Hi, I just wanted some clarification on your result on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 10#10 April 2026. You said no consensus means it stays deleted. Why would no consensus default to deletion?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Also, what does a "no consensus" mean in terms of getting a decision? Is there a way to get a consensus later? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[]

At deletion review, no consensus means that the contested decision (in this case, deletion) stays in force. There is no provision for further appeals. Sandstein 07:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Regarding your close for merge, instead of creating a new article would it be fine to move Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 to Gastropod classification? That is basically a timeline extension for that article's topic, and the others can be merged into that. CMD (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I don't have an opinion about that, since that option was not discussed in the AfD. Sandstein 17:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Was it not one of the "related articles" mentioned in your close? CMD (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I mean, consensus was basically to follow your merger proposal, so feel free to proceed with it - but since I know nothing about the subject matter, I cannot offer advice. Sandstein 18:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

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)[]

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)[]

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)[]