Jump to content

User talk:Sandstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SonofSetanta (talk | contribs) at 16:32, 6 December 2018 (→Appeal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
  • 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


A page I created that you deleted

Hello, a page Doğukan Yüce that I created was deleted by you and there is refrences to show his notability but I don’t know why it was still deleted. Please I want you to undelete it. Ziggy 2milli (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doğukan Yüce was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doğukan Yüce, and you do not provide any information that would call this decision into question. I will therefore not undelete the article. Sandstein 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)‎

Hello,

I realize I'm a brand spanking new editor, and you're wikifamous, but I don't see the consensus to delete these page. It seems to me like the discussion was pretty evenly split (no consensus). I noticed you said you found the arguments for historical significance unconvincing because they referred to links in prior AfD discussions (which is what I did one of my posts). I thought referring to the link to RSes establishing historical significant/notability would cut down on spam/repetition, I had no idea a closing admin would consider where the links were (here or there) in determining consensus. That being the case, I ask that you unclose and relist the discussion so I can include links to articles showing that TV programming schedules are historically significant (and thus permitted under WP:NOTTVGUIDE). Thanks, Levivich (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. The discussion ran for three weeks; this was ample time for introducing evidence about the significance (if there is any) of these TV programming schedules. In addition, I find it difficult to imagine that there are sources that establish all of three decades' worth of TV programming as particularly historically significant. This is clearly not what WP:NOTTVGUIDE refers to. Sandstein 18:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree three weeks is ample time to present evidence of historical significance. I thought I had done so by linking to the previous AfDs that contained such evidence. I didn't realize I had to copy-and-paste it into the current AfD. Had I known, I would have done so. That's why I'm asking for an opportunity to do so now.
You have expressed your doubts that there are any RS establishing historical significance of television schedules. I hope this changes your mind.
Here are the sources in previous AfDs that I was referring to; the ones I didn't know I should have copied-and-pasted into the current AfD. This is what I'd like to add to the current AfD for editors' consideration:

Please reconsider your decision and re-open this AfD so I can share the above sources with other editors, and we can hopefully achieve (stronger, clearer) consensus. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea for you Levivich, create a fansite to publish all the TV schedules from however long ago. That is where they belong. Why does this content need to be on Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question and one I'd love to expound upon if this AfD were unclosed, but I don't want to get into a debate on another editor's talk page. Short answer: these lists deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because they are historically significant, notable, verifiable, and useful, and in addition, because they exist and they've passed multiple AfDs in the past, which suggests a lot of people have agreed they should be included, over a long period of time. Perhaps a better question than "Why should they be here?" is "Do we have consensus to delete them?" Out of respect to this editor, I'll answer any questions put to me but I'm not going to argue this AfD any further on this talk page after this post. It is not my intention to "argue the keep" here, just to discuss with the closing admin about the possibility of unclosing this AfD so additional sources can be put forward and discussed. The admin's reasons for the closure were clearly stated, I've submitted my "evidence," and the closing admin will either unclose it or not; I don't think a back-and-forth is useful, but let me know if you disagree. I hope this is unclosed and I'm looking forward to discussing this further on the AfD page. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, this is an impressive amount of sources. But I remain unconvinced that it would have materially impacted the AfD. Based on the titles, these sources establish that the topic of (US) TV programming is well covered by reliable sources. These sources would be a good basis for a prose article about US TV programming, which might include some exemplary schedules, but they do not establish that we need to include all of the uncommented and uncontextualized primary data itself, in apparent violation of WP:NOT. I therefore decline to relist or undo my AfD closure. Sandstein 07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think thebetter close was non-consensus, whether one wishes for one result or the other. Myself, I made a commitment back at my RfA 11 years ago to only close a genuinely disputed AfD, if the result is against my own opinion. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako (2nd nomination)

Can you please reconsider this close as no consensus, I don't know what state the article was in, but I've found numerous reliable sources giving her extensive coverage. Such as [1], [2] and held the Guinness World Record as oldest living person. The reason why sources are covering her is because "being the oldest is notable". Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not one event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE apply because most sources do not just state their age, they question their lifestyle to research how such longevity is achieved. I hope DGG (talk · contribs) can also give input here. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to mention there maybe some bias in the AfD. The users JFG, Newshunter12, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and another editor have been mobbing supercentenarians as of late voting delete regardless of sources provided, I hope this can be taken into consideration. Valoem talk contrib 15:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • {tps} The article didn't include your WPost citation, but it did the Guinness one. Basically, the article read "She was born on this date, she lived for 117 years, and died on this date. She was the world's oldest person for 3 months. She credited eating eel, drinking red wine, and never smoking for her longevity." And that was pretty much it. So it's unsurprising that the AfD was closed the way it was. Unfortunately, the WPost article says practically nothing more than that (apart from mentioning calligraphy). In the end, without extensive coverage to meet GNG, it's a discussion about whether reaching an arbitrary age is notable. As you can see from the AfD, the Keep votes said "yes that's notable" and nothing else. I don't think Sandstein could have closed the AfD any other way, and absent large amounts of coverage for her from other reliable sources, I don't see that changing. If you look at other people in the list of Top 10 oldest people ever, they either (a) don't have an article at all, (b) have a well-sourced article (i.e. Sarah Knauss, Emma Morano), (c) are redirected to a simple list (Miyako), or (d) where there is some information on them they are redirected to a list where there is a paragraph about them (Marie-Louise Meilleur). I would say that (d) is certainly a possibility here. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I totally agree. It's just that the AfD here was closed properly. In fact, if you've got a minute ... the Keep votes came from (a) one editor with 27 edits ever. and previously none since 2014 (b) one who bullet-posted Keeps on every longevity-related AfD including the edit-summary "Stop assaulting coverage of the AMAZINGLY old!" (c) an editor who mysteriously turned up after very few edits to vote Keep on a whole bunch of longevity AfDs (again, with the rationale "oldest is notable") and (d) an account that hadn't edited for two years and made this one Keep vote - and hasn't edited since. Indeed, the only vote to come from an account in decent standing was from User:Jjj1238, and even they only said "oldest person - notable". So regardless of the fact that there was almost certainly off-wiki canvassing going on here, the closing admin could disregard most of the Keep votes anyway. If you can contruct a good article that meets GNG, then that would be great. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the closer was incorrect either, I just want permission to allow recreation if the history can be restored I can work on a version with new sources so that db-repost does not apply. I hope than when the version is ready Sandstein can mainspace it so a mobbing edit war does not occur. Valoem talk contrib 16:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem, you are free to recreate the article if it is substantially different from the deleted version, for example if it draws on these new sources, but it can then be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restore the history of the page it helps me in creating new articles. Valoem talk contrib 16:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I generally do not undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND whether somebody wants to do that. Sandstein 16:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanstein, given that you do not object, I am willing to undelete and move to draftspace, & then I'll move it back when the refs get added. Since we have so many new refs to add, the AfD will have ended in the best possible way, by producing an improved article. In line with this, are here any others to draftify also? DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help me

hi dear. i watch pan- .... articles. but :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arab_colors - exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavic_colors - exist

and :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Pan-Iranian_colors but this article was deleted by you. why?

can you help me and send me in my talk page content of this?

i like to see content of this article? and why ? reason of delet? while slavik and arabic article now is exist. ?

i need content of this article. thanksEdejuasa (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Iranian colors was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan-Iranian colors, where editors described it as a "completely bogus self-made fantasy article" and "completely unsourced, appears to be original research". I will not restore such content. See WP:WAX as to why other articles of this kind still exist. Sandstein 16:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sibel Kekilli

Sibel Kekilli was indeed a pornstar. You know it. You are not working for the betterment of the project. Your point of view doesn't repudiate documented facts. SolarFlash (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SolarFlash: That she worked in porn is not in dispute. That this needs to be mentioned in the lead of her article is. Sandstein 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is more than worthy of mention in the lead section, as at one point it was certainly the single thing she was notable for. But I have better things to do. SolarFlash (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). 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. Levivich (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Thank you for your helpful comments but I am afraid I am totally lost. When one isn't dealing with ArbCom on a regular basis the ability to navigate is lost. Can you point me in the right direction please? Thank you so much. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=872317732"