Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 20 April 2015 (→Kirby Delauter: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Kirby Delauter

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.

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.

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. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wrote in the closing statement 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 WP:DRV. 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 WP:RPP 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.

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.  Sandstein  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. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I visit here because editor Hobit in this diff at my Talk page 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.

First, I was not the one who "moved the Delauter discussion to AfD and out of AN"...that credit goes to Cunard for this diff opening a proper AfD (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 my edits at the top of the AFD trying to clarify the context, 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, the archived version of the "informal Afd"), and by my edits at Talk:Kirby Delauter during 17 March and 18 March seeking to create a "notice of AFD" in mainspace.

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 Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter ).

But also I think Sandstein's close of the AFD as "no consensus" 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.

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 Draft:Kirby Delauter article to mainspace. The "salting" (move-protection) by administrator Bishonen in this edit with summary "Protected Kirby Delauter: Needs protecting during AN discussion ( (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 the original version of Kirby Delauter article that was effectively deleted by Bishonen's redirection plus Bishonen's protection of the redirect, so that speedy-deletion reason G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" 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 wp:ATTACKPAGE for which speedy deletion by wp:G10 would apply. The draft version is completely supported by references and is not an unbalanced attack.)

So IMO anyone could right now re-create the Kirby Delauter article by copying the Draft:Kirby Delauter 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.)

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 Frederick County council-members 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 Category:Subnational legislators 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: Draft:Jan H. Gardner, Jan H. Gardner, Draft: Bud Otis, Bud Otis, Draft:Billy Shreve, Billy Shreve, Draft:Jerry Donald, Jerry Donald, Draft:Tony Chmelik, Tony Chmelik,Draft:M.C. Keegan-Ayer, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Draft:Jessica Fitzwater, Jessica Fitzwater. Hopefully some of these others will indeed prove to be Misplaced Pages-notable.)

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. --doncram 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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 the article itself? Perhaps identifying what it is specifically lacking, or what it violates, exactly? Bangabandhu (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merits because the topic does not interest me at all. At first glance, this sort of very local political figure is often a borderline case in terms of notability and BLP1E, but I don't care enough to read the article and its sources and form an opinion.  Sandstein  10:38, 19 April 2015 (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? Bangabandhu (talk) 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.  Sandstein  08:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

India Earthquake of 1341

Would you be willing to restore India Earthquake of 1341 to my userspace? I'd like to try to get the article up to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 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.  Sandstein  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). Inks.LWC (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are:  Sandstein  08:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.geosocindia.org/abstracts/2009/june/fullpapers/f5.pdf
2. "Historic Alleys". historicalleys.blogspot.in.
3. "Ukraine: Crimea Earthquake of 1341". Earthquakes.findthedata.com. Retrieved 2015-04-07.
4. http://www.stephenpoickattil.com/templates/Articles/Periyar.pdf
5. "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris". The Hindu.
6. 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.

Thank you! Inks.LWC (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

T-Ban question

Minor edits, that are made by the hands(no automation) are also considered as T-Ban violation? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then would you like to look into one T-Ban violation? This edit violates the DS of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. I had reported this issue at AN, no admin seems to have taken it up. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 WP:AE.  Sandstein  17:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's far better, I would rather move this to AE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no votes at WP:AE or on WP:AN/I. An admin may impose a sanction if they are not involved in a dispute with the other user, see WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  08:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting like "Support Iban - ............" now that would be considered as WP:INVOLVED? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not in my view, no.  Sandstein  17:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Noman Group of Industries

Your handle is on the AfD page showing "Delete," but the article is still available. Tapered (talk) 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 Tapered (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion of Noman Group of Industries, 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 Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited, that's a separate issue. If PROD fails, then it can be nominated normally for deletion.  Sandstein  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. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the recreated version is different from the deleted one, which rules out speedy deletion.  Sandstein  16:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. There ought to be a better way of noting this for us non admins :) Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There is - the log.  Sandstein  17:20, 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 {{ping|}} feature. This happened 2nd time today. Would you check? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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 WP:DR.  Sandstein  18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)