| Revision as of 08:23, 20 April 2015 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,657 edits →Kirby Delauter: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 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) | |||
| == Kirby Delauter == | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Sandstein, I'm sorry but that's a pretty horrible close. We finally got everyone to agree where to hold the discussion and we had it. If that's a NC close, then we should have the article. It is clear what the discussion was about. It is was well described what the purpose of the AfD was at the top of the AfD. The other admins involved wanted it this way. To claim, 3 weeks later, than everyone as wrong and there was no venue is just a horrible way to further kick down the road the whole issue. There are nearly no valid arguments for deletion and the entire thing has been out-of-process. | |||
| *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) | ||
| Further, the merits of the case are actually ''really'' clear. There are nearly no policy-based arguments for deletion that can stand up to the facts on the ground. Numerically there was consensus here to keep. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| So, if you are going to insist that everyone else involved in the disussion was wrong about the venue, can you give an exact way to proceed and a promise that if we follow that way you will support the venue when the _next_ admin claims that too is the wrong venue? This entire thing has been an exercise in bureaucracy. There was never a consensus to delete nor was there ever a valid speedy criteria. ] (]) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I wrote in ] what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at ]. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to ] and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the ''deletion'' of mainspace pages, to ask for the ''creation'' of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes. <p>All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. There was a DRV, then an AN discussion. That AN discussion resulted in an agreement to go to AfD as the right venue. Jumping in and claiming that 3 or 4 weeks later everyone else had it wrong is probably non-optimal. And given that another admin kept relisting it, it's clear he didn't have a venue problem. After those relists we got 2 more folks wanting the draft restored. Pretty hard to see how that's a NC too. Ah well. ] (]) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :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) | ||
| :::Hi. I visit here because editor Hobit in suggested that I look at the close and perhaps comment here. Sorry the following is a bit long, but I think this is important and it's worthwhile for me to explain my view properly. | |||
| == Smoothstack == | |||
| :::First, I was not the one who "moved the Delauter discussion to AfD and out of AN"...that credit goes to {{U|Cunard}} for (converting from a mere link to what I term the "informal AfD at wp:AN") and per Cunard's 17 March notice at the informal AfD that "I have started the AfD ". That created an unusual AFD calling for restoration/moving of a non-mainspace article TO mainspace. But the informal AfD was non-standard too. I supported Cunard's effort and tried to make the unusual AFD work ( by , by my 17 March edit at WP:AN asserting the "informal Afd" at WP:AN was superseded by the new AFD discussion (per my indented notice at top of, and my statement at bottom of, ]), and by . | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::In my opinion (IMO) editors Cunard and Hobit are justified in being a bit frustrated. Cunard is "right" in complaining that "the admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months! / I'd rather not take this to yet another noticeboard for further discussion. This has been discussed enough already." (quoting from Cunard at ] ). | |||
| ⚫ | :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) | ||
| :::But also I think was reasonable too, at least in Sandstein's asserting that there's no action required by the unusual AFD. There was in fact disagreement within the AFD. And I think Sandstein's main assertion that there was not "a consensus on the merits" would be upheld in a deletion review; it would not be overturned at wp:DRV as unreasonable. Arguably there was no consensus on the merits either way, either to force the move of the Draft:Kirby Delauter article into mainspace, or to prevent the move. So in that sense I support Sandstein's close. | |||
| == Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project == | |||
| :::However I do disagree with Sandstein's secondary closing assertion, that "To the extent page now at Draft:Kirby Delauter it belongs ... at WP:DRV if restoration is desired." Rather, I think that the way forward for AFD-"Keep"-voters is different, and completely open: they may simply copy or move the ] article to mainspace. The "salting" (move-protection) by administrator Bishonen in (expires 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)) (expires 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)"] has expired...it no longer applies. IMO ''anyone'' now can start a new mainspace article on Kirby Delauter, and it should not / will not be speedy-deleted as long as it is different and has improved upon that was effectively deleted by plus , so that speedy-deletion reason ] does not apply. IMO the draft is indeed different and improved. I tend to agree with Hobit's "Quick (biased) summary of the split !vote" posted 13:35, 25 March 2015, in the AFD, that the draft version was improved sufficiently that previously stated AFD-type objections are no longer justified. IMO the previous objections are certainly not obviously valid, and they certainly are not so extremely valid that Speedy deletion would be justified. (Of course any new article must not be an egregious violation of BLP policies (i.e. it must not be entirely unreferenced, and it must not be a ] for which speedy deletion by ] would apply. The draft version is completely supported by references and is not an unbalanced attack.) | |||
| 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: | |||
| :::So IMO ''anyone'' could right now re-create the ] article by copying the ] version over the redirect. (Simply copying the text would not achieve the history-merge that would be better, but only an administrator can perform that. But that's no problem: anyone can just do the copy and post a request for an administrator to perform the history-merge later.) | |||
| <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would do that copying right now, myself, but it occurs to me that it could be even better to take one further set of steps first. I would prefer to create articles about the Frederick County's executive Jan H. Gardner and about some of Delauter's peer ] first, to reduce the possibility that Misplaced Pages could appear to be selective in covering Delauter but not others. It has been argued in the AFD and other discussions, that Delauter is just one of many Misplaced Pages-notable county-level council members. In the AFD, I suggested that the emerging Misplaced Pages notability standard may even be that "all county-level council-members and equivalents deserve articles, while not yet town-level councilors" (for the U.S. and for equivalents in ] world-wide). I don't want to create articles for all other equivalents to Delauter everywhere in the U.S. or in the world before re-creating the Delauter article. But it seems to me that creating articles for some Frederick County-equivalents first is sensible, just to convey/support publicly that we / Misplaced Pages deem that Misplaced Pages coverage of Delauter-equivalents is reasonable in general. (So watch: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],], ], ], ]. Hopefully some of these others will indeed prove to be Misplaced Pages-notable.) | |||
| ⚫ | :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) | ||
| :::In summary, IMO the separate AFD and its close with "no consensus" have been useful, and have cleared the way so that Kirby Delauter article can now be re-created. Any serious objections to the new article can be raised in a new, proper AFD, but IMO the draft version is good enough, and the sense of immediate crisis at wp:AN is now in the past, so it's conceivable that there may be no serious objections. --]]] 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Unsatisfactory discussion == | |||
| :: I think I understand your explanation that there is no forum especially well suited to handle this issue, but I was wondering if you could comment on the merits of ? Perhaps identifying what it is specifically lacking, or what it violates, exactly? ] (]) 10:19, 19 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) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | :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) | ||
| :::: Just trying to understand your reasoning here. If the consensus on the previous discussion were restore, would you have allowed it? Or is the fact that the forum was inappropriate mean that consensus, even if reached, would be meaningless? ] (]) 01:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not my job as AfD closer to allow or disallow anything, only to find whether there's consensus in a discussion and for what. In this case, I found that there wasn't. But even if there had been consensus to restore the article, it wouldn't have been up to me what to do about it, because no admin tools are required for such a restoration. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == India Earthquake of 1341 == | |||
| Would you be willing to restore ] to my userspace? I'd like to try to get the article up to meet ] and ]. Thank you. ] (]) 03:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with that article is the apparent lack of reliable sources to make any content verifiable. I think that any recreation or userfication would not be helpful until relevant, reliable sources are found. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I had hoped to use the sources on the deleted page as a starting point to do so. Even if you won't userfy the deleted version, could you give me the original sources from that article? I really don't care about or need the original text; the sources are all I actually want (I just figured userfying would be less work for you). ] (]) 00:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The sources are:<ref>http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2009/june/fullpapers/f5.pdf</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://historicalleys.blogspot.in/2013/08/1258-and-calicut.html|title=Historic Alleys|work=historicalleys.blogspot.in}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://earthquakes.findthedata.com/l/5993/Ukraine-Crimea |title=Ukraine: Crimea Earthquake of 1341 |publisher=Earthquakes.findthedata.com |date= |accessdate=2015-04-07}}</ref><ref>http://www.stephenpoickattil.com/templates/Articles/Periyar.pdf</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/a-book-on-kochis-rise-at-the-cost-of-muziris/article765369.ece|title=A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris|work=The Hindu}}</ref><ref>Reassessing the Earthquake Hazard in Kerala Based on the Historical and Current Seismicity — Paper by C.P. Rajendran, Biju John, K. Sreekumari And Kusala Rajendran In Journal Geological Society Of India.</ref> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| ==T-Ban question== | |||
| Minor edits, that are made by the hands(no automation) are also considered as T-Ban violation? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Then would you like to look into one T-Ban violation? This violates the DS of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. I had reported this issue , no admin seems to have taken it up. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't react to a request like this, either - there isn't even a link to the ban supposedly violated. Also, requests concerning discretionary sanctions belong at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's far better, I would rather move this to AE. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| One more. If an admin has voted for I-Ban on AN/I, is he allowed to take any AE enforcements against these 2 users in question? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Voting like "<small>Support Iban - ............</small>" now that would be considered as ]? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| ==Noman Group of Industries== | |||
| Your handle is on the AfD page showing "Delete," but the ] is still available. ] (]) 03:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm relatively new to AfD, and now realized that 'Noman' was just reposted and almost immediately tagged for "Proposed Deletion." In addition ] was created, and again, nominated for "Proposed Deletion." Would it be ethical to remove the 'proposed deletion' tags and AfD both these articles, where some administrator could, perhaps, delete both quickly on grounds that the creator/editor of both articles is floutng concensus by reposting so quickly? Regards ] (]) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I declined the speedy deletion of ], because it had more sources than the deleted version. However, anybody can renominate it for deletion if they think the new version is also not indicative of notability. As to ], that's a separate issue. If PROD fails, then it can be nominated normally for deletion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The ongoing AfD has shown that there was a prior AfD closed as delete. Thus, ongoing AfD notwithstanding, this is a (presumed) re-creation of the prior text. Unless you can see differently. ] ] 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Thanks. There ought to be a better way of noting this for us non admins :) ] ] 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ==Concern== | |||
| I am confident that I am being wikihounded by an admin, who has not only commented on a user talk page where he had never commented before, but he commented on something where he wasn't even involved, he is not only making misrepresentation in his comment but also notifying a number of editors through <nowiki>{{ping|}}</nowiki> feature. This happened 2nd time today. Would you check? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No. You're not providing any diffs or links, to start with, and I'm not the complaints department. I advise you to talk to the admin themselves, or to pursue dispute resolution as described in ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:21, 19 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)