![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi there, it looks like we inadvertently overlapped each other a bit. I was in the midst of closing this AfD but you beat me to the punch. It happens. I should be less lazy about putting a {{ Closing}} tag at the top for the long ones.
I was actually going to close it with consensus to redirect, so I was interested to see your NC closure. I understand that interpretations can vary, and it certainly wasn't a clear-cut discussion. My opinion is that this is a clear content fork, and no compelling reason was given for why this event can't be adequately covered within the context of the main article. The majority of content that has been added to this article is biographical info about Babbitt, which isn't necessary or appropriate since Babbitt isn't a notable person. However, what really struck me was that this wasn't a typical AfD discussion, even though it took place on an AfD page. No one was challenging the notability of the shooting event. Obviously, the event is going to be covered somewhere on WP; ultimately, this discussion was to determine whether it should be covered in the main article or in a standalone article.
Had this discussion taken place on the talk page of the article before someone decided to split it into a standalone article, a no consensus closure would have resulted in keeping the status quo of a redirect. However, since someone took it upon themselves to recreate the article, and then the AfD happened 2 days later, does that really change what the "status quo" is? Considering the article had been a redirect for 11+ months prior to an editor's decision to create a clear content fork, wouldn't the redirect be the status quo that should be restored in the event of a no consensus discussion? Otherwise, we'd be allowing editors to game a kind of "first mover's advantage" by creating a questionable article and then creating enough noise at an AfD to obscure a clear consensus. —ScottyWong— 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shooting of Ashli Babbitt. 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 had a nomination written up, so I just went ahead and started not waiting for your reply here. Please forgive this apparent rashness on my part. This is not my anticipating that your reply would not be forthcoming and adequate. It's just about me wanting to formulate the review case in (what I personally see as) strong terms, to preclude someone making a relatively weak nomination, which I intuitively feel could happen any second. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw
this closure that you closed as "no consensus". But AfD should be more than vote counting and it should consider policy reasons behind each vote.
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
" The most relevant policy here was
WP:GNG, which requires the existence of multiple secondary sources giving in-depth coverage, but during the AfD only a single such source was provided. Other sources provided were
WP:Primary sources, which can't satisfy
WP:GNG. How can keep possibly be justified if
WP:GNG is not met?
VR
talk
03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Short Description Barnstar | |
Awarded for consistent and long-term attention to the refinement of short descriptions. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Sorry, I'm not interested in your content dispute, please take it elsewhere. Sandstein 07:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is the obituary of the blog's founder encyclopedic content?-- 176.77.136.98 ( talk) 11:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
|
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Olaf Scholz, 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. PFHLai ( talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
With the recent barrage of news coverage over its acquisition, [8] [9] [10] I believe the subject is now clearly notable. Since you closed its AfD from last year, I'd defer to your opinion on whether it would be better to restore and work on the previous version or to start entirely anew. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Sandstein. I recently saw that the page i created, 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal', was deleted. I do not condone the deletion of this page and would like to search for ways to reinstate it. Please, provide me with details so that I can learn how to do so. If possible, please provide me with a copy of the page's information to keep. OtherPancakes OtherPancakes ( talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossing the Line (2008 film). You were quite right to point out that an awful lot of people used the rationale "Jackson=notable" and that this is an invalid reason under our guidelines. However, from the point at which I offered sources, there were five further participants, all for "keep". Three of them directly referred to the sources I found and Jamesallain85 might have meant that. Those are valid, policy-based rationales and should not have been set aside. Spinning Spark 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Jtrainor ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you really needn't have relisted this. It was pretty clear that this was more a procedural issue than a content one, and all but one of the voters had already agreed that the article could go--the sole outlier having commented before this was pointed out. Avilich ( talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering why the review I began couldn't at least have had a discussion? You don't think any of what I wrote merits one? And if an 'action' makes all the difference, well, I think it was implied in what I wrote, but re-running it would have been a better choice than closing it. But, really, what's procedural about such a seemingly structural issue? 88.109.68.233 ( talk) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
|
|
The 12 Days of Wikipedia
|
Hello Sandstein! Could you please help me out with two questions? After the deletion decision of List of fictional institutions, is there prejudice against the creation of a List of fictional medical institutions based on the former list as a sub-set? Such sub-lists were also embraced by some deletion !voters. If there was not, would it be fine for me to go about it like that: Ask for restoration of the List of fictional institutions at WP:REFUND in draftspace, trim to a List of fictional medical institutions, restore to mainspace? Thanks a lot for letting me know! Daranios ( talk) 16:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers!
RV (
talk)
11:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
While "SDs should be below 40 characters", it is more important that they are accurate! Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm probably going to DRV this, and since you've provided a detailed set of arguments, I'm posting this as a formality rather than expecting you to reconsider your close. My argument, in short:
I think you're both very consistent in how you interpret policies and guidelines, but that doesn't stop you from having lost sight of the goals of Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Now this! Wtf???? Johnbod ( talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I have continued this discussion at Talk:Prehistoric_Ireland#Merging_Irish_Dark_Age_into_this_article; please add any replies there. Sandstein 09:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hiya as the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victory_Obasi I wonder if you could put the article into draft form in my userspace where I can continue to work on it. Thanks for any help! Mujinga ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Been over a month and I had no response from you regarding this discussion. May I know what is your opinion about that? I note that the subject is apparently still getting frequent coverage. TolWol56 ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
And List_of_oldest_surviving_members_of_the_House_of_Representatives
And Oldest_living_United_States_governor
I was very disappointed to see that these pages had been deleted because they are not sufficiently notable. First of all, probably 90% of what's in Encyclopedia Britannica is mundane rather than notable too, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.
I do a significant amount of research and writing on legislative history, and I have frequently contacted former legislators for their comments. To that end, it is extremely useful to me to know who, from the 1970s and 1980s, is still alive and participated in the process for specific pieces of legislation. When those pages were active, I could see in ten seconds flat who was still alive from fifty years ago that might be able to talk to me about a bill they sponsored or helped pass. Without those pages, I can do a name by name internet search but that means it now takes me several minutes at minimum to get the information I used to be able to see from those lists almost instantaneously. So in this case, your deletion of those pages is not merely annoying; it makes it harder to do research of the type that I would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
To a certain extent, notable is in the eye of the beholder. Please reconsider. Thank you.
Abewoelk ( talk) 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Sandstein/Archives/2021! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi there, it looks like we inadvertently overlapped each other a bit. I was in the midst of closing this AfD but you beat me to the punch. It happens. I should be less lazy about putting a {{ Closing}} tag at the top for the long ones.
I was actually going to close it with consensus to redirect, so I was interested to see your NC closure. I understand that interpretations can vary, and it certainly wasn't a clear-cut discussion. My opinion is that this is a clear content fork, and no compelling reason was given for why this event can't be adequately covered within the context of the main article. The majority of content that has been added to this article is biographical info about Babbitt, which isn't necessary or appropriate since Babbitt isn't a notable person. However, what really struck me was that this wasn't a typical AfD discussion, even though it took place on an AfD page. No one was challenging the notability of the shooting event. Obviously, the event is going to be covered somewhere on WP; ultimately, this discussion was to determine whether it should be covered in the main article or in a standalone article.
Had this discussion taken place on the talk page of the article before someone decided to split it into a standalone article, a no consensus closure would have resulted in keeping the status quo of a redirect. However, since someone took it upon themselves to recreate the article, and then the AfD happened 2 days later, does that really change what the "status quo" is? Considering the article had been a redirect for 11+ months prior to an editor's decision to create a clear content fork, wouldn't the redirect be the status quo that should be restored in the event of a no consensus discussion? Otherwise, we'd be allowing editors to game a kind of "first mover's advantage" by creating a questionable article and then creating enough noise at an AfD to obscure a clear consensus. —ScottyWong— 21:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shooting of Ashli Babbitt. 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 had a nomination written up, so I just went ahead and started not waiting for your reply here. Please forgive this apparent rashness on my part. This is not my anticipating that your reply would not be forthcoming and adequate. It's just about me wanting to formulate the review case in (what I personally see as) strong terms, to preclude someone making a relatively weak nomination, which I intuitively feel could happen any second. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw
this closure that you closed as "no consensus". But AfD should be more than vote counting and it should consider policy reasons behind each vote.
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
" The most relevant policy here was
WP:GNG, which requires the existence of multiple secondary sources giving in-depth coverage, but during the AfD only a single such source was provided. Other sources provided were
WP:Primary sources, which can't satisfy
WP:GNG. How can keep possibly be justified if
WP:GNG is not met?
VR
talk
03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Short Description Barnstar | |
Awarded for consistent and long-term attention to the refinement of short descriptions. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Sorry, I'm not interested in your content dispute, please take it elsewhere. Sandstein 07:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is the obituary of the blog's founder encyclopedic content?-- 176.77.136.98 ( talk) 11:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
|
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Olaf Scholz, 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. PFHLai ( talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
With the recent barrage of news coverage over its acquisition, [8] [9] [10] I believe the subject is now clearly notable. Since you closed its AfD from last year, I'd defer to your opinion on whether it would be better to restore and work on the previous version or to start entirely anew. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Sandstein. I recently saw that the page i created, 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal', was deleted. I do not condone the deletion of this page and would like to search for ways to reinstate it. Please, provide me with details so that I can learn how to do so. If possible, please provide me with a copy of the page's information to keep. OtherPancakes OtherPancakes ( talk) 19:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossing the Line (2008 film). You were quite right to point out that an awful lot of people used the rationale "Jackson=notable" and that this is an invalid reason under our guidelines. However, from the point at which I offered sources, there were five further participants, all for "keep". Three of them directly referred to the sources I found and Jamesallain85 might have meant that. Those are valid, policy-based rationales and should not have been set aside. Spinning Spark 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Jtrainor ( talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you really needn't have relisted this. It was pretty clear that this was more a procedural issue than a content one, and all but one of the voters had already agreed that the article could go--the sole outlier having commented before this was pointed out. Avilich ( talk) 22:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering why the review I began couldn't at least have had a discussion? You don't think any of what I wrote merits one? And if an 'action' makes all the difference, well, I think it was implied in what I wrote, but re-running it would have been a better choice than closing it. But, really, what's procedural about such a seemingly structural issue? 88.109.68.233 ( talk) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
|
|
The 12 Days of Wikipedia
|
Hello Sandstein! Could you please help me out with two questions? After the deletion decision of List of fictional institutions, is there prejudice against the creation of a List of fictional medical institutions based on the former list as a sub-set? Such sub-lists were also embraced by some deletion !voters. If there was not, would it be fine for me to go about it like that: Ask for restoration of the List of fictional institutions at WP:REFUND in draftspace, trim to a List of fictional medical institutions, restore to mainspace? Thanks a lot for letting me know! Daranios ( talk) 16:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers!
RV (
talk)
11:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
While "SDs should be below 40 characters", it is more important that they are accurate! Johnbod ( talk) 17:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm probably going to DRV this, and since you've provided a detailed set of arguments, I'm posting this as a formality rather than expecting you to reconsider your close. My argument, in short:
I think you're both very consistent in how you interpret policies and guidelines, but that doesn't stop you from having lost sight of the goals of Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Now this! Wtf???? Johnbod ( talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I have continued this discussion at Talk:Prehistoric_Ireland#Merging_Irish_Dark_Age_into_this_article; please add any replies there. Sandstein 09:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hiya as the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victory_Obasi I wonder if you could put the article into draft form in my userspace where I can continue to work on it. Thanks for any help! Mujinga ( talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Been over a month and I had no response from you regarding this discussion. May I know what is your opinion about that? I note that the subject is apparently still getting frequent coverage. TolWol56 ( talk) 23:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
And List_of_oldest_surviving_members_of_the_House_of_Representatives
And Oldest_living_United_States_governor
I was very disappointed to see that these pages had been deleted because they are not sufficiently notable. First of all, probably 90% of what's in Encyclopedia Britannica is mundane rather than notable too, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.
I do a significant amount of research and writing on legislative history, and I have frequently contacted former legislators for their comments. To that end, it is extremely useful to me to know who, from the 1970s and 1980s, is still alive and participated in the process for specific pieces of legislation. When those pages were active, I could see in ten seconds flat who was still alive from fifty years ago that might be able to talk to me about a bill they sponsored or helped pass. Without those pages, I can do a name by name internet search but that means it now takes me several minutes at minimum to get the information I used to be able to see from those lists almost instantaneously. So in this case, your deletion of those pages is not merely annoying; it makes it harder to do research of the type that I would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
To a certain extent, notable is in the eye of the beholder. Please reconsider. Thank you.
Abewoelk ( talk) 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A token of thanks
Hi Sandstein/Archives/2021! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
![]() |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)