User talk:Sandstein

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)[reply]

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Bailey was "Redirect" not "keep" per the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close instructions for an article that was changed in scope. Could you correct that? Raladic (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my judgment rough consensus in the AfD was to keep the article, albeit with a somewhat different title and scope. A redirect would be something different, namely, suppressing the original article's contents and pointing it to another existing article. That was not what the AfD decided on. Sandstein 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people that voted for it to be moved to a courtcase have really not actually passed the burden of proof that the case is notable, it looks very run-off-the-mill which likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT. I'm fine that it was redirected for now, but I would like to note that that was not a keep by any measure of the word, that was a redirect.

The BLP was not notable and was not kept, so a 'keep' result is disingenious as the new article is entirely not in having kept the BLP, it was redirected to a new title and different scope, which by itself, may not meet the burden of WP:EVENTCRIT and may itself be subject to AfD. Raladic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is not a legal system, we don't require anyone to meet a particular burden of proof. What matters is rough consensus, and here that consensus was to keep the article with a change in name and scope. The article was renamed, not redirected. You are free to disagree, and to either appeal the closure at WP:DRV, or to start a new AfD. Sandstein 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the rough consensus wasn't to move, I'm just saying that "keep" is the wrong word used on the closure, it was "moved" or "redirected". Raladic (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved, yes, but that's noted in the closure, and does not conflict with keeping it. It was not however redirected, see WP:REDIRECT. Sandstein 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now that the article has been focused on the legal case, sans puffery that was filled in the previous BLP article, it's pretty clear that it's a run-off-the-mill routine legal case, so I've followed your suggestion and filed an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others for the case article itself as I don't think it actually passes the WP:EVENTCRIT notability criteria. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little experience of deletion discussions. I see that according to WP:APPNOTE An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:…. I don’t know what ‘uninvolved’ means in this context.

The guidance later says: for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.. I’m wondering whether it would be normal/acceptable to notify everyone who participated in the deletion discussion on Allison Bailey that there has been an immediate proposal to delete the renamed article [1] I would be grateful for your advice on these matters. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I have a reply to my request for advice. Thank you. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970, sorry for the late reply. "Uninvolved" means somebody who has not yet expressed a view. My understanding is that notifying all participants to the earlier AfD about the second one would be acceptable. Sandstein 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this AfD, which is fine, I haven't yet got hold of the book source that may or may not establish notability. (I should have done this before deletion but) Is there any way of you copying the source to my user space so I could potentially improve before resurrection? U003F^? 07:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's the deleted article (will expire in 7 days): https://pastebin.com/c8cind7y Sandstein 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super, copied, thanks. U003F^? 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]