User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Delete review of Battle of Dewair (1582)

Deletion review for Trillionaire

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Trillionaire. 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. GTrang (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welfare state in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reconsider

I believe you may have overlooked my evidence in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius Nacht. I provided at least four published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject—two in Hebrew and two in English. I did not argue that he's notable simply because he is wealthy; I only provided evidence in the form of sources. While I may not have properly quoted the policy, the sources from Calcalist, Times of Israel, Ice, and Calcalist (Hebrew) meet the criteria. The last two are full biographical articles dedicated to this person.

Additionally, I worked to add at least four more reliable and independent sources to the article itself, covering various facets of this person's history, which are now lost and inaccessible to me since the page was deleted. I humbly request that you bring back the article and allow me to add a more comprehensive argument, after which you can close again after taking my additional evidence into consideration. Whizkin (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more precise - you did not quote relevant sources that convinced anyone else. That might be because you threw out four bare links that disappeared in a sea of irrelevant arguments. See e.g. this diff for an example of how to present sources in an AfD in such a way as to make it easy for others to notice and to evaluate the sources.

As concerns your request for reconsideration, could you please link to the WP:THREE best sources here? Sandstein 18:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The top two sources are the Ice and Calcalist (Hebrew) articles, which are full biographical pieces independent of the subject, meeting WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV as required (Assuming you don't read Hebrew, you can verify this with Google Translate.) If you can provide the article back, or at least the references, I'll be able to suggest the best third one. Whizkin (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference the best three sources here in this talk page thread. Sandstein 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two would be Calacist profile (Hebrew, 2017) and Ice business dictionary (2023). The third would be Calcalist (2022). Explanation:

Note there are additional sources that I added to the article, but restricting the discussion to the two remaining sources in this thread are Calcalist (2022) and Times of Israel (2018). The first article, published by the top financial newspaper in Israel, is considered reliable and unaffiliated with Nacht. It provides significant coverage of his transition from a cybersecurity pioneer as a co-founder of Check Point to an investor in the biotech and healthcare sectors. The article explores his motivations, key investments, and broader impact on Israeli innovation. It also touches on personal experiences, such as his father's illness, which inspired his shift toward life sciences, offering a well-rounded portrayal of both his professional journey and personal evolution. While it is an interview, it contains substantial editorial content.

The second article is older and less comprehensive, but still from one of the most prominent news sources in Israel. It offers additional insights into his life, though it is not as detailed as the first.

In all the sources that I provided, Nacht is the key focus of the article, exceeding the criteria of "significant coverage". Whizkin (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, @Oaktree b, you were in favor of deletion in the AfD. Please let me know if these sources change your view. Sandstein 06:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Thanks for getting back to me. No they dont. They are just a mixture of PR pieces, interviews and a profile. I don't know why interviews are continually presented by folk who think they are valid sources that prove notabilty when they dont. They are WP:SPS sources and are wP:PRIMARY. The Time of Isreal reporting the Jewish Federation, is just lifting his comments verbatim. There is no journalistic process involved and its not a WP:SECONDARY source, it is WP:PRIMARY. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source that proves this person is notable and nothing has been presented to prove it otherwise. Nothing that not connected by his work, or spoken directly by him. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't seem to meet the notability requirements. As Scope Creep explains above, they are not exactly what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whizkin, I tend to agree with this assessment. We have two interviews and a newspaper article, that apart from one or two paragraphs of background, merely reproduces what Nacht says. This is not the sort of in-depth independent coverage required by WP:GNG. I remain of the view that the "delete" opinions are more persuasive and decline to change the AfD's closure. Sandstein 14:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Sandstein. With reference to https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=164455720,

please generate a page such as Talk:List of Regular Show episodes/attribution history at Talk:Glasgow University Conservative Association/attribution history (or similar), containing the attribution history of The Peel Club,

because content was merged from the deleted The Peel Club article into Glasgow University Conservative Association during the interval beginning with the improper undoing of the tempundel notice (the page had not been protected) and ending with the redirection of the page and restoration of the same notice.

This merger, while unorthodox, and done under circumstances which normally do not permit merger (I fully understand that editors should not merge content from tempundeleted pages because this type of undeletion makes content available for viewing only and certainly not for merging) was editorially justified, and the article had technically been made live again and received subsequent non-trivial edits complicating the issue and blurring the line between the page being tempundeleted and recreated. (It was later restated that tempundel should be accompanied by full protection.)

The way the things are now, attributability for the all of the content at the Glasgow University Conservative Association article is not being maintained, because Special:Diff/1244174242 says to see the source page's history for who the authors of the added content are, which can not be done because it has been deleted.

Regards, —Alalch E. 23:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I only closed the DRV. Any issues arising from the original decision to delete are, in my view, for the deleting admin to address. Sandstein 06:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]