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.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Start a new talk topic
"an article with zero sources in the actual article even after three weeks of AfD will realistically never get any" is a rash thing to say and a poor rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Adding sources is good, but doing so during rather than after an AfD is even better. Sources are useless to readers unless they are presented as part of the article. Sandstein 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, it only became clear that there were good sources accessible online after StrayBolt pointed out a variant in the name right at the end of the AfD. The discussion was closed just a few hours later before I saw it; another relist would have been in order to my mind. Secondly, it is a widely accepted principle, enshrined in WP:NEXIST, that notability is established by the existence of sources, regardless of what is in the article. It should be enough just to point to them in the AfD. Personally, I try to resist editing articles at AfD until it is certain they are going to be kept. It could be a wasted effort and needlessly add to my my deleted edits count. My point remains that your rationale was highly faulty and this page is a good example of why that is. SpinningSpark 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, notability depends on sources existing. But notability is necessary, not sufficient, to keep an article. It’s not what my comment in the AfD was about at all. An article that contains no sources is worse than worthless, and I‘m not for keeping worthless content. Sandstein 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's a million miles off what NEXIST says, so that is not a policy-based opinion. SpinningSpark 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, I‘m not contesting the topic‘s notability. A topic can be notable and the article about it can still be deleted – if e.g it is a copyvio, or created by a banned user, or as in this case it is unverifiable because it lacks references. That‘s what I mean when I write that notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for keeping an article. Sandstein 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletion log of Odd1sOut
Was there any reason to call me out? It seems like you don't think my two cents have any backing, which is fair. You can have that opinion all you want. Just don't throw me under the bus specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesumIndustrys (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- What do you refer to? Sandstein 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Huguenot descent DRV
Please can you explain your closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 9#Category:People_of_Huguenot_descent.
I reckon there was definitely a consensus to endorse the original CFD close, so I am not disagreeing with that bit. However, I thought that there was also a consensus to relist. So would you have a moment to explain why you thought there wasn't? Or did you just overlook that aspect?
Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that, but I've undone my closure; see my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 9. Sandstein 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- My fears that Sandstein might be overwhelmed by an enraged horde of prolix descendants of Huguenots are now averted. Oculi (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Why was Craig Sawyer’s wiki page edited? Why was his connection to McCain & Clinton removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- And why do you think that I know or care? Sandstein 17:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol
Hello, Sandstein. Please re-open the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol. I missed the notification due to some running errands. Also, one user who commented is blocked now and I'd like to add my rationale. Thanks. Störm (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is your rationale? Sandstein 18:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)