| Revision as of 14:17, 11 August 2010 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Note← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,438 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder: r | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | {{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} | ||
| == closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23) == | |||
| == Misplaced comment on AE == | |||
| 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.] (]) 14:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, Sandstein, for your review of Will's post regarding me at Arbitration Enforcement. I see that Will has added a comment in the Results area, which is reserved for uninvolved Admins. Perhaps his comment should be moved. (Note also that Stifle's comment came before I posted my statement.) Thanks. ] (]) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Can you please link to that DRV? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == I'm sure you're sick of hearing about this == | |||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 ] (]) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am waiting for your response. ] (]) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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." ] (]) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], 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 <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for your response. I have no idea on "restoration request." Could you please let me know where I can find it? ] (]) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| but if I go to the *^&#$%^ trouble of extensively discussing something with someone (regardless of how much in bad faith I think they're acting), ask for a third opinion, the person who gives his third opinion gives his/her own time to review the situation and provide it, and then both my discussion and the provided third opinion are completely ignored by, guess who, Varsovian, who inserts, again, his own OR, with POV completely opposite to every source included in the article... well, being sick of it is about the right state of mind. | |||
| Hi Sandstein, | |||
| Here is the third opinion "I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD.". Here is the third opinon's provider's edit . Here is Varsovian shamelessly POVing the lead in total disregard of the third opinion (the parade is notable for the LACK of (initial, if he's gonna wikilawyer it) invitation). And this right after getting off a 55 hour block and making disrputive POINT-y edits to the talk page . | |||
| 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 {{u|Dclemens1971}} there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you. ] ] 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. I realize this is a "content dispute" (which is starting to look more and more like an excuse to pass the buck around various admin board (AE, AN/I, WQ alerts all have claimed this) rather confronting this problem). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has violated every single content related guideline Misplaced Pages has. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has consistently engaged in tendentious OR with aim to push a particular POV, despite being warned about it by several uninvolved admins (not to mention editors). It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has edit warred with over a dozen different editors over a period of almost one year. It's a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has completely disregarded consensus and outside opinion and persisted in disruptive action, for almost a year. Finally, it is a "content dispute" in which one party, Varsovian, has wasted a TREMENDOUS amount of time of a large number of editors and administrators, both on the article and through auxiliary drama (like his filing spurious AE reports against Chumchum). | |||
| :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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This simply needs to end. This is a content dispute but I don't see anything in which precludes applying discretionary sanctions for repeated and tendentious violation of CONTENT policies. It says "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, '''despite being warned''', that editor '''repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.''' | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::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 and 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. ] ] 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, I've relisted the AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! ] ] 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion closure of ]== | |||
| Varsovian has been warned (about half dozen times). Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages by POV pushing and engaging in OR, failed to adhere to expected standards of behavior by ignoring consensus and third opinion (I haven't even gotten around to the persistent incivility). Varsovian has failed to respect the normal editorial process by continually edit warring on the article for the past nine months or so. There's no reason why discretionary sanctions cannot be used here. A topic ban from the article IS THE LEAST that can be done. A full Poland-related topic ban is in fact in order as whenever he leaves the article alone to "hide" from admin scrutiny for awhile he just goes to other Poland related articles and does the same thing with the same negative and disruptive results. And just look at his contributions. 99% of them are Poland related. 99% of that 99% are NEGATIVE (which doesn't mean necessarily revert worthy). <s>He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda.</s> I can throw in some of his own statements as well which show he has problems with Poland and Poles. | |||
| Hello {{u|Sandstein}}! In your closure of ] as redirect you have dismissed the two exemplary articles from the magazine '']'' 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 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! ] (]) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for asking. In the AfD, you did not describe these sources as articles from an academic journal. You merely referred to them as "" and "". 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If you need all this in form of a AE report let me know. At this point I have trouble seeing why even that would be necessary.] (]) 18:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be and . The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages and .) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on ''Slayage'' before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the ''content'', I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! ] (]) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | |||
| A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep. | |||
| :Hm. I certainly can't form an opinion or take any action without a very well-reasoned request for arbitration enforcement that contains, dates and explains all diffs that support your contention - and nothing more than that. Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction ''you'' if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence. But even if you assemble a report that you think is brief and informative enough to be useful to an admin who neither knows nor cares about the history of this dispute, the admin may still conclude that the issue is too complicated for AE (as it now appears, the disputes about this article go way back) and needs a full arbitration case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Your evaluation of ''Slayage'' is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in ], but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in ]. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that ''Slayage'' was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong. | |||
| *None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to ] do not satisfy ] number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per ], part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred. | |||
| :Further, making a ''de facto'' conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of ] on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article. | |||
| Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. ] (]) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright.] (]) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button. | |||
| ::I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--''Slayage'' was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? ] (]) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now at ]. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —] 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. ] (]) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione == | |||
| :::I can see that Sandstein needs to maintain an equitable stance, and that is fair enough. And to date he has been the most active admin on the article, which has required his patience, and that is commendable. Presumably "a full arbitration case" would be filed at ] either after or with a ]. That said, there may be a case for a ] here. This edit seems to have ripped out a ] citation with no good reason other than a ] assertion of 'fact' in the edit summary. That may breach ], especially because this SECONDARY content has been fought over before; and worse, there was a seeming attempt to counter the SECONDARY content with ] content by process of a slow edit war prior to the ] imposition. Sandstein labelled the 1RR as an attempt to change ways at the article, the question is whether his effort was respected. Thanks, -] (]) 21:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a reason why ] was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Two requests == | |||
| :It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| May I make two requests. Firstly, given that you say that "Statements like "X is a SPA with an obvious POV agenda" are worse than worthless without very convincing diffs to back them up - they are personal attacks and I will certainly sanction you if I see you continue to make such attacks on others unsupported by adequate evidence." and given Radek's remarks in the post which you were replying to ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." , "Varsovian has repeatedly failed to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages by POV pushing" and his now struck out comment "He's a SPA with an obvious POV agenda."), could you please consider placing Radeksz under a restriction where he is required to provide diffs with any accusations of misconduct? <br /> | |||
| Secondly, I really am getting tired of the accusations which can easily be interpreted as 'Varsovian is a racist' ("he has problems with Poland and Poles." , a person who 'has problems' with a particular race can easily be viewed as being racist). Saying that I am racist towards Poles is a lie particularly offensive to me given that I choose to live and work in Poland and my partner is Polish, as are her children and the majority of my friends. I note that ] is listed in , so if Radeksz is not calling me a racist he is at least calling me prejudiced, which is also a personal attack Could you please consider instructing Radeksz not to make such accusations. If you are not willing to make such instruction, could you please direct me to the appropriate board at which to request that Radeksz ceases to accuse me of being anti-Polish (which, as I have outlined above, is tantamount to calling me racist or prejudiced). ] (]) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already told Radeksz not to do this again, see above. If you believe that additional action is required at this time, which I do not, please see ]. | |||
| :May I also make an observation as long as my talk page seems to have the attention of half of Central/Eastern Europe. You and the editors you seem to be habitually in conflict with come across as the sort of people who tend to end their Misplaced Pages career with an indefinite topic ban or block for engaging in endless petty nationalist POV wars about silly and/or obscure topics (e.g., invitations to WWII victory parades!) and for wasting an enormous amount of the time of administrators and other editors in the process. If I continue to see the same names over and over again on AE, AN3 and here with (mostly unhelpful and overly aggressive) complaints against each other, I will have to consider taking rather drastic measures concerning the whole lot of you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == AE enforcement request == | |||
| I request enforcement with regard to the interaction ban placed on Loosmark. With Loosmark re-introduces, in most sections word for word, text which I removed two days ago with . Furthermore, Loosmark's edit contains wording ("the exclusion of all Polish servicemen", "303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited", "the Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" and "This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland.") which I specifically discuss and object to on the talk page of the article ().<br /> | |||
| I also previously removed this same text from the article and on (after Radeksz reinserted it) and I objected to the inclusion of such text . ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :May I also make a request as regards enforcement of the above? Given what you say above about unhelpful and overly aggressive complaints, I request that you consider, instead of imposing another block, suggesting to Loosmark that he considers self-reverting the edit reported above. ] (]) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reverting is not possible now that all are banned from that article. Your request is declined because this is not necessarily a prohibited interaction: Loosmark's reintroduction of that text is not necessarily a reaction to you, but may well also be a reaction to removal of this content by another editor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::A question about all being banned from that article: under the terms of your restriction, of all the editors who have taken part in the edit war at that article only Chumchum7 is free to continue to work on the article. Was that a deliberate decision on your part? <small>Please note that I entirely abide with the decision you make in the post above this one and am not in any way arguing with it.</small> ] (]) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::::Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question. One final question with regard to this topic (if I may): would it be improper/impolite of me to ask Chumchum7 on his talkpage if he intends to continue to edit the article in question now that the other parties in the edit war are banned from editing it? ] (]) 14:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| ::::::Thanks for the answer. That wasn't quite the question I was asking but I did say it would be my last one on the topic so I won't take up any more of your time by re-phrasing it and asking again. ] (]) 14:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| Is their any template that would inform potential editors that the article is under sanctions? | |||
| My question comes from this latest ban you came up with. I am concerned that some editors will frankly be unaware that they are banned from editing the article-since most probably don't read every AE thread, nor the talk page or current list of Digwuren sanctions, and could be blocked only due to their unawarness. So perhaps there is a template that we can add to the article that would warn editors to first check what editing sanctions they are?--] (]) 15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Oh, I didn't knew there was such thing. Thank you and have a good day.--] (]) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Note == | |||
| Hello, Sandstein. I'm somewhat distressed by your "Radeksz (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours, '''all editors''' with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue." This rather paints the picture that I and others somehow need "reminding" of something, that is, there's a need for a preemptive strike against a community of bad faith editors. I trust that is not your intent, but that is very much how I perceive it, as inappropriate editorializing as part of an enforcement decision against a single editor. ]<small> ►]</small> 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:09, 27 December 2024
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: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
closing the DRV on the TEJ GIRI topic (October 23)
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)
- Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Just ask the deleting admin on their talk page. Sandstein 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
WP:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Owen× ☎ 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've relisted the AfD. Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Deletion closure of Principal Snyder
Hello Sandstein! In your closure of Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not aware of any previous discussion. The same to you! Sandstein 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! The links were just the first hits Google Scholar gave on those, strangely enough. I did not think that would make any difference, but good to know. (For the sake of completeness the links from the journal's page would be here and here. The affilitions can be found on the issue overview pages here and here.) It would be really interesting if there has been already any collection of opinions on Slayage before, but I guess we both don't have insight there, or would you? But as we also disagree and on the evalution of the content, I don't have to worry if a deletion review would make sense except if I happen upon additional sources. Which does not have priority, especially these days. Have a very merry Christmas! Daranios (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder
A courtesy notice that this is going to DRV unless you choose to revise your close to keep.
- Your evaluation of Slayage is incorrect; it was never an SPS, as is documented currently in Buffy studies, but peer-reviewed and was at least at one time indexed in DOAJ. For you to even draw a judgement is questionable, as no one in the discussion contended that Slayage was an SPS; instead, Piotrus (an academic, if that matters) explicitly expressed they appeared suitable to improve the article. Thus, you shouldn't have even looked at a question not raised in the discussion, and even so, you got the facts wrong.
- None of the 'Redirect' !voters articulated a problem that is not correctable through regular editing. References to WP:NOT#PLOT do not satisfy WP:DEL#REASON number 14 as there is no barrier to editing to correct any issues, per WP:ATD, part of the same policy page. By assigning nonzero weight to any of these non-policy-based !votes, you erred.
- Further, making a de facto conclusion that the topic is non-notable despite evidence of such being presented effectively eliminated the impact of WP:NEXIST on precisely a situation within its wheelhouse: information to support notability clearly exists, but it has not been added the article.
Ultimately, the only person in this discussion who asserts to have looked into sourcing not coming to the conclusion that this article should be kept... is you. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find the tone of this message objectionable, and will not respond further in this matter than I already have above. Sandstein 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for not noticing the previous discussion. I'm moving and indenting this as a subheading under that one. I had used the 'start a new talk topic' button.
- I am sorry you find the tone objectionable. It is not intended to be; rather, it is an outline of three separate deficiencies in your close; Daranios appears to have addressed the one--Slayage was(?) a peer-reviewed, indexed journal--but not you assessing an objection not raised in the discussion or circumventing NEXIST. It's designed to be very clear for DRV participants what precisely my objections are. How would you have reworded any parts of my posting to be as clear but improving the tone, now that we've established I missed Daranios' previous posting? Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I initiate relatively few DRVs. I had come back to this page to place the appropriate notification, not expecting Sandstein to be missing it as I believe him to be in Europe. You didn't ping me, else I wouldn't have necessarily noticed this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27. (And c'mon, Jclemens, you know better than this; a ping isn't sufficient, and neither is the stated intention to bring it there when you haven't yet.) —Cryptic 00:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Mangione
Is there a reason why Louis Mangione was deleted instead of having a discussion about redirecting with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was deleted because that was the consensus in the AfD discussion. There was no consensus for a redirect. Sandstein 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)