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

Revert the Deletion of page Bandari_(AVC)

Hi Sandstein,

Today I come the page Bandari_(AVC) and sadly find it is been deleted. I propose to recover it.

From the page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bandari_(AVC), I read several reasons for its deletion. In one sentence that is "Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND".

I admit that there are few material can be found about this "band". Actually, from the Chinese news paper dated 2015-07-29 (which is an interview of the founder of Bandari), we know that the "Bandari" as a stable band never exist. But its musics and the styles are real, the musics are performed by invited musicians and some songs are composed by invited composers. And all these arrangements are done by Peter Pozza, the founder of AVC. AVC is producing [meditation musics].

Bandari not only confuse you people outside China, but also confuse us. In a stackoverflow-like chinese ask-and-answer website called Zhihu, there is a question about [the existence of Bandari]. The top answer there is convincing, and the most vital evidence is the Chinese news paper interview mention in the above paragraph and the existence of [AVC].

I think, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not miss such a (countrywide) famous music production team. They are not typical band, thus the rules of WP:BAND should not apply. Instead, to my understanding, Bandari is a brand of a small company. This brand is almost unknown to the rest of the world because it is a cooperation between AVC and a Taiwan company, and the CD was released only in Chinese regions.

If anyone need assistance about Chinese language (e.g. in order to understand related reference), I could do it, although I'm not wikipedia-online every day.

Wanttoknow (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, Onel5969, Richard3120, and 31.61.114.124: What is your view as AfD contributors? Sandstein 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I always go back to GNG. If sources can be found, then by all means I wouldn't care if the article was created. Looking at the AfD, the nom, the two delete !votes and the single comment all seem to agree that issue is scarcity of sources. As User:power~enwiki points out, due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add here, and find myself in agreement with the view of Onel5969 above. Ultimately, notability rests upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines: essentially, in this case we need at least two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Some indication of meeting WP:BAND would be helpful, but WP:BAND does not provide presumed notability, only stating that acts that meet some of its requirements may be notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer the questions above asked by Onel5969, Northamerica1000 and 31.61.114.124.

Q: At least two independent reliable sources.
A: See below. I consider Source 1 and Source 2 been reliable.

Source 1: 2005-07-29 Guangming Online (Chinese) (sorry I mistakenly wrote 2015-07-29 at the beginning). The author is Jun Liu a Guangming Daily journalist at Geneva. In this news interview, Liu meet Peter Pozza the "father" of Bandari at Zurich. Mr. Peter talked about why and how Bandari was created. If you want to know more about this news or related, I could translate.

Source 2: [AVC meditation music], where the first sentence reads: "Music for relaxation and dreaming has a name - BANDARI.". And the songs listed in that page under category Bandari are occured in the published CD sold in China. This (together with source 1) proves that AVC is the producer of Bandari.

Source 3: [Bandari Global (Chinese)]. Probably a fan-made website. Has a full list of Bandari albums.

Source 4: [last.fm/Bandari]. This shows the existance of Bandari outside China. iTunes also contains Bandari songs.

Q: Due to the media control by China, we might never be able to find appropriate sourcing.
A: A trolling topic. You can freely access the web site I listed, including the two in Chinese (Source 1 and 3). And you are freely to use any search engine to search Chinese website. There is no point to "control" anything in this particular topic.
Q: "A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful.", "Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia."
A: OK, OK, I'm here now, what do you want me to do? I speak Chineses, and I have done various search about Bandari already.

Wanttoknow (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see Citrivescence - is two of those sources are simple listings, which show existence, but not notability. A third does not appear to be a reliable source. So that leaves only the interview. Technically, interviews are primary sources, but can be used for notability depending on content. As we are having more and more articles with Chinese articles, it's important to have Chinese speakers be able to vette these sources. Sandstein - perhaps you can recover the article, and move into draft space to allow this editor to work on getting 2-3 in-depth sources to show notability? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Walkiewicz

I'm not sure why a relist wouldn't have been useful. I've already said that if I thought the AFD was anywhere close to a delete, I'd have tried to improve the article and find more references - which I've never tried to do - and isn't a part of the DRV process. Given the false claims that GNG isn't a guideline, but a policy (?!?) surely the DRV should be closed by someone who is comfortable commenting on the the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG! Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is part of Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline, not a policy. We normally relist AfDs only twice. Sandstein 16:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can point to dozens of AfDs that were relisted 3 times, and some that were relisted four times. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's a guideline. Though during the DRV, many endorsements gave GNG undue weight, with the belief it was a policy. (WP:V is the policy - which was met ... GNG is a guideline, like WP:ATH). Normally we don't have DRV discussions for AfDs ... so we are already past normal here. Nfitz (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nfitz here and will also point out that many (not all) of the endorse !votes simply attempted to rehash the AfD by saying the article failed GNG without addressing whether the closer addressed consensus correctly. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since there was a DRV of a DRV. But this one is probably there. I'd ask that you please take another look at this. My sense is that you do have a fairly strong opinion on the GNG/SNG issue and that most other admins would have closed it differently. Again, just asking that you consider undoing the close and letting someone else have at it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't see how I can find a consensus to overturn here. I did write that I do not want to put my thumb on the scale regarding the GNG/SNG issue, so I'm not sure where you get your sense from. It is normal that in a 11:7 situation there will be people who are disappointed with the closure no matter how the discussion is closed. But such is life. Sandstein 06:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am puzzled by your interpretation Sandstein. I agree with the 11 others who came to the review and with Hobit's call for a review. The first close of the AfD was wrong, and now you have endorsed the wrong. I do not think you should close these as I have said before. This is at least the third puzzling review closure. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "too bad so sad" is the appropriate next step here. What's the DRV appeal process? Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the deletion process does not provide for an appeal of a DRV discussion. But the article can be recreated if it is substantially different and the reasons for which it was deleted are addressed. Sandstein 19:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few DRVs have been discussed at ANI over the years, but almost all of the ones that were overturned were egregiously bad closes. I'm not sure this qualifies, and filing an ANI report is not something one should do frivolously. However, if as Lightburst suggested there is a pattern of bad closes from Sandstein (I don't follow DRV closely enough to weigh in on that), ANI would be the place to address that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: ANI is a soul crushing place.

Here is a close where Sandstein says they could find reason to overturn since it is 20-15, but nah they do not want to because they did not like three of the !votes.
In the same situation, here they again find no consensus but decides to relist. Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident 8 endorse, 5 overturn, so he went against the 8 !voters.
In this case 2 to 1 in favor of overturning the closure on JK! Studios but nah...Sandstein declined. overturn and reclose 14 to 8 endorse.
In this clear no-consensus Sandstein cast a Supervote and deleted the article at AfD. Clear no-consensus at AfD.
Then of course there is the latest one Ryszard Walkiewicz. It seems Sandstein decides, sometimes relist, sometimes endorse, sometimes reject consensus in favor of a supervote. Not evenly applied IMO.

We are at the mercy of administrators and they do not evenly apply the policies and guidelines. I was involved in these examples so I imagine I have a COI. However I have questioned Sandstein each time. And you can see this last time they have not responded to me. IMO Going to deletion review and getting support for a desired outcome means nothing if Sandstein closes. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to complain and Sandstein is unresponsive, the next step is probably ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI doesn't feel like the right course of action here. Though I'm puzzled how if this was soley a review of the AFD, and there was only one valid delete comment at AFD (given both the nomination and the other delete claimed that NFOOTBALL wasn't met), and little more said than name-checking AFD, how this isnt' a simple case. I'm also confused how it's difficult, given that WP:N cleary says that either GNG or things like WP:FOOTBALL must be met, with no particular over-riding emphasis given to either.

It's highly suboptimal to review a DRV at ANI. DRV is a slow, thoughtful process that reaches a considered decision about content after 7 days. ANI is a quick and dirty process that reaches a random decision about conduct after a random period of time. I would suggest that with a content decision, such as this one, the "highest court in the land" is a 30-day RfC. The question should be about whether, in principle, SNGs trump the GNG or vice versa.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be worth doing in general. In this particular case, GNG wasn't raised in the nomination, and merely name-checked in delete votes. We never had a discussion or search for GNG sources. Nfitz (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support ANI in any circumstance. This is just an extremely disappointing end to an admittedly difficult and unique circumstance - a majority of !voters had policy-compliant keep !votes at AfD, and a majority of !voters suggested overturning the AfD at DRV, and that wasn't enough to keep a perfectly valid article. I know it wouldn't necessarily be within any guideline except for WP:IAR, but considering I think you could find no consensus exists about what to do in this policy circumstance at any step of the way, I don't think a no consensus finding which would also change the AfD to no consensus would be out of procedure here. However, if Sandstein isn't willing to consider this, then it's just an extremely unfortunate run of events and we should move on, though I would support a very limited RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) ^{^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)}[reply]
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: it doesn't need water won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Deletion review for Devlin Waugh

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Devlin Waugh. 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. Richard75 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oromo migration

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oromo migrations

Why the discussion was closed?