Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 13 March 2014

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.

your opinion please...

You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. You argued Green was an instance of {{blp1e}}. I reviewed that AFD today, and still disagreed with your closure. I agreed with those who asserted the notoriety of Green's crime made him one of the archetypical individuals who merited a standalone article, because they had become the poster child for their particular kind of crime.

I thought if I did a google news search I would find various references to him, post trial, that used him as an example, and I thought those would provide arguments to restore his article to standalone status.

What I found is that he died, apparently of suicide, a few weeks ago. Your deletion explanation was solely based on {{blp1e}}, so, now that he is dead, do you agree BLP no longer justifies not having a standalone article on this individual?

What do you think should happen next? Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if WP:BLP1E no longer applies, WP:BIO1E does. So unless there's now coverage about him that is unrelated to the one incident that made him notable, I don't think anything has changed.  Sandstein  18:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. But, unless I am reading it wrong, WP:BIO1E doesn't bar creating standalone articles on individuals mainly known for one event. Doesn't BIO1E offer guidance as to when a single event is or isn't significant enough for an individual to merit a standalone article?

I am not going to assume you are interested in having me offer reasons why I think we should have a standalone article on Green.

The choices open to me, as I see them, are:

1. Offer reasons to you as to why Green merits a standalone article, and get you onside, prior to restoration;
2. Offer reasons as to why Green merits a standalone article at DRV;
3. Prepare a draft, ask for a couple of opinions, and restore an updated version to article space, without further consultation with you or at DRV, and argue, if challenged, that the updating meant that the new version was different enough it did not qualify for speedy deletion as a simple recreation of a deleted article.
4. Restore the Green article to article space, without asking for any other opinions, and if challenged, argue BLP1E, the reason offered by the closing administrator no longer applied.

In contrast to the counter-policy criticisms of my judgment, character, and good faith pretty regularly applied to me by my challengers, my record shows I do comply with consensus, and bend over backwards to learn why those who disagree with me do disagree with me. So I include that last option solely for completeness.

Did I leave an option out?

Do you have any interest in offering guidance as to how different an updated article would have to be for reasonable people to recognize it did not qualify for speedy deletion as the recreation of a deleted article? Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you covered all options. To escape speedy deletion, the new article should be substantially different from the old in terms of the reasons for deletion, i.e., the one-event topic matter of the sources.  Sandstein  19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Dale Green. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Geo Swan (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

John Schlossberg

Hi, would it be possible to restore the talk page? It had the history of previous AfD/DRV. I'll add the most recent DRV to the "multi afd" template once restored. -- GreenC 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  08:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

INVEA-TECH

Hello, you were involved in an AfD discussion back in 2011. I was patrolling new pages and noticed the page has been recreated, I'm not sure how to compare the two to see if they're significantly different. It still appears to lack notability in my opinion. Would you mind helping out? Thanks! Chris Moore (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, many of the references are new. No idea if they are enough for notability, but this would need a new AfD if not.  Sandstein  20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Subang Air Traffic Control Centre

Hello, I saw that you had recently deleted the "Subang Air Traffic Control Centre" page for lack of significance. Would it be possible to do the same for Ho Chi Minh Area Control Center? I am a relatively new user and not sure how to go about this. Thanks! Kage Acheron (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, done.  Sandstein  21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! Kage Acheron (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ganesh J. Acharya comment

Hi Sandstein, while the Ganesh J. Acharya discussion was still open, I started writing a lengthy response to his paranoid invocation of my name. When I clicked submit, I discovered that the case had been closed in that time. Hope that doesn't cause any problems. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem.  Sandstein  18:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How to

I honestly think it's time to lift Brew's topic ban on physics. He wasn't editing physics articles/talk pages any differently than he's editing philosophy so if his editing is tolerated for philosophy articles, why not physics? How could I (should I?) go about suggesting a review?—Machine Elf  08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merits, but procedurally, the only way to lift the topic ban is to appeal it to ArbCom. That must be done by Brews ohare himself, not by anybody else.  Sandstein  09:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent well that's easy, then if there's nothing standing in his way, I should suggest it to User:Brews ohare. Thanks.—Machine Elf  09:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)