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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pikachu (sculpture)

Please have a closer reading of the nomination and comments. The criteria mentioned in the nomination were discredited. The bulk of the "merge" editors were contingent on the lack of sustained coverage which was proven false (sustained existed). Some editors were balanced on the edge of Keep and merge and stated that they could have gone either way - and this was before sustained coverage was proven. Respectfully, you may have gotten this one wrong (it happens). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Most "merge" opinions were made after Bri posted what he considered sustained coverage. This suggests that most participants were unconvinced by this argument. Coverage in sources is a necessary, but not determinative criterium for inclusion; participants may well have been of the view that, the amount of coverage notwithstanding, the topic is better covered in an existing article. Sandstein 15:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Bir's comments, but Another Believer's, who laid out full details and made the case for sustained coverage five days later in the AfD. A merge couldn't use the image, which defines the page, and removes a page of a United States statue of a Japanese cultural icon, which probably is a rarity. I've read the comments again, and per weight of argument and discussion points it's hard to see a reasonable merge close rather than a Keep or a no consensus between merge and keep, especially given the points made in the nomination were certainly refuted. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that Another Believer's opinion was so persuasive as to command great weight. They did not "lay out full details", but merely asserted the existence of detailed coverage, without citing a single specific source. This kind of argument is generally given little weight at AfD: everybody can assert anything they want, but unless they cite sources, they are not taken seriously. Sandstein 13:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to belabor this discussion, but I think the importance of a unique North American statue of a Japanese cultural icon merits further interest. Another Believer (ping since his name is being mentioned) obviously meant the detailed references on the page, but since he didn't individually link them to the AfD his crucial comment was not taken seriously in your close? AfD editors often refer to "page sources", "external links", etc. without linking them. Please consider reopening the AfD so those ignored sources within AB's summary can be linked and you can then inspect them. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if he meant the sources already cited in the article, then these obviously didn't convince most other editors. I decline to reopen the AfD. Sandstein 12:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Sandstein. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 12

Not sure I should reply here or on your talk page, but...

Thanks for closing the DelRev, Sandstein. I did do what you suggested, though, here, before listing this DelRev. Should I list it again? Thanks. — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Sandstein 09:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga, I've moved this thread to my talk page.

It appears that your RfD was cut short by the deletion later at issue in the DRV. That deletion having been undone, I think you are free to re-nominate the redirect at RfD again. Sandstein 09:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it be easier to reopen the deletion discussion? --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's a month old, so a new thread would be better, I think. Sandstein 15:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Renominated. --Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Enos733. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I listed the RfD after the deletion (and the ANI had transpired), precisely as a test case for ... all the other redirects as well, but anyways... — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Unblocking of my username

Hello! I want my username unblocked so I can use that. It has advantages to have a username. It has been blocked for six years. I know that I have abused accounts excessively. It is only me who have used those IP addresses even though they are shared by public computers. Socking is a big problem for everyone. I will communicate and co-operate with you in a better way. {{Unblock|I will communicate better with you and use my username}}

88.88.4.178 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please make an unblock request on your user talk page, see WP:GAB. Sandstein 15:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiteja Mukkamalla

Hi. The majority of the votes in the AfD were keep. Why did you decide to close it as redirect? An user also commented that is finding something to add within the next 48 hours. Thanks Human (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning at the top of the discussion. AfD discussions are closed after 7 days. Sandstein 06:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Wife guy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wife guy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife guy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Akash Ambani AfD

Your close does not seem accurate. 11 editors wanted the article to be deleted or redirected and only 6 wanted to keep it. That's a huge gap and the opinion was not divided at all. WP:NOTINHERITED and especially WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME was never addressed which the subject obviously fails. You should modify your closure as consensus to redirect. >>> Extorc.talk 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The difference was not so lopsided as to amount to consensus to deletion. Besides, the "delete / redirect" side was not strongly argued: they dismissed most coverage as resulting from the subject's father, but coverage for whatever reason is a prima facie indication of notability. WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is an essay describing common outcomes and not a guideline. Sandstein 18:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There is not a single source (of all that had been provided) which won't make it clear that the coverage is being provided to the subject merely for being the son of Mukesh Ambani. How that does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED? Same was the case in the previous AfD which resulted in deletion, so why it couldn't be redirected this time since nothing has changed? Yes, WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is a common outcome, but it contradicts the outcome of this AfD. >>> Extorc.talk 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

These arguments did not convince sufficient people to establish consensus. Sandstein 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)