| Revision as of 07:15, 13 February 2013 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,624 edits →Hello: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,540 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2024/December) (bot | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| == Your, in my view, inappropriate speedy deletion of Romi Mankin (again) == | |||
| Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the claims: "''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ''All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''" Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". Therefore, ''prima facie'', we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than ''Buffy'' episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Sandstein, I have taken some time to think about your speedy deletion of my recreation of the Romi Makin page and can't help myself from feeling troubled about your approach here. My argument for recreation was specifically addressed on a note to you and on the talk page for the new article and specifically was addressing the main reason for the initial suggestion for deletion of the first article - his low notability due to a low h-index in GS. Others arguing for deletion also argued "GS cites are low". I argued in the notes to you and and the talk page that this no longer in my view true. I think you did not take this into account when deleting. Did you check the h-index in GS before deletion. I also found your threat not to "recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation" was rude and not appropriate for an administrator. I am also not clear about whether your suggestion of submitting a "userspace draft of a new and improved article to ]" is appropriate. I felt by my mentioning of the improved h-score to you and in the talk page of the recreated article I had overcome the objections, and showed that my new, improved work met Misplaced Pages article policies. I wrote down the reasons I thought the article belongs on Misplaced Pages on the article's discussion page. I am particulerly concerned that it seems to me that any attempt to remove it again should have been settled before the community, on AFD. Are you completey convinced you have behaved properly in this matter and what suggestions do you have for further action on my part? I am not sure why a restoration and another Afd would not be more appropiate according to our policy. (] (]) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| ::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : {{tps}} A quick glance at the article(s) shows the speedy deletion to be appropriate. You really should '''not''' have recreated a live article, but should have kept it as a userspace draft until it had been reviewed. There's nothing in Sandstein's wording that was inappropriate: if you recreate it, it will be ]...pretty simple and to the point (]''']''']) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::: See also ] and ] | |||
| === ] === | |||
| :: Dear BWilkins thank you for your response to the note I left for Sandstein. I am not clear how you think this note might help since I don't think it engaged with the issues raised only offered your support for the outcome. Also I am not clear which policy your argument that I should not have recreated the live article was based on. My feeling is userspace drafts is something some would like to encourage but has this been accpeted as policy now? Also I think your strengthening of the "threat" is not in policy. Sandstein suggested | |||
| :::"Please don't recreate it again in this form or it will be protected against recreation. If you want to make sure, submit an userspace draft of a new and improved article to WP:DRV." (This dosn't seem the right use of WP:DRV) | |||
| ::you suggest | |||
| :::"if you recreate it, it will be ]". Is this whatever form the recreation takes no matter if the reason for deletion no longer apply and the article has been improved? | |||
| ::I am clearly unhappy with your response and the lack of response of either you or Sandstein to the issues I raised rather the outcome we have at the moment. My opinion is that I think this has not been handled well and the same outcome could have been achieved with far better feeling if other language or another approach had been used. Even if another AFD was deemed by Sandstein too much why not engage with the issues raised - suggest I look for more sources - ask for details of the new H-score and expalin how that still might not meet the appropriate WP:prof level - or that more than that might be needed. Heavy handed behaviour be administrators is I think a problem that could easily be avoided and typically involves what could easily be viewed as conentious deletions. And this to delete a short stub on an Estonian Physics Prof who has been awarded the medal of his nation's national Physics Association and has a H-index with the range that often leads to keeps at Afds. Anyway I will not pursue this further for perhaps a year when I will look again at Romi Mankin and see if I can make a more substantial article. (] (]) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| Dear Sandstein, Can you userify the talk page (Talk:Romi Mankin) that you deleted with the article - I do not need the article as I have a copy but the talk page might be needed. (] (]) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| == Procedures relating to Discretionary Sanctions == | |||
| *Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong. | |||
| *None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred. | |||
| :Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article. | |||
| Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Hi. I've compiled a ] to documents and procedures that materially affect the D.S. system. Can you think of any procedures or other important rulings that are missing from that list? I suspect it will be necessary to amend several procedures in an omnibus motion, so I'd like to make sure we get it right at the first pass. Thanks, ] ]] 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello dear Sandstein, yesterday ] deleted the ] article, without even nominating it for deletion. he claims that "The article was obviously a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content, and, as WP:CSD describes, a page intentend solely to disparage its subject. It was also created by an account who is almost certainly a sockpuppet." | |||
| ⚫ | :It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| This is simple unacceptable. As long as I know, Misplaced Pages is a community and admins don't have the right to delete articles without even a little discussion. The article was mostly translated from the Russian Misplaced Pages and the article there was created in 2008 and as you can see it still exists. --] ] 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == |
== Smoothstack == | ||
| I didn't have a chance to weigh in on ], which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to ]? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the ] stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there, | |||
| ⚫ | :In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| I was discussing ] with ] and he suggested your name as someone who I should show this to before I propose it to the community. I would appreciate your feedback at ]. Thanks! ] (]) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your comments; I have replied there. ] (]) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| Hi @]. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? ] It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance: | |||
| I'm not gonna be a dick here, but all I did was try to recover a deleted article, which in my opinion, could have been used as a material for a nice article. I'm not saying it was perfect. I admit, I made a statement that wasn't quite appropriate, but banning me for a month just for complaining doesn't sound fair. --] ] 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry, you're not being a dick about it. But you were not "banned for complaining". Rather, you were topic-banned temporarily for pursuing real-world conflicts in Misplaced Pages, which is not the place for this – for instance, by trying to add ], or by making statements about "Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists" or that "the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". I understand that you have strong opinions about these issues. I might, too, if I had your background and experience. But you must set these opinions aside while you're here, or refrain from editing in this topic area. For example, I have quite pronounced opinions about various governments around the world, but I'm not airing these opinions on Misplaced Pages, because ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well yeah, is it new to you that people have emotions and opinions? But it's a fact that my emotions and opinions '''do not reflect in my edits on articles'''. That what discussions are for. I also have my views stated out to the whole world on my userpage. Why don't you ban me for my views as well? | |||
| ::What would you call a scientist that falsifies history? Just because you're not familiar with the topic, doesn't make it any better. People who deny the Holocaust are no worse than people to falsify history. | |||
| ::"the Azerbaijani government promotes clear Anti-Armenian policy in almost every aspect of life". My this comment can be backed up my numerous sources. | |||
| ::For example, the ] stated in their report on Azerbaijan: | |||
| ::{{cite web|title=Report on Azerbaijan|url=http://hudoc.fcnm.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_02/02_CbC_eng/02-cbc-azerbaijan-eng.pdf|publisher=]|accessdate=22 January 2013|archiveurl=http://ia601604.us.archive.org/10/items/2003EuropeanCommissionAgainstRacismAndIntoleranceReportOnAzerbaijan/2003Ecri.pdf|archivedate=22 January 2013|location=Strasbourg|date=15 April 2003|page=2|quote=Due to the conflict, there is a widespread negative sentiment toward Armenians in Azerbaijani society today." "In general, hate-speech and derogatory public statements against Armenians take place routinely.}} | |||
| ::And at last, see ]. He killed an Armenian soldier in 2004 during a NATO course in Hungary and in 2012 he was extradited to Azerbaijan and was greeted as a hero, including by President ]. If you don't believe my words see , . Both wrote that he was greeted as a hero. | |||
| ::The very last thing. In 2012, Azeri President Aliyev stated "there are forces that don’t like us, our detractors. They can be divided into several groups. First, our main enemies are '''Armenians of the world''' and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control" | |||
| ::What would you call this? If you think that banning me for stating the truth is right, then you should also ban users for stating things like Holocaust was real, North Korea is a dictatorship, Soviet Union was a totalitarian country, al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, etc. --] ] 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong about this. But I'm not saying you're right, either. I don't know and I don't care. I really don't. The point is that Misplaced Pages is not the place for making general statements about how wrong, evil etc. other people, governments, etc. are. Even if these statements are true, or we believe they are. This is because we are not a discussion forum and not a soapbox. So - you're welcome to your personal views, but please don't focus on voicing them here, because especially in this topic area, doing so will not help us write a better encyclopedia. Too, in this particular topic area, there are probably many from the other side who have similarly bad things to say about your country (whether rightly or wrongly). But we're not going to solve these real-world disagreements on Misplaced Pages. If we try, we only produce drama as angry people shout at each other. So - we don't. And when we write articles about hotly contested topics, we should try to write them in such a way that an outside observer would not be able to tell which (if any) side of a dispute we personally support. Only then can we be sure to be in compliance with ]. And, frankly, your editing still leaves a lot to be desired in that regard. Now, please don't continue arguing in the vein of "but I am right to say that the Azerbaijanis did something bad", because (a) it's not going to convince me to undo the topic ban and (b) you risk violating the ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That's good that you don't care. You must be neutral then. If that is the case why didn't you ban ], too? His statement was "I can cite a million sources using the term "Armenian terrorism", yet we have no such article here, even though there's an article with that title in the Russian wikipedia, and you object to the use of the term in various articles describing attacks on Turkish diplomats. " How is this any better or worse than my statements? --] ] 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I'm not saying that I agree with Grandmaster, and I told him that this is not a discussion fit for an admin noticeboard - but what he wrote was related to how Misplaced Pages covers the topic, and did not contain any accusation of real-world wrongdoing, in contrast to your statements. He also did not (to my knowledge) try to add very obviously non-neutrally written, highly problematic articles to Misplaced Pages. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::please tell me you're kidding. you just said you don't care about the content, then how you know "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is "very obviously non-neutrally written"? --] ] 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Isn't your job to treat everybody equally? You're saying that "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" is not neutral, but when user Divot says he has English-language academical sources, you say you don't care about the content. How should I understand this? --] ] 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | :Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Sources about falsification == | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| Hi Sandstein. | |||
| Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am the author of this article "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" in the Russian Misplaced Pages, and I can provide all the sources for the article, including scans of books. You look their and tell me in which article to put these sources. To what address i can send you these sources? ] (]) 20:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Sorry, I |
||
| :: I mean english academical sources. ] (]) 20:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| :Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| OK, please restore the article in my subpage, I'll try to add more sources and ask you about neutrality. ] (]) 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I was watching this from the sidelines. The sources look neutral and it has the potential of being a good article. However, I believe the title of the article should be changed to something like "Historiography of Azerbaijan" or something similar and it should maintain a neutral tone. Sandstein, I appreciate your work and contributions. Especially with the recent E4024 ban. But in regards to this, I believe it would be really considerate of you if you restore the article in Divot's subpage as Divot mentioned and this discussion can move on from there. ] (]) 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a ], {{#if:|at ]|such as at ]}}. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. | |||
| If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit ''']''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with ]. If the page is deleted, you can contact ] to request that the administrator ] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-repost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 12:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, this above notification would appear to be a quirk of Twinkle's annoying habit of notifying redirect creators instead of the users who turned the redirect into an article. However, if you, as closer of the previous of discussion, are interested, I've ] this article following Malik Shabazz's declining of Bobrayner's G4.''' — <u>]]</u>'''] 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification == | |||
| Please see --] ] 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025
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: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Deletion closure of Principal Snyder
Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine Slayage on the topic, to which the other keep !voters have also referred to, as self-published. However, my understanding was that this is a serious, if specialized academic journal, and the its homepage claims: "Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors." Do you have any additional info why this should not be correct, and that the articles in question should be self-published? Thanks for giving more info! Daranios (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High". Therefore, prima facie, we have two amateurishly formatted PDFs that do not have citations (to anything other than Buffy episodes), or any other feature to be expected from an academic article (author descriptions, abstracts, affiliations, page numbers, citation suggestions, etc.) and which are hosted at two different URLs, "dashboard.ir.una.edu/downloads" and "offline.buffy.de". For these reasons, it did not cross my mind that such writings could be considered serious academic research, and even after reading your above message, for the previously mentioned reasons, I do not think that these can be credibly considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, only one of these works deals with the article subject, Principal Snyder, in more than a passing manner, which would still leave us short of the two sources required by GNG. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider my closure. Sandstein 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
- Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
- None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
- Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
- I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione
Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Smoothstack
I didn't have a chance to weigh in on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smoothstack, which you closed a couple days ago. Would you object to redirecting this to Employment bond#Training Repayment Agreement Provisions? It already mentions Smoothstack and says pretty much what the article already says, so the Smoothstack stub seems redundant. If more information can be fleshed out, then the article can be split off as standalone again. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my capacity as AfD closer, I don't have any objections to anything anyone does with the article - my role was limited to closing the AfD. Sandstein 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project
Hi @Sandstein. Hoped you might be able to assist in feedback and/or approval for my first draft submission? Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I've tagged multiple groups. Saw you were recently active in the Private Equity group and thought you could help. I'm relatively new, hope this is a good path. Thank you in advance:
~~~~ Yachtahead (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not active in AFC and have no knowledge of or interest in the topic, so I'll have to decline. Sandstein 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thank you. Yachtahead (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory discussion
Hai, hope you're doing good. I share your opinion on one of the AfDs you closed three months back. The AfD was an unsatisfactory discussion, and I think the article needs a new discussion focused on the sources. What would be the appropriate way to start a new discussion to get more opinions? Should I use DRV or AFD? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the outcome of the AfD was no consensus, you can start a new AfD at any time. DRV is only used if you disagree with the closure of the AfD. Sandstein 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)