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

super-recursive algorithm

You decided in favor of keeping this article. Your judgement was justified with "no consensus". By that, did you mean "no consensus among Wikipedia administrators who looked at the AfD discussion" or "no consensus among those who discussed deletion"?

I ask this because it's not clear to me what the criteria are for a decision to keep or delete. If it's based on tallying votes of those who discussed, are these votes weighted in any way by credentials of those voting?

The subject was (implicitly) claimed to be a notable topic in theoretical computer science, by an anonymous single purpose account user with a prose style featuring flaws nearly identical to those of the main promoter of the idea of super-recursive algorithms.

A logician in the discussion read the background material and confessed that, after reading, he still had no clear idea of what "super-recursive algorithm" really meant -- and, of course, after reading all that, he should have understood, if there was anything to understand.

A noted computer scientist, Vaughan Pratt voted for deletion, noting in the process that a review by Martin Davis, a Turing Award winner, of the only book on the subject of super-recursive algorithms (whatever they are), was sarcastically dismissive of the book for its lack of any proven results on super-recursive algorithms per se, mathematical or otherwise.

At least one participant with a serious logic/theory background erased his early keep votes.

I nominated the article for deletion after noting that there was little (if any) actual theory to speak of, and no clear citation of any independent peer-reviewed article on the subject. (I have yet to find an unambiguous case of that.)

I repeated my challenge to find one unambiguously independent, peer-reviewed treatment of the subject in the literature on the Talk page and in the AfD discussion. Here, I repeat that challenge to you. If nobody else could find one (not even Multipundit, the author of the article), maybe you could give it a try? And if none turns up, what's the case for Wikipedia notability here? It must be based on something I missed in reading notability guidelines for scientific topics. Yakushima (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the AfD. Sandstein 13:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See updated header (it was "super-recursive algorithm", I mistaken wrote "super-recursive algorithms". Yakushima (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-recursive algorithm, then. I have no opinion about the substance of the dispute and won't comment on your opinion above. As administrator, I must simply determine whether there is consensus to delete an article; this was not the case in this instance. There's nothing more for me to do here. If you still think the article is deficient, you can re-nominate it for deletion after a few months if it has not improved. Sandstein 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I renominate it for deletion if I've improved it, even if the improvements amount to little more than exhaustively documenting how there's no WP-notable topic in computer science called "super-recursive algorithms"? There isn't much else left to do with this article. There is no independent peer reviewed work on the topic. Multipundit, the original author and persistent POV-pusher of the article, wasn't able to come up with any such references when challenged. A librarian offered a keep vote, but wasn't able to come up with one. Which is to say, the "improved" Wikipedia article will end up showcasing the topic as the kind of thing that shouldn't be on Wikipedia: junk science that isn't even notable junk science. People with the expertise to write about abstruse (but hardly insignificant) computing theory topics might be excused for thinking that Wikipedia's treatment of their field makes trying to contribute a waste of time.

Your field is jurisprudence? Let's see how it would sit with you:

You notice an article about a legal topic with so little substance that nobody, except a few outside the specialty, even bother writing about it. When they do write, they don't write much - mostly they briefly cite and move on. You try to find independent, peer-reviewed sources that would, by discussing the topic at significant length, substantiate the notability of this problematic, small-minority-view legal topic. After all, isn't it possible that somebody has written an entire peer-reviewed article just to point out that the topic's foundation consists of laughable errors? You discover that the topic had somehow come to the attention of one of the most highly regarded specialists in the relevant legal field. However, this scholar had only written a scathingly sarcastic, dismissive review of a (non-peer reviewed) book written by the only person really pushing the topic. Moreover, because book reviews -- even by noted authorities -- aren't peer reviewed, even that review doesn't qualify as peer reviewed work. You discuss the topic's notability with others who are blessed with more (in some cases, far more) than your own credentials in the field, and they agree: there's nothing here. Their consensus: Delete, and maybe just add a few lines about it as a small-minority view in an article collecting small-minority views.

The decision goes to a Wikipedia admin who is an intelligent person (let's say, a good computing theorist?), but unfortunately, one knows nothing about the field of law. This admin scans the AfD discussion and counts the "keep" votes of those who know nothing about the field of law -- apparently weighing them as if they weighed equally with estimable legal scholars, some of whom are actually in the legal specialty in which this topic would be addressed if it were actually a topic. This admin, not seeing consensus, delivers the verdict: "No consensus, keep."

If you were a legal scholar (and I gather you are), would you contribute to an encyclopedia on legal topics if that were the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, as we're an encyclopedia that anyone can anonymously edit, we're in practice unable to reliably assess anyone's credentials in a particular field. For that reason, when closing AfDs, administrators do weigh the strength of arguments, but they can't do so based on the knowledge the contributors have in the field of knowledge at issue. Instead, administrators look to the strength of argument with respect to our inclusion policies, specifically WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:BLP and WP:N – essentially, the more coverage in reliable sources something has, the likelier are we to include it, and counting sources is something even nonspecialists are able to do. Sorry, that's the way we work, and if you find it unsatisfiying, this project may not be ideal for you. There's nothing to prevent you from immediately renominating the article for deletion, but if you do it too soon and/or with no new arguments, this may be viewed as disruptive. Sandstein 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a hypothetical case where the shoe was on the other foot: an admin with a computing theory background, but with no legal knowledge to speak of, decided that there was enough coverage of a topic in what seemed to him to be reliable sources, even though those in the discussion who knew the topic knew the sources were not reliable on legal subjects. What would you do? Keep rolling the AfD dice, in hopes that the final decision would eventually go to admin who could assess the reliability of the sources? What is the best thing to do in cases like these? Yakushima (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken about the role of AfD closers. We don't decide about the merits of an article or its sources. We decide whether there's consensus among editors, as viewed in the light of applicable policy and guidelines, to delete an article. The community trusts admins to do that even though they may have no experience about the subject matter of an article. It all boils down to: we're an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sandstein 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Jeremy Nell

When you closed the discussion for Jeremy Nell, you forgot to close it for Urban Trash and Ditwits too. rrcatto (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to the AfD? Sandstein 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Nell rrcatto (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done now; thanks. Sandstein 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jill Elaine Hughes

Why was this page deleted??? It had been in Wikipedia for nearly 5 years. I am an internationally produced and published playwright and novelist, not a random vandal. Explanation, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill hughes (talk • contribs)

Nobody says you're a vandal. However, our community of editors has decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Elaine Hughes that you are not notable enough to be included in our encyclopedia - i.e., there is not enough being written about you in third party sources, such as in newspapers, that could form the basis of an entry about you. Sandstein 06:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD R1 from Ty Lee

I want to rebuild Ty Lee's link, since the reason for deleting was something stupid like she was deleted to a dead link. I fixed the link, by switching from Avatar list of minor characters to giving her own page for the time being, so I'm going to recreate it. Please do not auto-revert or something like that. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. These characters have been found to be non-notable in AfDs; in addition, there are no third party sources cited about her. See WP:FICT, WP:N. Sandstein 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Architectural design values

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Architectural design values. 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. Smile a While (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Berne)

On 4 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Berne), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning that up for me. I'll be more careful if I ever do a non-admin closure in future. -- Mark Chovain 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best, Sandstein 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIPFG

Re your closing statemnent in the above AfD, I would like to further enquire as to the extent to which you feel reasonable people have "disagreed over the application of WP:ORG". Specifically, I would say that there does not appear to be any thread within the debate which has demonstrated that the sources cited are anything but trivial sources. Yet the debate has attracted comments from a couple of well-established AfD participants, who said that in their subjective view this may be borderline notable (one of whom voted to redirect), but still without showing how this notability is established. I know you did not resort to merely counting votes to resolve the impasse, because there were only 4 'keep' votes out of 13 participants, so am wondering how you made the decision. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were also three "merge" opinions, which for AfD purposes is a variant of "keep", as it does not involve deletion. That means there's no numerical consensus. No opinions were so clearly outside established policy and guidelines (WP:ATA) that I had to discount them; and there were also no arguments that forced me to delete irrespective of consensus (such as copyvio or irremediable core policy violations). Essentially, the trend of the discussion was that this organisation is probably not not notable enough, but there was no consensus to remedy that though deletion. You could claim with some justification, though, that the outcome allows you to merge the article to somewhere else. I couldn't really close the AfD as "merge" because no clear merge target emerged from the discussion. Sandstein 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kramgasse

On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kramgasse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – again! Sandstein 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD edit

Hi. Thanks for your message. Although the edit concerned was automated, updating the template links would seem wise before they become red. What do you think? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Closed AfDs must not be edited, and comments by other people must also not be edited (see WP:TPG). Your edit did not change template links, but article links. They don't need to be updated; that's what redirects are for. Please do not make any more such edits. Also, please make particularly sure that you manually check all automated edits. Sandstein 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again; my having been busy working on templates must also have contributed to my oversight. Thanks for the repair. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best, Sandstein 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotheology

Sandstein, is it possible to view the edit history of a deleted entry? Currently I cannot view the history of Astrotheology, and perhaps that's just how it works, but is there a way to delete it and keep the history? I would appreciate the ability to do so, but if not possible then clearly it is what it is. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, only administrators are able to view deleted pages. Sandstein 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is what it is. Thanks for answering. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain

I'm cross-posting at the talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Since you userfied this for me, I've now made some small alterations, which are explained in greater detail at User talk:DeLarge/Top 10 best selling cars in Britain. Basically, I've flipped the page so that the latest years are at the bottom (to make the TOC more intuitively navigable), and converted the 2005-2007 data into tables which now include precise sales figures.

The work done so far was quite labour-intensive, so before I commit more time to this, I'd appreciate any feedback to say whether it's worthwhile continuing with the years prior to 2005. Thanks in advance for any comments you can offer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think the objections at the AfD were against the concept and content of this list (it was viewed as indiscriminate and unimportant), not against the way in which it was formatted. I'd not continue if I were you. Sandstein 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerechtigkeitsgasse

On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerechtigkeitsgasse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again! Sandstein 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Review

Hi Sandstein. I'm taking Derelect (Alien) to deletion review. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMK AfD Review

Did you manage to preserve the BMK article that I could modify it, or was it totally deleted? Douglasnicol (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the article or AfD at issue. Sandstein 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF ISRAELI APARTHEID

I originally posted the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28closed.29

but was told it was the wrong forum. You directed me here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8#Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid_.28closed.29

On the bottom of the article it tells me to go back to the deletion review process and submit the article again.

So, could you perhaps tell me I can nominate this article for deletion?? The previous review process had an overwhelming vote for delete, but I guess that didn't work out. I'm very concerned about wikipedia hosting a propaganda piece, so any response will be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the deletion review process at the bottom of the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid. To nominate that article for deletion, follow the instructions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. Before you do that, please read WP:BEFORE. Sandstein 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not understanding how to do this. I tried adding it but it says wrong template. On the how-to page, it says insert code into page. What page?! Here:

"Insert the [insert code here] tag at the top of the page if it's the article's first AfD nomination"

what page?! I just want to nominate this page for deletion!

I'm not really technologically saavy! thanks for the quick response Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you cannot follow these instructions, you should try to become much more familiar with Wikipedia's general processes before trying to initiate a deletion discussion. I'm not best qualified to provide technical support of this kind; please ask at WP:Help desk. Sandstein 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify briefly, "the page" means the article that you want to propose for deletion. Sandstein 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your quick response. I'm just very new at this. I never realized wikipedia was this complex. XD again, thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shad Helmstetter

Hello, I'm wondering why my article was deleted. Dr Shad Helmstetter is a noted self help speaker very similar to Tony Robbins, which I see his page is still active. He is most definitely a verifiable reference. Please explain why the page was removed.

Seth