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

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico

Hi. A few months back you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico as delete. Given that [1] Trump/Pence I am writing to ask you to make the article live again, and we can update it. Thanks.@Sandstein:E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that you first gather consensus on an appropriate project or article talk page about whether this news changes the project's opinion about whether the topic should be covered in its own article as opposed to in existing articles.  Sandstein  14:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of a talk page

Hi,

We recently recovered a draft version of the Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution page. Is it possible to recover the talk page as it had comments that included suggestions for improvement that we would like to use?

Thanks, NidaAhmad2 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"?  Sandstein  15:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A group of students at University of Warwick. There's a little background at User:RexxS/Warwick, and my detective work on the articles and students on the associated talk page. I must make it clear that I'm not affiliated with the course. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

NidaAhmad2, you can request at WP:UND that the page and its talk page are restored to your user space so you can continue work on them. I am not undeleting deleted content myself, however.  Sandstein  09:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Transition design

Dear Sandstein, you recently deleted the Wikipedia section on Transition design, presumably because you identified it as a PhD specialism at Carnegie Mellon University and therefor considered it as self-promotion. Please reconsider your decision on this topic. I am not at Carnegie Mellon, nor in any way affiliated to them, but am a professor of Design at the HFBK Hamburg. I am writing and lecturing on transition design and have been sending my students to the Wiki page for a basic understanding of the subject and connected links and resources. The fields transition design and transformation design are closely linked, emerging design areas and do deserve to be named on Wikipedia, just as service design, transformation design, design thinking and interaction design have their own entries.

Please reinstate this page.

Greetings, Prof. Julia Lohmann, HFBK Hamburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:8C04:6C00:8578:181F:AC7A:407C (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Lohmann: Transition design was deleted because editors determined in the course of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition design that the topic does not meet our inclusion criteria for neologisms, which you can review at WP:NEO. I myself have no opinion on the matter but, as an administrator, merely determined the existence of a consensus to delete. If you think that, with better references to reliable sources, an article that meets our criteria could be written, I recommend that you contact DGG (talk · contribs), an experienced administrator and the user who requested deletion. He may be able to determine whether any improvements you may suggest could lead to the article being restored, and how you could go about doing that.  Sandstein  21:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2A01:C22:8C04:6C00:8578:181F:AC7A:407C, there is no reason why it can not be restored to Draft space if you would like to work on it further. To simplify things, I will just go ahead and do that. I would advise you to make it less of an essay--try to present the idea without arguing for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution

I see you deleted the draft article following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution. That deletion is out-of-process for two reasons. MfD is the correct venue for discussing deletion from draft space, and the requirements for notability are not normally enforced on a week-old draft that is still being worked on. The article began as a draft and the new editor only moved it into mainspace by mistake (since he was unable to create a pdf from a draft). I returned it to draft space and expected it to be treated as any other new draft. There was clearly no need for it to be deleted while it was a work-in-progress outside of mainspace. Your hostile deletion now leaves a group of third-year university students without any trace of the draft they have been working on. Treating new users like that is beyond WP:BITE and goes a long way toward reinforcing the impression that Wikipedia has no place in Higher Education. I am deeply offended by your action as it undoes so much of the good work that many have been doing to build relationships with educational institutions. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Would you be willing to return the draft to draft space? Or would you prefer for me to raise the matter elsewhere? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It appears that you moved the content from article to draft space while AfD was underway, in an attempt to halt the AfD process. That was a violation of the deletion process because no user may, in this or another way, unilaterally prevent an ongoing deletion discussion from concluding. I therefore closed the AfD without regard to your move. Because the content had been moved from user to article space by its creator prior to the AfD nomination, it was an article and no longer a draft, and was fully subject to AfD. As to the issues regarding student work, they are irrelevant. Whoever contributes to Wikipedia must follow our project's rules, whether they are students or anybody else.  Sandstein  21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's be accurate: I returned the content to draft space following a suggestion by the AfD nominator, Velella. I followed the guidance at WP:EDITATAFD which specifically allows the possibility of moving an article under discussion (albeit advising against it). The very existence of such a guidance gives the lie to your assertion that it would prevent an ongoing deletion discussion from concluding. In addition, don't pretend you can read my mind "in an attempt to halt the AfD process" and I find that personal attack on my motivations to be unacceptable, particularly when - as closer - you should have read the suggestion from Velella and been aware of it. Please strike that calumny, or I'll take up the issue of your behaviour elsewhere. The content was unequivocally in draft space when you deleted it and you had to have been aware that applying notability guidelines to early draft work does not comply with the community's expectations. Finally, the issues concerning student work are not irrelevant. I thought I had explained to you clearly enough that the consequences of your over-zealous and inflexible interpretation of the deletion process have ramifications beyond simply biting a newcomer. It is deeply disappointing that you don't seem able to understand how much damage you have the potential to do in these cases. Wikipedia doesn't have rules - for good reason, and you need to get to grips with that. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see no reason why it should not be restored to draft space, as we would restore a good faith effort to improve an article of this nature. If it is really being contended that the subject is so hopelessly non-notable that not even a draft would be acceptable, that can be discussed at MfD, but I doubt there would be consensus there to delete--usually only much more obviously hopeless material is deleted for that reason. Moving a challenged article to draft space or user space is a frequent way of dealing with a challenge, and is not prohibited. There is no prohibition of moves, WP:AFD says so explicitly. As I see it, even the advice to be cautious so as not to complicate the discussion and closing mainly refers to changes of page title. Moves out of mainspace have become increasingly frequent at AfD, and I think they should be encouraged, as part of our general approach in all discussions of trying to find compromises that will have consensus.

Incidentally, I note that in the discussion, several incorrect statements were asserted: First, it is not correct that all US courses must use a course page. There is no requirement that any course use the facilities of the education program, although it is highly recommended that they do, and I always advise it. This is part of the basic principle that anyone can edit--anyone can teach a course on Wikipedia in any manner that they choose, as long as they have the students use individual accounts just as is required for all contributors. Also, deletions at AfD are not limited to questions of notability, but can be for any of the reasons at WP:NOT, which is the actual content policy-- WP:N is just the guideline for one part of it--though it is certainly true that most AfD discussions are about that part of the policy.

Sandstein, possibly it would be a good idea to just restore it to draft, without the need for a formal Deletion Review. I understand your thinking, but it could be argued that using AfD to delete a draft is out of process.

But, RexxS, I would advise you not to consider this a question of personal attack, or of misbehavior. It's a disagreement about how to handle a proposed article and nothing more. Try to keep things from getting complicated. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your calming advice, David. Although I have no formal relationship with the course, in the way that a Campus/Online Ambassador would have in the USA, I did promise the staff at Wikimedia UK that I would try to answer questions that the students had and I've felt rather protective of them. So I apologise for my intemperance. I don't really think Sandstein has misbehaved, and I can shrug off the suggestion that I was trying to do an "end-run" around the AfD. I just think that this is one of those cases where we could have got a better outcome with some give-and-take. I've been in contact today with the course lecturer to discuss ways forward, and I've taken the opportunity to indicate the good advice in WP:Student assignments and WP:Course pages. It's a learning experience all-round and my main concern is to smooth that process for all involved. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As with other deleted articles, I do not object to a restoration of content to user space such that good-faith improvement work may continue. However, interested editors will have to request such restoration from others, such as via WP:UND, as I prefer to focus my admin work on other matters than restoring problematic content.  Sandstein  09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Another WP:NOQUORUM case

On 11 November 2016, I referred you on your talk page to WP:NOQUORUM.  Tonight I have discovered a new WP:NOQUORUM case occurring on 27 November 2016.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki93 shows multiple issues.  The AfD was not given a second relist.  WP:NOQUORUM does not directly provide for a delete result.  Since there is no del-reason for "no sources", a close for "no sources" must cite WP:IAR.  WP:DEL7 does not apply, because WP:BEFORE shows a review on nytimes.com, [2].  Please revert your close, and then apply Template:G5 to the AfD, or delete the AfD under G5.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)