User talk:Sandstein

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.

Start a new talk topic

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)[reply]

Can you please link to that DRV? Sandstein 06:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_October_23 Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your response. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Male protagonist bingo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Male protagonist bingo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24 § Male protagonist bingo until a consensus is reached. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename

Thank you for your recent renaming of the article on Allison Bailey. However, I think the correct title is:

Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bailey-v-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-and-others/

You've used the title of the EAT appeal, not the original case. Void if removed (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Sandstein 19:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result was redirect, not keep

The result at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Bailey was "Redirect" not "keep" per the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close instructions for an article that was changed in scope. Could you correct that? Raladic (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my judgment rough consensus in the AfD was to keep the article, albeit with a somewhat different title and scope. A redirect would be something different, namely, suppressing the original article's contents and pointing it to another existing article. That was not what the AfD decided on. Sandstein 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people that voted for it to be moved to a courtcase have really not actually passed the burden of proof that the case is notable, it looks very run-off-the-mill which likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT. I'm fine that it was redirected for now, but I would like to note that that was not a keep by any measure of the word, that was a redirect.

The BLP was not notable and was not kept, so a 'keep' result is disingenious as the new article is entirely not in having kept the BLP, it was redirected to a new title and different scope, which by itself, may not meet the burden of WP:EVENTCRIT and may itself be subject to AfD. Raladic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is not a legal system, we don't require anyone to meet a particular burden of proof. What matters is rough consensus, and here that consensus was to keep the article with a change in name and scope. The article was renamed, not redirected. You are free to disagree, and to either appeal the closure at WP:DRV, or to start a new AfD. Sandstein 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the rough consensus wasn't to move, I'm just saying that "keep" is the wrong word used on the closure, it was "moved" or "redirected". Raladic (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved, yes, but that's noted in the closure, and does not conflict with keeping it. It was not however redirected, see WP:REDIRECT. Sandstein 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now that the article has been focused on the legal case, sans puffery that was filled in the previous BLP article, it's pretty clear that it's a run-off-the-mill routine legal case, so I've followed your suggestion and filed an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others for the case article itself as I don't think it actually passes the WP:EVENTCRIT notability criteria. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

I have very little experience of deletion discussions. I see that according to WP:APPNOTE An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:…. I don’t know what ‘uninvolved’ means in this context.

The guidance later says: for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.. I’m wondering whether it would be normal/acceptable to notify everyone who participated in the deletion discussion on Allison Bailey that there has been an immediate proposal to delete the renamed article [1] I would be grateful for your advice on these matters. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I have a reply to my request for advice. Thank you. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970, sorry for the late reply. "Uninvolved" means somebody who has not yet expressed a view. My understanding is that notifying all participants to the earlier AfD about the second one would be acceptable. Sandstein 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]