User talk:Sandstein

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: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction

You relisted this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction - the same editors who participated in the last round have now started a move/split discussion that should be on the article talkpage - pinging only a few of the participants in the discussion. I think relisting this was been a mistake, a move discussion does not belong at AfD. The main complaints from editors opposing the deletion have been that issues like WP:OR and the article title should have been discussed at the talk page and not at AfD, which I feel you ignored by soliciting further comments that are not directly about the article's notability.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System I'm not commenting on the rest of your post, but regarding specifically my behavior, my intention with the move/split discussion was not to involve "only a few of the participants" -- the ones I pinged were specifically the ones who had previously mentioned renaming the article. In fact my goal is a broad consensus across the various national divides that are present on this issue [[1]], though perhaps I was naive. --Calthinus (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case if the agreement is to keep the article and try to reach a consensus on scope and article name the AfD should be closed keep and the proposal should be discussed on the talk page. Otherwise it looks like voting delete based on content and not notability - since some of the editors supporting the move also supported deletion. I don't think it was intentional on your part, and I know you voted keep, but AfD is not the right place to reach a consensus on content issues.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors can discuss what they want, and it will be up to the closing admin to determine what does or does not belong in the AfD. Sandstein 07:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein Seraphim System I've taken a lot of flack for starting this sub-thread and I've started to agree that it is making matters confusing. For the purposes of the admins seeing the AfD, do you think it would be helpful for me to move that discussion to the talk page, which is where (as I have been admonished) it really belongs? --Calthinus (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't move comments by others. Sandstein 22:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. The discussion on the AfD has become difficult to follow and editors are somewhat confused around the parameters of the discussion. Some editors have initiated a discussion on other article issues with various proposals that are usually dealt with on the article talkpage instead of an AfD which is about whether an article should exist or not. So i have a question. Is the original AfD of the article still in play or has the new discussion on proposals overridden it (which are not of an AfD nature)? Clarification on the matter would be much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion has become so overwhelmed with various proposals and off topic commentary that we are basically now talking about two different articles, both of which have copious WP:RS to support notability. I don't think it is possible to salvage this AfD, as the limited source based discussion has been broken up by various off-topic proposals, and non-policy based votes and personal opinions like While POV issues cannot be a reason for deleting an article, it is the nature of that POV the reason it has to be deleted. I think this is going to be very difficult for any admin to close.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The AfD discussion is handily beating the article for length, frequency of edits, and daily views. I don't think it can be closed ever because it's driving too much traffic. The AfD may become so epic that someone writes an article about the AfD, then we'll also have an AfD for that article... Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring page for Aftab Pureval

Aftab Pureval is now a candidate for the House of Representatives. Would you consider restoring this page so that it can be updated to include this information? I'm willing to edit it to be less "puffery" and include national media coverage. Thanks in advance!

Waxlion sb (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Being a candidate alone does not confer notability. See WP:BIO. Sandstein 16:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Adventist Today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Today closed as delete)

Requesting that the article for Adventist Today please be restored. The organization is one of the two most significant independent publishers for the 18M+ Adventist community, including news, quarterly magazine, and books. (The article for the other publisher remains, thank goodness.) Now numerous references to Adventist Today in other Wikipedia articles have no information linked. If memory serves the article—which wasn’t mine—needed updating and expansion, and it will be improved if restored. Thank you for your consideration. Bluepenciltime (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This doesn't address the reasons for deletion highlighted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Today. Sandstein 19:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

United States v. DuBay

I would like to get the above article to GA status, but am unsure how much more it needs to be improved before nomination. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, really. Long time since I did a GA. Sandstein 15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Betesh deletion

You didn't acknowledge (Mozucattalk)'s reasons to keep. Please revert or I will bring you up as a problematic editor to an administrator.A21sauce (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to. Sandstein 20:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Second to last comment here--A21sauce (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did count Mozucat's keep opinion, but that didn't change the consensus to delete. Sandstein 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Behaviour Composer page

Why was the Behaviour Composer page deleted? As I noted in the page update a couple weeks ago it has been the subject of 6 published papers and is still freely available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Composer ToonTalk (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Because nobody opposed the deletion in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behaviour Composer. It was argued there that the six papers are in fact self-published. Sandstein 10:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

These papers were published in reputable international conferences. Would it help if I provided links to the proceedings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonTalk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And Google Scholar lists 22 publications mentioning the Behaviour Composer. https://scholar.google.co.id/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22behaviour+composer%22&btnG=