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

Grungust

Why was the Grungust article deleted? It refers to the major robot type in a series that has a major following in Japan and a fairly large one over here. I fail to see how it is "not culturally significant", and I don't get the feeling you should be the person to decide it either way. This is a blatant case of overmoderation. In fact you seem pretty determined to erase anything SRW related from the wiki that you can get away with. I'm not a huge SRW fan myself but as a friend of those who are, this is pathetic. (Little Miss Desu)

Please provide a link to the article or AfD discussion at issue. See the box at the top of this page.  Sandstein  06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the same situation with the Huckebein page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckebein. Is this an encyclopedia, or just a collection of articles you think are relevant/interesting? I don't see how major Japanese game series or information on them is not culturally significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden concluded that, cultural significance aside, the articles at issue were not verifiable. What you say does not address that issue.  Sandstein  06:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, It's sort of hard to check the articles now that they have been deleted, but by the content of the google cache article, all of the information there seems verifiable if not sourced. I would believe a videogame publisher a reliable source. If the SRT related articles are restored, I would have no problem with sourcing them myself, as long as the games from which the information is derived would suffice as sources. Since this is information from largely japanese games, most of what is in the english internet is unsourced translations, but I still think it would be desirable to have this information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If an article is unsourced, it is not verifiable in Wikipedia parlance (see WP:V), because it lacks references to sources with which readers can verify its contents. The games themselves are also primary sources, whose citation should be avoided. Your more general argument about it being desirable to have this information on Wikipedia should have been advanced during the discussion; it is not of a nature suited to overturn the discussion's result now that it has been closed.  Sandstein  18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that in this case, primary sources would be the best, since the information is about works of fiction, and not real life events or issues where a conflict of interest would be possible (aka, this isn't Ford reporting the performance of a car, where they may have an interest, this is a theorethical machine where nobody does). The only concern would be copyright, but the information is not word per word transcriptions, and is also available on other wiki like sites (which i understand, aren't really accepted sources either) However, dues to the nature of the information, it's very hard to find it in non third party translated form, this however doesn't make it unverifiable, just adds a barrier of entry to do so, however, since electronic sources are apparently accepted, then I would think a game would be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way. However, our rules say otherwise. They say that:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:SOURCES, a part of WP:V)

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (WP:PRIMARY, a part of WP:NOR)

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V)

That's why works of fiction are not sufficient as the sole sources for Wikipedia articles about themselves. You may disagree with these rules, but they are what we operate under. There are many other websites that have more liberal inclusion policies. You may be more comfortable contributing to one of them.  Sandstein  22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that refered to interpretations rather than textual quoting of plainly given facts such as specs. My prior comment referred to my belief about the spirit of that rule, rather than the letter. Third party commentary only would make quite a few works that aren't widely discussed imposible to include, particularly if other wiki type things cant be used as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.3.97 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the case.  Sandstein  17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Agavi

Hi, I feel that your deletion of the Agavi article didn't take into account some of the arguments I proposed on the AfD page for it regarding its notability. Would you mind taking a look at it again? I don't think it's considerably more or less notable than some of the other frameworks that Wikipedia has articles for, e.g. Simplicity PHP framework. Thanks! $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This does not alter my evaluation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agavi. I'll userfy it, if you want to, so that you can gather a few more sources before taking it to WP:DRV for restoration.  Sandstein  20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. $nf->{'user'}; $nf->{'talk'}; 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, at User:Nforbes/Agavi.  Sandstein  21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD/The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin

Hi. Your remarks in closing AfD/The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin seem a little ambiguous. I think you're saying that because there's No consensus for either outright deletion or merging, the article remains by default, at least for now. When you suggest that the merger discussion be revived [later], on the article talk page, you seem to dismiss the option of deletion; but if you do actually dismiss it, I wonder why you don't explicitly rule it out when you mention the possibility of a later merge. (If you don't intend to dismiss it, you might mention the option of a second AfD, preferably after at least so many months.) Further, I think that somebody might read your comment as allowing for either deletion or merging in the medium term, and disallowing long-term retention. Could you perhaps revisit and clarify slightly? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was opaque. I meant that nobody wants to outright delete it, but that there's no consensus about whether it should be merged or kept as a separate article. Because mergers do not require an AfD, I suggested that any such discussion should take place on the article talk page first. If that discussion does not take place, or does not attain consensus, the article will be kept by default.  Sandstein  17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Earth (Dragon Ball)

Not to bust your chops or anything, but there's a few more redirects left. Korin's Tower Kami's Lookout Kami's lookout Dragon World. Kind of a messy AfD, I'd have perferred a redirect & merge. Of course then someone would have to fix all the resulting double redirects, so there's work to be done either way I suppose.--Koji† 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, thanks.  Sandstein  19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD Elise Sutton; why a redirect?

The idea of me suggesting a redirect in AfD/Elise Sutton was to preserve the revision history, so that a merge could be performed in the future. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the consensus was still to delete. A redirect to a page where the subject is not even mentioned would likely not make much sense to a reader.  Sandstein  06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a consensus. A couple people said delete early on, but likely didn't look into the matter. I would think posting references ( mere hours before the delete closed ) should be enough to close as "no consensus", relist, or redirect, as well as countering the claims of "promotional" material. Would you have preferred I said "merge" when I ultimately wanted a merge? It's not very often an AFD actually gets closed as "merge". Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, a "merge" proposal would have been clearer, but would IMHO also have made little sense (why merge the article about a sex author to the article about a vanity press?) You are right that the article might have been relisted in view of the new information you provided. But ultimately, I think, this new information would not have changed many minds - a blog entry, a blog-style brief book review and a passing mention in other books might qualify the book for notability, but likely not the writer.  Sandstein  07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think her books were one of the very top sellers. I envisioned a paragraph in the Lulu Press article that might talk about the top five or so books, each with a few references, to show the variety of topics they publish about. Of course, that wasn't going to be done hours before the AFD close. There would be no need to qualify either the book or writer for independent notability, because it would be a merged article. And the option would be available to restore the Sutton article from the history if editors dig deeper for references. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you would like to do this, I undeleted and redirected the article.  Sandstein  12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that there's not the slightest mention of 'Elise Sutton' in the Lulu.com article, nor the slightest indication why there should be, I'm rather mystified by this action. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, if there is not soon a mention of her for which there is consensus, the redirect will have to go again.  Sandstein  14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I found an article about Lulu Press that can be used to make that mention. Just need to find similar overviews about a few other notable titles published by Lulu, write a paragraph about them, and all should be well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lulu (company) now has a densely referenced paragraph about breadth of subject matter. This avoids undue weight on the Sutton books and should pass consensus with the regular editors. This is what I had in mind for a merge. Thanks for help with the redirect. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Acorn

please consider reverting you recent edit to ACORN. There is still healthy debate as to the neutrality of the article( it is disjointed from the section and continues below). Concensus has not been reached as the arguments ahve not been answered in any meaning ful way. Charges of some vast right wing conspiracy and desire to insert blogs ( which noone has advocated) are not debate. Again , please review the comments below the section in toto.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everybody but you agrees with the proposed edits. That's consensus enough for me, I have to say.  Sandstein  20:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry , the conversation was fragmented. If you will scroll down you will see other editors have voiced concerns, Most specifically Digital Ninja. Your removal of the template means that people will no longer have to examine the article in good faith, and I would encourage you to do a more profound examination. As friendly as I can make this, I was troubled that you saw fit to make the template edit with the tools , but choose to ignore the personal attacks of Lulu of the lotus eaters. You don't have to justify your use of the tools, but that such a flagrant abuse escaped your notice would tend to strain credulousness of even the most dispassionate observer.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus still looks clear to me, but I'll not involve myself in this drama. The protection will expire tomorrow anyway.  Sandstein  22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing of AFD on article Sikh Extremism

Hi there! I noticed you have closed the ongoing AFD discussion here stating no consensus. The closing time according to wikipedia is not exactly 5 days, and if you feel there is no consensus then why rush to close the ongoing discussion?. I also do not seem to agree that there were not much reasoning given; specifically I've made enough clear why I feel this article is WP:POVFORK and WP:V violation. I would let the AFD discussion run for a few more days for other editors to weigh in. Let me know if you want some clarfications on my comments on the AFD. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was opened on 08:35, 11 November 2008 and was closed on 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC). Five days having elapsed, the AfD was eligible for closure. Given what a mess this AfD is, I do not think that further discussion would have brought it to a clearly discernible consensus. It might be better to re-nominate the article for deletion if the perceived problems with it have not been addressed in a couple of months.  Sandstein  19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003

Hi Sandstein, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 with the comments: The result was no consensus. I'm taking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1 into account as well. Some form of centralised discussion is probably required on how to deal with these articles on a general basis, not just on a per-month basis.

That central discussion has already occurred - see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Removal_of_many_individual_date_articles. I'm fairly sure it was unresolved, though there were good arguments for all sides. It should definitely be noted nthough, as I pointed out during the Aug 1 2003 discussion, that many such articles have already been merged into their months. These articles were originally intended to cover individual days from a wide range of years, but only 2003-2005 were ever done before the project was abandoned. I'm not convinced, BTW, that the March 1 discussion is a valid comparison, since that is for a page covering all March 1sts, not one for a specific year, and as such, is never likely to remain as a simple two-line stub. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I believe the AfD does not prevent a merger, and indeed that may be the most viable option given the number of "merge" and "delete" opinions that were expressed. I was reluctant to call it a "merge" consensus, though.  Sandstein  06:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on what exactly? The vast majority of opinions on the AfD were for merging. Trusilver 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A majority is not the same thing as consensus.  Sandstein  17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No consensus?!!!! Do you have any idea of what type of precedent you've just set? I really wish you had conferred with some of the other administrators rather than making a decision like that on your own. I just don't think that one administrator has the authority to change longstanding rules on his own. Perhaps deletion review isn't the right place to go, but your handling of this should be reviewed. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, no, I don't. Even assuming that any AfD may set a binding "precedent", which it does not, a "no consensus" outcome strikes me as least suited to setting any precedent at all. I'm also unclear about what rule I am supposed to have changed. But do feel free to call for a review of my actions in any forum that you feel is suitable.  Sandstein  17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Precedent has already been set a long time ago - loads of similar articles get closed as "no consensus", despite the majority of comments usually being calls to merge. Boldness may indeed be called for... Grutness...wha? 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for August 1, 2003

An editor has asked for a deletion review of August 1, 2003. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)