User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/March

The Shrike (Hyperion Cantos)

Hello. I'm trying to improve some articles related to the Hyperion Cantos, and am working on this article right now. I've noticed that the article on the Shrike was deleted/redirected less than a month ago, and also saw that you'd closed it and performed the merger. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the series, but the Shrike plays an extremely crucial role in the series, and I believe I have the sources to write a brief article on it. I understand our policies on notability, but I'd just like to know what you think on this, since you closed the discussion. Thanks, and hopefully this isn't too much of a bother. dci | TALK 18:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you are talking about The Shrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I have read the Hyperion Cantos and am familiar with the character, but I agree with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shrike that there is probably too little third-party coverage of the Shrike to merit an article separate from the main article, Hyperion Cantos. I recommend that you first write about it as a part of that article, and once you're done we can talk more specifically about whether there is enough material to merit a separate article again.  Sandstein  19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than rushing to delete, why don't we organize a proper merger? If there is eventually enough verifiable content for an article, it could be split out later. Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If there were anything useful to merge, people could have done that at any time since 2008. As it is, there's just a lot of unsourced plot summary that is much too detailed to go into the main article. I don't see anything that can be easily and usefully merged. An appropriately scoped description of this character is more easily arrived at by writing a new paragraph or two based on the sources you found, if they say anything about the character.  Sandstein  20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:TIND. I'm working on it now, which is what attracted your attention, and the attempt to delete. This is pretty annoying. What exactly is the harm in giving me a chance to finish editing, referencing, and if appropriate merging? Is there some reason this needs to be deleted right away? Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to this at the AfD.  Sandstein  21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I'm emoting so that everybody gets a clearer picture of what happens when there is an attempt to delete something that somebody is working on. I'm not deeply offended, just superficially annoyed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A WP:REFUND request you may wish to address personally.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Mistresses_of_the_Swedish_royal_family. At first glance, it appears that Petri Krohn may have a point. I don't see a consensus to delete Mistresses of the Swedish royal family at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Names of Kings of Sweden but I'll leave the decision to you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Suri Cruise article

You recently closed the AfD on the Suri Cruise page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suri_Cruise_%282nd_nomination%29 ). I must confess I don't understand the basis for the change to a redirect. By my understanding of the rules:

• Deletion "does not operate as a voting process" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Wikietiquette ), but rather based on reasons given by comments in the AfD. Those in favor of deletion or a redirect didn't provide reasoning, just unsupported opinions.
• Articles should not be deleted solely because they stubs or for (lack of) quality of content ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ). This article was a stub but that doesn't appear to be a reason for deletion.
• The article clearly met notability standards. Notability standards require "multiple" (e.g. at least 2) independent reliable sources discussing the subject, in this case independent of her parents, or other sources relevant to WP:BIO. I provided 11 such links, most of which met the base notability standards (some related to other issues like the "cult status" biography standard), which should have been more than enough - not to mention the large numbers of raw google hit counts. Indeed, the minimal requirements at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ) require checking Google books and Google news archives, which provide 2590 and 8730 results, respectively, suggesting that the nominator did not do these basic checks before the nomination.

Could you perhaps take a second look at the AfD discussion, and reconsider the closure? If not, could you at least provide your reasons for closing the discussion as you did? Thanks much, Warren Dew (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm unconvinced. The people who advocated merging/redirecting did give reasons, namely, that the subject is not individually notable. It's clear that you disagree with this, but you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the AfD participants, and not one contributor there shared your opinion. These grounds are not sufficient for me to reassess my closure.  Sandstein  09:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's tough to "convince" people who don't bother to recheck the discussion, but I agree that's not your problem.Warren Dew (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually on rereading the discussion, there were five !votes, only three of which wanted the redirect. The other two were my keep and one neutral. It strikes me that a bare majority of 3 out of 5 is not a consensus, and that the appropriate result was "no consensus". Warren Dew (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That kind of logic might be why you're not an admin :-) In weighing !votes, the admin also must keep in mind basic policies on notability, non-inherited notability, etc. The kid is not notable yet, apart from their parents. Redirecting is the only logical line of action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Not having separate articles on small children of celebrities who receive media coverage on account of their famous parents is more in line with policy and precedent. if you disagree, feel free to appeal at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  16:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, the reason I'm not an admin is because I prefer constructively contributing to wikipedia content rather than lording it over the actual editors.Warren Dew (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

March 7 Apple event deletion

If you read through the discussion you'll see that Barts1a has already complained quite a lot about lack of attribution when the article was originally created.

I think in that circumstance it doesn't seem like the right decision to delete the article entirely and to violate his copyright. The harm caused by making it a redirect is non-existent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see how Barts1a's copyright is being violated. If he or any other editor thinks that it is a problem that the few lines of text merged from the deleted article are now no longer attributed, they can delete or rewrite these lines. But nobody ought to be able to unilaterally block the implementation of a consensus to delete a page merely by merging a few lines from it to somewhere else. If they merge text from a page that they know is about to be deleted, the responsibility to address any copyright problems resulting from that deletion is theirs.  Sandstein  16:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think how the discussion was closed is relevant. I think people should expect that when they create content here that the licence requirements will be followed. We usually take copyright and defamation issues extremely seriously, so its actually rather surprising to me that we aren't doing so in this case.

Secondly I'm certainly not "standing in the way of deletion", I'm not insisting that the article's content is restored and visible, just that the article's history is publicly available so that people can be attributed as they should according to the licence. You can certainly also satisfy the terms of the licence by asking all the contributors to the article that was deleted if they are happy to waive their full rights to attribution and if they all agree to go along with that, but that seems like much more effort than restoring the article's history and making a redirect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since you believe that this is a serious problem, I've removed the text at issue and replaced it with a more concise new version. That resolves the issue, I should think. You could have done this yourself as well.  Sandstein  16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, the reason I didn't remove the content myself is because I don't see the need to make the encyclopaedia worse to satisfy the licence when there are other ways of resolving the issue without doing that - either by restoring the history as a (perfectly policy valid) redirect, or if that isn't something you want to do you could just restore it to talk space. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Exivious

Hello, i'd like to re-create the Exivious (dutch fusion band) page. Although they have released one album since their formation (album came out in 2009), they have really raised the bar high concerning a relatively non-explored genre. Their second album is due to be released this year, and it is very highly anticipated. Their first album got very positive ratings, so i really can't understand why their page was deleted in the first place. How come that the good music stops to be important for an encyclopedia, so it must be removed from it? The band is composed of schooled musicians, members from big bands such as Textures and Cynic..

Vuk1992 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. To have an article, a band must meet the requirements in WP:GNG. How does this band meet these requirements?  Sandstein  16:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed at . . .

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, I'm not.  Sandstein  16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They mentioned people with more than 50 AE closures. By my math, you have the most edits of any editor to that page. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, yes, that's one editor's idea, but thanks for the notice.  Sandstein  16:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for An Entirely New Feature of a Thrilling Novel: Entitled, The Social War of the Year 1900; Or, Conspirators and Lovers. A Lesson for Saints and Sinners

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Attribution of Apple media events

Hi, I'd like you to request a History-only undeletion of March 7 Apple Media Event that you closed, since content from that article was used to create Apple media events (which should be linked from Talk:Apple media events for attribution).

I've also seen that Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/March_7_2012_Apple_media_event now hosts the deleted article's content, but I can't tell if that is the same history of the deleted article; if you can confirm that it's the same then the history undeletion is not needed. Diego (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This would conflict with the "delete" outcome of that article's AfD discussion. The merged content can instead be removed and rewritten, as I did here and here.  Sandstein  21:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Genevoiserie ;-)

Dear Sandstein,

Apparently, once your deletion work done, you didn't return to the above mentioned page nor on fr.wikipedia. I left you a message and you never replied. I did however take note of your criticism and started all over again, looking up references saying expressis verbis that the example mentionned was indeed a Genevoiserie. And then an other user comes along and deletes everything because he doesn't find my examples relevant, in other words, he doesn't like them.

I'm new on wikipedia and I'm just wondering if people can delete entire paragraphs just because they don't like them. It's quite amazing that WP still exists at all. Anyway, I'm on the verge of giving up on the Genevoiserie, however, in case you didn't follow the feuilleton, below is a copy of my second attempt, destroyed by Manoillon. I will let you judge if my references are water-tight this time. I won't touch the article anymore, I've taken enough blows for the time being. I might however add a new section Prix Genferei, which will probably also be wiped out.

Regards

BeeJay on fr.wikipedia, alias already taken on en.wikipedia

--BiiJii (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(texte en français supprimé)

Salut; je repondrai sur ma page de discussion de langue française.  Sandstein  20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

your viXra comment

When you closed the AfD for viXra you stated that "There's agreement that this is a website of ... debatable scientific merit" This is untrue. Only the person who initiated the AfD gave such an opinion. Others may agree that viXra contains some articles of dubious scientific merit but that is a very different thing. Even arXiv contains articles of dubious scientific merit. viXra also contains many articles that have passed peer-review Weburbia (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Archived page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ViXra Weburbia (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Conference Interpreters

Hello again Sandstein,

It is my intention to translate this page into English (and have it proof read by a native speaker). Before doing so, I would like to check what it's chances of survival would be on en.wiki and also ask you what the best title would be :

• Fictional Conference Interpreters
• List of Fictional Conference Interpreters
• Conference Interpreters in Fiction
• other

It would then have to go into a category: Fiction / Fictional Characters etc.... Note that it is the profession as such that is depicted and not particular characters (as you would have Miss Marple or Mary Poppins in other professions)

PS: I added a reference to the article ku, would it be enough to remove the "bandeau"?

Thanks & regards

--BiiJii (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Article topics must meet the inclusion guideline WP:GNG. Juging by the sources cited, [[1] and [2], this requirement is probably met here, although I personally would find a prose article that describes and analyzes how interpreters are portrayed in fiction to be much more interesting than a mere list of fictional interpreters. If you want to develop this as a prose article, I'd recommend Conference interpreters in fiction, otherwise, List of fictional conference interpreters (note the capitalization).  Sandstein  16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Ku, you can remove the tag if you want to, but it is recommended to provide references in the form of inline references (footnotes, see WP:FN) rather than as external links as you did at [3]. Also, it is recommended to format references using the {{cite news}} template to ensure an uniform citation style. In this case, because this language was used only in one film, The Interpreter, it may still not be notable enough on its own, and the article could be merged with that about the film, see WP:MERGE.  Sandstein  16:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein and thanx for your prompt answer.

I'd love to add a a prose article as an introduction, but I might get slapped on the fingers for being subjective and/or not encyclopedic enough. I'll start with a list and yours truly or someone else might add a little intro later on, how about that?

As for the the article concerning the fictional language KU, I'll study the matter. I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't disappear because of a missing source. Considering the more than flimsy importance of the topic, I'll hardly find much more of anything very academic on the subject.

Bye 4 now

--BiiJii (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What should I do now?

Hey there Sandstein!

As you've noticed my article on April Masini was deleted after substantial research and community support to get it as a stand alone page. I guess I just need to know what to do now... within Teahouse, some editors have told me to just wait it out since the initial page that was up for deletion is vastly different from the one I wrote. (you can read our conversation here if you'd like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#My_Page_has_been_Deleted_:.28 ) Is that still the case? I'm not sure what to do next since I've adhered to the proper guidelines. Anything helps. Thanks!!! GMHayes (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you started a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 19. All you can do now is to wait the 7+ days until it concludes. It might help your case if you could explain in that discussion which sources you added to the article to make clear that the subject now meets our inclusion rule WP:GNG or WP:BIO.  Sandstein  22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, talk page lurker here. I've never heard of this person, but here's a potential source you might be able to use for your article.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I struck thru "potential". Upon closer inspection, it looks like an excellent source. They're a regional newspaper with editorial oversight, and the article is actually about the her (as opposed to citing her). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

I want to commend you for taking the time to explain your reasoning so thoroughly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your close, though I assume a few people are likely to come here to comment on the not included opinions part (or maybe not), so let me be the first. From what you said about mine, I assume you only saw the top part of my vote that Fred responded to, splitting it, and missed the rest of what I said. Here's the diff for my full vote comment. I just wanted to clarify that. Silverseren^C 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. You assume right; I should have considered that opinion as well.  Sandstein  19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done on the detailed close, I hope this will serve as a model to help decide future contentious xFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz

Given that my initial instinct to speedy List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz has been upheld in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz, is it safe to go ahead and speedy List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz? Or should I run it through a discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems?—Kww(talk) 23:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend opening an AfD or other discussion. G12 covers only unambiguous copyright infringement, and in cases where at least some transformation has taken place, such as from text to table form, as seems to be the case with these lists, the infringement (if any) is probably not unambiguous enough to warrant speedy deletion.  Sandstein  06:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

You concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwin Avenue as "delete". But you didn't offer any explanation for doing so.

I request an explanation of which arguments you discounted and which you felt held merit, please.

I would like to know how seriously you took the repeated informationectomies and referencectomies carried out by a subgroup of those who favoured delete.

Further User:Martin Morin cut a block of text straight from the article, and pasted it, unaltered, into Cherry Beach -- without attribution. That was plagiarism. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I did not discount any particular arguments; rather, I concluded that there was a very strong majority of contributors that was of the opinion that the sourcing is not sufficient to pass the notability threshold. I do not know what you mean by "informationectomies and referencectomies". As to the plagiarism issue, that is something you should discuss with the other person first, per WP:DR. It can probably be remedied by providing the required attribution on the talk page or in an edit summary.  Sandstein  20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I drafted an different reply to your note above. But I decided the best course today is to request userification of the article and its talk page.

The nominator, and a large fraction of those who voiced a "delete" opinion, apparently felt it was appropriate to make extensive excisions to the article -- while it was before {{afd}}. This is what I meant by "informationectomies and referencectomies". Our policies don't specifically prohibit this behavior, but I think it is a terrible idea, because it is best for the project for those who think the article should be kept to be allowed a free hand to try to address whatever concerns were voiced in the {{afd}}.

I think that it is terribly erosive of the general store of collegiality, civility and good will we should all aim to maintain, when those in the delete camp edit war in articles while they are before {{afd}}, and should confine themselves to voicing their concerns in the {{afd}}. As I wrote in the {{afd}}, even if, for the sake of argument, everyone but those in the keep camp felt the keep case was hopeless, those in the keep camp will feel the {{afd}} was fatally disrupted by this kind of edit warring. Whereas, if the delete camp are disciplined enough to refrain from interfering with the efforts of the keep camp, in the actual article. If they can keep their hands off the article everyone, including those in the keep camp, can't speculate that the article would have been kept, if it hadn't been for the edit warring.

Anyhow, due to their disruptive efforts, the article, when deleted, was not at its best state, when you closed the discussion. If you reversed yourself, and restored the article to article space, it would probably be nominated, a second time, almost right away. If and when it is restored to article space I would prefer to defend a version of the article that shows no echo of the disruptive edits of those in the delete camp. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Geo Swan/Unwin Avenue.  Sandstein  07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Could you also `please userify Talk:Unwin Avenue to User talk:Geo Swan/Unwin Avenue? Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• None of the edits made by the "delete camp" were disruptive. They removed pointless trivial facts, unrelated information, and the general cramming of point form facts into the article as trivia in a frantic attempt to persuade those who only take a cursory glance at article length to vote "keep". Please do not recreate this article. It does not matter how many sources you find, it is not a notable street, and there will be another AfD if it is recreated. Go add the worthwhile information to List of east–west roads in Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Talk userfy done. Please discuss the merits of the article or related disputes elsewhere, as I am not interested in that.  Sandstein  16:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ASMR

I'd like to respectfully submit that you shouldn't have deleted Wikipedia's page on the Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response. "ASMR Wikipedia" is an extremely popular Google search. ASMR is a real, and extremely intriguing phenomenon. There ought to be a page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.17.57 (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  06:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

I believe I used the Telegraph siege source which documented an AFP press release. See "13.43 Explosives have been found in a car belonging to the gunman's brother, AFP reports."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Banner Saga

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with possible trolling by Stefan2

Hi I am a retired user, it as been a while since I edited here, however I get email as my talk page is changed and it has remained just with the notice of retired for ages, until today when I am getting copyright deletion notices posted by user Stefan2, my offline ID is to easy to find as I own the trade mark associated with this account name, I have a publishers, can you please look into the actions of user Stefan2 he appears to be trolling, getting close to hounding, if you cannot help please point me to the right place, thanks. --pl (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the actions you find objectionable? It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  17:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)