User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/February
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sandstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article s6 (init)
Good morning Sandstein. This article s6 (init) is as a draft, I think it should be published because it is relevant to the world of operating systems. Thank you very much. --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, not interested in the topic. Sandstein 06:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
recent speedy close
I disagree with your recent speedy close of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_hip_hop_albums_considered_to_be_influential. The drive-by move of the article, changing its title, clearly influenced arguments. It is akin to nominating a vandalized article for deletion and its being deleted on those grounds. If it is not, perhaps you have the time to explain why it is not. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would also be interested, if you have the time, in your personal opinion of why the article it is based on, List of prominent operas, has been through several rounds of peer review without even being nominated, much less deleted. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- As regards Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_hip_hop_albums_considered_to_be_influential, WP:DRVPURPOSE explains: "Deletion review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". As such, DRV requests that do not explain why the closer made a procedural error or an error in assessing consensus are inadmissible. As regards List of prominent operas, I have no opinion; see generally WP:WAX. Sandstein 14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm also aware of WP:BIAS. If there's a way that the former essay cannot be used to totally discount the latter in a similar way to how you have used it here, that i am not aware of. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Ethiopian army equipment deletion
Why did you delete the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomEditor17 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please link to it. Sandstein 07:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
That a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion is not contested.
Doesn't seem quite right to me. My comment speaks for itself (see the part labeled B2), and BilledMammal was going in a similar direction. Usually a redirect would be fine, but here it's ambiguous... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice, I've amended the closure to delete. Sandstein 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how there's consensus here to do anything. I was going to respond the the argument that it couldn't be a redirect because A. A. Albert is referred to by a disambiguation age, but I've not been able to find the disambiguation page in question. Either way ... shouldn't A. Albert redirect to that alleged disambiguation page? Please relist. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't common practice to create a redirect when it could be ambiguous. The "alleged disambiguation page", fwiw, and it was clearly linked, is Albert (surname). If you want it to redirect there, there's nothing preventing you recreating it as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - for some reason I didn't see that on the A. Albert page. The consensus on the close doesn't seem to be delete though. Please relist - there is no harm in doing that. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which other outcome could it have been? There's certainly no reason or sources provided to support the notion that the article subject meets the inclusion criteria, so it couldn't possibly have been closed as keep; and well between "boldly recreate redirect to a different target not originally suggested in the discussion" and "spend one more week discussing whether to and (if so) where to redirect it to", WP:NOTBURO's a rather good tip which one should be done if the need to take action is felt. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- With no consensus and only a week in? That's clearly a relist. Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Nfitz, I'll not relist the discussion because it attracted more participation than many other AfD, at least enough to determine a policy-based consensus. Sandstein 14:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- A consensus so clear, that you already completely changed your mind about what the consensus was! The amount of participation is a red herring, given that it's part of a very controversial RFC. Given that the 3 or 4 folks behind that AFC have all appeared here, but few others, then I don't see the harm in having more time to confirm the consensus. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Which other outcome could it possibly have been? If you want to create a redirect, there's not anything preventing you (such redirects from initialisms are not unheard of, but usually they lead to an actual article on the subject and not to a page where the subject is merely mentioned. But again, you're free to do as you choose). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- A consensus so clear, that you already completely changed your mind about what the consensus was! The amount of participation is a red herring, given that it's part of a very controversial RFC. Given that the 3 or 4 folks behind that AFC have all appeared here, but few others, then I don't see the harm in having more time to confirm the consensus. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Nfitz, I'll not relist the discussion because it attracted more participation than many other AfD, at least enough to determine a policy-based consensus. Sandstein 14:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - for some reason I didn't see that on the A. Albert page. The consensus on the close doesn't seem to be delete though. Please relist - there is no harm in doing that. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't common practice to create a redirect when it could be ambiguous. The "alleged disambiguation page", fwiw, and it was clearly linked, is Albert (surname). If you want it to redirect there, there's nothing preventing you recreating it as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I went ahead and redirected this to Albert (surname), and added a line there about the mysterious Olympian. BD2412 T 00:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, User:BD2412, that's probably have been where we would have ended had the AFD discussion lasted until a consensus was found. User:Sandstein can you restore the edit history, and add a note to the AFD? (or I suppose delete the redirect if you think that's the best option - though I don't think that would be the correct action). Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I generally don't undelete deleted articles. In this case, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the deleted content. Sandstein 08:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Roget's Thesaurus
Hi Sandstein! I was just reviewing WP:Contents and noticed there's a new redlink from Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, which was deleted today from the discussion you closed. It appears no one there noticed that it was linked from the contents page; I'm not sure if that would've changed anything about the result, but just wanted to flag it for you/Rublov. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, what links to a page does not matter for whether it is deleted. Sandstein 06:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly doesn't affect notability, but folks were considering moving it to WP-space, and might have done so more seriously. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Contents is actually how I discovered the article in the first place. (I removed a different link after the article was deleted.) It didn't occur to me to mention it in the deletion nomination. I don't know if you were able to look at the contents of the page before it was deleted, but it was basically an extended table of contents of a hundred-year-old public-domain thesaurus, with little additional commentary. It certainly was not appropriate for mainspace, and I'm skeptical that it would be useful in WP-space, either. Ruбlov (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't get a chance, but in that case, it seems all we ought to do is just remove it, then. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Contents is actually how I discovered the article in the first place. (I removed a different link after the article was deleted.) It didn't occur to me to mention it in the deletion nomination. I don't know if you were able to look at the contents of the page before it was deleted, but it was basically an extended table of contents of a hundred-year-old public-domain thesaurus, with little additional commentary. It certainly was not appropriate for mainspace, and I'm skeptical that it would be useful in WP-space, either. Ruбlov (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly doesn't affect notability, but folks were considering moving it to WP-space, and might have done so more seriously. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Appreciations for the closure. Hit an edit-conflict when saving… so copied the text over to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Arnold van den Bergh (notary). Hopefully pretty in-line with the finding of the closure. —Sladen (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Technical question about relisting and delsort
In the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Flag, will a bot re-add it to delsort lists like fictional elements, etc. (where the discussion was previously listed, and it still contains, currently also, notes about being listed in those groupings) or do we need to do it manually? I could do it in 30s with the script, but I don't want to mess things up. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know, sorry. I don't have much experience with these mechanisms. Sandstein 13:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
- AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
- The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for A. Lawrey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of A. Lawrey. 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. I have also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Jones (rugby union) for deletion review. NemesisAT (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I feel your delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey did not consider the opinions of the keep voters, who disagree with your interpretation of the WP:NSPORTS guideline. Your close also did not consider the suggestion for a redirect as an WP:ATD. Four keeps to one delete is too significant a majority to dismiss, in my opinion. The result should either have been a keep or a no consensus. Would you reconsider your close? Same goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. J. Jones (rugby union) where there was a split in opinions. NemesisAT (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand that this is a contentious topic, but this application of the notability guidelines is in my view the correct one, and as a closing administrator I must close discussions according to my understanding of policies and guidelines. This view was also endorsed at WP:DRV in a similar case in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11 with respect to Pete Vainowski. I understand that other admins and discussions have come and will come to different conclusions, but that's how Wikipedia works. Sandstein 10:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am going to second this request for reconsideration in both cases. WP:NSPORTS states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (emphasis added - kinda). WP:NOLYMPICS states "athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)". Both individuals won medals and both therefore meet the criteria, thus I see no justification for weighing the "keep" votes as less, as they are reasonable interpretations based on policy. I agree with NemesisAT that this should have been a "no consensus" or a "relisting". The other DRV is a different case than these articles. Canadian Paul 18:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I explained, NSPORTS explicitly establishes a presumption of notability, not notability per se. This implies that this presumption is rebuttable, which means that valid "keep" opinions in AfDs need to address the issue of sources if none are found by people looking for them. I will not reconsider my closure. Sandstein 18:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Canadian Paul: following this discussion I have now nominated both for deletion review. NemesisAT (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am going to second this request for reconsideration in both cases. WP:NSPORTS states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (emphasis added - kinda). WP:NOLYMPICS states "athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)". Both individuals won medals and both therefore meet the criteria, thus I see no justification for weighing the "keep" votes as less, as they are reasonable interpretations based on policy. I agree with NemesisAT that this should have been a "no consensus" or a "relisting". The other DRV is a different case than these articles. Canadian Paul 18:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
As per the discussion at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/February#:Sandstein/Archives/2022/February#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert I've asked for the restoration of the edit history at WP:REFUND#A. Albert. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Laodice closure
Hi. I find the decision you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene) to be rather odd. It was demonstrated (and not disputed by anyone) in the discussion that this Laodice was not the wife of Mithridates II of Commagene and that the name of the wife (if any) of Mithridates II of Commagene is not known. Any merger would therefore be wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Er, from my reading of the AfD everybody seemed to assume that she was indeed the king's wife. Regardless, any merger would need to be an editorial decision supported by appropriate sources and consensus. Sandstein 14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you miss the words at the very beginning ("apparently nonexistent")? Two other editors explicitly noted that she was not the wife of the king, and that as a queen she didn't exist at all ("I cannot even confirm that she existed", "I can find no source, for the claim that the wife of Mithridates II of Commagene was called Laodice"). The other keep/merge voters were simply living in the clouds. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's a disagreement about whether she existed, not whether she was the king's wife (if she existed). But if no content is (stably) merged, WP:RFD would be the next step. Sandstein 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Listen, she was not the king's wife. The case for deletion was that the idea of a person matching that description rested on the misinterpretation of a source. Those voting keep/merge completely misunderstood this: they mistakenly thought that I was disputing the fictitious person's notability, not verifiability. They mistakenly assumed that verifiability was already a given. There was no disagreement whatsoever, they simply missed the point entirely. And shouldn't verifiability, a core content policy, be non-negotiable? Avilich (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've already expressed my view about the closure of this AfD. Sandstein 18:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Listen, she was not the king's wife. The case for deletion was that the idea of a person matching that description rested on the misinterpretation of a source. Those voting keep/merge completely misunderstood this: they mistakenly thought that I was disputing the fictitious person's notability, not verifiability. They mistakenly assumed that verifiability was already a given. There was no disagreement whatsoever, they simply missed the point entirely. And shouldn't verifiability, a core content policy, be non-negotiable? Avilich (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's a disagreement about whether she existed, not whether she was the king's wife (if she existed). But if no content is (stably) merged, WP:RFD would be the next step. Sandstein 16:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you miss the words at the very beginning ("apparently nonexistent")? Two other editors explicitly noted that she was not the wife of the king, and that as a queen she didn't exist at all ("I cannot even confirm that she existed", "I can find no source, for the claim that the wife of Mithridates II of Commagene was called Laodice"). The other keep/merge voters were simply living in the clouds. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you please watchlist?
Hey there, just wanted to see if you could watchlist the Brian Evans AFD. You may have put on your list already but [[1]] should probably be addressed. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. You closed the recent AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination), and I was wondering if you could take a look at the former article and see if this new one bears any resemblance. I can't imagine that it does, since this is a very well written piece, but I didn't want to simply mark it "reviewed" if I was missing something. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, from what I remember the former article was a very long list of bullet points of trivia in the vein of "in video game X a UN flag is seen in the background". This new article is entirely different. Sandstein 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Warbrokers
Hello, I am a Content Moderator from the Warbrokers fandom wiki, I recently noticed that the Warbrokers Wikipedia page was deleted, may I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:31B0:1AB0:DC13:2BCD:1CF8:4A5B (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please link to it. Sandstein 07:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, in the deletion discussion, since the page had already been "moved" (transwikied) to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Topics_in_Abstract_Algebra/Linear_algebra, I had suggested to replace the page content by a Wikipedia:soft redirect (specifically {{Template:Wikibooks redirect}}). I'd like to understand why the page was actually deleted instead. Could you explain, please? --RainerBlome (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because nobody else was in favor of such a redirect. Sandstein 07:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- There were also no voices explicitly against a redirect. Nobody commented on the redirect suggestion. If a page is effectively moved to Wikibooks, I think it makes sense to leave a redirect. Saves hundreds of visitors an internet search, which may not even find the new location. What about you, what do you think about this reasoning? --RainerBlome (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don‘t have an opinion on that, but in this discussion there was no support for this solution. Sandstein 05:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- There were also no voices explicitly against a redirect. Nobody commented on the redirect suggestion. If a page is effectively moved to Wikibooks, I think it makes sense to leave a redirect. Saves hundreds of visitors an internet search, which may not even find the new location. What about you, what do you think about this reasoning? --RainerBlome (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Help with German Wikipedia
Hi. I don't speak German and apparently the speedy deletion template doesn't work on German Wikipedia. So I was wondering if you could nominate https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Sternberg for speedy deletion for me since it doesn't link to anything. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)