User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/May

Relaxed standard for product comparison pages (Re: Canon, Nikon, et al)

 I am a newbie here ... regarding your recent Canon deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras), could it be possible to have a relaxed rule that when tabular data is readily verifiable by simple Google search ex. 'filetype:pdf Canon SX400 IS' wherein manufacturer user manual specifications state such facts for well known companies, the contributor could spared having to footnote thousands of cells and instead have a single table footnote that the specifications came from manufacturer user manuals. Additionally, these manuals are all on line (for example see https://www.central-manuals.com/instructions_manual_user_guide_camera/canon2.php et al) for easy spot checking, without search. When I feel a need to, I pull the manual anyway just to be sure there was no typo. I have not yet found an error double checking more than 30 camera entries on the Canon and Nikon deleted pages (viewing them on archive.org.) 
 There can be no 'third party sources' for such product specifications because only the manufacturer knows the secrets inside those integrated circuit black boxes. In the old days technicians could take off the cover to confirm product claims, for third party verification. Not so much today. Leave it up to Attorney Generals, competing manufacturers, and news media reporting hobbyist discoveries to challenge false and misleading product claims, to meet the 'third party source' requirement.
 If there was a Wikipedia for tabular product data these pages would go there of course, but currently what I encounter is pot luck, nothing close to being as useful as those deleted pages. I want to avoid downloading hundreds of PDFs to build my own tables. I realize from prior postings, useful is not an argument for encyclopedic content.
 Regarding WP:NOTPROMOTION, Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, Wikipedia is not a product comparison service - respectfully these sentiments, although well intentioned, miss the point.
 Tabular data presented in an academic forum serves to efficiently educate people interested in technology history without having to rely on ad sponsored publications that may omit key facts, or having to speed read lengthy articles. The many contributors to Wikipedia comparison pages make it likely errors and omissions will be shaken out. There is an education component to these pages that I would say outweighs the above sentiments. I read encyclopedias to learn things. Now, I read Wikipedia to learn about when digital cameras were introduced, at what megapixel count and price point, and how the technology has progressed over the years. 
  The fact that I glean this history from tabular data and not prose should not make it less worthy of encyclopedic presentation. It is a new option today made possible by computers and the internet. Proctor68 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this. The community decided to delete this article in a discussion, not I. Sandstein 15:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No consensus call on HOP?

Hi Sandstein--I don't understand how you came to no consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher-Order Perl. There were five keep votes and three delete votes. Of the delete votes, (1) the nom referred to lack of sourcing, with was resolved by Cunard, (2) the second delete by Octoberwoodland seemed confused about whether the book or the author was under review, and (3) the third delete complained about the author participating in the AfD, but there was no comment about the book. With due respect to my colleagues, that is one delete who's main issue was addressed and two weak deletes. The keep votes all had consensus that the sourcing seemed sufficient. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark viking, you're right. I've amended the closure accordingly. Sandstein 19:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look at this! Cheers, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban appeal

Hi Sandstein, I have appealed my topic ban [1] - could you please take a look at it when you get a chance and comment if needed. Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sandeep JL

Hi Sandstein!

One of my page was deleted. Can you please let me know the main reason for deletion and help me restore the page? We plan to use only authority content that can be cited from reputed news portals to remove any ambiguity in content. Please let me know how I can restore the below page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandeep_JL

Thanks, Matt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt092019 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Matt092019, who is "we"? Sandstein 08:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sandstein: "We" is just a typo. It means "I".

Sure. So, given that you haven't addressed the reasons for deletion identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep JL, I'm not going to restore the article. Sandstein 11:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For closing this discussion with style! bibliomaniac15 19:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE ban

Since you banned me from making reports at WP:AE, how do you propose to handle this uncivil edit (or should I call the beast by its name and simply say "personal insult"? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, see WP:DR. It includes options other than AE. Sandstein 21:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Home Instead Senior Care

Noticed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Instead Senior Care when examining current RfA and requesting WP:REFUND to draftspace as believe may be WP:TOOSOON (Plenty of UK TV adverts for the firm so fairly high UK visibility and AfD result certainly not unanimous). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I'm not undeleting pages, but you may ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 21:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying quickly as asking you first is a pre-req to making a request at WP:REFUND so thankyou for replying so promptly. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually just notice a similar article has been created under Home Instead Senior Care UK ... so seems no need after all. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice on relisting an article

Hi there, you recently closed this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acche_Din and said a redirect remains possible. I heard somewhere that a two month moratorium is generally imposed after an AfD but I'm not sure what policy page that's on. Regardless, is this a page that should/could be immediately relisted requesting it be turned into a redirect? I am new at contributing to AfD and would appreciate any advice. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, I misclicked when closing, I meant to close as delete. I've now amended this. You are now free to create a redirect if you think one is needed. Sandstein 11:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

About List of software companies in Bangladesh

Hello Sandstein, The page you deleted is on developing mood. The discussion also not over yet. And it was hard work I researched on this project full month. Could you restore it, please? Where is the problem you can tell me? I already discussed it. The project is a long process so I need some time to create other pages. Ataul55 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ataul55, please link to the page at issue. Sandstein 14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marble Place, California closure

This was a group nom, and I see that the other articles are still there. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mangoe, fixed, thanks. Sandstein 16:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of Chronological List of Old Testament Saints

I was literally right in the middle of typing a reply to the last message when you closed the discussion. However, I'd like to appeal this decision with you. You wrote: "The WP:OR arguments are compelling. Christian theology is a difficult and often controversial subject that needs high-quality, scholarly secondary sources, not citations directly to the Bible and what look like WP:SPS religious websites of uncertain provenance."

1) This is not an article about Christian theology, but it is a list of biblical characters and the supposed places where they were born and times they lived in. It is absolutely not a controversial statement to say things like the biblical character of Moses was born in Egypt or that Daniel lived at the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and these things are not seriously contested by scholars. In fact we use these things throughout Wikipedia on articles that deal with these characters. 2) 'religious websites of uncertain provenance' here included encyclopedia Britannica, the catholic encyclopedia and other sources considered generally reliable on Wikipedia 3) The arguments being made in favour of deletion were clearly based in ignorance of the topic. The user that launched the thread thought that this was the same list as another separate article. Another user believed that the dating was based on wild guesses, which is obviously not true as was explained. The third user of the three on the list that proposed deletion (among the 6 in total that commented) thought that citing sources that used the bible as a reference were not acceptable because they don't do further analysis. The fact is that this argument is like saying that someone couldn't write on Wikipedia that 'the character of hamlet was a prince of Denmark'，because all of the sources that said he was were basing themselves on an original source without doing further analysis.Reesorville (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Reesorville, no. If "these things are not seriously contested by scholars", you'll be able to find academic secondary sources for them, not pious websites. If you are basing your Wikipedia work on such sources and the Bible as a primary source, you mistake the purpose of Wikipedia as a serious scholarly project. Sandstein 21:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Per: "you'll be able to find academic secondary sources for them," - The claims in the article consist of dates and places. You can find these same dates and places listed for these figures in the catholic encyclopedia, in encyclopedia Britannica, in the jewish encyclopedia, etc. All of which were sourced on that page. Wikipedia's own articles uses the same dates and places for its content. Reesorville (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering if maybe when you looked at the page you simply just clicked on a few links in the sources and saw them connect to a bible study site, and you then assumed that that was the case for all of them, without looking at the remainder? Earlier the page had only sourced the bible, but on the day that the deletion was closed the large majority of the items on the list had already been sourced to things like encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia, jewish virtual library, etc. Furthermore, I had also offered to add more if anyone needed them. Reesorville (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As something of a passerby on this, it seems to me that the article it is claimed to have duplicated really could be improved quite a bit by giving more context to the various names, rather than just listing them in calendar order. I'm going to have to echo Sandstein's doubts as to the scholarly legitimacy of assigning specific dates, but surely at least a historical era for each could be given. But for instance looking at the CE article on "Isaias" (which is really dated by now), they admit of the possibility that the scriptural book we have now shows signs of having two authors, so it's hard to see how even these "pious" works are going to support anything beyond the loosest of chronologies. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The article didn't use specific dates, it listed them according to rough time periods spanning centuries. They were absolutely supported by scholarly secondary sources and they were not controversial. You can look at this for an example: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isaiah ("Isaiah, Hebrew Yeshaʿyahu (“God Is Salvation”), (flourished 8th century bce, Jerusalem), prophet after whom the biblical Book of Isaiah is named (only some of the first 39 chapters are attributed to him), a significant contributor to Jewish and Christian traditions. His call to prophecy in about 742 bce coincided with the beginnings of the westward expansion of the Assyrian empire, which threatened Israel and which Isaiah proclaimed to be a warning from God to a godless people.")

Also, the article wasn't about the dating of the books, but it was about the dating and placing of the characters presented in the books. Even if the characters be historically fictitious, it doesn't change anything about the fact that the narrative itself puts them in specific time periods that generally aren't contested by scholars.Reesorville (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

New Union Party

Dear Sandstein, I noticed that you deleted New Union Party last August but I believe the article is viable with some work. Could you restore it as a draft so that I can improve it with sources I've found? Thanks!--User:Namiba 13:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, which sources are these? Please list the WP:THREE best ones. Sandstein 14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created my own draft Draft:New_Union_Party. As you can see, there are two good sources (Blevins and SLP) and several OK sources. With more work, I believe that it will eventually be notable.--User:Namiba 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is at AfD again, where the question will be decided. Sandstein 10:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chronological List of Old Testament Saints

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chronological List of Old Testament Saints. 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. Reesorville (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Unclear topic)

Lias Channel page disappeared. Explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.160.198 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No idea what you mean. Sandstein 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

D&D deletion closures

I don't understand either of the closures you made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prestige classes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes. Regarding the former, I acknowledge that I'm obviously biased and would prefer a different result, but looking at it objectively I don't see a solid argument against redirection. Even Devonian Wombat, the first person who introduced the question of whether to leave a redirect or not, was in favor of ultimately doing so, and my only disagreement with them was over whether to leave the history in place. As for the latter, though, your closure simply doesn't make sense. No one suggested redirection, and closing this as a merge would have had the same final result; further, I disagree that there's consensus to not keep this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

KarasuGamma, with respect to List of prestige classes, you are free to create a redirect. Leaving the history in place would only make sense if merging was one of the options being discussed, which it was not. As to List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes, it is my practice to close as "redirect" if there is no consensus between "merge" and "delete" because this accommodates the most people: the consensus not to keep the article is implemented, while merging from the history remains possible if there is editorial consensus for it. Sandstein 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and still contend that neither close was an accurate assessment of the consensus. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#May_2020

Since Hullaballoo may remove my message to you, as he has done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&type=revision&diff=955586461&oldid=954693878https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=955586461

I am going to copy and paste the message onto your user page: I agree with you User:Sandstein. I had also warned this user above and he undoed my warning as "trolling." User:Sandstein, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart J. Ritchie where he accuses OP of "What the hell is wrong with you?" He also accuses User:Owling It Up of being a sock. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tyw7, noted, thanks. Sandstein 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, as expected he has deleted my comments and the comments of several others with potentially deranging edit summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHullaballoo_Wolfowitz&type=revision&diff=955980358&oldid=955971922

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=955980358

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=955981155

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=next&oldid=955981481 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cardiffbear88 and Owling It Up: pinging involved editors. I've half my mind to take Hullaballoo to ANI again for WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and disruptive editing via his edit summary. Edit: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&oldid=955971922 for the uncensored version. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&oldid=955982958 where User:Cardiffbear88 comments on Hullaballoo censoring his talk page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tyw7 - I noticed that particular comment was removed under the edit summary of “hurtful trolling”. Happy to support an ANI case should one appear, as I’ve found this interaction over many weeks particularly hurtful. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cardiffbear88, I'm gonna wait and see what Sandstein says. He's probably more experienced than I am with boards such as ANI. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tyw7, I cannot advise you whether or not to take the matter to a community board. For me, the matter is resolved with the warning, but if you have evidence of persistent and/or serious misconduct, you can take the matter to WP:AN, which has the authority to issue community blocks or bans. I don't have an opinion right now about whether such a sanction would be warranted. Sandstein 08:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cardiffbear88, if you have evidence, can you drop me a message. We may have a case at AN. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Camp Moshava

Hello Sandstein, I was surprised by your recent deletion discussion close [2] regarding Camp Moshava (Pennsylvania) which appeared on my watchlist. I have never had reason to question an Afd close before, but this one seems wrong. Even though only a single opinion was given (and that from a known deletionist), the discussion was never even relisted to give the opportunity for others' input. I am seeing coverage of this camp in reliable sources such as inn (source states camp has been around since 1935),[3] jta[4] and toi[5] (and I have just started to look for sources) so I don't believe the assumption made that this is a non-notable camp is correct. What is the redress for this? StonyBrook (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook, both AfD participants advocated deletion and the AfD ran for the required seven days. That's all there is to it. There's no way I could have closed it differently. Relisting is only done if consensus is unclear, which was not the case here. As to redress, you can recreate the article if in doing so you fix the problems identified in the nomination, i.e. lack of notability as seen in reliable sources. I'm pinging the AfD participants to let them give an opinion about whether your new sources are adequate: @Star Mississippi and Johnpacklambert: what's your view? Sandstein 08:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein for this courtesy. Chicago source discussing PA,[6] Forward[7] Baltimore Sun (paywall)[8] Forbes tax story[9] I am simply pointing out that there is discussion of this place in sources that may have been overlooked. While Moshava itself is a brand of Bnei Akiva camps, Honesdale PA seems to be the oldest and possibly the flagship. I can't make a judgement on the quality of the article itself or if it was spammy at all since it has been deleted, but that is something I normally would look into as well. StonyBrook (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is high time people stopped trying to justify junk articles by attacking those of us who work to improve Wikipedia to only having notable inclusions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment apologies for my delay in responding, I somehow missed the ping. I have no objection to draftifying this for you (or if Sandstein wants to as closer) to work on. The teens joining one is one that I did indeed see as I mentioned what alumni did. It's my opinion @StonyBrook: that actions of alumni or concerts by notable performers don't confer notability on the camp, but happy to discuss. Forbes tax to me is the one I referenced as undue as it seemed unfair to add a source that criticized the camp. I know religious orgs and non profit tax status can be a touchy issue. StarM 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Star Mississippi you raise some fair points, especially about the teen and concert articles. However, I don't see the tax article as necessarily being undue if it corroborates this camp's existence. I concede the fact that we can't nor shouldn't have an article on every summer camp in Pennsylvania or the world, but a). per the inn source this is the oldest and largest religious Zionist camp in the U.S., and b). I only seek to WP:PRESERVE an already existing article that I feel I had missed a chance to weigh in on. I think a decent stub or start can be built around the inn and Forbes articles, with the others only to be used as corroboration. StonyBrook (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I may be wrong about undue. I think the oldest/largest is probably enough of a claim for notability. Happy to work with you on the article. Sandstein, any objection to draftifying so we can see what's notable/sourced and then move to mainspace with maybe the Sun piece StonyBrook IDed? I wish there were better source than this press release as I think it sources the oldest claim. StarM 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. The more I think about it, I wonder if the Honesdale camp ("Indian Orchard") should get its own article, seeing that the franchise has other well-established camps across the country. Then I see that all of this is adequately described already under Bnei Akiva#Bnei Akiva of the United States and Canada and Bnei Akiva#Bnei Akiva Northeast, albeit in need of sourcing there, which can be addressed. I can see a Camp Moshava (Bnei Akiva) being redirected there (to differentiate from Camp Moshava (Habonim Dror), an unaffiliated franchise.) I would not want to see a WP:REDUNDANTFORK in a situation such as this where there isn't really that much to report. StonyBrook (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I have no objection to draftification; thanks for looking into these concerns. Sandstein 07:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein (and for the use of your Talk to keep this together). @StonyBrook: and @Johnpacklambert: I've restored it to draft. I think your last points are a great start to that discussion of what lives where, StonyBrook. I'd love to copy that to the talk, with your permission as I think it would also help future editors when this content moves back to mainspace somewhere. StarM 13:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why why why

You delete my articles from the Wikipedia page that are AIW Tag Team and Intense Championship I. Also provide a link to that page.with prof RB2616 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RB2616, please explain first why you reverted three of my edits without explanation, including one to De Steiger, which has nothing to do with wrestling. Sandstein 17:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollins and Gargano won the title but mentioned title you delete with link. RB2616 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RB2616, this doesn't address my question about your edit to De Steiger. Sandstein 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If promotion is not notable then you delete the championship not in one wretsler even all wrestler that are notable like Seth Rollins , Johnny Gargano etc. RB2616 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting an old AfD with some new sources for notability

Hi Sandstein, a year ago you closed an AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_Kuhnhausen for lack of notability. Since then, I have learned a LOT about how Wikipedia works, and I have recently started participating in AfD myself (my AfD stats). I have recently found more secondary sources with significant coverage that I think contribute to notability of this as an event and I think it may pass WP:NCRIME with those sources; the story is frequently the subject of "true crime" pieces even years after its occurrence. Could you please give me your opinion on whether it would be wise to create a new page called "Attempted Murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" (so it's about the event and not the person, who wouldn't be notable for one event) using the following sources:

• My Favorite Murder - featured in an episode of My Favorite Murder, a popular true crime podcast
• I Survived... - featured in an episode of I Survived..., a TV show produced by Lifetime; reruns are shown on TV
• KVAL news - mentions that the event was featured in an episode of Nothing Personal (TV series); I can't find more sources to corroborate this, but there is a clip of the show on the news site and an air date, so the episode of the show must exist
• Stitcher - "Today in True Crime" podcast covers this event
• Hospital Watchdog - covers the event from the perspective of an ER nurse
• Willamette Week - in-depth coverage of the event
• Scrubs Magazine - coverage years later in a magazine
• NBC News - just a news piece; doesn't help with notability but it does with reliably sourcing facts
• Fox News - another news piece; doesn't help with notability but it does with reliably sourcing facts
• Pamplin Media - Susan Kuhnhausen receives an award for heroism

The new page would focus on the event and not read as a biography of the person. The new page I would create would not be based on the old page; I would create the page from scratch using the above sources. I think this can now pass WP:NCRIME, and that it could even pass WP:GNG based on the coverage in multiple TV shows and podcasts. Is it worth trying to recreate the page as an event? Thank you for any guidance. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, I'm sorry, but I do not have either the time nor the interest in the topic required to review these sources. Sandstein 20:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Colive

Hi Sandstein, I see that you have been with Wikipedia for a long time so I believe that you will be able to help me in understanding the term Reliable Source as a new Wikipedian it is getting difficult for me understand this term especially when one of my My page Colive was deleted for the same reason. Your inputs will be of great help to me while I work with my future articles. Will you be able to check the below links and let me know if the source is reliable or not. Your advice on the below links can give me a clear understanding of what kind of resource I could look for while providing citation in a page. https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2018/jul/01/app-ropriately-homeward-1835185.html https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/online-platforms-help-live-in-couples-find-a-home-together/articleshow/63476352.cms https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2019/may/28/cricket-frenzy-to-bring-alive-co-living-spaces-1982713.html https://www.asianage.com/technology/in-other-news/100120/5-indian-startups-helped-millennials-to-go-smarter-in-2020.html https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-colive-is-providing-quality-stays-to-millenials-by-leveraging-ai-ml/ https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/343827 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/not-just-shared-working-spaces-now-co-living-is-making-waves-in-bengaluru/articleshow/69019642.cms?from=mdr https://wkmedia.org/colive-adding-value-to-your-life/ Thanks in advance Glittershield (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Glittershield, I'm sorry, but as in the case above I do not have either the time nor the interest in the topic required to review these sources. Sandstein 20:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bring back Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras

Hi,

I am quite distressed at the deletion of Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras. It was a page I referenced frequently. It was very useful and it wasn't hurting anybody. There was a similar page for Nikon cameras, that was also useful and benign.

Please restore these pages if you can.

Thanks.

seaape (aka Jay Berman) Seaape (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Seaape, no, I won't. I did not take the decision to delete the topic, but the community did, and that decision was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 24. I merely deleted the page again after it was temporarily restored for the purposes of that review. Sandstein 09:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb Songs

Why in the world did you delete the "List of Phineas and Ferb songs" article? I was using that and now it's just gone. Please restore it, I need it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Phineas_and_Ferb_songs71.205.226.252 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the deletion log and you will find your answer. Sandstein 17:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm new to this whole talking thing so excuse me making a new one. I couldn't figure out how to reply to the old one. But please, I understand your reasoning for deleting it, but a lot of people use that article. I use it daily, and now it's just gone out of nowhere. There's no harm in leaving it up, it helps me out a lotTolnin (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Tolnin, I didn't decide to delete the article, but our community did, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Phineas and Ferb songs. They decided that this topic isn't sufficiently covered by reliable sources for us to have an article about it. That is important because Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. What you write here does not change this assessment. Sandstein 17:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Élisabeth Wiener

Hi,

Would you have any objection to restoring Élisabeth Wiener (for which you closed the AfD on May 2) and moving it to "draftspace"? I have located some sources and would like to work on the article and see if I can get it up to scratch for the notability guidelines.

Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dflaw4, no objections, but I don't undelete articles myself. Sandstein 12:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, is it WP:REFUND that I apply to to have it undeleted, Sandstein? Dflaw4 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dflaw4, yes, you can try that. Sandstein 14:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dflaw4 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones article

Hey Sandstein, hope you are well. I see that you help write and bring Game of Thrones to good article status. I'm currently working on the article in hopes of bringing it to WP:FAC in the future. I was wondering if you see any glaring issues or have any suggestions/comments before I bring it to FAC. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, thanks, but I'm no longer interested in the topic. Sandstein 06:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3, I've taken a brief look nonetheless - what strikes me that most material is still about the first several seasons, which is when I wrote it. The article should ideally be updated with later coverage, especially with several critical assessments of the whole series and its influence after it ended. Sandstein 06:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reply, I'll continue to update it with more current coverage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Question on Kwong Weng Yap

Hello Sandstein, I was hoping to ask your opinion on an AfD. In 2015, you added an indefinite creation protection to the page Yap Kwong Weng for being repeatedly recreated and for failing WP:GNG. In 2016, the page Kwong Weng Yap was created about the same person, just that the title uses English rather than Chinese naming conventions. I'm wondering whether this is grounds for a speedy delete. WP:G4 says that the new page needs to be "sufficiently identical" to the deleted version, but I can't see what was on the earlier versions. The page was put up for proposed deletion yesterday and the page's creator took the tag down. Now, it's up for normal AfD. Speedy delete might be more appropriate because the subject is in the political spotlight at the moment for an argument with an academic, and the article seems to give him a notability he doesn't possess. Would be very grateful to hear what you think, and whether you might be able to help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kohlrabi Pickle, I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwong Weng Yap. Sandstein 08:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Anjunadeep article creation

I have read the reasons for the deletion of article "Anjunadeep (failure to mention noteworthiness, relevance, A7, etc.) and I was wondering since the article is locked from creation how I could go around and request permission to create the article carefully (using references to mention relevance and notability) without making the same mistakes that were previously made. By the way, the page was deleted in 2015, five years ago. Chris.alex.gomez (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Chris.alex.gomez, Anjunadeep was deleted as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep in 2015. I advise you to create a draft article that establishes notability and then submit it to WP:AfC or to the administrator who last deleted and protected the page, RHaworth. Sandstein 06:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

New Orleans Records closing

Can you give me the reasons for your decision on the New Orleans Records Afd? Thanks.Vmavanti (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, please link to it. Sandstein 17:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

New Orleans Records
Vmavanti (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No comment here as long as you don't link to the AfD you want me to comment about. Sandstein 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Give me an effing break. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Orleans Records (2nd nomination)

Closure "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached".Vmavanti (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, sure. If you want to discuss something with others on Wikipedia, you need to link to it so that the other people know what you are talking about. In this AfD, opinion was divided about whether there are enough sources to establish notability of the topic at issue. This means that there was not the required rough consensus to delete the article, and as a result, it was kept by default. Sandstein 06:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So when I "merely" mentioned New Orleans Records, or I "merely" linked to New Orleans Records rather than directly to the Afd closing, you had absolutely no idea, not a clue, what I was talking about? Is that your claim? Because if it is, that kind of behavior has parallels in the real world, and you probably don't want to hear what they are. I'm curious about how this attitude can coexist with Wikipedia's mythical ideas about "civility".
Vmavanti (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, I close many AfDs and had no recollection of this one. It is a matter of collegiality and civility among Wikipedians to link to things they want to discuss. Sandstein 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How many do you close in one day on average? How many did you close on the same day as New Orleans Records?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, feel free to look at my contributions history. Sandstein 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

These are easy questions. Does the refusal to answer a question encourage civility or incivility? If you couldn't recall the reasons for closing an Afd from a mere hours earlier, is it possible, hypothetically mind you, that you didn't put enough thought into why you were doing it, and that's why the reasons didn't come immediately to mind? Sure, it's good to be the king, and I know all about how being in charge means never having to explain yourself to us poor peasants. But this is semi-serious stuff because it involves how people spend their time, and how people spend their time, esp. people my age, is extremely important. What do we have but time? I welcome your answers to my questions. After all, discussion is the foundation of Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk)

Please properly sign your talk page contributions, or various scripts break. See WP:Signatures. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There it is again. That comment makes it look like you care more about protocol than about answering valid questions. It's like talking to a robot. I don't know how that squares with "collegiality" or "civility". Isn't it easier simply to be a decent person and let everything else take care of itself?Vmavanti (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

What you mean by "kept by default"?Vmavanti (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti, see WP:DPAFD and the pages linked there. In an AfD discussion, an article is only deleted if there is consensus for deletion. If there is no consensus to either keep or delete, the outcome is that the article is kept but can be renominated for deletion. Because I get the impression that you do not take what I write seriously, this will be my last response in this matter. Sandstein 16:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly do take your words seriously. I take them more seriously than you do. I'm puzzled by why you say I don't. I have analyzed and responded to your comments. It's a shame you haven't shown the same courtesy. If I didn't take you seriously, I wouldn't have responded at all. A discussion can't be a one-way street. If I ask you something and you ignore me, that's not a discussion. For me, this has been a v. enlightening though disappointing exchange.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras - Deletion

Hi there, I am writing to ask why the Comparison of Canon EOS Digital cameras page was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras

I refer to this page often as it had the most comprehensive comparison of all of the Canon camera models with all their specifications for comparison. I did find another comparison chart with other camera brands listed, but not all of the Canon cameras are even listed there.Kiddl (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kiddl, I am not the one who decided to delete the page. I only closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 24 which endorsed the deletion. I cannot therefore advise you in this matter. Sandstein 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've even donated a few times as I was grateful for this knowledge to help make informed decisions on purchases. Please advise. Sincerely Lori Kidd Kiddl (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Kiddl: Please understand that Wikipedia is not the publisher of original thought. Our website does not host analyses of issues, no matter how correct or useful. We are an encyclopedia. The reason that article was deleted was a result of this conversation. You should also know that the money you gave to WMF was wasted; not a singular editor benefited from your contribution as we are all volunteers. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Anokhi

Hi Sandstein, I was about to create the page for a quite well-known Indian ethnic wear brand Anokhi (which also runs the Anokhi Museum of Hand Printing in Jaipur). There are good sources available, including, surprisingly, many on New York Times. But then I saw a red box with its deletion history, with reasons like "copyvio from website" or "promotional advertising". The most recent deletion was by you in February 2020 here which was, it seems, about some TV show and not this clothing brand. I would like to create an NPOV version of this article, which rather focuses on its larger cultural significance (it was among the first brands to directly connect Indian craftspeople with consumers) and its role in revival of the famous hand-block printed textiles (see NYTimes). Just wanted to check if you foresee any problems with this or can I continue? Thank you FreddyMercurial (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FreddyMercurial, if you are not affiliated with the brand, do not intend to advertise for it and can establish its notability through reliable sources (WP:GNG), then you should be able to create the article about the brand without problems. Sandstein 06:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great. I'm not affiliated with it, won't be puffing it up, and will only use the most reliable sources. Will post here once done, so you can have a look..thanks FreddyMercurial (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the link on top has gone blue :) Will be expanding slowly... FreddyMercurial (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Susan Kuhnhausen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susan Kuhnhausen. 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. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Brklynzu8 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Why did you delete the GINJIN page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginjin Please, I need to recover a GINJIN page urgently!

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginjin for the reasons for the deletion. Sandstein 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Miss Georgia World

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miss Georgia World. 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. - IZ041 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit

Thank you for your contributions. I noticed in this edit you removed sources that were "not easily verifiable." Print sources and sources in other languages do count as reliable sources on Wikipedia per WP:OFFLINE and WP:NONENG; stating otherwise are not valid reasons for removal. I will reinstate these sources at a different time. lullabying (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lullabying, you mean this? The sources as such arent' the problem, but they are no longer needed, because the content they prevously supported is now supported by a more recent source, the NYT article. Because there is now a dedicated subarticle, there is also no need to go into more detail at Slash fiction, see WP:SS. Sandstein 12:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I readded them on the main article; omegaverse is a significant subgenre in yaoi-related works in Japan and that should be noted. lullabying (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)