User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/August

no consensus

Hallo, you are the admin who closed this AFD: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._D._Slater

i need an advice as I don't have a clue, how long should I wait before nominating it again? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey, you can renominate the article at any time, because the lack of consensus resulted from a deficient discussion. But make sure that you check whether the article as it is now still merits deletion. Sandstein 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

one of the reasons why the article was kept (i think) is that one of the editors said he bought some books and he would have check them to see if he could add them as sources but that has never happened. plus I know those books are not relevant sources for that subject. unfortunately now there are 1000 sources in that article and I doubt anybody will go through them like i did but the truth is that they are either passing mentions or articles taken from the personal webpage of the subject. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Scout’s Oath (film)

• Scout’s Oath (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you let me have the code from this deleted page? --evrik ^(talk) 02:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, sorry, I don't undelete articles. You can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article: Slowdog

I wasn't aware of the deletion process. It was deleted due to notability issues. The subject is notable, however he may not have enough references online. I would have suggested it was reduced to a stub rather than deletion. If its possible i would plead for you check the notability of the subject personally.I feel the reason for the nomination maybe personal and unwarranted as im not a regular editor. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slowdog DoctorNigeria (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

DoctorNigeria, please provide the WP:THREE best sources for the subject. Sandstein 12:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

https://t.guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/slow-dogg-to-headline-ogbunike-cave-carnival/ https://www.bellanaija.com/2017/04/so-much-fun-at-the-guinness-matchday-made-of-black-experience-in-enugu-with-zoro-slow-dog-quincy-more-artistes-thrilling-the-audience/ https://austinemedia.com/slowdog-biography-and-net-worth/ DoctorNigeria (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Versace1608, as the only non-blocked AfD participant, what is your view? Sandstein 07:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WP: MOS

FWIW, I disagree with you on whether diacritics are foreign or not. IMHO they are not a part of the english alphabet. But anyways, a majority of editors on English Wikipedia want them peppered all over the project, so there's nothing I can do about. GoodDay (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, the issue of diacritics aside, it's the word "foreign" that I don't understand as applied to the English language Wikipedia. "Foreign" means "of another country", but neither the English language nor its Wikipedia are particular to any one country. Sandstein 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe foreign in this case, as in 'rare, unusual, not common' in the english written language. But as I said, the majority of editors want them on this project, so that's the way it has become. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ring (programming language) article is updated

I updated the Ring_(programming_language) article and added more references for notability

• Language: German
• Language: Russian
• Language: Arabic
• Language: English

Could you remove the page protection so we can move the Draft:Ring_(programming_language) in the future after submitting it for review by other Wikipedia editors.

Charmk (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Charmk, no. These references are not convincing: a very short writeup, a Russian blog post, something on Facebook, and something that reads like an advertisement... Sandstein 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Charmk (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

DRV question

Hi Sandstein,

This DRV seems to have floated down from "active discussions" to "recent discussions" without having been closed, and maybe is at risk of falling off the page entirely. Do you know what is the appropriate thing to do in this situation?

Thanks, JBL (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, these things tend to be closed eventually, but you can ask for a closer at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Sandstein 06:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be patient :). —JBL (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

... and what a grueling 52 minute wait it was. Anyhow, thanks again! --JBL (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Princess Adrienne

Further to your decision on Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland - i.e., to redirect rather than delete - would you be willing, for consistency, to look again at your decision on the article Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge? Adrienne is the sister of Nicolas, so the same criteria and arguments apply, but unlike Nicolas's article, Adrienne's was immediately deleted, not merged or redirected, and the content thus lost. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Ingratis, what I wrote in that AfD still holds: "There's no consensus for a redirection, but anybody is free to create (and then contest) a redirect." Sandstein 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoni Assia

Hi

how can i find the article i write before the deletion? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoni_Assia_(3rd_nomination) can you add the content to User:אור פ/Yoni Assia? אור פ (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

אור פ, sorry, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 09:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Help:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nirajan_Pradhan

Hello Sandstein, Greeting from Nepal
I am planning to write an article about Nirajan Pradhan. Unfortunately, the article was deleted in 2018 and I found that he is quite a popular actor Nepalese movie/Kollywood. I already have done some workout about this article and I want to write about him again. If it is possible then kindly request you to undelete or move this article to draft so that I can edit it again? Thank you Best regards -Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Bijay chaurasia, sorry, I don't undelete articles. You can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 07:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Saxe-Altenburg

You closed this debate and deleted the article. Did you allow me to smerge this article as I requested? Please do so if you haven't yet to User:Bearian/sandbox#Princess_Charlotte_of_Saxe-Altenburg. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Bearian, sorry, I don't undelete articles. You can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 07:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Following up. Somebody else did it for me. If I were still a sysop, I would have done it myself. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Photogenic

Hello. When you have time, could you take a look at Photogenic? You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photogenic as delete but with the remark that a Wiktionary redirect could be created. Well, someone did just that, someone else tagged it for speedy deletion and I removed the tag based on your close. In the meantime, Photogenic (disambiguation) was never deleted, so still another editor then moved the dab page to Photogenic, but it's not really a valid dab page because it starts with a dicdef and nothing on it is actually titled Photogenic. I was thinking of just overwriting it with a Wiktionary redirect, but thought I'd see if you had any opinion first. Station1 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Station1, I agree that there don't seem to be enough actual disambiguation entries for a dab page. Sandstein 18:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change it to a redirect and see what happens. Station1 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Blast hole" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blast hole. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Blast hole until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your addition to the LGBT stereotypes article

Just making sure that you got my ping and are aware of Talk:LGBT stereotypes#Dropped section 'Bury your gays'. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi, I have had a little problem at User talk:Maxl and hoped you could step in, to allow cooler heads to prevail. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, sorry for the late reply, but I'm not interested in mediating disputes at this time. Sandstein 09:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda RfC closure

Hi, I appreciate your willingness to close a long discussion, but can you help me understand the aspect of your closure where you state, "not in the lead sentence", and "any new wording of the lead section should not substantially increase or reduce the prominence of the "pseudoscience" description"? You stated above that latter quote, "If we determine that there is rough consensus for highlighting the pseudoscientific nature of Ayurveda, we also see that there is no consensus to do so in the first sentence, which also means that the current prominence of the label remains roughly unchanged." How did 'no consensus for in lead sentence' turn into 'consensus against in lead sentence?' Where in the RfC was there any consensus that it should specifically not be in the lead sentence? We are discussing the possibility of merging the tiny second sentence into the first here, and I don't see why the RfC closure is forbidding that. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, the RfC asked whether the label should be in the lead sentence or not, and in my view it did not produce a consensus for making this change. This is not a consensus against this change, but given the circumstances I think that a positive consensus for such a change should be obtained before making it. Sandstein 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free England Party (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To say that my contribution "consists only of personal attacks" is total bollocks. Firstly, I only mentioned ONE person, so the use of the plural is wrong. Secondly, I have not attacked the nom but his actions. Thirdly, my point is a valid one - the nom does have a history of returning to AfDs that have previously been resolved as "keep" and attempting a second or even third try. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Emeraude, you made multiple personal attacks against one person. Impugning another user's motives and alleging that they are "on a crusade" are personal attacks; see WP:WIAPA. It is very concerning that an editor with your experience does not realize that. Whether you are right or wrong with respect to the other editor's AfD practices is irrelevant; they are not a matter for discussion in an AfD but if necessary through WP:DR. You could easily have made your point without personal attacks by asking "in your view, what changed since the last AfD which resulted in "keep" that you think justifies a renomination?" Please consider doing so next time. Sandstein 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And you could have asked that as well.

Incidentally, as a result of deletion, readers of the articles 2008 London Assembly election, Stevenage Borough Council elections, South West (London Assembly constituency), List of political parties in the United Kingdom, English independence, Politics of the United Kingdom, Devolved English parliament and List of historical separatist movements are now left in ignorance because this encyclopaedia mentions things that it doesn't want to explain. Emeraude (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I truly am sorry @Sandstein: that you have to face this response to an AfD which doesn't go the way a user wishes. I lurked on this page after the successful deletion of the Miss Great Britain Party article, another AfD where the community agreed with me that the article had no place on Wikipedia because this site is not a depository for each and every political party which claims to be of some importance. I think it is worth noting just how many successful AfDs have involved political parties, I count nearly two-dozen in recent memory. I suggest to @Emeraude: that how many articles are linked to another article is immaterial. Does a party with barely any votes/support "in real life" deserve an article on Wikipedia? Over and over, time after time, the wider community is asked on Wikipedia this question and more often than not the consensus agrees that the answer is "no". I hope that the personal attacks ("this user is on a crusade") and your decision to vote "Keep" every single time without considering the pros and cons can both cease as we move forward. doktorb _words^deeds 18:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, Emeraude, please continue this discussion elsewhere. Sandstein 18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayurveda RfC

Thank you for the close, and particular thanks are due for the time you took to explain your reasoning at Talk:Ayurveda #RfC closure explanation. I know that not everyone will agree with all you wrote, but it was logical and placed proper emphasis on Wikipedia policies, as all RfCs should. It's often difficult to pick out the key arguments in such an unfocused debate. The re-affirmation of the status quo is actually a positive outcome and it means that the efforts of everyone who took part have not gone to waste. Regards --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the impartial closure, —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Like+1 Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed rational. PackMecEng (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification over the correct version

Your closing note said that "which also means that the current prominence of the label remains roughly unchanged" and right above RexxS says that "re-affirmation of the status quo is actually a positive outcome". Does this mean that we should be reverting back to the version of the lead the way it was before the RfC? This is how the version actually was, starting with this edit by admin El C which declared the status quo[1] The current additions to the first paragraph were completely unrelated to the discussions of this RfC and made without notifying those who opposed the disputed edits, and they came after the RfC was technically over. Thanks. H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 18:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

HPN, the RFC and my closure of it only addressed whether to mention "pseudoscientific" in the lead sentence. The RfC has no bearing, as far as I can tell, on any other aspects of the lead. Sandstein 18:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)