User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/September

Relisting

Hey mate, any reason this was relisted and not just closed? There's no deletion rationale, and the nominator (such as they are) has suggested redirecting the title to another article. Even a fall-back to a deletion nomination would be moot, because "lack of context" isn't a deletion rationale anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Stalwart111, the reason was that at the time of the relisting nobody had yet responded to the AfD nomination. Your arguments here belong in the AfD, in my view, and I see that you have now also expressed them there. If they obtain consensus, the AfD will be closed accordingly. Sandstein 12:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, fair. Seemed like a exercise in pointlessness. But let process be done I suppose. Thanks for the reply. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What, again, does "legendary" mean?

"legendary means of uncertain historicity, not a fictional character" - are you serious? A character in a legend, whose existence never has been proven in any way, is "of uncertain historicity"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, it's in the nature of legends that they are in the grey area between history and fiction. In the case of Lagertha, she's a character in the Gesta Danorum, a medieval work that apparently mixes fact and fiction in the typical manner of medieval chronicles, so it's difficult to say whether she is pure fiction, an amalgam of real warrior women, or a historical person. Sandstein 15:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it difficult to say that such legendary characters should never be treated by Wikipedia as if they definitely or probably were actual people? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I suggest that we continue this at Talk:Lagertha. Sandstein 15:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Question/clarification on page deletion, and steps forward

Hi there, my organization (the New York Stem Cell Foundation) noticed our wikipedia page was deleted last year, and have tasked me with finding out why and how to rejoin the platform. Upon emailing wikipedia regarding the deletion, they directed me to message you as the deleting editor to find out more.

I can see the commentary stating the page needed to be rewritten, which is understandable, but I am confident in our 'notability' and am able to provide many primary sources to support this. Mostly, I am interested in steps forward, how we can create an impartial and encyclopedic page (or request someone else to do so? to be fully adherent to wikipedia's rules) and how we can solve the problems identified.

Many thanks in advance! 24.44.95.162 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to jump in here for a minute. At the deletion discussion the opening rationale raised several significant points [1]:

• The rationale says the article was created by the organization itself. This fact will raise red flags among Wikipedia editors due to possible conflict of interest issues. This includes concerns for possibly using this site for promotion. The thinking is this: because the organization is closely associated with the article and its creation, there might be a conflict of interest inhibiting independently editing this article.
• It was "significantly edited by at least one single purpose account and main points are based on primary sources." So, this looks like an account was opened only for the purpose of editing this article. And, without knowing you people, this could look like that account might have an agenda and edit in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Along with the single purpose account, sources were based on material closely associated with the organization. Such sources might be used to present a biased view of the organization. I'm not saying that is what happened, but these type of sources are frowned upon for determining notability.

In fact, they usually are not seen as evidence for determining notability. To see what it takes to make a topic such as your organization notable according to Wikipedia standards, please see the introductory paragraph at WP:ORG. Then please read these sections: WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS, and WP:ORGDEPTH. If you are not able to gather together some sources unrelated to your organization, that talk about your organization, then your article will have a tough time being accepted for inclusion.

• The last issue was adding sources not directly related to the topic. Biography pages of various researchers do not support this topic for inclusion. In fact, these would be off topic. I think the best place to start is create an article with appropriate sources. Then submit it to our Articles for creation project. Well, hopefully this helps. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  Steve Quinn, thanks! I agree with your assessment. Also, per WP:COI, people should not write about themselves or their group, and I will not assist them in doing so. Sandstein 03:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sandstein, I know I am doing too much to help coi editors, but my whole career as a librarian has been helping whoever comes to ask a question. And in this case I'm interested, as I'd like to find a way to determine notability for conferences.

I think this organization is notable, and much of it is related to the conference--it should be included, they shouldn't be separate articles.

Steve, I want to point out that the importance of a research organization does derive from the notability of its researchers. (NOTINHERITED works the other way round--the people aren't notable because a notable organization funds them, as it funds non-notable people also) Even if it just funds them, its purpose or existence is to select whom it gives money to. Of course, if for an organization we could find a good 3rd party source saying that a foundation has done that well, we could use it--that would be the ideal source. But I'd still list the ones who haveb een determined to be notable here for WP purposes & have articles, on the same basis as we list alumni for a college. But absolutely I agree we wouldn't include their bios in the article;whenever Icomeacross an organization doing that (as many try to do for thieir board of directors, etc.), I always remove it. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

DGG. I seem to be pinging you a lot lately. The reason I reverted myself here is because it seemed I was sliding into getting involved. And I don't know this organization. So, I don't want to end up writing their article for them. I think it is best that whoever writes their article should try to familiarize themselves with the the notability criteria I delineated above. They could also take a look at the page WP:N - that is in addition to the above. And perhaps, most importantly, they should submit their article to WP:AFC for approval. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My own personal wish is they assemble the source before hey start to write the article, not after it's been challenged. And that goes for non-coi editors too. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021

Hello. Concerning:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021

You did not cite reasons for deletion. 4 people wanted deletion. All their objections were answered. 2 people wanted it kept. One did not say.

I thought deletion discussions were not votes. I suggest adding your deletion reasons on the AFD page, or others will not understand why the pages were deleted. At the moment I honestly don't know what justified reasons you used to delete almost 2 years of work. Why were these pages OK for almost 2 years, but not now? Or if they were OK then, but no longer, then why not just stop the creation of more daily reports by country.

And the deletion does not answer the question of whether weekly reports by country are OK. I assume monthly reports by country are OK? Or should I stop helping update those too?

I am following custom by asking you first before going to WP:Deletion review. I want bother of course if the deletion reasons adequately satisfy policies and guidelines.

Again, I would rather you answer me by writing the reasons on the AFD page. Thanks. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeshifter, consensus was clear: everybody but you was in favor of deletion. Your lengthy replies disrupted rather than assisted the discussion, see WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You obviously weren't paying attention. No offense. User:Anguswalker, who created all the pages, wanted to keep them. His comment there:

If the page had this reference, which is where the figures come from, would that solve the problem? https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv

And deletion discussions are not supposed to be votes anyway.

I also mentioned him several times there concerning his creation and methods.

WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

Thanks for replying, and not answering my question concerning what legitimate reasons you used to delete the articles.

I will not bother you further, and will go to WP:Deletion review instead. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeshifter, Anguswalker did not express a view about whether the articles should be deleted or not. Everybody else agreed that the articles failed WP:V and / or WP:NOT, which are strong reasons to delete a page. Sandstein 13:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Anguswalker directly answered the WP:V question which is what started all of this. He hadn't gotten around to changing the reference on the monthly pages from the daily/weekly WHO situation reports which is what he used for months until WHO started putting the daily data in the .csv file. That is a minor error that the original deletion requesters could have asked for on the talk page before going to AFD. As I said in the AFD I updated the references on all the monthly pages. No one acknowledged this.

As for WP:NOT I thoroughly answered that at the AFD. I don't want to rehash that here obviously since this not the place to do it.

The only legitimate reason I saw was from JohnFromPinckney claiming WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially concerning wide tables on mobile phones. I agreed with that, and changed the July 2021 table from daily numbers to weekly numbers. That lowered the column count (split over 2 tables) from ~30 daily columns to 5 weekly columns. You can see the narrow mobile-friendly table in my sandbox:

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox157

I help edit Help:Table. I offered to change all the previous monthly tables to the new format. And I offered to consolidate it further by putting 3 tables on each page. So instead of 21 wide-table monthly articles, there would be 7 narrow-table quarterly articles to cover the period from January 2020 through September 2021. This pandemic will be studied for decades. The weekly changes in individual countries drastically changed in steepness depending on the policies of those individual countries. The deaths show this. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeshifter, since you're clearly convinced of your view, you're welcome to try WP:DRV. Sandstein 16:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainjel Emme

Hi @Ainjel Emme: I wanted to ask you why you came to No Consensus result on the above Afd? I don't normally ask administrators why they make these decision, but I think this is ridiculous. scope_creep^Talk 09:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, in terms of numbers opinions were equally divided, and people can in good faith disagree about how much coverage is needed for notability; that's not for me as the closer to adjudicate. Sandstein 09:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Then why are you closing Afd's, if you can't make a decision? Your fundamentally saying anybody can come in and say anything, any old junk and its ok, that will make it a no consensus vote. The article is a BLP and there was no references offered to prove she was notable, so it is complete conjecture as to what she is. It wasn't even proved she is a singer. What is there is machine generated profile, using the album cover image with list of songs, with no reviews. There is not even one review of the album available anywhere, not one. There is no coverage on social media. No indication of the music being streamed by people on the major streaming platforms, no coverage on Google Books, no mention on the big sites like Medium, no mention of the fan sites or magazines. Not one iota of evidence was presented, just the superfluos she has production credits. Where was the references? Now there is article left, which is a BLP with no references, just a machine-generated profile. What a great outcomes, for a singer that nobody listens to, with no fans. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, AfD closers are there to assess consensus, not to decide AfDs by supervote. We weigh arguments based on their compliance with policy, but in this case the assessment of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, not something I can or should decide as closer. Sandstein 10:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be making head in the clouds arguments, based on a essay that is not policy, for a good reason, and arguments that havs no basis in reality. Editorial judgement of sources is fine in practice, but only if valid sources exist in the first place. It was plainly obvious it was a clear delete as there was no sources to satisfy WP:V. Not one human made source, just profiles. And you completely ignored all policy around WP:BLP. Now we have a dead article that has went to CAT:NN. I don't think your competent at the moment. I urge to stay out of Afd for at least six months until you start make rational decisions again. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, if that's your view, you can appeal the closure at WP:DRV. I'm sure it'll be an instructive experience. Sandstein 12:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Change for the sake of change

Shall we go on changing each others entries just for the sake of change? Someone who is intensely involved in some article might do that to secure a form of article ownership. That's not a direct accusation but it looks very odd to me when an administrator uses h position and makes changes to get h own wording when previous wording said the same thing. On Lagertha, I changed the grammatically incorrect preposition "of" to the grammatically correct "on" (in that context) which then solved the entire problem in that sentence in a smooth way. Why you felt you had to change it again to a slightly more cumbersome wording with the same meaning, is beyond me. Are you and I heading for a major collision? I certainly hope not. Please don't make unnecessary changes! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I think we have a misunderstanding here. In my view, the former wording "a reflection of" was correct. What it meant to say was that Lagertha's tale might be what remained of the original tales after their reception by Saxo, in the same way as an image in a mirror is slightly distorted; in that sense, Saxo's story is in fact "a reflection of" the original tales. Your wording, "a reflection on", means something different: a "reflection" in this sense would be what results when somebody gives the original story much thought (i.e., "reflects on" it). To avoid this misunderstanding, I reworded the sentence to avoid the ambiguous word "reflection". Sandstein 14:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Reflection of" is not used in English according to a personal interpretation like that and can only cause confusion. It always infers a physical reflection, not a psychological one. "Reflection on" was correct because that's exactly what you're describing. The key is the word "reflection". It does not say "pondering" or "thoughts" there, it says "reflection". It's much simpler in German with wording like ein Spiegelbild der Geschichte. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, according to e.g. Cambridge Dictionary, a "reflection of" something is not necessarily only a physical reflection, as in this definition: "reflection noun, something that shows, expresses, or is a sign of something: Their finely decorated home is a reflection of their good taste.". That is the meaning I meant to use. But as I said, we can avoid this disagreement by avoiding the word "reflection". Sandstein 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

That's just fine with me. You and your proclamations and personal interpretation of a dictionary are never going to teach me English anyway, no matter how you keep trying. I get paid at least $100 an hour to write good English in commercial use all over the world. "Reflection on" was perfect. You should abstain next time from being reelected administrator on English Wikipedia. I am not alone in hoping you do that, as clearly is shown by several others on this page. Administrators are almost never condescending, masterful or overweening, not even in replying with the same medicine. That's why I'm not one. Frederick, one of Sweden's 4 German kings, once said "Der har Recht, und der hat auch Recht." Not so in this case, sorry. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I'm sorry you feel that way. I would like to remind you that our conduct policies provide: "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people" (WP:AVOIDYOU). I've tried to address this very minor content disagreement at a purely content level, which is why I am disappointed that you feel the need to bring my admin rights, my supposed skills and personal characteristics into the discussion. I would like to ask you to keep these conduct rules in mind in the future. Personally, I've always found that I've been much more effective at resolving problems on Wikipedia by focusing on content, not contributors. Sandstein 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's actually quite shocking to see an administrator not know the difference between policy on article pages and on user talk pages. On article talk pages we should always try to focus on content, not contributors. User talk pages are for exactly this type of exchange. If the behavior of a user on an article talk page is not constructive, h user talk page is exactly where an honest complaint about that should go. Your talk page is full of such complaints, but you always seem to find yourself faultless. This only makes me ask you with even more emphasis: please refrain from reelection as an administrator on English Wikipedia! As such you are, in my forthright opinion, not supposed to behave like you often do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

I have started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. It can be found here — Ched (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge of purged List of stock characters in military fiction possible?

Hello Sandstein! You have recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in military fiction as delete, with the main reason being the WP:OR issues. If I remember correctly, however, parallel to the deletion discussion that list was purged of more or less all unreferenced parts, leaving a bit of sourced content which therefore was not original research. Do you think it would be possible without violating the spirit of the discussion to undelete and merge the referenced parts remaining in the end to List of stock characters in the spirit of WP:AtD? (Conforming to what Dronebogus and Dream Focus suggested.) Thanks for your thoughts! Daranios (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

After the last vote was cast, someone went through and erased all the entries that didn't have a reference to them. I added in some references to things as did others. So the original research claim was dealt with. But meh, don't really care. The list you want it merged to has the same problems with most of its entries. Dream Focus 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Daranios, I don't have a view one way or the other, sorry. Sandstein 14:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein: In that case, would you be willing to undelete or draftify that list in its last version in order for me to merge the referenced content? Daranios (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't undelete articles, but you can ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I did a full history export to the list wiki. https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_stock_characters_in_military_fiction?action=history Dream Focus 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: Cool thing. I don't know how to work with histories, though. Would it perhaps be possible that you imported the whole thing to e.g. Draft:List of stock characters in military fiction? Then I could successively merge and afterwards redirect to List of stock characters.
• @Sandstein: Would that be an admissible way to go? Daranios (talk)

• Only if all contributors can be properly attributed. Sandstein 19:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I guess the deletion nomination (and very last edits) are missing. *Sigh*. Well, I'll try the other route then. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of longest-living United States senators

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of longest-living United States senators. 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. actually four pages in the review Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Decision

Wanted to ask you to reconsider your decision here. The rationale for delete does not square with our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

How so? Sandstein 14:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you discounted ivotes based on the fact that the keep participants were emotional and did not make policy and guideline based arguments. This looks like a no consensus and it can be renominated. I know this is not policy or guideline however - page views show us that our readers use this page for information and perhaps navigation (page views.-6,597 in July, 5,600 views in August and 8,544 so far this month). The list fits exactly into our guideline for lists on WP:LISTCRITERIA - sadly the other keep rationales did not articulate policy or guideline - if we look at straight opinion 8 including nominator favored deletion and 6 favored keeping. The first delete rationale was also weak: Delete per above... In conclusion a deletion is the death penalty and recreation is difficult or impossible. A no-consensus does not prohibit a renomination - I have seen 9 renoms. Easy to delete hard to keep. Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Personal attacks are discounted at AfD. The remaining participants mostly disagreed with your arguments. Sandstein 14:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when you deleted this article; instead you said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed arbitrary and nonsensical, but I Would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it. Please reconsider your deletion.

No, since it's at DRV now, see below. Sandstein 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. I just want the article to come back and not be deleted anymore.

It means that the closure is being reviewed by the community at WP:DRV. Any decision about whether to restore the article will be made there. Sandstein 20:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So that is where I go to fight this deletion? Thanks.

Sandstein, I have had issues with many of your closes, even appealed a few. I know that your decision will not be overturned at DRV or anywhere else: the bar is too high. I hope that you carefully read your own talk page to see that many editors have questions about your closes. You have sometimes been flippant with them. You have been closing AfDs for a long time and perhaps you have become irritated with editors because of that. Lightburst (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll let the comments by almost all other editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 29 speak for themselves. Sandstein 11:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Administrator for life. No oversight. Snarky responses. Winning! Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)