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

Precedent set for other related articles like this?

Hi Sandstein, I recently noticed that the article "List of tallest buildings in Victoria, British Columbia" was deleted, particularly based on grounds of notability and reliability of sources from what I am seeing on this Articles for Deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Victoria,_British_Columbia

If an article like this is removable based on those standards, would that set a precedent for removal of other articles similar to this one? For example, Kelowna BC also has an article for its towers and buildings, yet Kelowna is at about the same level of notability Victoria is and has buildings similar in height to those in Victoria as well. It is also worth noting that the sources on that article are from the same sites used to reference the ones on the Victoria article, and I quote from one of the arguments for deletion from the Articles for Deletion page, "Database listings in Emporis, Citified and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage." I would like to know what your thoughts are on this.

Thanks! Thedarkempire (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thedarkempire, we don't really have precedents, see WP:WAX. Sandstein 18:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see; thanks for your response. Thedarkempire (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarsus American College

Hi wondering if you came across this https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/repositories/24/archival_objects/647337. This came after a simple google search, I'm sure there are many more historically relevant documents out there that are accessible directly if you search for "American Board" and "American Missions in Turkey" instead of Tarsus American as the name for this school is relatively new. Tarsus American Highschool is one of the schools founded by foreign missionaries. I'm sure there are relevant references in wiki pages of each school that list Tarsus as a sister school. After all, they were built by the same missionaries. I agree that the references were lacking on this page, but that could've been improved with the right searches and resources.151.203.60.223 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps it could be, but it wasn't. Sandstein 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you could see how bad of a state this article was in before it was deleted? Saw the discussion posted on ANI and wandered over for a look. Searching using a Turkish language string seems to demonstrate notability pretty clearly. I've never heard about the topic before now, but I get really frustrated when a topic whose notability comes from foreign language sources gets deleted by editors who search only in English. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, it was neither particularly bad nor was it good; it was our usual kind of school article. Sandstein 16:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - any issues if I ask for it at WP:REFUND? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, no problem if you want to work on it. Sandstein 18:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsus American Highschool

Hi, exactly why did you delete Tarsus American Highschool? As far as I can see, the number of keep and delete opinions were almost equal. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Ardoğa, because the "keep" opinions mostly did not address the reason for deletion (i.e. lack of coverage in reliable sources). Instead, they argued with how old and important the school is, but these are not criteria for inclusion. Sources are. Sandstein 16:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvising

I just saw that you deleted this page as an advertisement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Boehm_(2nd_nomination). Just wondering can you restore it. I will improve it further to make it per Wiki neutrality, seems a notable guy to me. Jaysonsands (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysonsands, I've undeleted the article because I didn't see that there was already an ongoing AfD. The discussion about the spamminess of the article should continue in the AfD. Sandstein 12:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein Thanks for noticing this. I would like to improve the article and remove the promo tunining. I hope its ok with you. Jaysonsands (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the recent AfD

Dear @Sandstein, first off, thanks for participating in the Zangezur corridor AfD discussion and giving your thoughts. May I ask if you agree with the decision to "keep" the article? I'm going to be honest, the result was surprising to me and the closure comment even more. "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy and it seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing on both sides. However, to the extent that policy-based arguments were able to push through, there is a rough, but not unanimous, consensus that this this subject is notable enough for an article."

Let me start by saying "canvassing on both sides" was just a false balance statement and really no examples were provided. I saw one purpose account and sudden retired accounts on the "keep" part of the article, and only one single purpose account stood out on the opposite side.

Was there a "rough consensus for notability"? Not really. Even tho there were a lot of sudden votes recently to "keep" the article, the merits of the "delete" arguments were more convincing to me, maybe that's just my opinion.

I really don' think the closure was correct to "keep" the article, given all the discussion and the merits of the arguments on the "delete" side. And their closing comment kind of surprised me, "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy". Really, was that so?

Hope you would be kind enough to give your thoughts as an involved editor and admin. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, please link to the AfD. Sandstein 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, here [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, the link is broken. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zangezur corridor I don't know why it didn't correctly show up. Sorry for the inconveniences, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, I agree with the closer that "Astonishingly little of this discussion pertains to the deletion policy and it seems to have been heavily affected by canvassing on both sides." This makes consensus very difficult to assess. So I'm glad that the closer attempted to do so, and I don't have the time to read the whole discussion to try to second-guess them. Sandstein 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Christian Saunders

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christian Saunders. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move/delete request for Draft:Public image of Donald Trump

Sandstein, could you either delete Draft:Public image of Donald Trump or move User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump into its place? The original draft has not been edited by a human in six months. I had created a new draft in my userspace due to an IBAN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, sorry, not interested. Sandstein 14:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery

Hi Sandstein. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery was an appeal of a speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews says:

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

As you closed the review of the speedy deletion as "No consensus to take any action", the speedy deletion should be overturned. The deletion review instructions say that "the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion". Please revise the close to be overturning the speedy deletion. The revisions need to be restored to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, that direction applies in cases where there is disagreement about the merits of the speedy deletion. But in this case, there was not so much disagreement as general confusion as to what happened and why - perhaps also because of your walls of text. In particular, nobody was expressed the view that the deletion should be undone. Under these circumstances, I don't think that the speedy deletion was controversial based on this discussion, which is why I have not undone it. Sandstein 08:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does your close prevent me from creating a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I don't know. Sandstein 10:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you object if I create a new deletion review for Sacred Microdistillery where I will be more succinct? Cunard (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I or others may point out that the question has already been discussed. It's then up to DRV participants to decide whether they want to repeat that discussion. Sandstein 10:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]