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

Vivian Woodward

Hello. I know I'm three years late, but I just noticed that you deleted List of international goals scored by Vivian Woodward even though its discussion had only three deletes (mellohi!, Presidentman, and Otr500) against four keeps (Das osmnezz, Frank Anchor, GiantSnowman, and ChrisTheDude), plus one redirect (Sjakkalle)... Perhaps you just didn't notice the keeps from Snowman and Anchor due to their awkward position.

Is it too late to request an undeletion or perhaps have another discussion? Barr Theo (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Barr Theo, AfDs are not votes and are closed taking into account the strength of the arguments submitted, in light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I therefore decline to alter the closure or to undelete the article. Sandstein 14:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I am contacting you because I placed an undeletion request WP:REFUND for Liberty Justice Center, which you closed as delete in 2018. At that time, I think your close was the right thing to do. The AfD had several delete !votes, and one Keep !vote. I regularly participate in AfDs and am very familiar with the process.

In this case, the article in question has had many new reliable sources published in a variety of media and news publications since, and so I would like for the article to be undeleted, or at least moved to the draft space, and I can work on it from there and resubmit for review and publishing. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, as now noted at REFUND, I do not object to a restoration to draftspace or userspace, but I do not perform such undeletions myself. Iljhgtn, you should seek to improve the article in draftspace and to submit it to WP:AFC. Sandstein 14:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you and me both responded at all three locations. Sorry about that. I guess it is silly for me to ask again here, but whom should I ask about the undeletion then so that I can work on it in the draft space once there? Please feel free to ping and respond to me in only one location, whichever of the three you choose, and I will do the same going forward. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, you can ask any other admin, or at REFUND. Sandstein 17:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Amelia Hamer close

I noticed you said, "Despite a strong minority in favor of overturning the closure (even though some reargue the AfD on the merits, which is not the purpose of this forum), there is rough consensus that the closure was within the closer's discretion."

Doesn't "strong minority" and "rough consensus" demonstrate that in fact the best close would have been "No consensus"? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

In that case, the outcome would have been the same, namely, that the AfD closure remains in force. Sandstein 17:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you not feel that the mixed !votes and arguments indicate a "no consensus" closing? Even if the "outcome would have been the same"? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Consensus does not require unanimity; rough consensus suffices. See generally WP:Consensus. Sandstein 20:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What's the actual consensus based on arguments? You only mentioned that a majority voted for deletion, not what arguments they brought up that warranted that. Cortador (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

True, and it is WP:NOTAVOTE after all. While it is true that "Consensus does not require unanimity", "rough consensus" should still be "rough" consensus, not just a hodge podge of poor non-policy based arguments and a simple majority !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cortador, RfD discussions are not votes, and nobody in that RfD "voted" for "deletion". The issue in the DRV was not whether the article should be deleted or kept. That was the issue in the AfD. In the DRV, the issue was whether the AfD was correctly closed. Sandstein 18:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Then based on what arguments was the AfD correctly closed, which in turn led you to conclude that there was no basis to overturn?

RE: votes - I only recently had an admin tell me that NOTAVOTE is primarily a anti-canvassing measure, and that consensus requires a certain number of votes. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It is true that clear rationale and policy-based justification really should be outlined here and not just "was within closers discretion" or other such incredibly weak points. "No consensus" was the correct close based on what I can see. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

In AfDs, administrators are expected to weigh the strength of arguments. This is possible because we have well-established article inclusion standards. That is not the case in DRV. Closing DRVs is therefore mostly a matter of counting heads, and discounting only the rare opinion that makes arguments completely at odds with the purpose of DRV (e.g. "endorse because the article should be kept/deleted" or "keep/delete the article!". In this case, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 16, I conclude that there was a sufficiently large majority of not-discounted "endorse" opinions to amount to rough consensus. Sandstein 20:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not realize that about DRV. That makes sense if that is policy, except that if the DRV is raised mainly as a result of the "strength of arguments" being questioned as a direct reason for the DRV coming about? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It is possible to ask DRV whether the AfD closer weighed the strength of arguments correctly. But that is for the DRV participants to decide, not the DRV closer. The DRV closer simply assesses consensus among DRV participants. Sandstein 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Case for Christopher Mellon Page Undeletion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Sandstein,

I believe Christopher Mellon's Wikipedia page was unjustly deleted. From what I can tell, many of those who intended for it to be deleted did so on the grounds that very few independent sources seemed to cover Mellon—Most sources were directly citing Mellon in an interview format. However, this is what you would expect in the case of a governmental insider testifying about clandestine programs. If a person is a primary source about secret programs, and there is signficant and reliable coverage on that person from national media outlets, then the person is clearly notable. Regardless, I was able to find additional independent sources that do not directly interview Mellon.

For example, Space.com reports that UFO footage from the Navy is “…thanks to Christopher Mellon, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence under President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.” The same Space.com article states: “In 2017, after he had left his position with the U.S. government, Mellon gave three recently declassified Navy UFO videos to the New York Times, the CBS news program "60 Minutes" reported on Sunday (May 17). The Times then published a blockbuster story about the videos and the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), a Pentagon project tasked with investigating such sightings.” The article includes further quotations from Mellon’s “60 Minutes” interview.

Newsweek has an article that focuses nearly exclusively on Mellon, despite not directly interviewing him. They describe him as “a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Intelligence who specializes in UFOs.” They outright state of him: “A former intelligence official is calling on the federal government to make information public about an alleged reverse-engineering project involving unidentified flying objects (UFOs).”

These are two significant, reliable, and independent sources. While you may be able to suggest that the dozen or more other sources on Mellon (despite being significant and reliable) are not independent due to Mellon himself making historically significant testimony, you cannot do so in these two cases. I may be late to this discussion, but I sincerely believe Mellon's article should be undeleted due to the above reasons. He passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. What can we do to work on getting his page undeleted?

Thanks.

Ben.Gowar (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed message. However, my role as a closer of the deletion discussion is not to determine whether or not Christopher Mellon is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. My role is only to determine whether there is rough consensus among participating editors to delete the article. In this case, there was. It is not my role to have an opinion about whether this consensus opinion is right or, as you argue, wrong. Therefore, arguments about Christopher Mellon's notability are beside the point at this stage.

If you want Christopher Mellon covered in Wikipedia, you have the following options:

• Find another article about UFOs in Wikipedia where he can be mentioned without distracting from the article's main topic
• Create a short draft article (Draft:Christopher Mellon) and document his notability with reliable sources that have not yet been mentioned in the previous article or AfD, and submit that draft to WP:AFC
• If you think I wrongly concluded that there was consensus to delete the article (not merely because you disagree with that consensus), you can appeal the deletion at WP:DRV. (I apologize in advance for not elaborating in the closure why I arrived at the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I typed out my reasoning, but then lost the text to an edit conflict.)

Sandstein 10:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. However, I was wondering if there's a way to access the old version of the article that was deleted. I have only been able to navigate to the "Articles for deletion" page. I would like to be able to revise the old article rather than totally rewrite it. Do you know of way to access the old article, edit it for guideline compliance, and then submit it as a draft?

Thanks. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It is possible for admins to do that, but it is not necessary in your case. You just need to find adequate sourcing for a WP:STUB article. The deleted contents can be restored once you have convinced WP:AFC of your sources. Sandstein 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I also thought it might be worth mentioning that there's been considerable public outcry about the deletion of both Harald Malmgren and Christopher Mellon's articles. Apparently, even Jimmy Wales had to weigh in on the case of Malmgren's article. There is demand for more information about these notable public figures. Hopefully we can do something to meet that demand. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ben.Gowar, a handful of cranks bitching and moaning on Reddit is not considerable public outcry, especially when they have no idea how Wikipedia actually works, and are spinning bizarre conspiracy theories. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, your ad hominem attacks are noted. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Facts are not ad hominem attacks, Ben.Gowar. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328, labeling a group of people as "a handful of cranks bitching and moaning" is an opinion, rather than a fact. Not only that, it's just mean. You're definitely using insults rather than making a sound argument. Ben.Gowar (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ben.Gowar, please read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Linking to an article is not an argument. I came here for an argument, not abuse. Ben.Gowar (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So did Michael Palin  :) "Oh, I'm sorry, this is for Abuse; Argument is just down the corridor" Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Yes, lol. Pretty soon, I'm going to have to pay extra. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for your recent close on Wikipedia:FTN. I'm sure it took a large amount of time and effort and I want you to know that it's appreciated. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)