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

Henry Stickmin

Hello Sandstein. Could you please unsalt this entry and move it do draftspace? I would like to work on it. It's been several years since it was deleted and salted and there has been media coverage in the interim. Are the past deleted versions different from one another? If so could Insee the different versions? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Draft:Henry Stickmin, which was rejected in 2024. Try to improve that draft first and get it accepted at WP:AFC. Sandstein 17:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please see what was deleted? Thank you. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 20:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Berenstain Bears characters

I'm not seeing a consensus to delete and then redirect. Several more editors opined for a merge (acknowledging that sourcing currently was deficient) than the one editor who argued for a delete without maintaining history. Why not just keep the history intact under the redirect to allow for merger of sourceable content when and if sourced? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because "delete and redirect" is consistent with the preferences of almost everybody who commented: half were in favor of deletion, half in favor of redirection. So almost everybody gets what they want. Only two people objected to deletion so as to enable a later merger, but one person (convincingly, in my view) objected to that noting that unsourced content should not be merged. Sandstein 21:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes question

Hi, I saw you closed this discussion. But I didn't see any analysis of the arguments presented, only a mention that there appears to be rough consensus it's duplicative and that this "appears to be appropriate", which was confusing because the entire discussion was more or less about whether the list was, in fact, redundant, and this closing note seems to have ignored the nuance. Since Wiki is WP:NOTAVOTE I was hoping the closing result, whichever way it went, would at least have analyzed the policy bases of arguments on each side of the discussion in its conclusion and factored these in, especially since it resulted in the deletion of a relatively high-profile article. Can you please revisit the discussion, this time factoring in the policy bases of each side in your closing note? If not, I might look for a second opinion on the AN if that's alright. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't the kind of AfD that allows much in the way of policy analysis. The determination of whether one article duplicates another is an editorial decision, not a matter of black-and-white policy application that I, as an administrator, am suited to evaluate. I can do no better than determine that there was in fact rough consensus to not have two articles about this topic, but it is not my job to second-guess as to why most people felt this way. Sandstein 21:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2026 Crans-Montana explosion

On 1 January 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Crans-Montana explosion, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfD confusion

The confusion is likely with me but wanted to drop a note in case there is an issue with the links. You closed two Afds (one for Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank and the other Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank). It looks like you initially closed as delete but then relisted. The Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank page is no longer live from what I see and when you click on the redlink it says "sclosed as delete" but points to the AfD discussion for Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank here. CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I restored Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, which was a redirect. Sandstein 21:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Names are so close to each other I almost lost eye sight trying to figure it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]