User talk:Sandstein#Disagree with closure

Can you undelete and merge per consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC).

:Not sure what you mean. This AfD resulted in deletion, not merging. Sandstein 08:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello I hope you are doing well today.

I found that the Archivebox page was deleted by you on March 14. I am considering giving it a shot remaking it so that it is notable/reliable, and wanted to ask you if you happened to remember any specifics for issues that warranted removing it. And if there's any reason it should not be recreated, let me know. Thank you!

LovelyFlowers2Go (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you please link to what you are talking about? Sandstein 16:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Please reconsider the close of the English FOCJ article. Some things to consider:

• There are FOCJ articles on the German and Spanish Wikipedia;
• Bruno Frey is a fairly prominent figure to the extent that significant proposal from him might warrant discussion; and,
• FOCJ has been discussed in the following academic papers by other authors:

Friedrich, Peter; Legal European company forms to realize FOCJ: Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions

Chebotareva, MS; Eerma, D; FUNCTIONAL OVERLAPPING COMPETING JURISDICTIONS (FOCJ) IN THE RUSSIAN GENERAL EDUCATION SYSTEM: LEGAL POSSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURE DISCUSSION

Friedrich, Peter; Chebotareva, Mariia; Options for Applying Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJs) for Municipal Cooperation in Russia

Chebotareva, Mariia; Friedrich, Peter; Microeconomic Models of Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJs)

Popescu, Alina M; Friedrich, Peter; FOCJ as Institution for Population Policy

Sergeevna, Chebotareva Mariia; APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL OVERLAPPING COMPETING JURISDICTIONS CONCEPT TO INTER-MUNICIPAL COOPERATION IN THE RUSSIAN SCHOOL SECTOR

Friedrich, Peter; Bartholomae, Florian W; Regional Cooperation by the Use of FOCJ

Chebotareva, Mariia; APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL OVERLAPPING COMPETING JURISDICTIONS CONCEPT TO INTER-MUNICIPAL COOPERATION IN THE RUSSIAN SCHOOL SECTOR

de Spindler, Jürg; Altendorf, CHr8852; FOCJ-ein staatspolitisches Konzept für eine wirksamere Erfüllung öffentlicher Aufgaben

Chebotareva, Mariia; Friedrich, Peter; Tax Shifting Decisions of Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions’ Management

Friedrich, Peter; Reiljan, Janno; New policies in the fiscal reform of Estonian general education

Friedrich, Peter; Reiljan, Janno; FOCJ as model for financing the Estonian general Education

Smith, Daniel J; Functional, overlapping, competing jurisdictions among fractionalized agents: Medieval Spain

Kyriacou, Andreas P; Functional, Overlapping, Competing, Jurisdictions and Ethnic Conflict Management

Friedrich, Peter; Legal European Company Forms to Realize Cross Border FOCJ-Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions

Kerber, Wolfgang; A Utopia? Government without Territorial Monopoly: Comment

Vanberg, Viktor J; Functional Federalism: Communal or Individual Right?

Reiljan, Janno; Friedrich, Peter; Strategies in the Fiscal Reform of Estonian General Education

Friedrich, Peter; Popescu, Alina; Batt, HW (2001): Value Capture as a Policy Tool in Transportation Econo-mics, in: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 60, No. 1

Stadelmann, David; Sind FOCJ effizienter als herkömmliche Gemeindestrukturen?: Eine empirische Analyse

Ermini, Barbara; Salvati, Luca; Decentralization, administrative reforms and local government performance: The impact of inter-communality in a pre-crisis time

SCHMIDT-TRENZ, HJ; FOCJ: Creating a Single European Market for Governments: Comment

De Spindler, Jürg; FOCJ-ein Konzept zur Neuordnung der Zusammenarbeit öffentlichrechtlicher Gebietskörperschaften

Marks, Gary; Hooghe, Liesbet; Contrasting visions of multi-level governance

Hillebrandt, Julia; Ein Vorschlag für einen dynamischen Föderalismus: Das Konzept" FOCJ" von Bruno S. Frey

vier Eigenschaften, Die; Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions

Tharakan, PKM; Another Europe?

Detig, Stefan; Feng, Xiao; Friedrich, Peter; FOCJ als Grundlage für Förderungsinstitutionen, Aufbau-Ost und Bevölkerung-Ost

Holzinger, Katharina; Funktionale Kooperation territorialer Jurisdiktionen: eine Alternative zum Konzept der FOCJ

Fladung, L; Friedrich, P; Finanzierung eines Wirtschaftsförderungs-FOCJ

Bartholomae, FW; Popescu, AM; Technologischer Fortschritt als Entscheidungskriterium für Kooperation: Europäische Regionale Zusammenarbeit mittels FOCJ

KIMENYI, MWANGI S; Choice in Developing Countries

Ermini, BARBARA; Decentralization, local government reform and local government performance. The impact of inter-communality

Hooghe, Liesbet; Marks, Gary; Types of multi-level governance

von Hagen, Jürgen; Widgren, Mika; Regionalism in Europe: Geometries and strategies after 2000

Bartholomae, Florian; Friedrich, Peter; FOCJ als Mittel regionaler Kooperation

Grimm, Heike; Schröder, Maria; Governance/Administration

Holzinger, Katharina; Schimmelfennig, Frank; Differentiated integration in the European Union: Many concepts, sparse theory, few data

Leitenstorfer, A; Török, A; Geeignete Aufgaben und Rechtsformen für FOCJ

Holzinger, Katharina; König, F; Optimierte Jurisdiktionen für Gemeinschaftsgüter: Eine Alternative zum Konzept der FOCJ

Shaw, Daigee; Visions of the future for facility siting

Galli, Jacopo; Decentralisation, a first proposal

Benzecry, Gabriel; Fink, Alexander; Smith, Daniel J; The Rise of Commerce and the Road to Prosperity: The Results of Private Enterprise in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance Italy

Marks, Gary; Hooghe, Liesbet; Chapter two: contrasting visions of Multi-level Governance

Koenig‐Archibugi, Mathias; Fuzzy citizenship in global society

Leicht, Michael; Facing Globalization: More Social Capital and the Ability to Act as a Global Player as Response from the EU

Werner, Jan; Managing Fiscal Conflicts

Faludi, Andreas; Declaration of Interdependence

Varone, Frédéric; Nahrath, Stéphane; Aubin, David; Gerber, Jean-David; Functional regulatory spaces

Eusepi, Giuseppe; Contractual fiscal equivalence versus geographical fiscal equivalence

Eger, Thomas; Kommentar zu dem Beitrag von Reiner Eichenberger und Mark Schelker „Zwischen Markt und Staat: Der Markt für Staat “

Mazzantini, Valeria; La liberalizzazione dei servizi pubblici locali alla luce del federalismo funzionale: il caso dei servizi energetici

Faludi, Andreas; EU territorial cohesion, a contradiction in terms

Peter, Friedrich; Feng, Xiao; The role of public institutions in regional competition

Blankart, Charles B; Borck, Rainald; Local public finance

I acknowledge that some of these, such as Michael Leicht's paper, are quite opposed to the FOCJ proposal; but surely the way Wikipedia should handle such a thing is to document both the proposal and the criticism, not delete the article entirely.

Wvdveer (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvdveer (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you please link to what you are talking about? Sandstein 07:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Sandstein}} He is talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOCJ. When you closed that discussion, you forgot to add "soft deletion" (there was only one vote for deletion), which means that he can't request its undeletion. Luis7M (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wvdveer, as AfD closer I express no opinion on whether the outcome to delete the article was correct or not. My job is only to assess whether there was consensus to delete in the deletion discussion, and that was the case: it was unanimous. You remain free to recreate the article using the sources you indicate above, or to request its recreation via WP:AFC. Sandstein 15:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Sandstein}} What?? That's not how AfDs work! Consensus requires at least two people, so if there is only one vote, what you must do is the following:

::::"The result was soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament squads}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament squads}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament squads}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]."

::::I'm going to ping {{ping|Liz}}. Luis7M (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There were two people supporting deletion, the nominator and Metropolitan90. An IP expressed a view about the subject's importance, but did not express an opinion about the article's retention. Relisting would have been a possibility, but I'm not going to relist a four-year-old AfD now. Sandstein 16:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Besides, the deleted article was a short stub with one source, consisting only of a definition of the concept. Undeleting it would be of little use. Any serious attempt at an article would need to start from scratch. Sandstein 16:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::"recreate the article using the sources you indicate above"

::::I think this is possibly the best answer here. Wvdveer (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The notability guidelines state the deletion should only happen:

::::"If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them".

::::Can I ask whether this the responsibility of the nominator or an administrator such as yourself to perform such a search? Wvdveer (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's the job of the people participating in deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Spider%27s_Web&diff=1293879629&oldid=1293869281 your edit] to Operation Spider's Web. Upon checking with the source, if the machine translated version I'm looking at is correct, it does say "the Russian mobile network is reported to have been used." in the second to last paragraph: "Die hätten nicht einmal vor Ort sein müssen, da Berichten zufolge das russische Mobilfunknetz genutzt worden sein soll." Given that you are a native German speaker, perhaps you could clarify. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Daisy Blue, you're right, I overlooked that part. But the statement has since beed readded with a different source, which is OK too I guess. Sandstein 12:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Multiple citations on Wikipedia and notable activities in publications and contributions to cyber security, digital freedom, digital rights, digital humanism, across academia, entrepreneurship, and activism are suggesting that the weak delete in 2021 should be reversed and original page restored or new one added. The original page (via wayback machine) is looking like it was written from a LinkedIn entry, which may have been contributing to poor notability. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Can you provide the WP:THREE best sources that (now) establish that person's notability? Sandstein 20:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::1. Original Wikipedia page provided evidence of notability, original reviewer did not realize Rohozinski was a principal investigator and author for the many of the studies that were noted. Also missed that Rohozinski was involved in shape and Canadian cyber security policy as well as through membership in significant Boards, including the defence industries, Canadian, international council, and Estonian E-Government Academy. https://web.archive.org/web/20211221061901/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafal_Rohozinski

::2. Open Net Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenNet_Initiative , and Information Warfare Monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Warfare_Monitor- were foundational projects for digital rights and Internet freedom, and Psiphon remains major company in Internet Freedom. Rohozinski was the principal investigator and responsible for the projects. All other principal investigators for the ONI andf IWM are listed in Wikipedia because of the notability of these projects and their impact- John Palfery, Ronald Deibert and Jonathan Zittrain - but not Rohozinski even though he is acknowledged as the person who was responsible for the intellectual and methodological work behind these projects. Rohozinski and Secdev were also responsible for the Ghostnet report https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6d1260fd-b8ee-4a11-8a5f-e7708d543651/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Gh0stNet.pdf&type_of_work=Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet (see report cover and list of authors) even though attribution is now popularily misattributed solely to the Citizen Lab.

::3. Rohozinski separately identified as top 10 luminary in cybersecurity in 2010. https://www.scworld.com/feature/top-of-the-heap-2010s-it-security-luminaries and by Forbes in 2014 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardstiennon/2014/04/07/20-cyber-policy-experts-to-follow-on-twitter/ Also well known as public figure in Canada https://ottawacitizen.com/news/rafal-rohozinski-a-warrior-against-cyber-armageddon

::4. Rohozinski's academic work has received over 4,900 citations according to Google Scholar. His most cited publication, "Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War" (2011), co-authored with James P. Farwell, has received over 460 citations and has been identified as the most cited cybercrime research published between 2000-2023.https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q6WLYugAAAAJ&hl=en

::5. Multiple publications since 2021:

::The Chaos Trump Unleashed Is Just Getting Started: The US is entering a revolutionary moment. No one knows how it ends

::https://thewalrus.ca/americas-great-unravelling-has-begun-what-comes-next/

::The US is entering a revolutionary moment. No one knows how it ends

::https://thewalrus.ca/americas-great-unravelling-has-begun-what-comes-next/

::America’s young digital natives are reformatting the country and its institutions https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-americas-young-digital-natives-are-reformatting-the-country-and-its/

::The Brutalist Web: America’s digital dominance is becoming a geopolitical weapon.

::https://medium.com/centre-for-international-governance-innovation/rafal-rohozinski-the-brutalist-web-ff1f26167b04

::The missing ‘cybergeddon’: what Ukraine can tell us about the future of cyber war

::https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2022/03/the-missing-cybergeddon-what-ukraine-can-tell-us-about-the-future-of-cyber-war/

::How the Internet made nuclear war thinkable (again)

::hhttps://en.interaffairs.ru/article/how-the-internet-made-nuclear-war-thinkable-again/

::The tragedy of Vladimir Putin and Russia

::https://opencanada.org/the-tragedy-of-vladimir-putin-and-russia/

::Five possible scenarios in the Ukraine-Russia war

::https://www.ipolitics.ca/2022/03/07/five-possible-scenarios-in-the-ukraine-russia-war/

::The dark side of digitalization – and how to fix it

::https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/dark-side-digitalization/

::6. Continued work supporting Tibetans, targeted by Chinese cyber espionage (digital rights work)

::Deputy Speaker Dolma Tsering Teykhang Meets CEO of Zeropoint Rafal Rohozinski https://tibet.net/deputy-speaker-dolma-tsering-teykhang-meets-ceo-of-zeropoint-rafal-rohozinski/

::There is more.. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I asked for the three best sources. Please limit your list to three. Please reat WP:THREE. Sandstein 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::**Response to WEAK DELETE - Case for Notability Based on Three Independent Source Categories**

::The original deletion review appears to have overlooked substantial evidence of notability that meets Wikipedia’s standards for three good in-depth references in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of each other and of the subject . The following three independent source categories, when considered alongside the original article content, demonstrate clear notability:

::**1. Recognition as Founding Principal Investigator of Notable Digital Rights Organizations**

::Rohozinski served as principal investigator for the Open Net Initiative and Information Warfare Monitor - foundational projects in digital rights and Internet freedom research. The notability of these organizations is evidenced by Wikipedia articles for co-investigators John Palfrey, Ronald Deibert, and Jonathan Zittrain. Rohozinski’s role as intellectual architect of these projects’ methodologies is documented in multiple independent academic sources. He was also principal investigator for the GhostNet investigation, a significant cybersecurity discovery covered extensively in independent media.{{cite web |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6d1260fd-b8ee-4a11-8a5f-e7708d543651/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Gh0stNet.pdf&type_of_work=Report |title=Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network |website=Oxford Research Archive |publisher=University of Oxford |access-date=2025-06-07}}

::**2. Independent Recognition by Major Media Organizations**

::Third-party recognition includes identification as a notable cybersecurity expert and coverage by Forbes (2014) as a cyber policy expert to follow.{{cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardstiennon/2014/04/07/20-cyber-policy-experts-to-follow-on-twitter/ |title=20 Cyber Policy Experts To Follow On Twitter |author=Richard Stiennon |website=Forbes |date=2014-04-07 |access-date=2025-06-07}} These represent independent editorial decisions by established media organizations with no direct connection to the subject.

::**3. Scholarly Impact Through Independent Academic Citation**

::Google Scholar records over 4,900 citations of Rohozinski’s academic work, with his most cited publication “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War” (2011) receiving over 460 citations. This demonstrates sustained scholarly attention from independent researchers across the cybersecurity field.{{cite web |url=https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q6WLYugAAAAJ&hl=en |title=Rafal Rohozinski - Google Scholar Citations |website=Google Scholar |access-date=2025-06-07}}

::The original reviewer appears to have missed that Rohozinski’s involvement in shaping Canadian cybersecurity policy through board memberships (Defence Industries Canadian International Council, Estonian E-Government Academy) and his continued prominence through recent publications in major outlets further support notability through independent, third-party recognition. The original Wikipedia article{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211221061901/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafal_Rohozinski |title=Rafal Rohozinski |website=Wikipedia |via=Internet Archive Wayback Machine |date=2021-12-21 |access-date=2025-06-07}} documented these achievements before deletion.

::These three categories of independent sources - organizational founding roles, media recognition, and scholarly impact - collectively satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements when evaluated against the deleted article’s documented evidence. 174.91.112.32 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I asked you for the three best sources establishing notability. What you provide above are not sources. Since you have disregarded my request, I will not respond further. Sandstein 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Mea Culpa. This is my last try at this. I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia and I fully acknowledge and own the fact that I didn't understand the instructions and did not post what you had requested with the degree of accuracy that was required. My previous apology was erased, but I am including here again. I understand that the role of Wikipedia to provide a public good, so my only motivation and providing a request to correct this deletion was to acknowledge the fact that this particular individual shows up across multiple Wikipedia entries, but does not seem to have one of his own. If that's not good enough reason to reinstate, then I will honour the editorial decisions made by those who contribute more to Wikipedia. However, I would ask that my error in how I presented the request not be the reason for disregarding this request. Rather, I would ask that it's addressed on its merits. Consequently I'm going to repost the three sources' - in the format that they should have been posted in the first place and would kindly ask for consideration, recognizing that you've already spent more time on this request than is reasonable and required.

::::3 Sources for Notalbility

::::1. Principal Investigator and lead on GHOSTNET - first documented case of a Chinese cyber espionage network that published on the front page of the New York Times and subsequent articles SOURCE: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12cyber.html

::::2. Established as leading advocate for digital rights - and leader of multiple notable projects with entries on Wikipedia: OpenNet Initiative, Information Warfare Monitor and Psiphon. 'SOURCE: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/rafal-rohozinski-a-warrior-against-cyber-armageddon

:::: • 3. Established Author with [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q6WLYugAAAAJ&hl=en HIGH CITATION] on Cybersecurity. SOURCE: “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2011.555586 (one of most cited articles on Cybersecurity between 2014-2023 -- 1632 citations). 135.23.117.48 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In my view, these three sources do not suffice to establish the notability of Rafal Rohozinski.

• Source one is reliable and independent, but mentions Rohozinski only in passing by quoting him twice. The article is not about Rohozinski at all, but about broader issues of cybersecurity.
• Source two is better, because it is to a large degree about Rohozinski, even though it is largely a condensed version of an interview, which is more of a primary rather than a secondary source.
• Source three is an article by Rohozinski himself, therefore not independent of him, and therefore useless for notability purposes.

We have therefore only one source that is somewhat useful for establishing notability. However, per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected", and in this case we have only one relatively brief newspaper interview. This is in my view clearly insufficient. I therefore decline to restore the article. Sandstein 14:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for your consideration. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:If I may ask a follow up question. I was doing research on this individual because of their participation in a number of notable digital rights initiatives and project. They appear in multiple Wikipedia pages, but there's no entry for them. I accept that they do not meet the notability standard you laid out above, but is there some other method short of creating an entry where people can be redirected to find out more information about this individual, their work and publications? What would be the proper way of doing this in Wikipedia? 135.23.117.48 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::You can try to determine whether anything he is involved in - his company, his inventions - are notable enough for an article. The standard is WP:GNG. Sandstein 17:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't want to waste more of your time here, but your last comment sent me down a rabbit hole. I conducted a quick review to investigate when Rohozinski was removed from Wikipedia and found that both he and SecDev were deleted in the same month (December 2021). The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_SecDev_Group revision includes a soft delete of SecDev] - which was the company most associated with Rohozinski after Cambridge University and which anchored most of the notable projects that still have Wikipedia entries.

:::What strikes me as anomalous is that the entries for the notable projects, inventions, and events associated with both subjects have remained on Wikipedia, despite the deletion of the principal figures who led these activities. The removal targeted only Rohozinski and SecDev, not the other entries, despite evidence that Rohozinski was either a principal investigator, author, or co-author of the publications and led many of the activities that continue to have Wikipedia articles.

:::This editorial decision seems inconsistent with maintaining accuracy, as the projects retain notability while their primary architects were removed. A review of WP:GNG suggests both subjects clearly satisfy notability requirements.

:::I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the appropriate way to proceed. Based on my review, both subjects appear to meet WP:GNG criteria with substantial independent coverage from reliable sources. I have a few options and would value your experienced perspective on which approach would be most constructive:

:::1. Discuss the notability evidence here on your talk page first

:::2. Create a well-sourced stub article and let the community evaluate it

:::3. Take no action if you believe the previous deletion decisions were appropriate

:::I'm happy to defer to your judgment on this matter. My interest stems purely from encountering what appeared to be an editorial inconsistency during research, and I'd like to contribute positively to Wikipedia's accuracy while fully respecting community standards and processes.

:::What approach would you recommend? I'm committed to following whatever guidance you provide.

:::Thank you for taking the time to consider this question. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is, deletions are not permanent. If you can address the reasons for which an article is deleted, you can always recreate it. If you think any of these topics are notable, you can recreate the articles with new sources, or submit a draft to WP:AFC for review. But I have neither the time nor the interest for looking into this particular set of articles further. Sandstein 06:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You have been more than patient. Thank you very much for engaging, and your guidance. 135.23.117.48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)