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

Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

No offense, but I have concerns over your closure of Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i

I am concerned over your reliance on arguments made in previous {{afd}}s -- when you seem to have discounted the counter-arguments made in those discussions. As I pointed out in this afd -- and I think your conclusion should have been based on arguments and counter-arguments in this afd -- my challengers have made arguments, I made civil counter-arguments, which they were unwilling or unable to respond to.

I am concerned that you seem to have based your conclusion on serious misconceptions. You wrote:

Everybody who is detained under a modern legal system has a lot of government paperwork generated about him, but our consensus (both as reflected in WP:BIO and in these deletion discussions) is that such paperwork is a primary source and does not suffice for notability, or else all prisoners would be notable just for having a government file.

May I point out that the captives in Guantanamo are "not detained in a modern legal system". They are not detained in a legal system at all. None of them have been charged in a court of law.

Ordinary felons, and ordinary criminal suspects, are not notable, because modern criminal justice systems are well understood. Suspects have predictable legal protections, like the opportunity to hear all the evidence against them, and the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against them. Ordinary felons aren't notable because there is nothing exceptional about them. When there is strong evidence of a breakdown in the criminal justice system, as in, for example, the case of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, then Carter merits coverage here, where other felons don't.

The paperwork generated for ordinary felons is not exceptional, because all they show is that those ordinary felons went through well understood, predictable, unexceptional steps in the well understood, predictable legal system. I suggest that the documents generated for the Guantanamo captives are exceptional, are totally unlike those generated for criminal justice felons and suspects.

I've written about this in greater detail in Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

I have other concerns about the explanations you made for your closure. Should I record them here? Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a European jurist, and I understand that the current Guantanamo system is regarded by many as severely deficient with regard to the level of due process afforded to detainees, the legal basis of their detention and so on. I generally agree with that assessment, but it is not relevant here. The Guantanamo records are functionally similar to normal criminal records in that they are files created in a routine process by a government about persons detained by it, and, as primary sources, do not by themselves confer notability on these persons. Rubin Carter has an article because he has been covered by secondary sources, not just by the government files about him. It is true that the Guantanamo detention process is exceptional compared to normal criminal justice or POW systems, but that is an argument for the notability of the Guantanamo detention process (or for the type of documents it produces), not for the notability of the individual detainees.

If you have more arguments that you think could make me change my mind about the AfD closure, you are of course welcome to make them here. Sandstein (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I started a reply to you yesterday, and then my browser crashed, twice. So, I am going to respond in stages this time. Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous {{afd}} closed as "keep" and "no consensus"

You wrote:

...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination), also about a generic detainee, which in retrospect I probably should have closed differently. (GeoSwan asserts that several similar AfDs have resulted in "keep", but he provides no links, and I can't find such AfDs on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp/archive.)

One interpretation of this passage is that you now have doubts about your earlier closure because you have doubts about my credibility. In case that is what you meant I spent time yesterday trying to track down the articles I mentioned.

These articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "keep".

1. Jalal Salam Bin Amer
2. Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar
3. Jamil al Banna
4. Shaker Aamer
5. Rasool Shahwali Zair Mohammed Mohammed
6. Abaidullah

   These articles, related to the detention of Guantanamo captives were closed as "keep".

7. List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
8. Spc. Sean Baker
9. List of high value detainees
10. The dark prison
11. Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism
12. No-hearing hearings

    These articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "no consensus".

13. Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i
14. Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
15. Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli
16. Walid Said Bin Said Zaid
17. Brahim Yadel

    These two articles on Guantanamo captives were closed as "no consensus", but I don't understand why they weren't closed as "keep".

18. Hisham Sliti
19. Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli

It is not a complete list. As you noted, someone deleted the history of the archive. I thought this was because someone thought the archives were unnecessay. I thought they deleted all the archives. The delsorting thing wasn't created until the summer of 2006. The first deletion nominations occurred in September 2005.

More to follow. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Detailed explanation of AFD is to be commended. A "result is keep" or "delete" would have been too mindless. There are nameless terrorists that have articles and would meet similar delete criteria. Would you be willing to make a ruling. (This is not to say that all terrorist and detainees are all not notable). JerryVanF (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(This is to Geo Swan, because I can't figure out what JerryVanF means to say with his statement.) I did not mean to imply that I have doubts about your credibility, only that I cannot take into account discussions that I cannot access. The detainee AfDs you cite are from 2005 and 2006; only two "no consensus" keeps are from 2007. Consensus and policy change over time (it seems that WP:N was only created in September 2006 and did not become a guideline until much later). This means I cannot in fairness take these discussions into account when determining today's consensus. Also, several of these detainee articles seem to have multiple references to secondary sources, which means that they might even today pass WP:N more easily than al Marwa’i. That's why I won't overturn my closure on the grounds you have provided here.  Sandstein  20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I recognize that Consensus can change. Thank you for informing me your decision was not based on concluding I was not credible.

I actually have other concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously spent time looking into the articles that had been closed as "keep". I didn't thank you for making that effort. So, thanks! I appreciate it. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I can't take my time

Some of my other concerns centers around your use of arguments made in previous {{afd}}s.

You are the administrator, and I am not. And, while I have read the deletion guideline for administrators, I want to be properly deferential to your experience of implementing policy.

I wanted to take my time in expressing this concern. I am afraid I don't feel I can. One of the participants in the {{afd}} you closed has referred to your comments in this particular conversation to bolster his or her arguments in a new {{afd}} they filed. And I feel I have to rush, to put on record some of the points of concern I have with your closure, because I briefly summarized some of them in that {{afd}}.

I wrote there:

Regarding the comments of that closing administrator... In the interests of brevity I only provide counter-arguments in an {{afd}} to arguments other participants actually made in that {{afd}}. We entrust administrators with considerable authority. We authorize them to delete articles they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion, on their sole judgment. But, when they conclude an {{afd}} I believe it can be a mistake to base their concluding statements on arguments that were not made in that particular {{afd}}. I think doing so can be unfair to those making a case for "keep", because it does not allow them an opportunity to make a counter-argument.

I'd like to have had more time to phrase my concerns tactfully. Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. When closing AfDs, administrators must determine whether there is community consensus to delete an article. Evidently, the comments made in the AfD at issue are the most immediate (and most often the only) basis for this determination. However, WP:DP and WP:DGFA do not forbid administrators to also take into account the outcome of other recent AfDs that concern very similar articles. Doing so is advisable because such AfDs are also representative, to some degree, of the community's consensus about the inclusion of the type of article that is at issue. Moreover, as AfDs are not a vote, administrators are asked to take the strength of arguments into account, and they will generally do so by considering the arguments that have been made in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, as well as applicable recent precedent.

This is a necessary step in the determination of consensus, I think, especially in AfDs that concern one article out of a class of similar articles, as here. That's because looking to precedent allows us to develop a more coherent approach to the inclusion of this class of articles. This approach is not per se favourable to advocates of deletion, because applicable "keep" precedents may be taken into account in the same manner as "delete" precedents.  Sandstein  15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

more advice?

You have been patient with my requests for advice and clarfication. As you noted a lot of this material is being challenged under policies that did not exist at the time the material was contributed. As you may imagine the material being challenged represents considerable effort -- well over a thousand hours of effort. I know some people would tell me, "It is just one {{afd}}. Let it go. You are making a nuisance of yourself. You win some. You lose some. Live with it."

I am grateful you have considered my questions. I do not mean to suggest that you have a disproportionate obligation to stay involved. But I do think it is reasonable for me to continue ask questions. I found some of these recent closures simply ignored what I saw as valid counter-arguments. It seemed to me that some of the administrators making these closings shared the same unfortunate misconceptions as the challengers.

One administrator continued to assert that the article in question did not comply with "the current BLP climate". Well, which counts most -- policy, or consensus?

Yes, I understand that "consensus can change". But then, eventually, the policy should be brought into line with the new consensus. I know how to comply with a policy. I don't know how to comply with a "climate".

As I think you hinted in your closure some of the challengers made totally invalid arguments for deletion. Challenging the verifiability of the American allegations was an invalid argument. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that you are frustrated by having your hard work undone. Have you considered userfying the contested articles so that you can restore them once the persons at issue become more notable, once policy changes, or to transwikify them?

I think it's fair to say that the U.S. files about the detainees are reliable sources to the extent and for the purposes that primary sources can at all be relied upon (see WP:PSTS); this wasn't really contested in the AfD.  Sandstein  21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There were some terms you used I have questions about, if you don't mind...

What is a "generic detainee" please?

One phrase you used was, "generic detainee". I don't know what a "generic detainee" is. I am committed to being a good, compliant contributor. If other contributors are going to quote the precedence of your closure I hope you can see I need to know how to distinguish between "generic" and non-generic captives, so I can say -- "that is not what Sandstein meant." Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant to use this term as a shorthand for a detainee who is notable (if at all) only for being a Guantanamo Bay detainee because he is covered (if at all) by others only in that context, as opposed to people who might be otherwise notable.  Sandstein  21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You referred, above, to "the current Guantanamo system"

You referred, above, to "the current Guantanamo system". I'd like to clarify, if you don't mind, that there are, depending on how you count them, at least two separate and distinct systems.

Maybe you already know this. But to prevent confusion I am going to briefly spell out the most basic differences.

At total of nineteen captives have faced charges before one or more of the three attempts to set up Guantanamo military commissions. Controversially, these are claimed to be a kind of legal proceeding.

At least 572 captives had their "enemy combatant status" reviewed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. And the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants convened over a thousand of the follow-on Administrative Review Board hearings. To clarify, the Tribunal Presidents and Presiding Officers, of the OARDEC proceedings regular told captives that they were not entitled to legal counsel because those proceedings were "administrative" proceedings, not "legal" proceedings.

Now, maybe you already knew this. But a lot of my challengers labored under very considerable misconceptions. They thought the captives weren't notable, because they were no different from any other convict -- when none of the captives had then been convicted of any crimes whatsoever. Others thought the captives weren't notable, because they were no different than any other Prisoner of War -- when it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that none of the captives is entitled to POW status.

Okay, thanks again, for having the patience to read and respond to my questions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the overview, but did you mean to ask a specific question? After briefly reviewing the AfD again, it seems to me that most "delete" opinions did not argue that al Marwa’i was not notable because they thought he was an ordinary criminal or POW. They did, though, argue that he was not notable because he was not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, as is required by WP:BIO.  Sandstein  21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Thanks for your help. Just so you know this person has been using multiple IP addresses to avoid the block. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you can report them here (as {{ipvandal|...}}) or on WP:AIV. Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Nilges is back as 116.48.168.154. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the previously blocked account (s) for comparison.  Sandstein  11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently blocked as 203.218.232.185. Previously blocked as Spinoza1111. Identifies himself by name (Edward Nilges) in all cases. Thanks. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New IP blocked.  Sandstein  12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he's back yet again as 203.218.80.144 and 12.111.29.12. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are now blocked.  Sandstein  21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazanderani Page

Hi, Sorry for the delayed response, I'm talking about this article, I requested to the current version of article this version, Many of sources, details, infos, ... deleted and non-senses that i defined in the article's talk page about it added, Thank you --Parthava (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you want me to do, and why.  Sandstein  21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a dispute on the question whether the Mazanderani language is at all a language or not. The only source available online that so far has been provided says: Mazanderani is mutually unintelligible with respect to Persian. A few editors agree that the source says so, one single editor, 68.5.250.146 (talk), claims that the source is WRONG.

(68.5.250.146 (talk) sometimes is making use of another account (Nyisnotbad) and of other IPs (like 71.140.200.127), as he has done before in a long, long edit war at Amir Taheri, but they obviously are one single person.)

Because he was asked to come up with a source for his claim that Mazandarani is a dialect of Persian. No question about it but could not find one online, he started to claim that a couple of offline sources prove his point. He came up with them here. Two of them are German, and as a speaker of German you will agree that he can't even spell them correctly. His all in all four misspellings/misspacings (nord- ouest / l, Iran / Wiesbadan / Geselaschaft ) happen to be exactly the same misspellings/misspacings you can find on this list of scholarly works on the Mazanderani language. 68.5.250.146 (talk) took his 'sources' from there via copy & paste.

I understand that it is this what is making Parthava (talk) so angry. 68.5.250.146 (talk) knows that he cannot even spell his sources; I pointed it out to him on the talk page. He simply does not care, though, and so far he has prevailed. --Ankimai (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My take on mazandarani language. It is a very simple issue and all linguists agree on that. Mazandarani and Standarad persian are both West Iranian languages. However, as Mazandarani is a north-western Iranian language, persian is a south-western Iranian language. So one cannot be t adialect of the other. Intelligibility is another issue: Iranian languages are all to some extent intelligible with each other and to some extent unintelligible with each other. Luri and Bakhtiari are largely intelligible with standard Persian but this is not the case with Mazandarani which stands further away in the relationshiop with all three of them.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I just noticed this debate, but too late to contribute. I have to admit that from the Google cache, it didn't look great, but I think it could have been improved to the standards we demand. I've improved similar pages before (see the list of bestselling vehicle nameplates and the list of automobiles by sales), so would it be possible to restore the page (and its previous revisions) to my userspace? It might well be the case that I decide it's not worth it, but I'd like to give it a shot first. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced?

You stated that the article on Aegean Macedonians is 'reasonably well-sourced'. If you know the topic well, then I probably fail to understand something vital about those sources and I am open to your explanation. If you are relying on your experience as an administrator, then I also look forward to learing for the reasons of your opinion. To me, most of the sources seem at the very least 'interested parties'. I think this was a hasty decision that was made. As I mentioned, the article deals with a subject that is obscure (though not to myself) and for all the good will, prone to include serious mistakes. Correcting those mistakes and redressing the (probably unintentional) bias can only generate much heat and unecessary invectives. You may like to read my reasons for my choice. Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not the closing administrator; my opinion is not controlling. You need to talk to User:ChrisO.  Sandstein  19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but your opinion would still be most welcome; I do not want to keep you and argue the case, just that I would find your comments usefull. Thanks. Politis (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually have no opinion about the individual quality of the sources; I just noted that there were many of them and as such a WP:V deletion despite lack of consensus to delete did not appear to be required. Whatever the quality of the sources may be, the fact remains that no policy-based argument for deletion has been made.  Sandstein  19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jects‎

Greetings. I see you closed this AfD as a delete, and the main artist article is gone. But the nomination also included two articles for his records, and those remain. Would you be so kind as to clean these up as well? Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the reminder.  Sandstein  19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azalin Rex (2nd nomination)

Mind if I ask why you relisted this? A relatively good number of people participated in the discussion. Graevemoore (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there was no clear consensus to delete or keep the article, and relatively little actual discussion.  Sandstein  06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re True Scotsman

Thanks Sandstein for keeping watch over the journey of a first article -->AfD -->DYK, all happening in the nick of time. True Scotsman's team thanks you so much, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best,  Sandstein  06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)

Would it be possible to restore the article to keep contribution histories public, but redirect to the list that you said it was redudant to as a compromise? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but to what purpose? The point of deletion is to remove content from the publicly accessible database.  Sandstein  06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been viewed 64,368 of time in the most recent month alone, which suggests that editors and readers are using it as a search term. Nine or so editors in good standing in the AfD argued to either keep, not to delete, or merge, so it was not a unanimous or snowball delete, coupled with the previous AfD in December '07 closing as an unambiguous keep. If the contents of the article are not hoaxes, libelous, or copyright violations, then there is not a pressing concern to keep it deleted and by contrast good faith editors' contribution histories get to remain public, which is helpful when considering editors at RfA as non-admins can't see deleted contributions and many non-admins participate in such discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters" is a very likely search term, but nothing prevents you from creating that redirect. However, you've not convinced me that there is any practical need to restore the history of this particular article. Your arguments are equally applicable to most other deleted articles, but it's not currently our policy or practice to leave the histories of deleted articles accessible.  Sandstein  17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply; however, I see a difference between non-hoaxes with redirect locations and "most deleted articles." Therefore, I have opened a deletion review to see what others think. Respectfully, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding unblock decline

Please see this ANI thread, where I've criticised an unblock review (a decline) that you performed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  06:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of UBFS

"...because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service...". I don't see it, because UBFS is not a company, nor a product, nor agroup or nor service,... Besides, you could simply inform me first before deleting. Now i am not sure whether i can find the old copy of the article. Further, to be realistic, any articles about universities in Wiki can be regarded as a kind of "indirect advertisement"!(any article is marketing, if it meets the "wants and needs" of readers) I do regret your decision and doubt the fairness of Wiki. At least "UBFS article" doesn't deserve "speedy deletion"...2wo (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article at issue.  Sandstein  17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I though you deleted the article... How can i now provide you the link? there were two articles, one called "Ubfs" which redicts to "University of Business and Finance Switzerland". Thanks for your promt answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2wo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You must provide the wikilinks. Enclose the title of the article(s) in two square brackets, as per the instructions at the top of this page.  Sandstein  17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

University_of_Business_and_Finance_Switzerland and Ubfs(is a redirect to the first article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2wo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted per our policy Wikipedia:CSD#G11, because it was written in the style of an advertisement. I will not restore it. Before you write a new article on this topic, review WP:COI and WP:ORG, please.  Sandstein  17:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Without restoring it, makes it more work for me to rewrite anything. As said, there was no warning about "speedy deletion" before writing my article. Also, I used the content strucutre as other univeristes like ETHZ and University of Zurich, etc. I never thought that the article would be deleted due to violation of "style of writing". It the article is restored, i can simply delete those parts which are seen as "advertisment". I don't think that the whole article about UBFS is advertisement...2wo (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A warning is not required by our rules. It is your responsability to make sure that you are contributing approprate content.  Sandstein  17:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems that it is about who can better make arguments, like politics and law issues. That's why i prefer natural science, where you see exact why it is wrong, what can be proved or disaproved, and everything are reasoned... Regulations are not science, and people make judgment according to regualtions, however how well is the judgment, what is the measurement space of the judgment, is it biased?

I will study all the regulations you recommended and try to rewrite an article about UBFS when i have time. Thanks anyway. 2wo (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Hi - I was wondering what led to your closure of this AfD as no consensus. I used the same justification for deletion of this article which you closed as delete, providing a clear decision based in policy. When that was questioned, you explained your decision here on your talk page. I don't see any difference in these AfD's (other than the outcome). All lack significant secondary coverage (as you clarified in your decision) and are based solely upon primary sources. Why the difference in outcomes? I realize that either way you close it, you're going to catch flak from someone. I don't mean to put you on the spot with this, but if you see a significant difference in these AfD's, I wanted to get your input. BWH76 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference was that the second AfD was a nominations of two articles, not just one, and that several comments did not indicate which one they were talking about (such as DGG: "on the basis of the lawsuit"), which complicated the assessment of consensus with respect to the individual articles. AfD closers may not just impose their judgment on articles. They must determine consensus based on the strength of the arguments that have been made in the discussion, and I could not come to an unambiguous conclusion in this dual nomination. I recommend re-nominating these articles individually after some time; this will make it easier to assess whether these people are notable or not.  Sandstein  19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien)

There are some discussions underway outside of the AfD with its limited participation to have merged some of that content. Considering that it was hardly a unanimous AfD anyway, I request that it be restored and perhaps relisted as the merge discussions and efforts continue. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Consensus was to delete, not merge, and I'll not restore content that has been found to be original research. Any merge discussions (to which you provide no link) should have occurred before or during the AfD.  Sandstein  18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was not really that strong to delete and Wikipedia does not have a deadline; AfDs are not an endall to merge discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are, because you cannot merge what is no longer there.  Sandstein  20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the article should be restored. After all, out of universe secondary source information does exist. Consider: "The actual job of restoring the derelict, as well as creating The LA Effects Group reconstructed the derelict alien ship from the first film for scenes..." from Frederick S. Clarke, Cinefantastique Vol. 37, no. 9 (winter 2006). Or "The look of the film too is extraordinary, thanks to the brilliant design, both of the creature and the derelict alien spaceship, by the Swiss surrealist..." from James E. Gunn, The New encyclopedia of science fiction (Viking, 1998), which by the way further demonstrates that the article is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on science fiction as it's in fact covered by published specialized encyclopedias. Or "DERELICT EXTERIOR 5 March 1978, London In Scott's office in Lexington..." in H. R. Giger, Giger's Alien (Morpheus International, 1994), 22). In other words, plenty of reliable sources exist from which the out of universe coverage can be expanded upon. Plus, the ship does not merely appear in the movie, but even as [ http://cgi.ebay.com/Micro-Machines-ALIENS-DERELICT-SHIP_W0QQitemZ150243448107QQihZ005QQcategoryZ16483QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247 toys]. Now granted I found these after the AfD, but all that goes to show is a sort of problem with AfDs in that sometimes even just as they close sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

These are mentions of the ship in secondary sources, not the sort of substantial coverage that one would need for an article. And the toy miniature is not a source, it is a physical object (a primary source, if you want). Anyway, if you are convinced that this is now article-worthy, the proper way to go about it is to write a brief, well-sourced article in userspace and petition DRV for permission to move it to the main space. If permission is granted, the history can then be undeleted.  Sandstein  20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They are nevertheless mentions in reliable secondary sources and even in a specialized encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is, at that. They along with the primary sources lay the basis for an article on a topic that can be presented with both in and out of univserse coverage. The toy minature is only one such toy or model (I didn't want to flood you with sources and examples) and shows that it was not merely in the movie. What has not been done yet and what I suggested in my last comment in the AfD was for checks through science fiction and now maybe even toy magazines that could reasonably expand on the reliable secondary source coverage. In any event, why not restore the article, allow me to add what sources I have found, and maybe relist it or something to see what others have to say? After all, we are a community of thousands of editors of which about a half dozen commented in the AfD, not all of which argued to delete. Of those using shortcuts for their arguments, one says it fails the still not yet policy FICTION guideline, whereas another says it passes that guideline. Regarding the claim of original research, if I use even those I mentioned above, as they are secondary sources, it would mean that the article would not be original research and they also address the verfiability concerns, too. The ship appears in the extended version of Aliens as well as in Alien. So, it has multiple appearances in two unquestionably notable films, the novelization of the first film, as a toy, etc. and has at least some out of universe coverage turned up in online searches. I think that is sufficient enough to justify keeping it around for those who have access to sci fi and toy magazines to come along, discover the article, and expand it even further. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, these arguments do not cause me to change my mind about the outcome of the AfD. I do not have anything to add to what I have said above, except that the mere mention of the ship in sources does not constitute sufficient sourcing for most of the article to stop being OR.  Sandstein  06:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake

I have in good faith initiated a deletion review of Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.   — C M B J   23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not doubted your good faith, but I note that you have made no effort to contact me prior to initiating your DRV.  Sandstein  06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Jo Kopechne page redirected

I am not a registered user of Wikipedia.

On the morning of May 20, 2008(PDT), I read the Mary Jo Kopechne page. Later the same day I again went to that page and read something completely different. It is because you have redirected the Mary Jo Kopechne page, as I learned when I went here:

[[1]]

I disagree that the pages are substantially the same, they are, in fact, completely different. I have been advised by a wikipedia editor that you did not play by the rules when you did this redirect without any discussion.

I would ask that you undo the redirect, or at least engage a discussion about it. Thank you. 154.20.4.19 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, no, the rules tell us that we're supposed to take bold action to improve the encyclopedia; see WP:BOLD.

About the redirect: one of our rules, WP:BLP1E, advises us not to write an article about a person if that person is generally known only for one event. In that case, we're supposed to write an article about the event, not the person.

That's what I did here: Mary Jo Kopechne is only known to the general public because she died in the Chappaquiddick incident. Unsurprisingly, that means that the article about her was almost only about her death in the incident. That's redundant; we should have only one article about the same topic. That's why I redirected the article. If there is any notable fact about Mary Jo Kopechne that's not already in the other article, we can add it there. What do you think?  Sandstein  19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Chappaquiddick incident reads like the National Enquirer, it is filled with unproved allegations. Whereas the incident as described on the Mary Jo Kopechne page is reasonably factual, and now it is inaccessible to the public. I think it's just plain wrong that people should be redirected from a reasonably factual account to a tabloid trash page. 154.20.4.19 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)