Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:18, 11 May 2016 editGalassi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,902 edits →Clarification needed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 January 2025 edit undoYachtahead (talk | contribs)270 edits →Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 5: Line 5:
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}}


== closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) ==
⚫ ==]==
Could you take a look at this AfD you closed a while back and see if the ] of the article falls within bounds to redirect it again per that AfD or if it should instead be relisted? And this one if you feel like it: ]. It was a non-admin closure, so asking the closer seems pointless. Both articles are in the same state as when the AfDs took place, so their precedent should still be valid.


Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And how would you recommend dealing with a user possessing a weirdly ] vendetta? Regardless of the merit of the AfD, he keeps commenting with stuff like . And it looks like he'll automatically revert any article I redirect regardless of validity, such as the two above that should be redirects as per the AfDs. ] (]) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


:I concur that the AfD consensus still applies in both cases and have re-redirected the pages. As to the behavior issue, I can't give any more specific advice than to proceed per ], sorry. If any editing is in areas subject to ], those procedures may also apply. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC) :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::If possible, could you look at this one as well: ]/]. It's a bit older than the others, but still pretty much in the same state as from the AfD. The closer is very infrequently active, so asking for his opinion probably would take a while. ] (]) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
⚫ :::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Saudi role in September 11 attacks ==


Hi Sandstein,
Hey, thanks for your intervention ], but there's still a question. Can you please say where the mentioned consensus is built and how you found the keep votes and their explaining inapplicable here? --] (]) 11:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
⚫ :I refer to the consensus in that discussion, and I didn't say anything about "keep" opinions being inapplicable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
::I'm also questioning to see what 'consensus' you are referring! Moreover, The keep opinions had to be considered when closing the discussion and I think I provided enough sources directly regarding the subject of the article in that discussion and other users also expressed logical arguments against deletion. ] (]) 01:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Your disagreement is noted, but what you say doesn't make me reevaluate my closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your response, anyway I'd still like to see what 'consensus' you are referring! --] (]) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Galassi TBAN filing ==


:I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I checked ] before posting to verify that Galassi wasn't already under 1RR, but his/her name doesn't appear anywhere on RESTRICT. , though, he/she is to a TBAN. I know this was literally years ago, but do you have any recollection of why this wasn't logged on RESTRICT? Sorry for an odd question. ] (<small>]]</small>) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
::Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:No. But logging restrictions there is not required by any policy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Shit, really!? What's the point of even having a page to list off editor restrictions if it's not comprehensive? I'd be happy to help hunt down uncatalogued restrictions and list them up, but I don't think a non-admin, even an uninvolved one, should be crafting the wording of restrictions after the fact (I don't even really trust most admins to do that)... ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
::Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after and were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
⚫ :::There's also ], which is more comprehensive. But generally, it's an indication of our amateurish approach to disciplinary issues. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Hello Sandstein. Do you have some ideas for being less amateurish? Re the above, ] is supposed to be used but people may forget. For tracking 1RRs, I suppose we could have something like the block log, but for sanctions. ] (]) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC) :::I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|EdJohnston}} I'm no longer active with enforcement tasks because I think there is insufficient community support for an efficient, rules-based disciplinary system. I used to think that at least AE works, but I quit that because I decided that it wasn't worth the effort: one editor, I don't remember who, threw something like a month-long temper tantrum in all possible fora because I enforced a sanction against them, and because they had many friends, the show went on and on. Until the issue of "vested contributors" being much more difficult to sanction than others is addressed, fiddling around with details such as logs is, in my view, not really worth the time. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC) ::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==Deletion closure of ]==
== Modern Gaulish ==
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)
I really think that ignoring discussion, whether you think it was TLDR or not, means that you should have ignored the AfD, not summarily ruled on it. I think that was an abuse of your admin powers. Moreover, you've offended the newbie and put him off the Misplaced Pages entirely. That was not well done. I may protest your action; the right thing to do was to reduce the thing to a stub and let things develop. -- ]·] 11:20, 4 May 2016 (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)
:Hello Sandstein, I wouldn't go as far as calling it "abuse", nor do I even dispute the outcome of the AfD itself, and I understand your point about "walls of text" as well (being a moderator on WP.NL myself, I know very well what this means). But for the rest, I have to concur. I very much disapprove of using the ] argument for completely discarding somebody's arguments. In my book, this is nothing short of an ad hominem argument. I know perfectly well that writing/editing articles about yourself, your group or your work is often frowned upon, but it is surely not forbidden, and there is most certainly no policy stating that arguments used by a person involved in a subject should be ignored. An argument is an argument, no matter who uses it. I'd even say arguments of a person who actually knows a lot about the subject should be taken more seriously than "votes" of those who merely toss abbreviations into such discussions.
⚫ :::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)
:I had a similar situation myself lately in ] by ]. I was the only person in that discussion who actually knew what he was talking about, but my arguments were completely ignored for the very reason that I happened to be a member of its board of directors, so obviously I had a conflict of interest. As if that would invalidate any of my arguments (which, I should add, were completely policy-based). I can assure you that this is really disheartening! Best, &mdash;] ] 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
=== ] ===
::These things drive both newbies and experts away from the English-language Misplaced Pages. Too many "rules" (and they are only guidelines), too many people who don't have anything better to do than putting templates everywhere and nominating other people's work for deletion. It's disheartening indeed. -- ]·] 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
⚫ :::Thanks for the input, but I maintain the view expressed in the closure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
==Deletion review for ]==
*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.
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 11:34, 7 May 2016 (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.
: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)
==Clarification needed==
::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.
Hello, would you clarify for me if ] is within the scope of the Ukraine topic ban you gave me some years ago?--] (]) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
::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)
:@Sandstein. You probably remember that it was me who brought the WP:.AE complaint about Galassi which resulted in his topic ban. Since then I occasionally interacted with him. Even though his editing is still far from ideal, my suggestion would be to actually lift or relax his ban at this point (may be to replace it by 1RR restriction on Ukrainian subjects), since I think he is actually highly knowlegable and capable of productively contributing in this area. Maybe that's because I am feeling guilty of bringing that complaint. I would not do it now. Thank you, ] (]) 03:49, 11 May 2016 (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)
⚫ ::Please link to the ban at issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:49, 11 May 2016 (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)
:::. ] (]) 13:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

:::: Galassi, at first glance I don't see a link between ] and Ukraine, and therefore conclude that the article is not covered by the topic ban. However, should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later, I or another admin may come to a different conclusion. My very best wishes, I do not address your appeal of the topic ban, because the restricted user themselves may appeal it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
⚫ == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione ==
:::::: Thank you for a sober assessment.--] (]) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

:::::Just for the record, (a) all major books on Ukrainian history deal with the Khazars and (b) the automatic revert pattern that had Galassi banned from Ukrainian related articles was being repeated on the Khazar articles.] (]) 15:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Virtually everything is related to Ukraine in one way or another, so that is not a good argument. And Khazar/Ashkenazy debacle atypically has no relation to Ukraine. Just for the record, user Nishidani is simply trying to have one less vote against his POV.--] (]) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (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)

== 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)

⚫ :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)

== Help please with afc draft in Private Equity project ==

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:

<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 8 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.
  • 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.


Start a new talk topic


closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)

Thank you for closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) with a result of "delete." Draftify might indeed have been a better choice since there were many sources, but limited discussion on AFD compared to DRV. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve my contributions or avoid similar outcomes in the future, I’d really appreciate it. Specifically, I’m curious (AFD selection and DELETE result on DRV) about any weaknesses in the AFD process that may have influenced this result. Thanks again, and please feel free to skip this if it’s not necessary.Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't received any response yet. I kindly request you to restore it as a draft, highlighting the issues that caused the result to be marked as "delete." Endrabcwizart (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Endrabcwizart, sorry for the late reply. I have no particular advice to give, since my role as DRV closer is limited to assessing consensus in the DRV, and therefore I have not formed an opinion of my own about the article at issue. You should address your restoration request to the deleting admin Sandstein 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States

Hi Sandstein,

It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a sufficiently clear consensus to delete. There was likely canvassing going on, but canvassed opinions are typically those by IPs or new accounts, and I saw few if any of those here. So I wouldn't know who to discount. Also, while I agree that Dclemens1971 made good arguments, they were made rather late and so were unable to sway the discussion much. I think a renomination after the article stabilizes might have a better chance at a clearer consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Any reason not to have done a relist? Obviously a lot of participation had already happened, but it had only been open for a week, and contentious discussions seem to be relisted at least once before a N/C close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was quite long already, and given the general disagreement on how to deal with lists at AfD, I didn't expect that a relist would bring much more clarity. But if you think otherwise I'm fine with a relist. Sandstein 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Obviously as a !voter I have a take, but setting that aside I think that a relist might bring more attention from AfD regulars and lead to a P&G-based consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)