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

SmarterPhone deletion

Hi. Looking for some clarity on the deletion of my entry under the WP:RS reasoning. One of the references to the organization was from a well-known and respected news source. My concern is that the mention of the nonprofit occurs deep within the body of the article and I was not sure how to indicate the placement of the mention in the standard citation. That news organization, coupled with multiple additional independent sources, seemed like enough to bestow notability (WP:NORG). I'm just now aware that there was a nomination for deletion. I'm a new user. Could you help me understand what steps I could take for re-instatement? Thanks. ChuckBarrisFan (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please link to the AfD? Sandstein 09:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm not sure how to link to the AfD. Can you please give some guidance or direct me to a link that shows how this is done. Also, I know that a major news organzation will be publishing another article on this organization next week. Should I wait until it is published - thus adding both notability and an additional source to my entry - before linking to the AfD or link now? Thank you for you help.ChuckBarrisFan (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Please find out how to link to Wikipedia pages first. If you cannot do that, nor find the instructions to do so, you are unlikely to be able to contribute usefully to Wikipedia in any case. Sandstein 06:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This response was unnecessarily snide. The link to the AfD is obviously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmarterPhone.  Tewdar  20:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChuckBarrisFan, the article was deleted for lack of notability. Please read WP:N to understand what is required, then submit a draft stub that cites sources establishing notability to WP:AFC. Sandstein 05:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

An impractical merge

I'm working through implementing merge outcomes and have come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films; the problem is that the outcome is ambiguous (in that the number of potential targets is undefined, and could be at circa 200). That's because there is a lot of referenced content, and the art of merging is arguably greater than the total art that went into assembling this list. I wonder whether you might consider an outcome change to no consensus, given that the proposal was to delete, and there is no specific alternative to deletion given - that is, the counterproposals (supported by only 2 editors) are so vague as to be unmanageable. Klbrain (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, no, sorry: the consensus was to merge. It may well be that the consensus was wrong or impractical, but that's not for me as closer to determine. I just record what participants in the AfD decide. Your argument would have needed to be made in the AfD, not afterwards. Sandstein 15:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that there was one delete (the proposal) and 2 merge proposals (neither of which is clear), and that WP:SILENCE is a weak argument, would you be willing to re-open to generate additional discussion? Klbrain (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

No, because the discussion was relisted twice already. The nominator wrote "there is some salvageable content that could be split", so I count her as being OK with a selective merge too. However, if nobody implements the merge after a reasonable amount of time, feel free to renominate for deletion. Sandstein 19:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Very well; then WP:SOFTMERGE should arguably have been the outcome given the low participation. Klbrain (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, especially because not even the nominator supported merging. FaviFake (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Viola Ventures

Hi - I had starting writing an article about Viola Ventures, one of Israel's largest VCs and key player in the high tech financing, when I saw you had deleted what seems like a previous article (titled Viola Group). I can't see the deleted content, but wanted to ask if it is indeed the same, and why it was deleted before moving forward with this page. Thanks! ~~~~ LifeLearning (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please link to the articles at issue. Sandstein 09:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"Involuntary celibacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Involuntary celibacy 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/2026 July 1 § Involuntary celibacy until a consensus is reached. HudecEmil (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Sandstein, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 21:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Zolo (music genre) deletion

Zolo (music genre) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolo_(music_genre) - was deleted by you in March 2026. I just found this out while preparing to make a wikipedia entry for the toy called "zolo" from which this music genre gets its name. I can improve the quality of the sources and also create new entries for the bands in the genre that were referenced. The genre is an expression of a subculture and by definition SUBcultures do not often get, nor seek, mainstream media coverage. some of the discussion in the deletion articles also seem somehow personally motivated (Echoedits67) and do not rise to a standard of academic discourse, but smack of tastemaking and gatekeeping, not concerned with encyclopedic intent. improvements i propose: reference to the new article from May 2026 in Far Out Magazine describing "Five essential zolo artists". New archive.org listing of airchecks from 2002-2018 of "The Newave Zolocoaster" radio program, showing a solid radio presence in America of the genre in adition to the "Zany Zolo Musik Hour" radio program from the 1990s. Goole search trends also show an uptick in google searches for the term "zolo music" as well as new playlists on Spotify, Youtube, RateYourMusic. Zolo is undeniably a genre, niche as it may be and deserves to be undeleted. K1angumwandler (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide the WP:THREE best sources? Sandstein 07:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOFTMERGE

I'm curious: why don't you ever use WP:SOFTMERGE? I don't think I've ever seen you close a discussion as WP:SOFTMERGE, even if it it an obvious candidate like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajangbadi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilogbo Elegba (they both had no !votes other than the nominator's, and yet they were both closed as "merge"). I think I've notified you of this change a couple times, so I'm wondering if there's another reason. Closing as "merge" seldomly causes useless bureaucratic struggles, such as § An impractical merge above from a month ago (which ended up being redirected without merging anything), and is not transparent for people only checking the talk page banners. FaviFake (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the need for soft merges. At AfD, where mergers are now discussed, decisions are final if consensus is established. There's no "soft delete", and therefore no need for a "soft merge" as well. Consensus can always change, of course, via a talk page discussion or an RfC, or an uncontested bold spin-off of previously merged content. Sandstein 07:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Close of WP:Articles for deletion/1993 Philadelphia meeting

Hi Sandstein, this article came to my attention through the NPOV noticeboard. I'm wondering why you closed this as "keep" rather than closing as "no consensus" or relisting it, considering there's some source analysis from both sides and the !votes stood at 5 to 4. I believe I have significant new information and am prepared to open a new AfD in light of that, but thought I'd ask you before doing so. Thanks. —BrechtBro (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I explained in the closure why I considered the "keep" opinions to be more persuasive and therefore found a "keep" consensus. Since AfD is not a vote, the number of opinions is not a deciding factor. Sandstein 07:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)