Thank you Pagillett (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Sandstein 14:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Diogenes Question - Editing

So, I've very little editing experience, but, I wanted to insert an edit onto this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_La%C3%ABrtius. The edit being merely to insert "For other uses, see Diogenes (disambiguation)" into the header or whatever, since there are MANY Diogenes to choose from! I went to the code of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes, to copy/paste into the first page, but, I do not see the code at all! Would you mind lending assistance? Thanks very much!!BoyScoutish (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

To do this, add {{Other people|Diogenes}} at the top of Diogenes Laërtius. See Wikipedia:Hatnote for more information. Sandstein 18:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

AE question

Hello Sandstein. I am a bit confused about what is and is not covered by discretionary sanctions as it has changed several times. Would, for example, making an edit erasing the word "Palestine" on a page that does not have the ARBPIA banner as an edit notice or a banner on the talk page still be covered? Or do the sanctions apply only to pages that have the banner? nableezy - 15:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the banner as such is of no importance; what matters is whether the content of the page or edit at issue is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 16:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. nableezy - 16:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)