| Revision as of 22:18, 11 April 2015 editPeacemaker67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators95,473 edits →Contravention of topic ban by Nado158: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,342 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 ]== | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Mail == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| You've got mail | |||
| *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. | |||
| ] (]) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *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. | |||
| :Not that I can see. Please tell me here what you'd like to tell me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| Sandstein, | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Subsequent to your decision, I had searched for published sources on the topic and I was able to locate several which establish notability (By Misplaced Pages definition the person should have been awarded, there should be secondary sources for reference and the person's work should be in existence: All 3 of these conditions are met : The 1st condition viz. Award of Rao Bahadur - this was one of the National awards conferred by Govt. of India in the 1940s, The 2nd Condition viz. Secondary sources are mentioned below and the 3rd Condition viz Existence of The Madras Aerodrome, Dowleshwaram Barrage road/rail bridge, Annamalai University Faculty of Engg. all continue to be in existence and provide good service to the citizens of India | |||
| ::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) | |||
| therefore I would request you to please help to restore Articles for deletion//en.wikipedia.org/Puttana_Venkatramana_Raju. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| You would recall the above-mentioned article, Please go through the links (1), (2) and (3) below. Attachments for you to go through and see for yourself the veracity of notability. Given below are a few published proofs which are even available on the internet for your reference which should help in establishing notability. I look forward to your advice and help in restoring the article. Thanks. | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| (1)http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bLEZAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=raju+p.+venkataramana+ | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Published in "Eminent Indians Who was Who 1900-1980" Publisher : Durga Das Pvt. Ltd., 1985.New Delhi, Language: English, Dewey Number: 920/.054. The paragraph on page 262 reads as follows "RAJU P.Venkataramana (Rao Bahadur):Engineer (b Jan.,14 1895): Head of Dept. of Engineering, Annamalai University. Had 4 sons and 4 daughters, Did BECE, MIE,(Ind.), Educated at Christian College, Madras; Engineering College, Chepauk. Joined ISE, served in Madras PWD (1919-50); was head of Dept. of Engineeringand Chairman, Board of Examiners, Annamalai University; member of Syndicate and Academic Council, Annamalai University; A.R.P. Special Engineer (1941-45); gave lectures in Holland under Madras University and Maharaja of Travancore-Curzon Endowment scheme. Member, International Association for Hydraulic Research, Indian Roads Congress, Association of Principals and Technical Institutions. Represented India at International Roads Congress at Hague (1938); Madras govt. delegate to Indian Roads Congress, Bombay (1939), Madras (1945), Jaipur (1946) and Trivandrum (1947), Toured Europe and studied modern methods of road making, soil mechanics laboratories, construction of high dams and irrigation works (1938), Conducted special examination of weak bridges along trunk roads in Madras state (1940-41); carried out aerodrome works on behalf of War Dept.(1942-45)" | |||
| :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) | |||
| (2)http://irc.org.in/ENU/knowledge/archive/Annual%20Sessions/List%20of%20Annual%20Sessions.pdf | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| Represented India at International Roads Congress at Hague (1938) | |||
| 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) | |||
| (3)https://sites.google.com/site/dgconclavesi/trivandrum-conclave-history | |||
| :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) | |||
| Masonic Lodge | |||
| ] (]) 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| :Hi, concerning {{la|Puttana Venkatramana Raju}} and ]: The result of the discussion was that "this would need a full rewrite even should the subject be notable after all". I recommend that you first create a draft version that takes the concerns voiced in the discussion into account, at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| Sandstein, | |||
| Thank you for your quick revert, Yes - I will commence work on a fresh draft which takes into account concerns voiced earlier. ] (]) 05:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Project MUSE == | |||
| :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) | |||
| You should have received an email from me about two weeks ago regarding your application for Project MUSE access. Could you please complete the form linked from that email, or if you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), ]? ] (]) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Now done, thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Unsatisfactory discussion == | ||
| This user came to my attention when he made an edit that seemed rather odd (and disruptive) regarding a German scientist's PhD and with a comment that also seemed rather odd. I then learned that you have in fact indefinitely banned him from "the topic of Germany and Germans, broadly construed" and that he has been engaging in this sort of disruptive editing for more than a decade. His recent edit seems to be in violation of this ban, so I thought I should bring this to your attention. ] (]) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, weird, that. Blocked for a week. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strike that, unblocked again. I didn't notice that this was in fact a self-revert. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::But seriously now, can I correct such minor stuff like "phd → PhD" and other simple, non-controversial stuff (and '''non-disruptive''', might I add), or rather not? ] (]) 04:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, a topic ban means that you may not edit any pages related to the topic. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == An AfD you closed as delete == | |||
| :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) | |||
| Hi Sandstein, I just ran across this: ], which you closed as delete. The title however has been redirected to a recreated article: ]. I'd like to have you, {{u|Kudpung}} (who commented in the AfD about a slew of these articles), and possibly {{u|Davidwr}} (who nominated the article but seems semi-retired now), assess that article and also the other standing articles that {{U|ReganChai}} created. If you would. Thanks. ] (]) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed, any of these articles in the following list, or any articles by any of the accounts listed here: ] or {{U|MeganKing}}, who seems to be a sock or an unlisted member of the group. ] (]) 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*Deleted as G4, repost. If any of the other articles have problems, you can nominate them for deletion as may be appropriate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I got an email saying I was mentioned here. People following these articles may wish to read ], ], and especially ] for some background. ]/<small><small>(])/(])</small></small> 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *General response to both Sandstein and {{u|Davidwr}} (and Kudpung and anybody else if interested; by the way Tryptofish is on a Wikibreak): I myself don't personally have time to look at the individual articles (or editors). However it seems that a cursory glance by anybody can tell whether any given one of them has at least a couple of independent significant-coverage write-ups in ]s as citations, and if not then nominate them at AfD. I don't see any problem with nominating them, because if in fact they do turn out to be notable, the editors !voting at AfD will figure that out. As to whether these articles were submitted in (somewhat) good faith as homework assignments, or whether there was some COI going on -- I am troubled by the fact that, for one thing, {{U|ReganChai}} seems like a sockpuppet of {{u|MeganKing}}, both in name and in the re-posting of at least one deleted AfDed article. In any case, it's all troublesome and it wouldn't even hurt if the whole group of articles were AfDed -- at least it would get more eyes on them. ] (]) 06:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* I take the editors' claims that this was a class project at face value. In any collaboration of this type, you are going to have some instances where collaborators "go to bat" for each other. This is not sock-puppetry. At worst, it is intentional meat-puppetry (and by intentional, I mean intentionally "going to bat" for each other ''for the purpose of putting their own collective agenda ahead of Misplaced Pages's''), but it is much more likely to be "unintentional" - that is, it is much more likely to be collaboration combined with an incomplete understanding of Misplaced Pages's goals, resulting in the appearance of intentionally-disruptive meat-puppetry. If memory serves (and it has been awhile, so the memory is hazy), I got the sense that at least some of these editors, perhaps even most, didn't quite "get" the purpose of Misplaced Pages. If they didn't "get" the purpose of Misplaced Pages, it's hard to claim that they were deliberately trying to sabotage that purpose. Having said all of that, the articles should be reviewed and should stand or fall on their own merits. ]/<small><small>(])/(])</small></small> 03:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == An impertinent question... == | |||
| ...which you should feel free to ignore if you wish: Was there a particular reason you stopped editing at AE? I've noticed that the process there is much slower than it was, with cases languishing for considerable periods of time, and I'm tempted to correlate that with your not being around to move things along. I'd like to suggest that, if possible, you return to editing there if you can -- I think it would be a very useful thing. ] (]) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for asking, no problem. I stopped editing at AE for the moment because it felt increasingly exhausting and time-consuming, perhaps also as a result of my impression of increasing bureaucratic requirements and increasing expectations by some of discussion and consensus instead of individual admin actions. As a consequence I decided to focus my Misplaced Pages editing on topic areas that, to me, feel more fulfilling. I may in the future return to contributing at AE, but at the moment I don't plan on it. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I too believe that you should come back to it. IMO you are/were the best admin at AE. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Sandstein:I can certainly understand what you're saying. Still, I hope you'll be able to go back to AE at some point, where I (for one) very much appreciated your contribution. ] (]) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks - I appreciate your feedback. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hello Sandstein. Your absence from AE is noted. ] works better when more admins are participating. In my opinion there is no need to wait for consensus before taking action in blatant cases. Sometimes people may wait for consensus just because they don't feel strongly enough to act on their own. That's not a bar to someone else going ahead. The appeal process ought to be sufficient to limit anything that goes too far. ] (]) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks, I know that's how it ought to work in theory, but my experiences over several years indicate that AE, like all of our disciplinary processes, in practice does often not work effectively (or not without inordinate effort) when applied to ill-behaved but popular users, and I profoundly dislike systems with rules that can't be enforced equally. It's also, in the most recent incarnation of discretionary sanctions, bureaucratic overkill when applied to many of the rest of AE's clientele, i.e., run-of-the-mill POV-pusher trolls with no friends. So right now I don't feel it's worth investing my free time in, but the experience of others may differ - and besides, no process ought to depend on a few individuals. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==An AE question== | |||
| Question is that when an editor is appealing the topic ban on his own user-talk page, because it has been actively observed by the enforcing admin, the same editor is allowed to talk about the content of the article in those particular appeal messages that fall under the enforced topic ban? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :In my view, only to the extent that it is necessary for the purpose of the appeal. That is, if you are banned from X, you may say in your statement of appeal that "I am an expert about X and therefore should be allowed to edit about it", but not "unban me now, and by the way, X is a vile abomination that needs to be eradicated from Misplaced Pages!". See generally ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == IP vandals == | |||
| ] who you recently blocked is the same as ] (blocked for a month) and ] (sitting in the AIV queue for the last three hours with no action). I have no idea why they keep vandalizing those same articles or what to do about it to stop them. ] (]) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Third one now also blocked. Perhaps somebody with a mental or similar disorder and a knowledge of how to IP-hop, there are apparently a few ] cases of this sort. Nothing to do but report and block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;"| ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Thanks''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid #fceb92;" | Hi Sandstein, you recently closed a couple of afds with no consensus - and . Just a word of thanks for all the work that you administrators do for the wikiverse{{=)}} ] (]) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I was wondering what your rationale was behind the '''no consensus''' closure on ]. By my count there were 10 Delete, 8 keep, 1 weak keep, and 8 open to a merge possibility. I could see not counting 1 of the deletes as it was by an IP address, and I wouldn't count the weak keep. So that would be 9 delete, 8 keep. I thought the delete side cited a lot more guidelines/policy and had better arguments (though I can't really judge that without bias as I was the nominator and agreed with that side). Anyhow, I was just curious if you had any further thoughts/reasoning on the closure as you didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. <small>—]</small><sup>(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub> 19:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure. It's pretty clear that there's no consensus numerically, so I need to check whether one side's argument is clearly more convincing in terms of policies and guidelines. I don't think that's the case. This is a typical case of a topic that has acquired a catchy moniker but is also part of a larger issue already covered by other articles. In these cases, it's really a matter of editorial judgment whether we cover it separately or in the context of another article, and whether this word is just a dictionary definition or a cultural topic going beyond that. That's not something that can be decided by applying policy in black-and-white manner. As it is, views are about equally divided, with valid arguments made on both sides, and I can't find a consensus to delete or merge, so the article is kept by default. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Contravention of topic ban by Nado158 == | |||
| G'day Sandstein, I haven't had much to do with Nado158, but when I checked his user talk page history I noticed an ARBMAC topic ban on anything to do with Serbia. He just removed mention of the ] that were involved in the ] alongside Axis troops, , with an edit summary "No Chetniks". This is factually incorrect, the involvement of the Chetniks led by Rade Radic in this offensive is comprehensively documented in the academic literature. As far as I am concerned, Chetniks (being almost all Serbs) would be included in Nado158's ban. Over to you though to take whatever action you see fit, as the banning admin. Cheers, ] (]) 22:18, 11 April 2015 (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)