User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2022/July

Sarah Forbes AfD

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer) (2nd nomination). I noticed that it was re-created as a redirect almost immediately; is this consistent with the Delete outcome? –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No, but the redirect can be contested at WP:RFD. Sandstein 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fund for UFO Research (2nd nomination)

Hi, can you help me understand the reasoning for closing as No Consensus? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There were few people participating, and they did not agree; one "keep" was qualified as weak. Sandstein 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two people participated, both as Keep (mine was the Weak Keep). It looks like the participants agreed though? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There‘s the nominator, too… Sandstein 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your archive and an AfD.

I wanted to have a check to see if there was anything in your personal archive about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yair Arrechea, to see if anything was posted by someone, but I can only see up-to 2021 on the archive log page? And clicking back through the history on here is a little annoying, do you not have an archive search at all? I was looking at sources for Yair Arrechea through https://www.w3newspapers.com/colombia/ which picks up the newspapers and you're able to search through each newspaper for hits. There are a hell of a lot of hits for the guy. I am under the assumption, the AfD delete votes are bias and floored by failing to do WP:BEFORE, but hey, that's my opinion. What Ortizesp provided on the AfD was really just a very small snippet. So you'll have to forgive me confusion in the articles deletion process here, but I felt as if there was some un-asnwered questions about it. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a talk page archive search, sorry. If you can point me to how to set it up, I'd be grateful. Sandstein 10:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I just use {{archive box}} on my page in a sub, but there are other ways. I am sure you know about WP:ARCHIVE. Besides, you didn't seem to address my main concern.. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Which is what exactly? Sandstein 10:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Barnstar of English and German Wikipedia First class for blocking User:Space Cadet History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Fields Medal

On 6 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fields Medal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Chronovisor

Hi! I pinged you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor, but you didn't respond, so in case you've missed the ping I'm now here.

So, your close was: delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources).

The thing is, the target article already has a sourced mention of the chronovisor, which suggests that your closure should just result in redirecting. Also, it was my impression that such redirecting isn't generally supposed to be accompanied by the deletion of the article history, unless the article itself meets some speedy deletion criterion (which I take not to be the case). – Uanfala (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out, feel free to create a redirect in this case. Consensus was to delete, i.e. suppress the history, probably because the content was deemed mostly worthless. Sandstein 19:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, some suggested the content was worthless, but others mentioned merging (which would require the history of the source to be kept). I don't believe anyone made an argument for the history to be suppressed here (the point of the delete votes had to do with notability). Would you mind restoring the history under a redirect please?

Also, you've reverted my comment here: you said that I had edited the closed AfD. I hadn't: I didn't touch anything within the "Don't modify this discussion" box, I added a comment after that box. – Uanfala (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No: apart from you, nobody was convinced that this material was of any use. - Closed AfDs should not be edited; this applies to the entire AfD page. Sandstein 19:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Two editors explicitly suggested merging, and of the two others who !voted for redirecting only one suggested also deletion (though without providing a rationale for such deletion).

Closed AfDs should not be edited; this applies to the entire AfD page – would you mind proving a link to the guideline that says that? I thought it was common practice to post comments at the end of the page after a closed discussion if there were any updates to be made. – Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already expressed my views with respect to both subjects. Sandstein 05:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest: this has been frustrating. It seems to me like you made a simple mistake (which was perfectly excusable!) and now instead of going back and fixing it, you're doubling down (which is not). I know you do a lot of great work at AfDs (I respect that and I'm grateful for it), but my impression has been that you also occasionally seem to make rash closes and then invariably dig your heels in when they're challenged. That's a bit puzzling: you know the community isn't going to think any less of you for admitting mistakes and revising closures? Quite on the contrary!

As for this AfD, I guess the only way forward now is a deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15#Chronovisor. – Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert in Arknights page

As a feature now advertised in the game, I find the reverted edits unacceptable as this is an actual feature in the game. Oherman (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oherman, if you mean this, the problem is that it is a detail, and therefore unsuitable for the lead section, which is a summary of the rest of the article. Have you read MOS:LEAD? Sandstein 19:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, now a new problem arises, where will that bit fit? Not sure if gameplay section is suitable for it, it might but it might not be. Any suggestions? Oherman (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oherman: It could be put in the "Music" section, retitling it to "Music and voice acting". But there's another problem: Wikipedia content should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles. See WP:PST. Primary sources, such as the game itself, are not optimal because there are any number of trivia that could be sourced to the game itself: what's the name of the voice actors? How many levels are there? Etc. To avoid flooding our articles with trivia, we normally only include facts that secondary sources have deemed important enough to write about. Sandstein 06:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I found sources that could address that. https://www.gamerbraves.com/arknights-global-releases-english-korean-dub-previews/ Oherman (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oherman, yeah, thanks, that could work as a source. I don't know how reliable they are, they're not listed on WP:VGRS, but since the information is uncontroversial it should be enough. Sandstein 07:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor pullet surprise

Draft:Henry F. Pulitzer looked pretty good, so I invested a few minutes in tweaking it a bit, and then set out to "accept" it as an article -- and only then noticed the existence of WP:AfD/Henry F. Pulitzer, which you closed in December '15 by turning that article into the redirect that it has remained. I wish I'd noticed that earlier. Being a janitor, I can easily zap the redirect and replace it with a new article, but of course this doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Well, what do you think about today's Draft:Henry F. Pulitzer? -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, if you think the draft addresses the problems identified in the AfD, feel free to move it to main space. I myself don't have an opinion about the article, but the draft is substantially different from the AfD version, so at least G4 would not be an issue. Sandstein 05:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it will squeak by in terms of notability, and it's not at all promotional. So I let it through. Thank you for the help. -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

DRV

Hello Sandstein – did you mean to close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 25 so quickly? It had been open for less than 24 hours and wasn't a case where a SNOW closure would be appropriate, I don't think. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ, thanks for the query; this was a mistake - I misread the date. I reverted the DRV closure (sorry @Frank Anchor for overwriting your input in the relisted AfD). Sandstein 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the update Frank Anchor 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Category needs renaming

Please rename Category:Wonderworkers Miracle workers as that is what was agreed upon, but this has yet to happen. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does that concern me? Sandstein 17:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pikachu (sculpture)

Please have a closer reading of the nomination and comments. The criteria mentioned in the nomination were discredited. The bulk of the "merge" editors were contingent on the lack of sustained coverage which was proven false (sustained existed). Some editors were balanced on the edge of Keep and merge and stated that they could have gone either way - and this was before sustained coverage was proven. Respectfully, you may have gotten this one wrong (it happens). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Most "merge" opinions were made after Bri posted what he considered sustained coverage. This suggests that most participants were unconvinced by this argument. Coverage in sources is a necessary, but not determinative criterium for inclusion; participants may well have been of the view that, the amount of coverage notwithstanding, the topic is better covered in an existing article. Sandstein 15:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Bir's comments, but Another Believer's, who laid out full details and made the case for sustained coverage five days later in the AfD. A merge couldn't use the image, which defines the page, and removes a page of a United States statue of a Japanese cultural icon, which probably is a rarity. I've read the comments again, and per weight of argument and discussion points it's hard to see a reasonable merge close rather than a Keep or a no consensus between merge and keep, especially given the points made in the nomination were certainly refuted. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that Another Believer's opinion was so persuasive as to command great weight. They did not "lay out full details", but merely asserted the existence of detailed coverage, without citing a single specific source. This kind of argument is generally given little weight at AfD: everybody can assert anything they want, but unless they cite sources, they are not taken seriously. Sandstein 13:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to belabor this discussion, but I think the importance of a unique North American statue of a Japanese cultural icon merits further interest. Another Believer (ping since his name is being mentioned) obviously meant the detailed references on the page, but since he didn't individually link them to the AfD his crucial comment was not taken seriously in your close? AfD editors often refer to "page sources", "external links", etc. without linking them. Please consider reopening the AfD so those ignored sources within AB's summary can be linked and you can then inspect them. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if he meant the sources already cited in the article, then these obviously didn't convince most other editors. I decline to reopen the AfD. Sandstein 12:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Sandstein. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)