User talk:Sandstein
Add topic
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.
ITN recognition for Flydubai Flight 1073
[edit]
On 1 October 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Flydubai Flight 1073, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Sdkb talk 04:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Deletion review for Heather Nigro
[edit]An editor has asked for a deletion review of Heather Nigro. Because you closed the discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~~~~ ~2026-55485-88 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
DRV closure
[edit]Hi Sandstein. I was hoping you could expand on your DRV closure here. I admit I am not a DRV regular. However, DRVNOT as written explicitly excludes requests to create a new version of a deleted article unless technical restrictions were in place to prevent it, and in this case, they were not. What piece of our PAGs permit DRV to deny such a request? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- I have no idea. As closer, I merely note the consensus outcome of the discussion, I do not second-guess it. In this case, recreation was declined, but another appeal with better arguments or sources might fare better. Sandstein 19:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Consensus must be based in policy and existing procedure. The result you note contradicts the basic procedure DRV outlines. That said, I'm not invested in this to pursue it further. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Please see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 26#Abhijeet Dipke. Same kind of illegitimate “attraction of jurisdiction” pattern. DRV has a tendency to accept whatever is thrown at (if the responding participants “like it”, i.e., want to express an opinion about it) it and will decide positively or negatively on the request. And if the request is “can I (re)recreate the article”/“can I get help with repeat-blanking-and-redirecting” (in substance), DRV will gladly say “no”, which many will then believe is a prohibition on creating an article, which does not exist on Wikipedia; what exists is creation protection and deletion, not “permission for recreation”. In this way, Deletion review acts as an article creation committee, meaning as a bureaucratic body. There is a power accumulation dynamic. And I’d be fine with how something is not done as described on the project page (not done consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE here) if only it were not contrary to more important other principles, and here it is. And it promotes edit warring and status quo stonewalling. And promotes crazy gaming (see how Abhijeet Dipke was recreated … name gaming and spurious AfC paperwork to get away from the revert-sheriff at the redirect, followed by a sham “can we keep this article” pure buro AfD, which is a misuse of AfD). “Apellants” also get teased and berated. —Alalch E. 21:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Aedinia gens AfD
[edit]Thanks for relisting and adding your comments. I'm quite concerned about this AfD due to the walls of text and the frequent comments by !voters that they haven't read the discussion or their failure to give policy-based arguments. I feel that one user has, unintentionally, made the discussion very difficult to follow and drowned out the more solidly-based arguments, both for and against deletion, made by other users.
Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with this? In my view, this AfD is really quite significant, as it sets a precedent that articles on Roman gens are notable whether or not sigcov is present in RS. It almost carves out a de facto exception to WP:GNG. Would it be appropriate to leave a neutrally-worded message at WP:N talkpage? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- In my view, yes, though others may feel differently. Sandstein 07:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, a week or so ago, you closed this discussion to redirect. There was one source brought up by the nom. I've since gained access to another source through an inter-library loan that came in a few days afterwards, which I believe would lead this book to meet NBOOK (~850 word review article in African Armed Forces Journal). Would you be fine with me restoring this redirect back to an article? Also pinging participants ScalarFactor, An editor from Mars and Fences and windows. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's better to write a short summary in the target article using those two sources. Two sources don't amount to independent notability. I'd said to smerge, but decided not to after realising the content was entirely based on the foreword to the book and said nothing of real substance. Fences&Windows 12:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- @ARandomName123, as closer I can only assess consensus at the time of closure, I have no particular authority over the further fate of the article. I recommend, however, establishing some sort of consensus before un-redirecting the article. Sandstein 17:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
James Van Patten - question about draftification
[edit]Hi, I'm James Van Patten. I just want to know whether the newspaper and book references already in the article were considered when it was moved to draft.Special:Permalink/1381578444 JamesVP1956 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know. As closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Van Patten (2nd nomination), I can not assess any better than you the reasons the participants had when they expressed their views in that discussion. Sandstein 12:02, 3 November 2026 (UTC)