Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz/Archive24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive

Hello

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I don't think you know me. But I've seen you around AfD and have always seen you as a model administrator. Just came around to tell you that I was sad that you handed in your bit and do hope you re-take your tools whenever you feel like it, and continue your stellar contributions. Most warmly, Lourdes 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I sat on the other side of that DRV from you, I too wanted to say that I feel you are a very good admin and a Wikipedia has been lucky to have you around. I hope you return someday soon. Good luck on what I hope is just a break. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Spartaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can I be unblocked so that I can pay my respects to SBHB who has sadly passed away?

Accept reason:

I believe you asked to be blocked, thus you are free to request to be unblocked. Therefore, I have lifted your block. Yamla (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A box of matches for you!

[edit]
Strike a light....
You want to burn some witches, here you go. (Just make sure logically they weigh the same as a duck, so you know they're made of wood....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

[edit]

Nice to see that you also have decided to return! Also, in case you don't already know (I gave this warning to Randykitty) there's been several compromised accounts recently, 3 of them admins, so just a heads up on security. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious
Six years!

B.l.o.w.

[edit]

Hey, since the parent article has been deleted, can you delete the following related pages:

Regards.--NØ 17:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were already batched into this AfD with pretty obvious consensus to delete all of them (except the template), or redirect to the main article (which has been deleted for non-notability.--NØ 11:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake then. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi, just curious how you determined the consensus was "delete" at this AfD. Thanks - wolf 11:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concept appears potentially notable but it was conclusively shown in the discussion that the content failed V, was from a SPS and had a lot of accuracy issues. Removing this content would leave nothing - hence I deleted it, but would be pleased if someone could restart it with proper sourcing. essentially, its a TNT case. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about moving it draft or the authors sandbox? Give them a chance to improve it? Couldn't hurt WP, may actually help that editor... - wolf 11:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was requested by the author I would consider it but is it not the case they already have the material at Wikia? Spartaz Humbug! 12:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Hi, I notice that you have closed this AfD saying that the "result" was Redirect. How did you determine that, when 6 editors argued that the subject met WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED? One vote was an outright Delete, three were redirect or delete/redirect, and two (including the nominator) suggested a minibio. How does that result in a redirect? Also, how does it help establish notability guidelines for supercentenarians, which the Wikiproject LONGEVITY argue that they are doing? Or have they already been established, but not actually stated anywhere, so that editors waste time arguing on AfDs for cases that the LONGEVITY project have already determined are outside their unstated guidelines? I will ask this question on the LONGEVITY page, though in reality it is an ANTILONGEVITY project, with some of the most emotional language I have seen in Wikipedia discussions used by those trying to delete all these articles, rather than assessing them individually. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and jts not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included jn a list. Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a lot. Did you even look at the article before deleting it? I had just done some revisions, which, I discovered, added back some information deleted by a supercentenarian deleter saying it was "unsourced" - it was not unsourced, it was just not specifically referenced at that point in the article. The Delete side arguments are highly emotional, and are based on making the article so minimal that there is nothing worth saving, rather than actually checking if there is SIGCOV and adding it. However, your answer makes clear to me that there is no point at all in participating in AfDs for people who "could just be included in a list", if their articles are so poor that it appears that there is nothing else to say about them.RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 9#Bernice Madigan. RebeccaGreen (talk · contribs), I agree with your analysis. Cunard (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen nicely makes the case that this falls under WP:PAGEDECIDE. Title was redirected so maybe she wants to write the minibio? That is better to present the subject in context rather than as a WP:PERMASTUB Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Little (engineer)

[edit]

You closed this as delete in May. I started a new page at Draft:Patrick Little (American politician). He has coverage beyond his senate campaign now. Someone else thought he was important enough to mention at Gab_(social_network)#History. Do you think this is enough to not have WP:G4 apply? "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" Џ 02:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Essentially his notability is to do with his being antisemitic. Thats a hefty burden for a blp and this one is too skimpy to bear that weight without much more biographical content. Spartaz Humbug! 17:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Spartaz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

[edit]
Spartaz,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy new year!

[edit]

Happy New Year!

Hello Spartaz: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Hhkohh (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Article deletion

[edit]

Hello,

You recently deleted the article Four C's of 21st Century Learning. I saw the advanced notice but didn't had time to respond with edits, etc. I would like to re-write the article addressing the concerns raised. How can I get a copy of it? I apologize if there is a better way to communicate with you - just point the way.

Thanks, Architect21c (talk)Architect21c

I can userfy and review after you improved. Can you link me the deleted article please? Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion (Josh Mangila)

[edit]

Hi Spartaz!

Is there any other way to contact you outside wikipedia? Sir Josh Mangila, the person who you removed the wikipedia page last April 2018, wanted to talk to you.

Thank you!

Maywardjedi (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Try OTRS. I only discuss deletions on wiki Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019

[edit]


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userify "Tim Mohin" page

[edit]

Hello Spartaz- it has been a while since this happened but a page I authored (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tim_Mohin) was removed before I was able to copy the content. I see from some other comments that you are able to userify their removed pages - could you please do this for me, or otherwise make the original text accessible? Thank you, and happy new year. Tatter Software (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Danis

[edit]

Hello, I'm not exactly sure what the process is for attempting to make a wikiarticle for Dillon Danis, but I've already started the page in my sandbox and I think it is at a stub level. I have his medals corrected, his mma record, and I've started discussing his involvement in the UFC 229 controversy. Let me know what I can do, I just didn't want to try creating the article before asking you because that's what the message said to do. Cheers Pokerplayer513 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources? Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Romanova

[edit]

Hi Spartaz. You blanked this BLP as a redirect. You need to put this to AfD if you want to do this unless you achieve consensus on the BLP talk page first. Britishfinance (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle

[edit]

...is at DRV again, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lomax

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, could you please move this deleted article to draftspace? I'm finding some coverage since the close and would like to work on it. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'

[edit]

I was doing a bit of reading this AM over at ARCA, and your following comment made me smile "...my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked." Mine keeps changing it to crambo. Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 12:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kst

[edit]

Humbug! I believe your handing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) was flawed. There was no consensus to delete. There was a possibility of discussion coming to a merge/redirect. But it requires someone to do it. I cannot offer merge unless I am prepared to commit future time to do it. Of major concern was this content removal [1] it not appropriate to be marked as WP:MINOR not does it match the description which implies removal of wikilink. Please resolve these matters. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - the outcome was certainly not delete. Relisting might have been appropriate, but certainly not deletion. Samsara 18:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how was my close flawed or do you just disagree with the outcome? As for the edit its a standard auto generated one from the automated AFD closing script. They are all like that and I don't see what is wrong with it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay ... different approach. One concern is this edit is marked as minor.
  • Perceived flaw: My reading of WP:MINOR is this was a content removal not a wikilink change and should not have been marked as minor.
  • If this was done by macro/whatever then my minding is that this is behaving incorrectly and should be challenged.
  • I would have accepted that edit if not marked as minor but would have preferred an improve description as it was not a wikilink change but effectively removal of unreferrenced content.
  • I have been WP:BOLD and reverted that edit and shown what I believe would have been appropriate for removal of a wikilink and marked that in accordance with WP:MINOR. I do believe best practice does require a reference and have gone on to mark that as citation needed which I intend to satisfy in due course.
Hopefully this is acceptable and not in circumvention of the AfD decision.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second matter is regards to the closing of the AfD. If I were to take this to WP:DRV I would anticipate there would be found nothing technically wrong and the decision would be endorse. However given that sources were more recently found and better validated, possibilities of willingness to undertake a merge may have occurred, better and more usual practice may have been to extend for another week. Though to be frank its unlikely I have the bandwidth to improve the article nor to locate (possible) relevant offline sources in a reasonable period (I've just checked a couple of books several I have but no joy there). But we may have found someone to do the redirect/merge. Obviously should I come across two brilliant articles in a Jumble sale on Kst I may care to redo the article, but pragmatically from where we are there may simply be a reasonable case for a redirect with categories:
  • Is there anything in the AfD which would prevent me creating a redirect providing the target was referenced?
  • In such a case my preference is to edit the existing article into a redirect with history, but I suspect some might say I am being too pedantic in requesting a WP:REFUND here as the content is minimal and the history is likely limited. Would you accept a request for a refund for that purpose or alternatively would you be adverse to requesting such a refund for that purpose at WP:REFUND if you were not prepared to do so yourself?

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no problem at all doing a history undelete under a redirect. As for the minor edit I see no harm in it. Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kst

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kst. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Samsara 23:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review

[edit]

Do you plan to request comments on your block of Legacypac? If so, I will support the block as being appropriate for the string of personal attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl. If the block was for some other reason, I don't know what my opinion is, but you can see that several users including me tried to caution Legacypac that their attacks had gone too far. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The block was specifically for unfounded allegations of bullying. I had not seen the offensive word of I would have blocked for much longer. Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
For the block of a usually valued editor who was engaging in out-of-control personal attacks on a respected administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

While you are not involved in that discussion I have as a small part of that appeal referenced the DRV for Kst (software) as I wished to bring forward some of the arguments from that. As you were involved in that I feel appropriate to inform you as a courtesy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

[edit]
Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Peizer

[edit]

Regarding recent deletion of article for Jonathan Peizer https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Peizer_(2nd_nomination) This was created by an unaffiliated 3rd party in 2012 and since I have referenced it in multiple links over the ensuing years I'd like to make a case for maintaining it at the risk of a lot of 404 errors.

Please find additional references not on the current article page: - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer - https://everything.explained.today/Jonathan_Peizer/ - http://moussemagazine.it/influencing-machine-galeria-nicodim-bucharest/ (See references Jonathan Peizer) - Morino Institute From Access to Outcomes, Digital Divide Report http://www.morino.org/divides/participants.htm - https://socialsourcecommons.org/appreciations - Wired June 1998 pg 106 Netizen Section - Sysop for Soros by Ben Green - Uncanny Networks The MIT Press, A Leonardo Book March 2003 ISBN 0-262-12251-0 7 x 9, 392 pp.- (Description of Background on page 144 prior to the Actual Interview Chapter) - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/651/566 (Background information proceeds interview)

3rd Party reviews of my Books / Manuals: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/book-review/the-dynamics-of-technology-for-social-change-jonathan-peizer/ https://fcw.com/articles/2006/07/24/welles-the-dynamics-of-technology.aspx https://www.philanthropy.com/article/What-Grant-Seekers-Should-Know/174201 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Book-Explores-Role-of/172427

Thank you for your time. Jpeizer (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer April 21st, 2019[reply]

I'm happy to review the deletion but you are clearly not practiced here and a half-baked request won't make any progress and might make getting the article back harder. Please can you read WP:NOTPROMO & WP:GNG to understand the hurdles you need to jump. Once you have done that, pick two sources that you think best meet GNG and list them here. If they are any good, I will.either relist or undelete the article. If they are not good, I won't. Please don't waste your time or mine if the articles are not good enough. It would help you know what to put up it you can say how the sources are independent, reliable & in-depth. The source would need to meet all 3. Interviews are not independent, profiles are. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 20:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: Agree with you 100% that I am clearly not practiced here with the variety of rules and procedures. Per your request:

Jpeizer (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer 22 April 2019[reply]

Sorry, none of those are even close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: Really? https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer is not even close? I'm never disappointed by the arbitrariness displayed on Wikipedia. An article goes uncontested for five years. Out of the blue it is deemed unworthy, invalidating years of reference links to it. Is there consideration taken of the consequences of that? Not an iota. While we who ask questions are told to always be polite, more often than not we encounter rather unnecessary snarkyness as a reply and derision for not being expert in following multiple levels of distributed and ever changing rules that all too often make something that was fine one day, an egregious sin the next. Thanks for your "consideration/considerateness" in deeming my accomplishments unworthy, including, most ironically, supporting Wales/Wikipedia through the Information Program in its early years at OSI. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

In what way do you consider SourceSafe meets the GNG? Look at the criteria. look at the source, tell me how it meets it? Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute I was creepy

[edit]

You wrote "An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. "

Could you please refrain from applying the word "creepy" to other contributors' character?

In 2011 I started an article on Dawn Dumont, a multi-talented Native American woman, who was a lawyer, an actor, an author, a journalist, and a stand-up comic. I had even found a couple of freely re-usable pictures of her, a fan of hers had uploaded to flickr, from one of her stand-up performances, to illustrate that article.

I was impressed by Ms Dumont. I thought the article I had written was neutrally written. I thought it didn't say anything negative, or objectionable.

Well, a month or two after I started the Dawn Dumont article I learned Ms Dumont wasn't happy with it. Her initial complaint was over the freely distributable picture I had chosen. She uploaded some alternate photos, she preferred, and replaced the free picture with one of her proprietary images. She then seemed not to understand that those images were going to be deleted, because she had not specified a free license when she uploaded them.

When her images were deleted she got angry, said she resented any kind of online profile of herself, that she didn't control, and said she wanted the article deleted.

I had been the only contributor who had altered the article's editorial content, so I had the option to apply a G7, author requests deletion speedy tag. Ms Dumont's wishes were clear. I could have told her how to use our procedures to go through the usual channels to make a request for speedy deletion. But, I decided not to force her to jump though those hoops.

That was my intent in leaving a note on one of Ms Nelson's YouTube videos.

While I think Ms Nelson measures up to our inclusion criteria, I also think she is close enough to the cusp that she would win a courtesy deletion, if she were to request one. Traditionally, while we would not agree to delete an article about a really major figure, like OJ Simpson, we have agreed to delete articles on BLPs who have measured up to our inclusion criteria, who are less notable - as a courtesy.

I would prefer to save my time, and not work on an article that may get a courtesy deletion. If Ms Nelson is going to consider requesting courtesy deletion, I can save her time, and the time of everyone who reads her request, by a request not to bother.

I think this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate. It's creepy and I'm entitled to call it out. Why don't you work on articles that are not marginal instead of imposing yourself on this person. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Are you assuming that it is obvious that Ms Nelson was some kind of victim, when her late mother took the picture in question, in 2006? Are you assuming that she was an unknowing victim, brainwashed by her parents, when she offered an apparently articulate rebuttal of the politician's criticisms of her mother, in 2008? Please consider the possibility that she wasn't brainwashed, in 2008, and that she may still believe her late mother's artistic choices deserve her defence today. If she still continues to want to defend her late mother's artistic choices, as an adult, please consider the possibility that your efforts to "protect" her actually constitute an unwelcome effort to silence her. If she continues to hold the same views about her mother's artistic choices in 2019 that she held in 2008, why shouldn't it be you, Spartaz, and those who agreed with you, who she might regard as creepy, for trying to censor her?
  2. The wikipedia is not a fora for advocacy. Specifically, in this particular case, the Olympia Nelson article is neither a fora for true believers to advocate for the suppression of discussion of instances of images of unclothed people, or unclothed children, nor is it a fora for other true believers to advocate for the free expression of what they consider images of images that hold significant historic or artistic value. If Ms Nelson did not have significant referencing to support that she measures up to inclusion criteria of GNG, neither the views of her mother's challengers, or the views she voiced in 2008, would merit inclusion in a standalone article. But you looked at the version of the article on the non-WMF wiki. The main change I made there was to more than double the number of references, to over 2 dozen references.

    We are not prosecutors. Perhaps some people who have voiced opinions on Ms Nelson's mother's artistic choices think she should have faced criminal charges? Tough. She didn't. If she had I am sure we could have found a way to cover those charges using a neutral voice. I think anyone who is disturbed that she didn't face charges, who then wants to delete this article to suppress an instance where the free expression they oppose won, would be seriously lapsing from NPOV.

  3. While the public discussion in 2008 can fairly be called a controversy, I think it is one that could trivially be covered if those working on the article bore in mind the various wikidocuments we have for how cover RS that disagree using a neutral voice. I think that when the article was nominated, and when it was deleted, it was written from a neutral point of view. Maybe, looking at some version or versions of the deleted article, you think you see lapses from neutrality? If so, they are small lapses, right, ones that could be dealt with through small rewordings, or excisions - not requiring outright deletion, correct? I don't think there was ever a meaningful controversy over the actual wording of the article.
  4. You are correct, that, in 2017, prior to the closure of the AFD, I copied the wikipedia article to a non-WMF wiki. However, if you meant to imply bad faith on my part, for requesting the admin who closed the AFD to userify the article, a week ago, you are completely incorrect. We are all subject to normal human fallibility. I did recollect copying it to the non-WMF wiki. But, when I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. I thought my memory of copying it to the non-WMF wiki was a false memory, and I was cross with myself. That is when I requested the closing admin to userify it, and, when they declined, I opened the DRV. You noted I had edited it "recently". My first edit of it in a year and a half was May 12th, several days after I made my userification requests. I did a google search looking for recent RS that mentioned Ms Nelson, and was very surprised to see I had copied it to that other wiki after all. It is doubly surprising as material in the other wikis Deleted: namespace used to be protected by a blanket NOINDEX.
  5. So, having found the version on the other wiki, on May 12th, why didn't I withdraw the request for userification?
    • I still think Ms Nelson is notable enough to merit a standalone article;
    • I don't think anyone offered a genuine policy based justification as to why the article should have been deleted, in the AFD. BLP1E was repeatedly claimed, and it was frankly bullshit, as she clearly was known for TWO events. The nominator eventually claimed he made the nomination after he ...noticed this article because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children. I am sure I don't have to remind you that if we find an article with lots of acceptable references, and one reference we consider really bad, deletion is overkill. Simply removing the bad reference is simpler and more appropriate.
    • I don't think anyone has offered a genuine policy based justification as to why the topic doesn't merit a standalone article in the DRV.
  6. If Ms Nelson responds that she doesn't want to be covered by a standalone wikipedia article, I will remove the article from the non-WMF wiki.

    What will your position be if Ms Nelson says she has no objection to having the article restored? If she were to say my note was considerate, not creepy, are you going to withdraw your characterization of my note as "creepy"? Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "obsessed" does not comply with our policies and conventions on civility. As an administrator I think the rest of us are entitled to see you show an example of civility for other contributors to emulate. Please see my essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...
No, I am not obsessed with Ms Nelson. I am very concerned that good faith contributors should be able to find the decisions we make here understandable. They should either be firmly based in our written policies, or in our long-standing conventions, like the allowance of courtesy deletion. This one isn't, because:
  1. Since her 2013 op-ed triggered world-wide comment claims of BLP1E became bogus;
  2. Complaints I was "creepy" have nothing to do with her notability or assertions of whether or not that certain policies applied to her;
  3. The essay BLUDGEON was wielded like it was an actual policy, as if these claims justified endorsing the original closure.
I'd be completely happy to see her remain uncovered, if a convincing policy-based justification for deletion was advanced. Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is against the article. That's a policy based reason. Spartaz Humbug! 15:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fellowship of Friends has been accepted

[edit]
Fellowship of Friends, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Spartaz, you want to go for the AUTOPATROL flag, I'll second you :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Are admins not automatically autopatrolled? Happy for more eyes on this anyway lol. I only submitted it to use the script to accept it per the drv I closed. . Spartaz Humbug! 15:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BLP Joseph Olusola Iji

[edit]

In respect to *Joseph Olusola Iji " and it's entry into the articles for deletion, subsequently your actions deleting links in Ondo state notable people. Would appreciate if efforts were in improving the article rather than deleting.

Best regards. Krazo 10:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

why do we want to keep links to a deleted page? Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian student visa.jpg and UK Entry clearance for student.jpg

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, can you help me by advising what is the appropriate license for these visas photo? Since no one hold the copy right of the visa and I am the person who took the photo and edit it. Hope to hear back from you soon Hoangkid (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen visa.jpg

[edit]

Hi, you have marked the file Yemen visa.jpg for deletion. I am the author of it and I don't know why the license it's not appropriate. Can you explain to me? Thanks. --Ayaanle (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2019 (GMT+1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yemen_visa.jpg


Damn, again? Come back whenever you want. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... with thanks from QAI

FYI

[edit]

One of your AfD closes is being discussed here. Reyk YO! 11:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-created the page

[edit]

Hey, you had deleted Death of Mohammad Habali as a result of the AFD and I just restored it per this fresh source. Would you please just merge the histories and talk pages? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this with WP:G4, as this is a recreation of a deleted article (with the same content). The recent AP piece (non-paywalled version) covers the subject in but a few lines - the article itself being devoted to military investigations at large. Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have POV with regard to the subject, death of a handicapped man by Israeli army. You did whatever to delete the page, be it describing a lengthy report on the such deaths including that of Habali as covering the subject in "few lines"! It's quite clear, and you know it, that the AP piece is showing how the coverage by reliable sources had been consistent. --Mhhossein talk 18:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino wiki

[edit]

Hello Spartaz, It was brought to my attention that you were the Administrator who closed the discussion of my wiki page. I understand because of constant updates from my radio audience it was taken down (after 10+ years) but I assure you, there are appropriate references & sources to back up the important information. Im requesting a copy of the old wiki and code to be "draftified" so the proper changes can be adjusted to meet your requirements. Your help is appreciated and apologize for any inconvenience.

Steve Covino -TV & Radio Host Sirius XM / ESPN 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacman76 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User bypassing deletion

[edit]

Reversing your deletion of the halle hazzard. New competitions added.

Hi Spartaz, Manjappada was twice nominated for deletion, (1, 2 and resolved as "delete" by Jo-Jo Eumerus and you, respectively. User Farzanfa007 has tried to bypass this deletion by moving pages. Can you please look into this and WP:SALT the page? Coderzombie (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facepalm jeez.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Facepalm jeez.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

[edit]
Oh jeez, not this again!
Oh jeez, not this again!


Hello Spartaz: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+sysop

[edit]

Hello Spartaz, your sysop access has been restored per your request at WP:BN. Welcome back, — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

[edit]
Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

2019 Gabriola Island crash

[edit]

How can you possibly say there was a "clear consensus" to delete that article? There were considerable disussions arguing that the article did meet the general notability guideline. Just because the loudest voices on the debate (like Bearian's response to everyone) dominate discussion does not mean there is a consensus. Bookscale (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WilliamJE, I didn't ask you, I asked the administrator who closed the AfD. My comment about people who are the loudest in the debate is made exactly when you decide you want to come and comment on a conversation I didn't invite you to participate in. Stay out of it. Bookscale (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS was never refuted and the argument that current sources exist is irrelevant if there is no enduring impact in the news. That point was never challenged in the discussion so it was considered to be a winning argument. Plus there appeared to be precedent that this kind of article is rarely covered so something out of the usual would be required. Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS2

[edit]

Regarding the potential confusion over merge and TNT, maybe Merge, then delete and redirect once merge is complete would’ve been a better phrasing. I don’t think it needs to be reopened or anything, I just wanted to clarify what I meant since you’re closing note seemed to think it was confusing. -2pou (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we normally need to.keep the history when we merge for attribution purposes so cannot delete it it's a merge. If content is really bad and needs TNT then merging the content is a bad idea anyway. better to use the sources to rewrite from scrwtch..Spartaz Humbug! 23:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher's Pet (video game)

[edit]

Hello! I think Teacher's Pet (video game) should have been deleted as I noted, Arms Corporation is an animation studio that made OVA (which should be redirected), and not a video game developer. Knowledgekid has said "the other one can and should be deleted" (meant for video game). Teacher's Pet (OVA) staying as a redirect is find as you closed. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that delete needed a stronger consensus and merge/redirect is a valid compromise between the two sides. Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand. I am not asking for a delete of both, but video game targeting to an animation studio of hentai of the same name is not a valid redirect (as mentioned). I have nominated it at RfD anyways. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well, if you think a different location is better I don't really object to your changing it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

[edit]

I wish to open an adminstrative investigation into the premature closure of the AfD discussion for the Hayley McLaughlin article, in this run up to the holiday. That discussion featured repeated issues with editors failing to AGF, and making completely unjustified POV accusations (and in so doing, exhibiting prohibited bias against non-logging editors). (It was after such an unjustified accusation of relationship of this editor with the subject, that I took a break from the discussion, only to find the discussion closed, despite the impending US and European holiday.) Please advise which venue this might be best raised, and how I might reference that AfD discussion, now that your action has deleted the record that was in process. Please reply here. Thank you. 2601:246:C700:9B0:ACE8:FBE5:9149:3FE6 (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions only last 7 days unless the consensus is unclear, which is not the case here. If you want to appeal feel free to follow the link at the top of the discussion page to deletion review. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

[edit]

For your reference, see WT:AN#Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

[edit]
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはSpartazたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Hayley McLaughlin

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hayley McLaughlin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I did not mention in the Deletion review request that AGF was violated in the AfD discussions for that article, with accusations of POV/biased editing—specifically, the unfounded accusation that I was in relationship with the actor being written about, even after I opened with a disclaimer indicating this was not the case, and where even a cursory review of my recent edits would make clear this is nonsense. (I am as I stated, a longstanding WP editor, a retired academic that no longer logs, as is allowed here since the founding of WP.) I believe that there was bias displayed against IP editing (and other bad behaviour) in that discussion, and I will take that up separately. I simply ask that good process be followed, and that the Keep/Delete decision (i) tally actual votes, and not votes inferred from Comments, and (ii) that it not be closed early, especially given the week in question. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuen Mun Town Centre

[edit]

Hi Spartaz - I think the consensus on this was to "Merge" rather than to "Redirect"? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said merge away. I usually do the redirect when I close so editors just need to go in the history and extract any mergable content to post into the new article. Unfortunately the script does offer merge\redirect as an option when I close Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should update to the new XFD Closer that offers Merge as a separate button; otherwise, when someone goes to merge, they will usually undo the Redirect to get information (especially if the merge is going to take a few edits), and - believe it or not - I have even had someone revert me doing this as a violation of the AfD :( It is obviously only a small thing, but closing Merges as "Merge" on the XfD Closer is a more efficient route all around. Happy Christmas to you. Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an NGO article

[edit]

I want your humble opinion on how to create an article. Your quick responce would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarcss (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see articles for creation. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Spilo

[edit]

Hello, Spartaz,

Did you mean to delete this article after your DRV closure? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

                                                 Happy holidays

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Spartaz,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 22:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Cristian Pache

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristian Pache. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Please restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. thanks --2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[edit]

About Great Spider

[edit]

Hi Spartaz,
As you can see (with our magical sysop spectacles) this article has been recreated by Marino73 using bits of the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi.
I'm leery of an outright WP:G4 tag, given the WP:Good Faithyness categorical imperative. What do you think would be the best way to deal with this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should send it to afd and link the previous discussion. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello!Recently you deleted a page in wikipedia.May I know the reason for that? Page- Murali Krishna Woww guys (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some humbugs for you!

[edit]
The "you noticed it, you fix it" boiled sweet of individual responsibility
So basically what you are saying is "hey, I did my job at the AFD, you've noticed it has popped up again, and now you are asking me to do your job? Point taken. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you also knew what needed doing but instead wanted me to do it. Closing an AFD does not make the closer responsible for keeping the content deleted. In fact, most of the time I just clearing out a backlog an have no personal skin in the game. It wasn't the same article I deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 13:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WOWCube deletion

[edit]

Dear Spartaz, I'm writing to you regarding discussion for deletion of WOWCube article. I would like to restore any drafts of that article (if they exist) and move it to my personal sandbox so I could rewrite the article and prepare it for possible moving to mainspace (I think I can rework it so no signs of any promotion would exist there). I have recently made request for undeletion thinking that any drafts may still exist. Unfortuantely, the request was declined according to the fact that there was a discussion. So I was adviced to contact you as the administrator who closed the discussion. I am interested if any opportunities of restoring the draft of article and moving it to my personal sandbox still exist. Best wishes, Mark Ekimov (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happier New Year, now

[edit]

Welcome back! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRV says talk to you first

[edit]

I guess you weren't convinced by the argument that "X" is not a fork of "history of X", but the other way around. It would be nice if you would start the DRV yourself, also. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I went ahead and opened the deletion review, as you appeared to suggest that as the best next step in your closing comments. Please see below. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Race and intelligence

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Race and intelligence. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your close at the DRV in more detail? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an ideal move to drop a weak close on a contentious AFD then go offline for a while. Please weigh in when you are available. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for ShifCustom

[edit]

Hello. Please return to the deletion discussion the ShifCustom. The nominator claimed that there are no reliable sources, but this is the opinion of one user. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail (svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, interfax.by, onliner.by, abw.by). These sources comply with the criteria of reliability. References to awards confirmed the assessment of the subject, its notability by professionals.

You wrote that no sources were added after the nomination. In reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian "Moto", a catalog of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Sources may still be or new ones may appear (WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). In 2020, there is a new publication, added to the article. There was no consensus to delete.

The article may be added and improved (WP:NEXIST). In the home wiki (be:) added, did not translate into English until I finish. Best -- Maksim L. (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to do to WP:DRV if you want to change things. You can look at the discussion above this to see an example. 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)

Deletion review for ShifCustom

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ShifCustom. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maksim L. (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They told me to talk with you

[edit]

Hello, my friend! I requested for undeletion of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship, and they told me to talk with you to see if you can help us and accept because this is important to the kickboxing history. It was wrongly deleted. I will explain the situation:

The article and the years 2011-2018 in this kickboxing promotion established by Eduard Irimia (World Promoter of the Year in 2011 and 2013 Medalist of Honor of the Italian Republic) were wrongly deleted because the first SUPERKOMBAT article were created in the beginning of 2011. At that time some MMA users were deleting a lot of kickboxing, since then there were established some rules for all the combat sports. That's why it had more Deletion Nominations. Following the dissolution of Europe's No 1 promotion It's Showtime, SUPERKOMBAT was considered the No 1 promotion on the continent and until the creation of Glory World No 1 for a short time. All the events used to be Eurosport broadcasts, highly popular show. You can check on the article's multiple sources from the largest newspapers! Furthemore, SUPERKOMBAT co-promoted with K-1 in their last big year (2012). SUPERKOMBAT promoted the next Glory champions and challengers such as Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira, Pavel Zhuravlev, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Yousri Belgaroui, Yoann Kongolo etc and K-1s Albert Kraus (K-1 WGP MAX Champion), Ismael Londt (runner-up), Hesdy Gerges, Bob Sapp, and many more ranked to the top 10 of the world - some even World's No 1 and even p4p No 1 like Verhoeven and Pereira. After the Dutch scene of the Netherlands, Romania is one of the largest kickboxing scenes in Europe and in the world. I want also to create years with kickboxing in Romania, to cover all the promotions. I repeat, the articles had several nominations because of the past and anyway since 2011 this promotion was also awarded World's Promotion of the Year in a year (the main article has sources about this fact). In 2011 the promotion was unknown and new, although many, many big K-1 and It's Showtime stars were joining it even then. Please correct this injustice! Superkombat is on Wikipedia Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Poland and Portugal.

If you decide to reinstate, please undelete it but also move the main page to Superkombat Fighting Championship instead of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship. As per UFC.

Just look at Youtube also! We have fights with over 1 million views, plus the MMA magazines and channels are also relaunching.

—.karellian-24 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? Do you have a COI?? Can you cite the three best sources please and I will review. Spartaz Humbug! 22:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators from Requests for undeletion, admin Muboshgu adviced me what to do.

—.karellian-24 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also here are all the kickboxing promotions on Wikipedia, now even lower tier promotions are allowed (equality with MMA now, on same par). The rules for combat sports are changed, they even have a promotion from New Zealand which is only known locally/regionally (aka King in the Ring). Category:Kickboxing organizations —.karellian-24 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the 3 best? Can you link the actual sources please? Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Independent: MMA Plus putting it on the same par with Glory "world renown kickboxing shows such as GLORY and Superkombat" source 1, Bloody Elbow names it "Superkombat is one of the biggest kickboxing organizations in the world" & "top organisation Superkombat" sources 2 and 3 and Superkombat was awarded World Best Kickboxing Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of Ultimate Glory aka current Glory (world's number 1) and It's Showtime source 4. One of the largest continental sports newspapers such as Marca and Gazeta Sporturilor also write about Superkombat, and Daily Mirror and TeessideLive in the UK named it "elite" and "sport giant". 1 and 2. Plus former world number 1 promotion in the world K-1 calls it "European leader in combat sports production". source

—.karellian-24 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

You forgot to help me. :(

"Jeff Bezanson" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeff Bezanson. Since you had some involvement with the Jeff Bezanson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bruno H Vieira (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:My poor swamped watchlist.jpg

[edit]
Notice

The file File:My poor swamped watchlist.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Contact me when you are on!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious denominations in Leicester

[edit]

Good close, thanks, although with an implicit criticism of my actions? I'm not sure how, having moved a page, I could've predicted that another editor would nominate it for deletion in a couple of hours time! :) cheers, ——SN54129 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i thought the nom had done the move. I will clarify. Spartaz Humbug! 07:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I appreciate the clarification. Take care of yourself! ——SN54129 08:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

[edit]

Do you consider restoring Superkombat Fighting Championship please? It was the Promotion-of-the-Year in Kickboxing in 2011, beating Ultimate Glory (eventual Glory) and It's Showtime of the Netherlands (formerly No. 1 in Europe for years). Rico Verhoeven, Roman Kryklia, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Mladen Brestovac, D'Angelo Marshall and Ismael Londt fought in SUPERKOMBAT, 6 out of top 10 heavyweights [on the list. And the list can continue, No 2 light-heavyweight Pavel Zhuravlev, No 1 middleweight Alex Pereira (kickboxer), No 4 middleweight Jorge Loren, No 5 middlweight Yousri Belgaroui, No 7 middleweight Igor Bugaenko etc My arguments are very valid! .karellian-24 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say? .karellian-24 12:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the GNG. The quality sources required are missing. Sorry but I don't think we should undelete this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted the sources on your talk page, but you didn't even reply and archived. The page included dozens of sources, can you at least take a look? And at my sources please? We have on Wikipedia at least 15 poorer kickboxing promotions than Superkombat. Can't you accept maybe you made a mistake? Please check please, moreover former Superkombat page were deleted because at Season 1 this promotion was unknown. Like I said, most of the champions/top fighters in Glory are coming from Superkombat now. I need your approval, because I can re-create it myself and it will be again wrongly deleted. Some of the solid sources on the article. .karellian-24 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try DRV Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! .karellian-24 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India

[edit]

Hey, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India. I see you found that there was enough consensus for a TNT. However, I read the consensus more as a consensus to merge personally (full disclosure: I !voted keep). Many delete !votes simply argue that the events covered in the article aren't true. While most of them cite the absence of "riots" as evidence, these riots had already been removed from the article. Keep !voters challenged their narrative by saying large parts of the article are covered by reliable sources. If you discard those votes, that say the article as a whole is a "hoax", you end up with a pretty balanced debate, though still leaning towards delete.

Towards the end of the debate, a lot of users !voted to merge, and this proposal got support from both keep and delete !voters. While indeed not more support by numerical votees than delete, I do think a close as merge would be proper here. A merge would fix the issue of a POV fork, which is the basis of many delete !votes, and it was clear that merge was gathering a lot of support in the last few days, also from delete/keep !voters. I would say that alternativelty, if you didn't see consensus to merge, you should have relisted the debate, because it was clear that a new consensus (to merge) was likely arising and thus consensus may be much clearer after a week of debate. I hope you reconsinder your close, --MrClog (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon discussion with Vanamonde, I have received a copy of the deleted page, which I will give the necessary rewrite. No need to revisit the AfD. --MrClog (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Wrea Head Hall

[edit]

Hi, i participated in, and disagree with your closure of "Delete" upon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrea Head HallP. I think other(s) might disagree too. Could you please reconsider your action and cancel your closure, to allow the AFD to continue and be closed by someone else? I disagree with your close because the article is substantial (developing to be more substantial, with additional source(s) during the AFD itself). At least one Delete vote, out of three total counting the nominator, was well before the development happened. Another Delete voter was stuck, incorrectly IMHO, in wondering whether the article must be solely about the building vs. solely being about the hotel as an organization (it can be about both, both aspects add to notability, is the answer). There were five Keep votes, including the last three votes (therefore the most informed ones). And there was one commentator expressing interest in one aspect of the article, which in fact was developed, so I think it is reasonable to consider them as "leaning Keep". On the vote numbers, that is not a "Delete" outcome. About number and quality of sources in existence, note the original deletion nomination acknowledged one, some more were produced, and a decent argument was made that others exist (pre-internet). You disagree about the sources, I guess, but your opinion on that would be better put as a vote rather than a closure, I suspect. Could you please reconsider? Either way, could you please fully restore a copy of the article to, say, Draft:Wrea Head Hall, to inform further discussion? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I !voted delete) This was certainly a difficult close. However, I agree in your judgement that this discussion ended in a consensus to delete (though I think a "no consensus" close would have been acceptable too). Two keep !votes were not policy based (one based on Google Street View and one which said "Keep and expand") and the other votes - in my opinion - fail to establish what sources concretely satisfy GNG. I won't further discuss the close here, as I'm sure the closer will be able to, and otherwise I will offer my opinion at DRV, though I figured I'd put my 2¢ in. --MrClog (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble understanding a "delete" close. The consensus appeared to be "keep", based on significant improvement to the article after one of the early delete voters even voted. A "no consensus" was also conceivable, but a "delete" close appears to be a supervote rather than a reflection of consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I would have closed it as Delete as well. Your comment is the only "Keep" that actually references policy at all. Two of them are just "Keep" and one is a very silly comment about how it's notable because you can see it in Google Street View (I mean, really?!). However, having had a look at the article I do think it leans just into notability; there must be further sources out there, it's just finding them. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a lot of solid material on its history and architecture I must admit. If we don't have an article it's certainly notable enough to mention in an article on a nearby village in the landmarks section. I will do that.† Encyclopædius 09:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suspect that a lot of sources will be offline. I would expect books and pre-digitisation newspapers to exist. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, particularly from when it was a college. † Encyclopædius 12:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on Newspapers.com or NewspaperARCHIVE.com for "wrea head hall". --MrClog (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the article being deleted. The article was still being improved and consensus to not delete it did seem to be growing as a result. The hotel is referenced in a number of current books, but the (more important) older history of the Hall itself is mainly in off-line material, which makes the references more difficult (especially at the moment). Please could you restore a copy of the article (to Draft space?) to enable the time for further improvements. -- GhostInTheMachine (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no problem with the article being draftified, especially if there were sources that weren't identified at the AfD which haven't been added to the article yet. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Spartaz has not replied, but I have gone on to request a copy be refunded by this request at wp:REFUND. Next step after receiving that, hopefully at Draft:Wrea Head Hall, is to open deletion review (which does require having tried to discuss with deleting editor, done by this discussion). --Doncram (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostInTheMachine, SportingFlyer, MrClog, Encyclopædius, Black Kite, Cbl62:

Deletion review has opened. Please consider participating, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_8. Please note, if you're not very familiar with deletion review process, that it must not be a rehash of the AFD. It is a review of the AFD decision, is not for merely re-stating arguments made already or making new arguments. Don't repeat yourself, please, I repeat! There are participation guidelines linked there, I suppose. Offhand I think it is not helpful to ping everybody who participated in the AFD, but maybe that would be okay, not sure. --Doncram (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you voice your opinion in the DRV, it is considered good practice to disclose your participation in the AfD. --MrClog (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Classy wait to allow me to comment. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wrea Head Hall

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wrea Head Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Doncram (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Estimate of the Situation

[edit]

You've probably already seen this, but Estimate of the Situation (AfD discussion) is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 9, and this is your probably-redundant and certainly-late notification. —Cryptic 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afd: Still Hacking Anyway

[edit]

Hello, I have never created a deletion review, but it the instruction suggests I contact you, the closer. There is an event of Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention every four years and each of the event has a different name. I originally suggested merging Still Hacking Anyway into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention, because SHA is the 2017 event of the convention. I argued that the specific event fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE, because the key referenced mostly occurred between June to August of 2017 and nobody has produced evidence supporting substantial coverage (beyond a mere mention/announcement) outside of the immediate time before/after the event. One user casted a vote of keep by appealing to his personal experience, but did not provide supporting references. In WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, it says "When in doubt, defer to the policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors.". I don't believe "keep" consensus was reached, because evidence of continued coverage was not established. I believe Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention being notable may have been misread as the ONE EVENT SHA-2017 on its own is notable to the point of having its own article. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do.you think there was consensus to delete? If not, there is functionally not difference between keep or no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A "delete" closure would have been very difficult to justify. While it is indeed WP:NOTAVOTE, and on could say WP:PERSISTENCE was not proven, the "persistence" criterion is one of 3 criteria by which an event's coverage is judged, and it seemingly did not convince others that "delete" was appropriate (although one !voted to merge). I would probably have voted delete myself instead of closing as keep, after which an admin would probably relist and the debate would continue. However, I would have not closed as "delete" either (no consensus could've worked maybe) - if I had been an admin and would have had the ability to do so anyways. MrClog (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One vote was more or less invalid, because it was an appeal to one user's personal experience. Basically, I think this page should be merged, but the article's original author single handed opposed the merger. With merger being opposed, the only other options are keep/delete and this one event fails to meet the inclusion criteria. Suppose there was an article about a different event. If it got a whole bunch of !votes from people attesting to "yeah, i was there and its notable" and "its notable because it has news coverage" and the "super majority" opinion is to keep, but not according to the policy, then what is the "consensus" of that? Graywalls (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "no consensus" would have been different, because it's likely that the reading of "keep" would very likely result in the creator opposing merger again citing "AfD said keep". Graywalls (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that only one editor apart from you voted anything other than keep. The facts are that you did not persuade the discussion that this should not be kept. There is a link at the top of my page if you want to take this to drv but I guarantee you will lose. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Davide Scaramuzza

[edit]

Hello Spartaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Davide Scaramuzza, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. GedUK  07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine you sort out the copyvio then revdel the revisiins where there is too much closely paraphrased text. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ged UK: did you ever fix the copyright issues with Davide Scaramuzza ? I had a look and can't see any deleted revisions. Nick (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ged UK: are you able to reply please? Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't been online. I didn't think that it was a copyvio as I recall, it was a list that was the same as another list, but both were lists in chronological order. It's changed a lot since I declined it. GedUK  15:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Estimate of the Situation" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Estimate of the Situation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Estimate of the Situation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —S Marshall T/C 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChessBase India

[edit]

Could you not have closed it as Redirect? Or asked for more discussion on whether redirecting was a valid option? The deleters argued against a standalone article; that surely doesn't preclude ATDs that don't retain it as one. I would have thought admins had enough discretion to do that when presented with a good redirection target. Plus there was one Keep, albeit more a vote than argument. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one provided any evidence that this met the gng. In that case the delete arguments were clearly policy based. Even your argument indicated doubt about the sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that when the consensus is reached on whether the subject is notable, it's not worth prolonging the discussion just to explore ATD? The article creator has since acknowledged COI and has been blocked per NOTPROMO/NOTHERE. So, I have no interest on this particular topic, but for future reference, does the close like this preclude the possibility of recreating the page as a redirect? Thank you, and best regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect away. It doesn't take an admin to enact a merge or a redirect so that's usually an editorial decision unless that change frustrates a clear consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M K Hume

[edit]

She has fantastic presence with an expertly done with "wiki-feel" official site, not to mention her "everpresence" on Fantastic Fiction. I don't know why did you delete this page and why there were such a "fuss" to remove her, when she is like Phillippa Gregory in hist-fiction field. She is one of the most notable Australian historical novelists. I'd wished to recreate it, but I don't want to enter in useless discussions. Your behaviour is such that it's almost like our Talev-Giovagnoli do(es)n't deserve twice their (his) articles in their (his) giving for the historical fiction on every countryside possible, dude. Good Riddance in deleting. I don't want to work with you, respectful admin.

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk)

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories

[edit]

Could you please userfy to me List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories? I want to see if there is any content that can be merged into other articles, please. --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its at User:Bsherr/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories Spartaz Humbug! 22:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AfD

[edit]

You just closed a discussion India Whatsapp lynching where there was no clear consensus and rather the topic was not failing the policies. May I know on what basis you closed the discussion as delete ? Drat8sub (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure:AfD:Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey you say "Bearcat's analysis.was compelling" as your reason for closing as "Delete". Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. If review version 11 May you will note that Bercat's case was no longer valid since the concerns raised were addressed (mostly about being incomplete) & article was significantly improved since that analysis had been made. In other words, the argument was no longer valid as is no argument made that it shouldn't be keep for other reasons. Therefore, there is no consensus to delete. There is community consensus about the usefulness of these lists. Indeed, Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. This list is complete and ref'd. Can you please change the closure to reflect that or re-list it for further discussion. Thank-you.

I'm sorry but I genuinely do not understand your point. Can you clarify it please? Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you cite for closing is based on Bercat's analysis. Bearcat's analysis is not valid since the article had been changed since s/he made it. Therefore the reason you offered for closing as delete is not warranted.Djflem (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat says (italics)

it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete than it is that the list comprise exclusively blue links. So the real problem here isn't the number of red links — it's the fact that the list is incomplete.
the list was updated and complete
The first mayor took office in 1901, with no indication of when his term ended.
dates of service added
He's then followed by the state legislator, who — time for the punchline — is listed as an unsuccessful three-time candidate for mayor in the 1920s with no indication given in either the list or his biographical article that he ever actually won a mayoral election or served as the actual mayor at all.
removed from list and added as annotation to electoral history
Then we skip to the 1950s for a person who served as mayor in 1950 and 1951, and then we skip one or more other mayors to land in 1958
the list was updated to include missing dates

Do you now understand the point or require further explanation? If so, am pleased to provide it. If not, can you please correct the closure? Thank you.Djflem (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: did this cover your concerns from the AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 12:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Can you please explain you closure? Thank-you.Djflem (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its tiresome to discuss things with people who are always convinced they are right and I don't have the energy to debate this. You made a valid point and if Bearcat was persuaded by your case I was just going to void the afd and restore. Since you don't want to go down that road I will relist this over the weekend when I have time. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you now please void the AfD and restore as you said you would? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said I would relist and that is what I have done. Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Indian WhatsApp lynchings

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CactusJack (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinobots AfD

[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. You were the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinobots. With the closing comment that TNT applies and restoration with proper sourcing would be acceptable, I put a split draft I had created offline into the draft space intending to overhaul it (which I haven't really gotten around to). It looks like someone came across this and thought it was an article ready for the main space, but in reality, it has only slightly changed since the AfD. Dinobots needs to go back to the draft space, but I had a procedural question for you. In theory, if it gets re-written with proper sourcing, will the new version need to go through a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted content along with the Talk page? And if so, should it be done now before moving back to draft space, or would that just wait for if a real article actually gets formed? I don't know if the recent move back to main space interferes with that at all. If a restored article does come around, do you know if images that were deleted as orphaned images post article deletion can be restored? Anyway, any thoughts or assistance is appreciated. -2pou (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unless you have used the previous text to write the article then this does not need a histmerge. Images can be restored if you tell me which ones at the time. I put the article back in draft. I merged the histories anyway while it was in main. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rifaat Hussain

[edit]

Interested to understand what you consider the relationship between BASIC and GNG, given your comment that no one argued for the GNG. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted does not make you notable. What coverage was there about him rather than by him. Interviews are not independent sources so there needs to be a chunk of independent reliable sources about him that lack depth that can be aggregated to be bundled up. In your own vote you referred to his being quoted so the coverage was not about him. Spartaz Humbug! 06:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your closure gave two essential points, no arguments passing the GNG and failed NPROF. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. I'm asking specifically what you consider the relationship between the GNG and BASIC. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gng and basic relate to sources not indicators. And imo the basic sources need to be solid but lacking detail and thevaggregation covers different infornation. So 4-5 one liners with the same details will be less compelling then 4-5 one liners giving different information. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you mean in distinguishing a source from an indicator. I was trying to understand why you wrote "no one argued for the GNG" - which is true in an absolutely literal sense, but not in spirit, given that my contribution was framed in terms of BASIC (which to me reads simply as the GNG written expressly to cover people). That aside, would you be willing to reopen/reconsider the AfD given the following for notability: Hussain's current membership in Pakistan's peak foreign affairs advisory council? I certainly acknowledge that the difficulty here is that there are scattered bits of information about this person (although there is actually a very large amount of it covering 30+ years), but given the items that have been identified this person has been a frequent, visible, public commentator on South Asian international affairs and is part of the foreign policy establishment of Pakistan appointed to a significant position that reflects that. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe the advisory council appointment counts as C#6 on NACADEMIC.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't argue that during the afd and there seems consensus he does not meet prof. Your list of achievements are not sources. A source is something published. What you listed are achievements, which are something else. In any event the indicators in an sng are not sources and are only a rough guide that sources may exist. In a blp where it is shown that the gng is not met then the bar for these is much higher and there was by no means a solid enough consensus that the sng pass was strong enough to overcome this.Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I argued that he was a highly senior member of Pakistan's foreign policy establishment (which nobody contested) and that is where his notability derives; verifying that notability is surely the issue here. I think the problem is that this is a person who has gone between academia and foreign service, so they have not got the same level of overt recognition that a similar person who had tracked through academia their whole life would have had (esp. for example in terms of academic societies etc). By citing the position on the advisory council I'm providing a piece of evidence that I believe clearly meets the criteria under the SNG for academics. It's not a piece of information I was aware of during the AfD. All the !delete comments were related to not passing NPROF, only looked at his academic publications and the state of the article, and nothing else; this piece clearly shows support for C#6 (and I would also argue C#7 given that they are now directly advising the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Pakistan). I'm requesting you reopen the AfD given the new piece of information I've provided. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is still essentially unsourced and I am not relisting this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is unsourced? His appointment and membership on the Prime Minister's Foreign Affairs Advisory Council? I included an RS link above. Here's two more (including newspaper of record citation). PM forms 18-member advisory council on foreign policy, PM appoints advisory council to seek input on foreign policy. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His name is mentioned but the articles are about tye council.so don't count. Aggregating short sources certainly requies some biodata to aggregate and tyesource to address the subject in some detail. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources establish his *membership* of the Council - which is the criteria necessary under the SNG C#6.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry but I'm not going to change the close. This is a blp and needs decent sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The specific criteria notes in NPROF adequately indicate Rifaat Hussain is notable under #6 and #7 (perhaps the claim under #6 is weaker given the notes, but actually I think stronger under #7). Do you believe neither of these criteria apply in this case? --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A courtesy comment: I've asked Barkeep49, who relisted the AfD but did not !vote, for advice as a semi-uninvolved. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traefik

[edit]

You just closed a discussion Traefik, I'd like to resubmit with additional sources that meet the criteria for notability, but need the most recent edit to make the appropriate updates. I do not believe this software belongs under "Docker" as the sole vote for DELETE mentions, as there is no history of related projects in that page that aren't owned by Docker. — Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what additional sources please? Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will be including references to these topics:
This reference is from a printed book on Mesos / Marathon, which isn't at all related to Docker: "Traefik is a load balancer, a.k.a. proxy, working on layer 7. It works on a very simple concept that has been around since Apache and PHP. Traefik parses HTTP requests and passes them to matching services. We can achieve similar functionality with Apache, nginx, or HAProxy, but only Traefik comes with built-in Marathon support"[1].
There have been books published on Kubernetes as well, which include similar references to Traefik:
"Traefik (pronounced Traffic) is a reverse HTTP proxy which has been designed to work from the ground up with container orchestration tools like Kubernetes. It not only provides load balancing but also supports basic HTTP authentication and SSL termination. To find out more about Traefik, see its website at https://traefik.io"[2]
"Traefik is a reverse proxy implemented in Go that can also function as an Ingress controller. It has a set of features and dashboards that are very developer-friendly."[3]
I also included references to books on Docker, which cover the subject of Traefik in-depth:
"Traefik is a fast, powerful, and easy-to-use reverse proxy. You run it in a container and publish the HTTP (or HTTPS) port, and configure the container to listen for events from the Docker Engine API ..."[4]
"Traefik is a cloud-native edge router and it is open source, which is great for our specific case. It even has a nice web UI that you can use to manage and monitor your routes. Traefik can be combined with Docker in a very straightforward way, as we will see in a moment."[5]
Traefik has also been the subject of independent reviews, ThoughtWorks Technology Radar reviewed Traefik in Nov. 2018, explaining in similar detail to the references I've mentioned above what the technology is, including mentions of other projects which are hosted on Wiki, and rated it as, "Worth exploring with the goal of understanding how it will affect your enterprise."[6] There are also reviews on g2crowd, and while standing alone I wouldn't suggest this implies notability, I believe it should be considered nevertheless.[7]
While I understand that a single mention in a book isn't considered notable, I am suggesting that combined with in-depth how-tos, non-trivial descriptions, and comparisons to other major projects which are active on this Wiki across several printed books with a diversity of subject matter should be considered for notability. This in addition to well over 100s of tutorials/blogs, independent reviews, videos, and tutorials, all of which have no connection to the publisher, should also be considered for notability. A simple google search "traefik tutorial" will unearth that maelstrom.
In summary, in addition to the above references, I strongly believe there was insufficient discussion on the subject of deletion, and I would argue the sole individual who voted for deletion, with a suggestion that this belongs on the Docker page, may not have been aware of how notable Traefik actually is and it's relevance to the entire web-application ecosystem and other projects including Nomad, Kubernetes, Mesos / Marathon, etc.
At a minimum, I'd like a copy of the article, with references, emailed to me - if possible. Thank you for your time. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have relisted the afd so please make your case there. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Apache_Mesos_Cookbook/MpZGDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Traefik%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kubernetes_for_Serverless_Applications/ptRJDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Traefik%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA259&printsec=frontcover
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kubernetes_Up_and_Running/V5qzDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik%22
  4. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Docker_on_Windows/ogyLDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik%22
  5. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Learn_Docker_Fundamentals_of_Docker_19_x/CeTWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Traefik
  6. ^ https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/tools/traefik
  7. ^ https://www.g2.com/products/traefik/reviews

Deletion review for Thomas Demery

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Demery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Gnome (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Portland

[edit]

Not to tell you how to do your job, but it might have been worth re-listing the AfD to get more opinions. Especially since the keeps were based on extremely bad sources that didn't meet the standards of NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Demery AFD

[edit]

I'm sorry, but your close of this AFD was simply incorrect.

  • First, there really was a consensus to keep. While the raw vote count was closely divided, the keep !votes were based on specific review of sources, while most of the delete !votes were cursory and showed little familiarity with the sources. And there was no meaningful attempt to refute the keep analysis.
  • Second, Demery simply doesn't qualify for BLPREQUESTDELETE. That policy provision applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", and Demery meets neither of those criteria. He was a top policymaking official in a US Cabinet department, subject to Senate confirmation, making him a public figure. His activities were widely covered in prominent national news media, with front-page coverage in the NYTimes and elsewhere; he cannot accurately be called "relatively unknown". BLPREQUESTDELETE is not intended, and should not be used, to allow self-admitted, corrupt, high-ranking public officials. And Demery is still involved in the same sort of fundraising activities which one of the associated scandals centered on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not american, and have only the afd to go from. I have no personal knowledge of the individual or American scandals of the Reagan era. My approach is that I have consistently stood by our BLP policy. If the individual is only notable for the scandals then there should be a page about them not him. That is what BLP says we should do. If you disagree there is always DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dinobots

[edit]

since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't changed one iota since the time you moved it to mainspace so the answer is no. Fix the issues with it first before asking. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the page was moved to draft space while the AFD was taking place? Mr. Storm Eagle (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 Black 2 Strong MMG

[edit]

Hello. I disagree with your delete close on this article. There was one Delete "vote" after the nomination, by an IP user, and I had listed several references, all from RS. Not only that, but the issue of the actual article title was never addressed. This seemed very strange, and very much hurtful to an encyclopedia built on consensus. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) - Perhaps you could create 2 Black 2 Strong? (minus the MMG) As noted in the AfD, there are some pretty strong sources for the individual (Christgua in Village Voice, Spin, Allmusic, etc). You should be able to recycle most of the content from the deleted article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, I am happy to recreate the page as just 2 Black 2 Strong (and it will most likely always be a short article). I was just genuinely confused by the closing as delete, as both the IP and title concerns were not addressed. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. As a group.they were not notable but as an individual there seemed more chance. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great, thanks. It most likely will not be today, but will try by the end of the weekend, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Powell

[edit]

I don't really agree with the closure. One, both sides presented policy based arguments and the vote was the same. I am not sure the policy rationale behind "he CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." I would suggest this should be a no consensus close. Casprings (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essenti ally the crime/blp1e presupposes there are adequate sources but a wholly negative BLP breaches do no harm when you can cover exactly the same content at a page about the crime.Spartaz Humbug! 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for the John Hinckley Jr.? Seems like that info could be covered in Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.Casprings (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dunno. Perhaps the person who tried to kill a president has more enduring notability then a policeman who murdered a black.person. There are far more of the latter than the former. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will take this to move review.Casprings (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Guild of Music Supervisors Awards

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Laurence Powell

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence Powell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

[edit]

I noticed that you tagged Daniela Zacherl with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dinobots

[edit]

since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't changed one iota since the time you moved it to mainspace so the answer is no. Fix the issues with it first before asking. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the page was moved to draft space while the AFD was taking place? Mr. Storm Eagle (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was in draft then you sent it to mainspace before it was ready and then deleted after a discussion. So the article you want restored is identical to the one the community decided to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it because it was deleted months ago but I figured that being it's part of a notable show it could be restored. If it causes conflict then we'll just leave it at draft, then. Mr. Storm Eagle (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More info on decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I was hoping you could shed a little more light into your closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. It has one Keep and two Deletes, including nominator (myself). Axem Titanium (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The keep argument was compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might I convince you to reconsider? The sources in the article are literally copy and pasted press releases distributed by the organization itself. For example, this Billboard source in the article is completely identical to this Hollywood Reporter article. Another source in the article has language directly copied from the GOMS website, suggesting that it's also copied from a press release. Press releases are self-published sources per WP:SPS and do not confer notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The place to have provided that analysis was the afd. The problem is that the other editors didn't share your views. There is no way I could have found a delete consensus. If you can persuade any of the keep voters to change their view then I can relist but I don't see how this could change otherwise. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one keep voter? I explained what churnalism is in the AFD and how the sources in the article constitute churnalism. I refuted Atlantic306's claim that the cited sources constitute significant coverage using policy and Buidhe agreed with my assessment. I don't think I introduced any new ideas here; the essence is all there in my comments within the AFD itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By your silence, I take it that I should send it to DRV then? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School

[edit]

You relisted this earlier today. I moved from delete to keep since, and there is an additional keep vote. It could be closed now as a keep I think if you are willing. John from Idegon (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 Black 2 Strong

[edit]

Hello. Just letting you know that I recreated this article, in a sense. I'm hopeful that an editor will eventually be able to add references from The Source, as they both covered and reviewed 2 Black 2 Strong; as it stands, The Source hasn't really digitally archived a lot of their really old stuff. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Bahram

[edit]

Hi, I spent a lot of time creating Ava Bahram's article and now I'm surprised. Please help me where should I search for the deleted text? Zabihsohrabi (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, is it possible for me to re-register this article in the future? Zabihsohrabi (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can find sources that clearly meet the inclusion standard Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if possible, revive Ava Bahram under my page to complete new resources and necessary corrections.Zabihsohrabi (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note re notification

[edit]

I apologize for not having sent you the correct notification. as you rightly note, you should have been informed via the template below. I have never used this forum page before; regardless, I should not have omitted that important step and simple courtesy. thanks for your understanding. [template: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}}]~~~~ thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about notification. Its expected for you to discuss the close. Often admins can be persuaded to change their mind or rectify mistakes but when you go straight to DRV you are wholly dependant on who turns up. And its rude to just press the big red button. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, that is a good point as well. I appreciate you taking the time to reply and to give me your useful insights. I have heard your points, and will keep them in mind. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help !

[edit]

Please report on Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang. There has been a lot of chaos perhaps because of scope creep losing control. He looks provoked (without any cause). I would request you to please remove acontextual comments from the thread so that it becomes easier to review the comments. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for RevSpace

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RevSpace. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Graywalls (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am away

[edit]

Please do not leave any messages. Feel free to ask another admin your question. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrish Banerjee

[edit]

Thanks for your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrish Banerjee. If I'd realised that List of Bengal cricketers existed I'd have made that very suggestion... I imagine a merge proposal will follow at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Caste-based prostitution

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caste-based prostitution. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JustBeCool (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java version history closed as delete (XFDcloser)

[edit]

You made a series of edits with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java version history closed as delete (XFDcloser)" in the edit summary (including removing links and deleting redirects, etc.), however that discussion was closed as "keep" and not as "delete". Please reverse those edits. Thank you. —Uzume (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Ask the admin who overturned my decision. Or better still do it yourself as you can see the edits in my contribs the same as anyone else. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be the non-admin who was actually a sock of a banned user... Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt I can undo the deletions of the redirects. I might be able to guess and recreate some (but the content like rcats, etc. would likely still be lost). But Black Kite is right, I cannot ask the banned closer RandomCanadian (talk · contribs). Perhaps I can ask Sandstein (talk · contribs) who overturned your hasty decision for relisting after closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 18 which had been opened by an anonymous IP user. I am asking because that article is in the top one percent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Java/Popular pages (5/500 = 1%) and stripping all the inbound links to an article is basically deadly for its continued existence. —Uzume (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uzume, I'm not sure what I can or should do here. If you disagree with a deletion, you can appeal it at WP:DRV. Sandstein 06:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could do it as the closer of the DRV. As far as I am concerned it's not down to me. If it's a deleted redirect why does it need to be undeleted? Just recreate it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here.

[edit]

Ask someone else please. I'm not playing at the moment. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Bahram

[edit]

Hello, I was writing and completing an article called Ava Bahram that has been deleted by you. Please revive the article on my home page. I want to edit and complete the article. Regards Gimbouri (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are those sources any better then what we saw at the afd? Spartaz Humbug! 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing behaviour by user

[edit]

Hello, I am sorry for this anonymous message but I am somewhat concerned about the behaviour of another user. He/she has been on Wikipedia for over a year and apparently done nothing whatsoever except nominate articles for deletion and delete "non-notable" people's names from articles, almost exclusively in the field of broadcasting. I note that you left a message on his/her user talk page last month relating to this.

I would like to contact you privately to discuss this. This user has started following me around Wikipedia and getting involved in my discussions with the admins, which is why I am not signing my name here. I tried reporting him/her for harassment but he/she simply reported me in retaliation. He/she has been making my participation in Wikipedia almost impossible.

I have had an account since 2011 and never had any problems like this before. It is becoming quite distressing. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks. 86.9.92.48 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send me an email. It's enabled. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've responded. 86.9.92.48 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, he's found out about me and has posted a comment at the ANI board. This is paranoia-inducing. Please will someone help or I shall simply have to leave Wikipedia. 86.9.92.48 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cary S. Cox

[edit]

You had a disturbing statement in your close. The result was delete. I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight. The delete side has given a detailed source analysis showing they fall short and has reviewed their votes after improvement. Consensus to delete is therefore solid Spartaz I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. Giving more weight to arguments that just keep repeating patents are not important is not a winning argument. I did some work to the article and I made some rational arguments - I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, and the delete argument was simply that patents are not important. If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment wasn't one of those I gave less weight too. I had other ARS members in mind. It's a valid point and I'm not withdrawing. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. You've admitted your bias.
WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. I have many that we took that went from proposed deletion to being featured on the main page. You need to rethink your bias.
As to my participation, I recall that I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. And I remember specifically that someone who claimed to have investigated my voting at AFDs said that I was on the prevailing side 87% of the time. I don't know whether that fact is true, as I don't compile statistics (I don't 'scoreboard') and decide them one at a time. But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses.
Indeed, if you want to go down that road, there are lots of 'regular delete votes' that can be discounted too. And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list?
In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles. WP:Preserve ought to be a factor in your deliberation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I don't discount some of the more extreme delete voters? In fact there is one I regularly discard unless their argument is sufficiently detailed to show they have considered the article properly. Indeed I read debates very carefully and those editors whose arguments are assertions or non policy based are given much less consideration then the arguments of users directly relating a detailed argument citing policy and providing a proper source analysis. In this close my ire was directed at the undisclosed COI editor whose appeal to the ARS led to 3 keep arguments. One of these was a good one (editor above) who was given full weight but two other editors made arguments that were either assertion, unhelpful or fully refuted. Indeed your argument was purely that the article had changed. Since we already knew that improvement had taken place as your ars colleague had engaged with the delete side, why would you think your contribution deserved as much weight as some of the more detailed contributions andvthe responding delete votors who had engaged constructively and had already given good reasons why these changes did not do enough to overcome their arguments. Despite your indignation, sren't you even a little bit concerned that an editor with a COI that they didn't declare was effectively able to canvas ARS to keep their article? Do you really think that is behaviour we should encourage? I don't.
As for the rest of your comment you will see if you check my contributions that I regularly relist a discussion for further comment if there has been improvement, even if the balance of the existing discussion is for delete. In any event I was only closing AFDs at all because there was a backlog of several days. I rarely close unless I'm closing out several days of unresolved discussions.
If I have any bias at all its against poor arguments, badly sourced BLPs, COI and canvassing.
I flatly refute your claim of bias against ARS. If that was the case why did I encourage and nominate NA1000 and Michael Schmidt for adminship? In fact, while its been a while since I nominated anyone, I have mostly nominated editors who fall on the inclusionist side of the editing spectrum. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I understand your position better. While COI editors are always a concern, I learned long ago that I can't control much of other editors' behavior. I think that the "cavassing" concern is overblow. From what I can see, there is no mass flood resulting from a posting on the list. And some of those folks who profess to be interested 'members' are not on board with the avowed ARS mission of article improvement making the article rescuable. Wishing you well and godspeed in the future. Be careful out there! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break My Heart Again

[edit]

No problem. You deprecated my !vote due to canvassing. I had already warned DarklyShadows that they should stop canvassing, and that I was willing to express my opinion, but it was canvassed. You and I both played by the rules. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falak Shabir

[edit]

Hi, why did you delete his wikipedia page??? He's one of the best Pakistani Singers, And i dont think he's that active to annoy you. Please kindly return the page and if there's an issue discuss it and solve it. This page contained the exact info of his career. He was my role model and you just deleted the page without any Valid Reason😥😥 17ishahid (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falak Shabir and both edutors who contributed to the discussion showed a decent search for sources but came up short. If you have a policy based argument to retain the article then I can consider whether we should reopen the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoast SEO

[edit]

Hello, I want to ask if you will consider backing out the closing of this AfD and relist? The article was a strong keep as (Yoast) in August 2919. User High King then gave the article a name change, and the original participants did not know that the article was up for deletion. In the Yoast AfD even JW !voted to keep. Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of a bad close of the Yoast SEO AfD. I am just asking for a relist. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at the outcome as well; Yoast SEO is probably the gold-standard for that type of functionality on WordPress, itself the most widely-used CMS on the internet. At least one person favoring delete didn't realize that (thinking the product was two weeks old), and the comments in general didn't really engage with the topic. I realize that this doesn't translate into passing the GNG, but I would be shocked if sources didn't exist and the article deserves a better debate than what it got so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to be clear I don't give Jimbo's opinion any weight as he has been out of synch for community expectations for retention for a very long time but the disparity between the first and second AFD are quite marked. When two well respected and sensible editors ask for a relist with reasonable grounds I would have to be extremely churlish not to give the AFD more time. Spartaz Humbug! 04:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you had a good close based on the local consensus, so I appreciate the chance to look further into the subject. Also regarding block voting, we mostly try to !vote after either bringing rs to the AfD or adding rs to the articles. And I for one follow the contributions of the editors I respect. I used to follow Rebeccagreen, but her editing fell off a while ago. 7&6 is an editor I thoroughly respect, as I also respect Dream Focus, Green C and Andrew Davidson. Thanks for your kind comments on my talk, and for your comments about toning down on the ANI. I will examine the Yoast. Lev Reyk and Serial seem to have a visceral dislike of this ARS group. So much so that they are willing to sacrifice content in order to hurt ARS. Lev has AfDd articles I started and tried to sink DYKs that the group nominates, he even recently helped sink one for a DYK that was approved. I find that my life is better if I spend time creating content or improving content. I see why you are an admin, you are measured, accurate and fair. Sorry for dumping this on your talk page. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for Ava Bahram

[edit]

Hello, back on June 15 you deleted an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram. A new article for this singer was re-created almost immediately with no improvement on the original. I nominated the new one for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram (2nd nomination) and the ensuing discussion is becoming a real slog with repeated arguments all around. There are also some repeated votes. Would you mind taking a look at that second AfD in an Admin capacity and possibly reinforcing how the notability guidelines are supposed to work? Or ask another Admin to do the same if WP:INVOLVED is a problem? I think that would help. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a template that I see occasionally on AfD's saying something like "If you came here thinking this is a majority vote, Wikipedia works via consensus" or something like that. I don't know how to add that template or where to get it. Please point me in the right direction. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC) -- Disregard this last point; I found the template.[reply]
I don't really see anything that I need to intervene over. If the arguments are policyless then they will count for very little when the afd is closed. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD by sock

[edit]

[4]. Since you were the closing admin, I would rather also ask you prior to starting DRV. Note that two legitimate users voted without any argumentation except saying that they are convinced by the sockpuppet account who started everything [5]. What would you say on the DRV? If you agree this should be restored, may be you could just reverse your action, which could save some time? My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid thing to do by the nom. I agree the close cannot stand and have directly relisted the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Knight_(art_dealer)

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, following up about this. I don't really understand why the article was deleted. I did leave it as all but a stub for a very long time but once that was flagged I beefed it up and I thought it was a pretty good entry -- lots of independent references, the lack of which had been the grounds for deletion nomination in the first place. Sometimes there seems to be no pleasing you guys, it's hard to get better at contributing with so much discouragement. Please could you "draftify" it for me (whatever that means).Karl Buxtehude (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 people said it wasn't suitable and none of those contributing put up any sources to suggest this met the WP:GNG. Do you have anything that would redeem this article? Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, the three people who made those comments made them BEFORE my final edits. I made the edits to respond to their comments. Specifically, I added more detail and a large number of independent sources. In other words, I've already done the work to redeem it. I don't think there were any critical comments after my more recent edits, but you deleted it anyway.Karl Buxtehude (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one made a comment after and you actually didn't mention in the discussion that you had made any changes, otherwise I would have relisted for further input. I put the article in draft Draft:Richard Knight (art dealer) and I'd ask you to approach the other voters in the afd and ask them to review your changes. If any of them change their position I will undo the deletion and relist the discussion. Does that sound fair? Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment made after my edits doesn't seem to have taken them into account, it is just a general comment; and I shouldn't have to make special mention of the fact that I had made changes, it's all recorded in the edit history and the article was substantially (visibly) longer. As you've asked, no, I don't think it's fair that a beginning contributor is expected to "learn the hard way" by having to run around lobbying voters -- that kind of hard-nosed philosophy should cut both ways, don't delete articles without checking the edit history and allowing time for a proper discussion. Karl Buxtehude (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if you want the content restored its seems a small thing for you to drop 4 one line notes on 4 different pages asking if the sources you added would have changed their view. I really don't see what is so challenging about that. You seem perfectly capable of asking questions on this page. With regard to the deletion, admins are supposed to read the consensus of the discussion, not review the article themselves and form their own opinion. That way they avoid supervoting, which is where the admin substitutes their own opinion for the consensus of the discussion and is considered a bad thing. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only that there seems to be a bit of a double standard, whereby more junior Wikipedia users are expected to jump through hoops so that more senior Wikipedia users can keep their decision-making time to a minimum. It would not have been any more difficult to check the article history to see that the edits postdated those comments on the deletion page than it is to do what you're asking -- but the latter is only required because the former was omitted. There's an inherent injustice to that, as there is to asking me to carry on four separate discussion pages because the deletion discussion page was so promptly closed. I think what would be fair would be to reopen the discussion on that centralised forum. Karl Buxtehude (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for John Papas

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Papas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make Millions

[edit]

Hi there! You closed the sparsely-attended AFD for this article in 2018, noting "The result was delete. For now but ping me or drop me a note if you find sources". I did find a review in this issue of Computer Gaming World, and then I hit up archive.org and found:

before I stopped looking for more. Do you think that would be enough for an overturn to Keep? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so yes. The sources would need to be evaluated at AFD if there was a challenge anyway. I'll undelete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! I will start working on this one later today. BOZ (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krugarr

[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

You recently deleted Krugarr as a redirect to a deleted page. This article was turned into a redirect after a merge discussion, which I believe occurred on Talk:Krugarr, and there were other possible merge targets discussed at the time. Could you please restore the history of Krugarr in my userspace (or copy paste it to my sandbox) so I can preserve some of the information elsewhere? Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. User:BOZ took care of it. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Yep, I had it on my watchlist and saw it was deleted, so I restored and redirected it elsewhere. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for InnerSloth

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick

[edit]

Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,

  • "relisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure"
  • "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"
  • "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice", and
  • "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient"

This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick

[edit]

Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,

  • "relisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure"
  • "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"
  • "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice", and
  • "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient"

This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a clear consensus and I thought another relist would help makes things clearer. As I see it, it seems to be helping. I bet you £5 that you wouldn't have raised this if the new votes were going your way. Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The issue, is that there have been two relists after substantial discussion, and the third relist still has no justification at the discussion page, and is now almost one week old. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article, bad faith?

[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Would you give me your advice?

I wrote an article that you deleted today, Delta Pi, after a thin AfD discussion. (It's your role, I'm not questioning your work.) I have no connection to this group, just trying to clean up this page along with many of the fraternities and sororities articles.

Am I mis-reading this? There were four votes to delete, three to keep. Those who wanted to delete seemed so zealous about it, mocking the references I had provided. I get their criticism, that some of the references were weaker. But certainly not false or fraudulent. I note that many nicely-written and formatted and non-controversial articles are allowed to remain, with a simple template at the top inviting additional references. It's clear that this group exists. I don't know these editors who voted to delete, and some have far lengthier WP resumes than I do. See, I've not seen this kind of mocking or zealousness against a non-controversial subject before: is there a sense of anti-semitism here? Or simple anti-fraternity bias? Or did they just perk up with a 2nd and 3rd AfD campaign came in, and decided to jump on the bandwagon? It didn't seem ...rational, so I ask your opinion, and if anything else ought to be done.

My sense is the group will continue to chug along, growing slowly. I inserted a post about this on the Jewish Fraternities and Sororities Talk page to capture the current situation and inform newbies they they should look for good references, but wonder if I should appeal this decision on other grounds. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Jax MN (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of vitriol this debate was far from the worse I have closed recently. There were 5 deletes - all detailed and policy based around sourcing and 3 keeps that were frankly not strong arguments. One keep was a plea to inherent notability that is not supported by policy and the other argued in favour of a single source when GNG and ORG require multiple good sources. That didn't leave much of a case to.oppose the delete side. I don't think there was any bias in this discussion except perhaps a dislike of badly sourced articles that do not meet our inclusion standards. Its entirely down to you whether you appeal this or not but I trust this explains my thinking. Spartaz Humbug! 04:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't this qualify to continue as a stub article then, with our standard note at the top, saying "You can improve this article!"? As others pointed out, Delta Pi's existence wasn't in question, only proof of notability. And the fact that a campus group has been on four campuses, with some 400 members spanning 30 years makes it somewhat more notable than other smaller groups. They just need more high-quality references. Without a stub, there is no where to offer these references.
Spartaz, there are hundreds of thousands of such stubs, all awaiting additional references. Ought we kill those, too? As this isn't a controversial group I don't know why this article had to be deleted. Jax MN (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the consensus was to delete the article. Admins don't have discretion to simply ignore policy based conclusions. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Private bet'

[edit]

You didn't let us know how it turned out :) "I have already made a private bet to myself... I'll let you know after this closes how accurate my guess was." -- GreenC 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I completely forgot about that Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it completely wrong. I bet 4 and it was no where near. Spartaz Humbug! 20:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but...

[edit]

Could you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Mahapatra as delete? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, You closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank as delete only after one hour of Bearcat's post. You did not give any time to improve the article based on his feedback. Can you please revert the article as a draft so I can work on it? Thank you --Wil540 art (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Give me a mo. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
doneSpartaz Humbug! 11:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Walche Cut, Kentucky" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Walche Cut, Kentucky. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Walche Cut, Kentucky until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refund please

[edit]

Could I get POSaBIT refunded to my user space so I can incorporate elements of the deleted article elsewhere? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden

[edit]

I think your close is correct, but could you please elaborate on when it is "time for this?" As I noted in the discussion, the Trump article was created on 26 November 2016, so we're close. Cheers! SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left it vague because its entirely dependant on how soon Biden starts filling out his administration. I'd be minded to leave it to consensus on the article talk. Since I feel its an editorial decision I'm reluctant to issue an instruction as any authority I have to do that can only flow from a consensus of editors. I'm happy to review any future discussion if the consensus remains unclear.
Does that help? Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Just wanted to make clear it wasn't a "can be restored on 20 January" or whenever the inauguration date is. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article “Muhammed Mokaev”

[edit]

Hi I spent weeks writing up the wiki article about Mokaev that was recently deleted.

Can you send me the wiki markup article so that I make continue to amend it for future submission.

It has all the references and markup I used and now that it’s been deleted I don’t have the access to retrieve it.Rassmallai (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rassmallai/Muhammad Mokaev is where the article ended up. Please don't restore it to mainspace unless notability has improved and you have put it through AFC again. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown

[edit]

May I ask you to reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown? Only a couple of users suggested a merge and I think that their arguments were rather weak since they appeared to be based on incomplete or innaccurate information. It seemed to me like the discussion was not close to a consensus, whereas extra days of informed discussion may have allowed for a clear consensus to be reached. --JECE (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree but further discussion is never a bad thing. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Solidarity/Shared Poland

[edit]

Hello, I know you closed this AfD a while ago, but I have a favour to ask. You listed the result as Move to draft. I know this seems trivial, but could you please change it to Draftify or Userfy? Under the state it is at the moment, it is not logged properly on AfD logs. (Notice how the consensus is listed as "UNDETERMINED"?) Foxnpichu (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Planning an RFA? Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, just thought it would be better for it to be labelled properly, as it’s not the first time this has happened. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD - Carl Reader

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I'm just raising this in relation to the recent closure made, as I believe the 'delete' was incorrect. I appreciate that you are a long term admin; however my reading of the situation was a "no consensus". I've attempted to be objective here but please do bear in mind that I was the original editor.

This is my reasoning behind it.

There were two 'keep' users, two 'delete' users, the original proposer, and a comment by a non-voter that found that WP:GNG was met. Therefore, on a simple tally, three each.

But when we dig a little deeper into the comments, you will see that the basis for the delete and the undue weight given to their comments (that the sources are invalid) is incorrect. One of the 'delete' stated that as they couldn't see the inside of a magazine that featured the subject as a cover feature and multi page feature, and as they couldn't read a physical book, that they were not to be counted. WP:SOURCE does not require sources to be both online and freely available to a casual observer, and we know that there is a wider world than that found on a 2 minute search of Google! In fact, WP:OFFLINE, although not policy, provides us with a reminder of this fact - and in the current age of paywalls, this will become more prevalant (a good handful of the citations in the article are unfortunately paywalled but in physical print editions).

Following this, the second 'delete' was also solely based on an online search - despite other 'keeps' demonstrating several sources.

Your concern may have come about through the inclusion of a piece by a Forbes Contributor and the lengthy discussion around the validity of that. But putting that piece to one side, WP:GNG appears to still be met, so it would appear to be wrong to use the weight of discussion there to undermine the validity of the other sources which are independent of the subject, and consist of sources in the national press.

I hope we can get this resolved without a deletion review, and if there is an area of policy that I've misunderstood I'd really appreciate your support in explaining it, as it stands I'm a little confused by the closing decision - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser249325 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from yourself the keep votes lacked detail and assertion gets much less weight than detailed source analysis. The other voters who demonstrated detailed examination of the sources were unpersuaded. Its not a vote but analysis of the arguments was not on the keep side. Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Spartaz - I appreciate that, and acknowledge that a paragraph is stronger than a comment of 'GNG is met'. But when the content of the detailed examination is incorrect - and as mentioned above, ignores content that is behind a paywall and / or in print rather than on Google, then the basis of using the detailed source analysis is surely flawed? Per WP:OFFLINE offline sources can be challenged - but when they are shared by more than one user, ignoring them is not simply challenging them, it is blatant disregard to the fact that offline sources can and do exist! To quote one of the users in response to another voter: "#6 is a book link but I can't preview the book so I don't know if it is substantial coverage that fulfils notability requirements" (it is in fact a few pages of a book per Google Books, and ISBN / publisher details etc were provided in citations); and then in response to my comment: " I cannot access the AAT magazine so I cannot determine its suitability for WP:GNG. With only one, possibly two, sources to establish notability I am going to continue advocating for delete"; we have a position of a voter looking for a lack of sources on the subject for their vote, as opposed to looking for sources (which is the intent in which they framed their comments) - and forgetting that there were at least 2 items, raised above, that demonstrate notability that the voter can't / chose not to register to see. We can all not see things that we choose not to!
I don't propose to argue the toss on the validity of the other items, despite them being raised by one voter and clarified by me - as WP:GNG only needs 2 independent, non-trivial, credible sources and in this part of the debate alone we have 3. So my ask is that you review the actual substance of the arguments, rather than acknowledge the length of paragraphs which are merely heel-digging by the writer around their own pre determined outcome? Appreciate your time with this.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkmarkets

[edit]

I am quite concerned about your close of the Thinkmarkets article. You are supposed to gauge consensus when you close an AfD debate, not just assert your own view. Scope creep made an assertion that is not even backed up by evidence, didn't answer my question, and you have entirely sided with him. I'd ask you to reconsider the outcome of the AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reading a consensus means assessing the arguments and detailed source analysis is taken seriously unless refuted. Not coming to the same conclusion does not mean I have asserted my own view or taken someone's side. It just means in policy the sourcing wins.Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle articles

[edit]

Thank you for your closing comment here. To clarify, none of these articles have been created in years; no more are being created (the most recently created were mostly written by a banned user and have been deleted); and from the other direction, most of the deletion nominations have been the work of Fram. To "hit the pause button" on this current series of nominations, Fram would have to change his or her behaviour. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pinging me, as I hadn't read the close. Creating a guideline for every tiny topic is a bad idea, we already have enough trouble with guidelines for large topics (see the discussion at NSPORTS for example). Micro-managing such stuff when all that is asked is following the GNG is not a good idea. I have no plans to stop nominating these as that would serve no purpose. As long as their are articles of that type which to me seem to fail the GNG, I'll nominate them (though at a speed of about one a week or so). Fram (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Daniel Bolden

[edit]

May I ask how exactly you arrived at keep? The whole thing is uncited save but for a source proving he was in ice cubes movie in a non leading capacity and voice a character in a movie that won none of the awards he was supposedly up for. I figured the closing admin would provide some light on their decision to keep, delete, or relist, but you've done neither and I am very much so curious about what you took into account here. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fury

[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fury in other media with "IMO the policy based arguments are the delete votes but there is clearly no consensus to delete". I'm genuinely curious to know what these policy-based arguments were, exactly. Because not only does the topic of this character in other media (specifically in other media) have extensive coverage and meets the requirements outlined in WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, but the delete arguments were cookie-cutter responses ([6], [7] being variants of commonly-used votes from those users), people declaring that there are insufficient sources without really checking ([8], [9]), an NEXIST / "I don't know it" / "Not well-written" argument, and for the most part, subjective declarations of triviality.

I was honestly prepared to re-open the case at WP:DRV if it somehow passed, because the arguments in favour of it (to me) seemed very weak and presumptive. Darkknight2149 02:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The strong arguments were CFORK (3 articles for essentially the same thing) and list scope - that you had not demonstrated any RS specifically addressing Nick Fury in other media so that whole subject to a degree becomes a synthesis. Unless being in other media is in itself notable then the basis of the article/list is just OR. The consensus of the discussion did not support the policy so there was no policy based outcome - so an NC close.
I genuinely fail to understand what you are saying in your final section. Are you baffled or threatening me with DRV and what is the IT that you are talking about? Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
??? - "you had not demonstrated any RS specifically addressing Nick Fury in other media so that whole subject to a degree becomes a synthesis". That was heavily demonstrated here, with coverage specifically devoted to his appearances in other media. The first source alone is a journalistic article delving into his history of appearing in television. But to answer question, the final paragraph wasn't a threat or ultimatum. Just me highlighting how weak I felt the argument for deletion was. Darkknight2149 10:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was that its discussion of them in other media that counts and not being in other media. That's a classic explanation of how synth works. Sorry if you don't understand that. Spartaz Humbug! 14:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the coverage was. "The character in other media" and "The character being in other media" is also a distinction without a difference. If by the latter, you mean "The overall topic of the character appearing in other media and not individual appearances", I just linked one of the articles to you that does exactly that. There's also no synthesis, as synthesis implies jumping to conclusion/original research based on separate information in separate sources, which there is none of in the article. By your logic, any Filmography, Discography, "In other media", or "In popular culture" section in any article is automatic synthesis. Darkknight2149 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have an article to improve somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Reginald Bachus

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reginald Bachus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan079

[edit]

You blocked Duncan079 for socking. Who is the sock master? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know for sure. I just know he turned up in an afd that was vote stacked and I'm waiting for him to substantiate his claims.Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blueyefinity

[edit]

More than seven years ago, you blocked Blueyefinity for copyright violations. They now wish to return to editing and have generally provided reasonable answers to User:Yunshui/decline copyvio questions. Your block was definitely appropriate, seven years ago. Any objection if I lift the block now? --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. More than happy to trust your judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a happy 2021! Happy holidays

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Hello Spartaz:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

Hhkohh (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Azad Samaj Party‎

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Samaj Party (2nd nomination). The article had 17 indepedent references including few of them were added by me and 5 out of the 7 believed it was enough to pass WP:GNG. There is lot of coverage in the Hindi Language as well. Why was this closed as a Redirect when the consenus was against it , you could have closed No consenus at worst but not Redirect? Can I take this to WP:DRV.Thanks.Wish You a Happy New Year.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you were asked to detail what sourcing was suitable and did not reply. Weak.assertions are not strong arguments and not substantiating your claims on request means they get little weight. Its not about headcount, its about strength of argument.
thanks for your propmt reply.I missed the ping from other user hence did not reply but I have added references to the article.Here ,Here ,Here and Here and Here.The answer to his question are the 17 references in the article the claim of notabilty is based on the references in the article . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is base a decision on the discussion. You were obviously following the discussion. Bare assertions are not particularly helpful. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Instead of saying Its notable or it passes tye gng what is missing is discussion of the source you are basing it on. In this case what sources pass gng and how do they do so?. Spartaz Humbug! 15:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fuck her right in the pussy" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fuck her right in the pussy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Fuck her right in the pussy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David G. MacAfee

[edit]

About three years ago, you and "salted" an BLP for David G. MacAfee. I would like to resurrect the article as I think he may now meet the standards for notability. He now has an book published by a real publisher, Macmillan. And he has a rather huge following on Facebook (not sure how to document that for notability purposes). In the atheist community, he's pretty much the subject of both positive compliments and very negative attacks.

Books, shows he's the author of 8 books, most of them not of the self-published variety (I don't think any of them are).

He also was one of the leading voices regarding the scandal of sexual misconduct with Neal deGrasse Tyson, which could be a negative for a lot of people.

Nevertheless, the book authorship seems to fall well within the parameters of WP:Notability. As you can see from my edits, I have only created a few BLP articles, it's not really my thing, so I could be screwing this up big time. But I think the rules say that you, as the deleting admin, should be my first step in resurrecting the article. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to a Facebook author's page, [10]. It has over 250,000 followers, which seems to be quite high. My damn page has like 50,000, and I thought that was a lot, but I write about boring stuff like vaccines. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And he has a verified Twitter account with nearly 25,000 followers. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history we shouldn't be considering an article unless we have solid unimpeachable reliable sources to base it on. Given the history of COI and PROMO editing I wouldn't personally want to reopen this can or worms until this is an incontrovertible pass. If you are not an expert in difficult BLPs then this isn't the article for you to practise on. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's harsh. I didn't say I was some incompetent noob with these articles, just that I didn't understand this process of resurrecting the article. You could try a bit of civility with people, instead of rude putdowns. Being an admin means you ought to give a fuck about editors who are trying. The only COI was the religious nutjobs off-wiki threatening myself and others for editing the article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need a page salted

[edit]

A stub page for the non-notable song "Cheating on You" has been repeatedly recreated over the past week. I would really appreciate if you could salt it. Thanks in advance.--NØ 07:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for undeletion

[edit]

Hi, Spartaz! I request the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship (plus all its pages - the years), because a mistake was made back in time. First of all this article had been deleted several times in the past because in the beginning the kickboxing promotion was unknown. And also there was a war on Wikipedia from the MMA "users" against kickboxing, until new regulations.

My reasons are:

1. These are precious info for the history of the sport, SUPERKOMBAT of top promoter Eduard Irimia is considered the 2nd best promotion of Europe all-time after the Netherlands-based It's Showtime. Before it was called Local Kombat (2003-2013). SUPERKOMBAT had headquarters in Bucharest, Romania, but also in London, Las Vegas and New York City.

2. SUPERKOMBAT was named Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of GLORY (Ultimate Glory), that now is according to the Kickboxing task force "the kickboxing's UFC - World No 1. promotion in the world". Additionally, SUPERKOMBAT was nominated in the top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world.

3. GLORY champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY title challengers Benjamin Adegbuyi, Daniel Ghiță, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Anderson Silva, Yousri Belgaroui and Yoann Kongolo competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY tournament winners Ismael Londt and D'Angelo Marshall competed in SUPERKOMBAT. Other top 10 kickboxers in their divisions competed in SUPERKOMBAT: Roman Kryklia (currently #2 heavyweight), Zabit Samedov (current #6 heavyweight), Murat Aygün (current #8 heavyweight), Tarik Khbabez (current #9 heavyweight), Felipe Micheletti (current #8 light heavyweight), Zinedine Hameur-Lain (current #10 light heavyweight), Igor Bugaenko (current #6 middleweight), Jamie Bates (current #5 welterweight) and many more from the past rankings. Several of these are SUPERKOMBAT products, it is proved that no other promotion has been feeding GLORY like SUPERKOMBAT.

4. SUPERKOMBAT is not on Wikipedia, but even regional kickboxing promotions are allowed, such as King in the Ring, W5, Global Fighting Championship and more. Just saying, make justice for SUPERKOMBAT.

5. SUPERKOMBAT had received coverage from the largest European newspapers such as MARCA, Gazeta Sporturilor etc. It had a contract with the most known sports European channel Eurosport and also with CBS Sports in the United States of America. SUPERKOMBAT's official YouTube channel has fights with over 1 million views.

6. SUPERKOMBAT was still deleted, although 5 people said to Keep it and 3 to Delete it (4 with the nominator). The nominator Jayjg STRANGELY retired later from Wikipedia.

—.karellian-24 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Superkombat Fighting Championship

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Superkombat Fighting Championship. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Porn star AfDs

[edit]

I'm pretty new, so I just wanted to get your opinion of the sources I found for the two AfDs you put up today. Is that much coverage generally enough to meet notability? How many sources independent of industry trade magazines would normally be good to establish notability? Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion: Renaissance Capital (US company)

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Renaissance Capital (US company) was taken down in June 2020. I'd like to request the page be undeleted. After reviewing I can see why the page was flagged as promotional in the AfD (link), since much of it appears to be copied & pasted from the company website, but I believe the firm still qualifies under notability. I'd be happy to explain why, or edit a draft of the page to be less promotional with new/more sourcing. --IPOKennedy (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the text was copied from elsewhere we won’t undelete it as we are against copyright violations. Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK looking at the company website I can't find any exact matches/copyright violations, but I believe my point stands that the words & phrases sounded like promotional content that the company would have on its About Us section and would need to be edited. Based on my understanding of the guidelines I thought the best procedure would be to undelete the page and edit the writing to be more helpful. Do you suggest I create a new page from scratch instead?--IPOKennedy (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to undelete it so its entirely down to you whether you aim for a draft but I wouldn’t recommend you just starting it off in main space as your name, lack of edits and focus on a promotional article after a massively long wikibreak might well give a suspicious editor reviewing the creation the impression that you could have a COI or that this was more promotion puffery. Using draft space means your article can get feedback and assessment before it goes to mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's like I always say, the longer the wikibreak, the bigger the wikicomeback. Thanks for the elucidation. --IPOKennedy (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re recent AfD close

[edit]

Hi. I'm dropping you a line as I'm quite confused about your rationale to close the Articles for Deletion entry for Jendrik Sigwart. There didn't appear to be any actual consensus leaning either way re keep, redirect or delete in the discussion itself, so I'm curious as to why it was redirected and not relisted to gain a better actual consensus? Rather than going straight to DRV I said I'd raise it with you first. ser! (chat to me). 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are posting this just to tick a box before a drv then don’t waste your or my time. If your intent is to find out my thinking, let me ask you a question, on what policy are we ready to host an article and why do you assess there as not being a consensus to not have an article? Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I just wasn't sure where to go to raise a concern about an AfD I didn't think was correctly closed, so giving that as my rationale for coming to your talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by the first point, but I would assess that AfD as not having a clear consensus whatsoever. I'm well aware that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE before you raise that but there was a lack of clear consensus with the various responses the AfD itself received. Hence why I was confused by the fact you closed it with a decision. ser! (chat to me). 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there were more votes against keeping the article than for it and defaulting to the least harmful outcome is a sensible approach. The charge that as a complete unknown there were limited sources was not refuted by the keep side. The keep argument is inherent notability but thats a future state not current one. Hence, blp with poor sourcing is something other than keep but its so marginal redirect with explicit permission to undo is my reading of what the consensus demands. Whichever comes first - his performance or someone writes some profiles you can simply undo the redirect. Does that make more sense? Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does make more sense. I'd disagree with you on the reading of the consensus but, eh, that happens. I'll keep an eye out for any profiles and such that will come out re the subject in the next while anyway. Cheers! ser! (chat to me). 21:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I (naturally) agree with the redirect considering my !vote, however I came here to ask if you could adjust what you put as the target article to either Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest or Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. The target article in the closure summary does not exist. This is more of an administrative request "for the records". Thanks! Grk1011 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, redirects are not an administrative thing so changing the redirect is just an editorial decision. I doubt its going to be there long though and events will undo it sooner rather than later. Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion: Ateaa Tina page. Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

[edit]

Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies

[edit]

Please, could you take another look at the closure of AfD for the article Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, that resulted in complete deletion, but only one user voted for that solution. In the order of voting:

  • Nominator (Piotrus) proposed deletion, but also allowed merge.
  • User Buidhe supported deletion or some form of merge.
  • User Randykitty supported deletion.
  • User Sorabino voted to keep.
  • User Headbomb supported deletion or merge.
  • User DGG supported merge and asked for the prolongation.

Since only one user supported complete deletion, while all others had complex votes and explicitly allowed some form of merge, or keep, the outcome should have been somewhat different? Where did you see the consensus for total deletion? Sorabino (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This fails GNG. The policy based votes were for delete. With the exception of DGG the other votes were for delete first and very reluctantly a merge as second best. I don't think you actually understand that transwiki is not a merge. I have no objection to your adding a redirect but there was not a clear case that there was a lot of sourced material to merge. With the amount of aspertion and finger pointing you have offered as a substitute for policy based argumentation I'm afraid your neverending commentary got very little weight in the close. If you put your energy into writing actually notable content then we would all be better off. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, lets not get here into those aspersion-issues; maybe you already noticed that several articles on Assyrian and Aramean subjects were recently proposed for deletion, or moved without RM by the same users, but that is a different theme. You mentioned a redirect as a possibility, but I would not dare to make one over your closure. That would be a good solution, if you could restore it as a redirect, to Assyrian Academic Society (that would be the most obvious target). Please, could you implement that solution? Sorabino (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no technical reason why an admin needs to do it and its an entirely editorial judgement issue so, seriously, feel free to go ahead and make it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I am just an editor, don′t have the power to restore something that is deleted. I could just make a new redirect, but that would not restore its edit history? I guess that only an administrator would be able to do that? In any case, lets wait few days to see what will be the outcome of AfD for the Assyrian Academic Society. If it is kept, than a solution might be applied. No need to rush with this. Sorabino (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo

[edit]

Greetings. There is a typo in your close here that prevents me from getting what you are saying. (Personally, I make about ten such typos a day.) Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the typo. The message was that if you want to recreeste it, stick purely to what the sources say. Personally, I'd restart it in draft and get someone to review it before considering mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE #1 and citing photographers

[edit]

You said on my talk page if I had any questions I could come here, and this literally just came up. I was perusing AfDs and came upon an AfD for a photographer. After looking for sources it seems that most of my searching brings up articles, books, magazines etc giving her credit for photographs. Do you think this would count as citing her work in such a way to meet CREATIVE #1? Is there a noticeboard for a discussion about that? I don't see any sort of interpreting notability notice board, and plain notability noticeboard is basically just AfD. Any input would be appreciated before I irk people voting in AfDs with a silly rational. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing in that context means being quoted as a creative influence. Credits for pictures are a bit like journalists getting byelines. Its evidence of some significance as a creative but insufficient on its own to count. For living people we tend to take a harder line then just relying on subject notability guidelines and - where the GNG sources do not exist, the threshold for retaining the article is much higher than it would be for a non-living thing. The BLP policy of doing no harm is in tension with our desire to document stuff and there is clearly less risk of harm to an inanimate thing than a person with very limited sources where the only properly sourced thing could be negative. Portraying that person’s life in a fair and well rounded way could well be impossible. Other opinions may be available but I used to answer emails sent in to the foundation with OTRS and I saw a lot of people rightly distressed about their articles and, in my view, if its a living person who is not clearly notable then we shouldn’t have the content until either they have passed and can’t be hurt or proper and thorough sourcing emerges, Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What if the source, rather than just giving the standard "photo by X" includes a small blurb of text about the photo itself in a book or magazine, i.e. this? I do agree with and understand the issues surrounding being able to provide a well rounded article instead of something that is a hit piece because of the sources available. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peers would mean notable creatives in their own right. So if several notable artists were citing the photographer as an influence then yes several examples would be a worthwhile contribution to the debate and could meet 1. Having a photo described in an article by a non-notable journalist, not really so. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. One last question if I may? Would having photographs included in a book of photography count towards WP:CREATIVE #4b, assuming that the book itself was significant and notable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. An exhibition is in a gallery. A book devoted to one artists work might well count as a single gng source but it depends on the level of coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for the help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

→

Deletion review for Dick Sheppard (stuntman)

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dick Sheppard (stuntman). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Messo

[edit]

Hi, please can you take another look at the discussion that was closed as deletion, since two users voted to keep, only one for deletion, and one for deletion or selective merge. Does such a divided vote constitute a consensus for deletion? Sorabino (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the discussion on the related article World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), there were three votes to keep the article, with no votes in support of the deletion proposal, but the discussion was just relisted. Sorabino (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting votes then you are not looking at the strength of the arguments. There was a detailed source analysis and your sources failed to sway the delete side at all. You did not persuade the discussion that your sources were sufficient, one keep vote claimed sources that they declined to explain or defend and other advanced sources that were refuted without challenge. When you read the flow of the arguments then the conclusion is quite clear. None of those arguing we don’t have the article are unreasonably delete minded - indeed two of them are reliable weather vanes for the quality of sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but please take a look: second user who initially voted just to delete (Bearian) made another look after improvements and agreed to the possibility of a selective merger. Since there was only one clear vote in favor of deletion, and two in favor of keep, with one vote for deletion or merge, and one more user (who just commented) pointing to the existence of various additional sources, was there a possibility of relisting, because the votes were so divided? And to return to the other question, why was relisting applied in discussion on World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), where there are three clear votes for keep, with no votes for deletion? I am asking that because there might be another possibility: if it turns out that article on the WCA is kept, instead of deletion "Johny Messo" could be transformed into redirect to that target? Sorabino (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the relist I didn’t the keep votes were strong enough to create a clear consensus. Regarding the deletion you are still counting votes rather than looking at the arguments. If anything changes I’m quick to restore articles and give them another go. Just drop me a line if you ever find better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your personal assessment, but contrary opinions of users who voted to keep those articles should also be acknowledged. It seems to me that there was no consensus to delete that article. Please, could you reconsider the possibility to relist that article (Johny Messo) for another week of discussion? There is no harm in that, and things might get clearer. Sorabino (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they would but its clear your sourcing won't get better or you would have brought it out already. In any event, I don't review closes under the threat of a DRV and since you have been canvassing to look for support for that I suggest that you just do it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Canvasing? Threats? Why are you using such language, when you can see that I was just sounding participants of that discussion for their impressions on the closure, hoping that we could reach some understanding here. I addressed you here directly, on your talk page, and all of them on their talk pages, because there is no other place to do so, in an interval between the closure and the initiation of a review process. How on earth have you come to feel threatened by that? Didn′t you see that I contacted all participants, regardless of the way they voted? Please, I have to ask you once more to reconsider relisting for another week, because there are so many sources on that subject that can be added. The closure was premature, and votes were divided, that is not hard to see. Sorabino (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I initiated a review, hoping that discussion will be relisted, thus allowing further improvements of the article. Sorabino (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Grey

[edit]

I've already stated I'm happy to revert back to anything anyone wants, as long as it's properly verified by BLP-quality references.

Given the onus within a BLP, maybe we just protect the article from the ips? They've not participated in any discussion in over a year.

Given the history of problems with have with BLPs of people in adult film, maybe full protection? Sanctions apply for BLPs in general, and the type of problems with get with adult film tend to be serious. I'm already seeing hints of it going down hill quickly, spilling over from the recent Right cite (talk · contribs) problems. I've refrained from formally notifying editors of the sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested partial protection after the references from the most recent ip edit failed a simple check at RSN and even RSP. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, it states I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. Is this enough?

Policy requires removal of unsourced and pooorly sourced content from BLPs. These are not my personal conditions. Sanctions apply. I've offered solutions, and I'll continue to do so. Consensus requires adherence to policy. --Hipal (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected, so that will help. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion: Ateaa Tina page.

[edit]

Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celliant

[edit]

Hello, I understand that the Celliant page was deleted. Unfortunately, the comments related to deletion were on the old page and not related to the proposed changes we were suggesting. Who could I reach out to that would consider to userfy either "Celliant" or "responsive textiles"? I would like an open discussion with an admin to discuss the science of infrared, its biological effects on the body and how it can be incorporated into textiles. We are not trying to promote or sell through Wiki but we would hope that Wiki would want to cover this science. Appreciate any additional info/advice. Also, as the deletion page has been archived, and Celliant has been deleted, I don't know where to respond further. The last delete comment from Blue Riband was again based on a review of the old listing. Thanks for any help/advice. Borristhedog (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand you have a COI on this subject. My advice would be to let someonelse fight this fight as, frankly, your motives are suspect and, as a volunteer, I'm not minded to spend my time helping to advance anything smelling of promotion. On you point about improvements, the last vote was several days after your last comment so the onus is on you to prove Blue Riband was looking at the wrong version of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand you are a volunteer. I have found most of the communication throughout this process to be cynical and confrontational without really trying to understand the facts. "Smells of promotion" to create a wiki page based on "responsive textiles"? Or the physiological benefits of IR? There is certainly "meta-data" on this subject in the medical community. Maybe but the facts are that this is science and the wiki community has so far not shown any interest in trying to understand if it should be included/a space for it and has spent the time criticizing because we are connected to the science. The last vote I referenced was March 6th? and then it was "locked" so I didn't have a way to reach out and it appeared it was locked by you. And yes my previous comment was several days prior but I didn't have a chance to reply to the last comment which was only there for a day or less before it was locked. I believe I had previously stated that the comments were not being made based on the correct entry. How do I "prove" this? I can't force people to review the correct entry. I was told to find an editor/administrator to write the article versus someone associated with our company and now I am being told I can't even ask an editor/administrator because of my COI. So far, I have not been able to navigate/discover a receptive path for people that are trying to build out verifiable, factual, science based innovations and discovery and improvements. Any further advice or direction would be most welcome and appreciated. Borristhedog (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Cara Spencer

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cara Spencer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

On behalf of STLPublicI as they have not notified you. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Joy

[edit]

Hi! It would have been good had you given your reasoning why you deleted Sindhu Joy w.r.t. GNG since both the keep and delete arguments were persuasive. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 04:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sindhu_Joy_(2nd_nomination) for ease of reference Vikram Vincent 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted the discussion to look at the sources. I would be grateful if you could ping the previous contributors to get as many eyes from both sides on the GNG argument. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Will do!Vikram Vincent 07:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchi Anand

[edit]

Hi, I'm also writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. In the reason for the deletion section, you wrote, "The result was delete. Fundamentally there are two arguments here. Whether the subject passed BLP - and consensus is it doesn’t but the source analysis debunking the gng argument. Much of the delete argument about the gng just asserts which is a weak argument against a compelling analysis based on policy. Secondly, does the subject pass ACADEMIC, and there is no consensus that she does. That only leaves one outcome." But in WP:NPROF, the guideline states, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline. I have been trying to figure out why your reasoning does not result in a 'no consensus' closure, based on the determination that there was no consensus per NPROF, so I figured I would ask. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of BLPs all sub notability guidelines are subordinate to the GNG as the community does not accept that we should be hosting inadequately sourced BLPs. Whether prof acknowledges this or not that is the wide practise across the encyclopaedia and is what drives my approach when balancing GNG against SNG. Around the edges there could be cases where a firm pass of an SNG might hold against a clear GNG fail but in the vast majority of cases where the GNG is clearly not met and its a BLP than a standalone article isn’t going to be the right outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification - that makes a lot of sense to me, including from a 'spirit and intent of the guidelines' perspective. Beccaynr (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I've edited before on other wikis online about fan interests related to video games. Was more of a lurker for a while, reading and contributing here and there. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refund of articels Sodha, Gaur Rajput and Bari (caste)

[edit]

Hi, I came across your user page, when you closed the AfD Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha, thanks, further I noticed that you are willing to userfy the deleted pages. Would be thankful if you can refund me above pages for improvements, although I was not the page creator but as a Wikipidian I feel are worth their page with proper citations. I tried to save them in Deletion Review Jethwarp (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa D'Silva

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. I had thought that at minimum, there appears to be WP:CREATIVE notability, due to WP:BASIC coverage related to her prominent role as the co-founder of SafeCity, and the regular coverage of her as an expert and commentator on a variety of subjects, and that there were likely other sources for the student editor assigned to the article for their class to review if the article cleared AfD. I still feel quite new to the AfD process, but I wanted to check in with you for a review, because 'no consensus' seems like it could have been an outcome of the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could only get to nc if you purely count votes and discard the quality of the arguments - which is not how rough consensus works. Fundamentally, we need sources that discuss her in the context of her and not in the context of her employer and these sources need to be independent, detailed and reliable. There was source analysis in the discussion that debunked the sourced provided and no effective rebuttle. That left the source analysis the compelling policy based argument in the discussion. That’s conclusive before I get to the off site canvassing for paid keep votes.... Spartaz Humbug! 22:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply - as to the off-site canvassing issue, the linked Freelancer post was taken down before I had a chance to view it, so I am not sure what it offered, but I added the 'not a ballot' template and did not see any evidence of SPAs. As to the sources issue, D'Silva is the CEO of the Red Dot foundation, which among other things, runs SafeCity, so that seemed different than just being about her employer, especially when independent and reliable sources also include biographical information, e.g. "“The real trigger for starting Safecity was the Delhi gang rape that happened in December 2012. It was a turning point for what I wanted to do," said D’Silva, who has worked in the aviation sector for almost 20 years," (LiveMint, 2016) and are essentially reporting on the impact of her accomplishments and/or quoting her as an expert. I also regret that I got distracted by trying to address some of the source issues on the article Talk page instead of the AfD discussion, and by a related side issue in my attempt to obtain an agreement on refactoring the Talk page, because I think it contributed to me not making more of an effort to rebut concerns raised at AfD. Could re-listing the discussion be a workable alternative to deletion? I do need to rest before I focus on sources and guidelines again, but some additional time would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, when you mention that there was a source analysis, are you referring to the comment left by one editor? Or do you mean to say that you conducted your own analysis of the sources prior to closing? The difference is significant, in my mind, because there was disagreement about that source analysis from other editors. Disagreements over which sources to use, and their utility, seems to be a matter for the article talk page. If you conducted your own analysis of the sources, and reached this conclusion, then I won't argue with that. But there seemed to be many sources listed, and some of the rebuttals, for example the last comment in the AfD, incorrectly listed some of them as self-written when they were not. I had intended to post a more thorough rebuttal of that final "debunking", but I don't insist that it was necessary to do so, the quality of the "debunking" would stand or fail on its own merits regardless of a rebuttal or lack thereof. I merely wish to know whether you are referring to you own analysis of the sources, or to the analysis of one editor. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hyperion35, I don't want to speak for Spartaz, but I believe WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS applies, and that I should not have used the article Talk page essentially as an extension of the AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, could I have this article userfied into my sandbox so I can redraft it into an article about Safecity? I think there is a lot of coverage in independent RS about the organization, and while D'Silva can be mentioned, she would not be a prominent focus of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)  Done Spartaz Humbug! 09:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Mata

[edit]

Spartaz could you please at least move the article I started on J.D. Mata to a draftspace so that I can continue to work on it? Alternatively, undelete and relist for discussion. I feel that I addressed many of the issues raised by the early delete votes but if you could at least give me my draft, I can continue to improve it. Thank you. Larry Grossman (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, you were trying to argue that blogspot was a reliable source for a BLP so you hadn’t over come any of the deletion arguments and the outcome was compelling. Since this is a BLP and according to the logs content has already been removed for a BLPvio, so I’m not prepared to put this in draft unless someone who actually understands sourcing has found something useful to work with. Until then, I suggest you find something more suitable to work on. Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is a BLP? Larry Grossman (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case. It’s a biography of a living person and we have a specific policy that covers it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that item of jargon - and I don't mean that perjoratively - but please understand that we are all at various levels of understanding here. As you will note from the discussion, I backed off from arguing that blogspot is a reliable source after it was pointed out to me that it is not. I then found other sources that are reliable subject-independent non-user secondary sources, namely 1. George Pennachio of KABC-TV news's 2005 3-minute feature of him and his first feature-length film "Pan Dulce," and 2. Crystal Olvera's 2011 article published in the The Monitor (Texas) featuring him and his acting work in HBO's True Blood which I fully referenced in the article and mentioned in the discussion right before you closed it. I believe I can find other such sources and that new ones will appear as his career progresses, which is why I would like to be given the opportunity to further improve the article and then submit it for review as an article for consideration.Larry Grossman (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to understand

[edit]

I'm sorry for taking it so poorly when you questioned me about any previous accounts. In my short time editing I've started to get an idea of the sheer amount of shenanigans that goes on. I got involved in Nightingale College through a bot rfc notification and it turns out the whole situation was precipitated by a sock. I've also seen a ton in AfDs. I didn't really expect that it would be as common an issue as it seems to be. I can much better understand why you would have been suspicious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is particularly rife with undeclared socks as, as someone who closes a lot of deletion discussions, you quickly become aware of the sheer scale of this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Hello Spartaz, I'd like to discuss what I believe is an improper closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination). For several reasons, I believe your closure was too hasty and with an incorrect outcome, hence I would like you to revert your own closure. Here are my reasons:

  • Your closure did not address the fact that Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) is notable under the policy WP:NBUILD, since it is listed as a historic structure in the NRHP and plenty of information on it is available (see below).[1][2] Per WP:NBUILD {green|Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable}. Since Badin Hall is registered, it is covered under the policy.
  • The structure additionally passes WP:GNG given the amount of WP:SIGCOV (although, per NBUILD, SIGCOV is not required to meet notability in this case, but nonetheless it possesses it) as it has been pointed out by many users in the discussion. Your closure did not address this, nor did it address why you disagree with the majority of users that it does pass. Regarding SIGCOV, has been pointed out by other users how indeed it had receieved significant and enduring coverage, particularly on the South Bend Tribune (including several full pafe piece profiles on the hall[3][4])[5]. Further, its construction[6][1][4], early history[6][7][4][8][9][10][11][12], its history as the oldest Catholic trade school in America[13][9], role in hosting the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School[14][15], its role in hosting the first women at Notre Dame[16][17][18], and its recent history and traditions[19][20][5][21][22] have been amply described in independent sources.
  • Your closing statement did not address the consensus (which was not obvious) nor did it address the fact that the majority of users commenting voted to keep the page. While WP is not a democracy, a proper closing statement that going against the opinion of the majority of users should address at the very least this fact and give reasons why those votes should not be listened to, and your closure did neither.
  • You did not address the consensus (which was not obvious to participants) and which I argue was to keep, in line with the points above and with the majority of the user' opinions.
  • You closed the RfC before the default time period without giving a specific reason, especially given the fact that the discussion was still ongoing and the last contributions (which was a keep opinion) came less than 24 hours from your closure.

Hence, I'd like you to revert your closure and let the discussion continue. Eccekevin (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mann

[edit]

I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkrzywicki1 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timothy J. Edens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The insane reason...

[edit]

I just noticed your comment:

"All covid misinformation is included because its a broad tban and for some insane reason politics in the US seems to determine many peoples’ approach to the subject."

I suspect it was a rhetorical comment, as the reason seems pretty obvious. 😏 Pre-Trump it was normal to keep science and facts separate from deviant political positions and deception. It wasn't normal for mainstream politicians to openly deny them. They accepted the views of experts, especially in science and medicine. Trump broke that pattern by mainstreaming fringe nonsense, denying well-known facts, and pushing conspiracy theories.

Sure, there have been politicians and public persons who have touched the edges of such foolishness, but they usually paid a heavy price for doing it. Fox News prepared the soil for Trumpism to fall on fertile ground and thrive. Suddenly it became the required norm (a loyalty litmus test) for Fox viewers=Trump supporters to boldly deny scientific facts (because of their pro-Trump political views) and believe the most absurd falsehoods while accusing those who believed experts and accepted scientific facts of "politicizing science," when the opposite was the case. Even editors do this. That's the "insane reason" we got here, but you know that. 😀 Have a great day, and good luck with expelling insanity from this place. -- Valjean (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.

[edit]

It's good to see you back. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Lothlorien Hall

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lothlorien Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

The article was redirected and its content deleted, you can find the last version in history. Rybkovich (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]
Hello, Spartaz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Photo problem

[edit]

Hi. Although this photo was approved by you, it has been removed by Rabat in the draft article (Draft:Andreh Arzoomanian). If possible, guide me to know where the problem is. Sincerely. Musiban (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we don´T allow non free content in draft space but if the article ever makes it into article space and sticks then the image should be ok to reintroduce. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
  2. ^ James T. Burtchaell (November 1976). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: University of Notre Dame Campus-Main and South Quadrangles" (PDF). Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database and National Park Service. Retrieved October 18, 2017. With seven photos from 1972-76. Map of district included with text version available at National Park Service.
  3. ^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ a b c Neil, Rau (11 October 1930). "ND Halls tell how place grew - Badin Hall built in 1917". South Bend Tribune.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ a b "Notre Dame cafe established in Badin Hall". South Bend Tribune. 3 October 1917. p. 7.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ a b "Badin Hall". The Catholic Tribune. October 13, 1917. p. 2.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Badin Hall, the newest hall at Notre Dame". The Catholic Advance. 29 December 1917. p. 3.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Alerding, Herman Joseph (1888). A History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes. author.
  9. ^ a b "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ Stoll, John B. (1923). An Account of St. Joseph County from Its Organization ... Dayton Historical Publising Company. p. 124.
  11. ^ "Chemistry and Badin Halls will be erected before fall opening". South Bend News-Times. 26 May 1917. p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Howard, Timothy Edward (1907). A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana. Lewis publishing Company.
  13. ^ "The Diocese of Fort Wayne, 1857-September 1907". webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference :02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Moses, First Down (2013-10-31). "Notre Dame and Navy: Why We Play, Part 1". One Foot Down. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  16. ^ Sulok, Nancy (March 7, 1973). "Notre Dame May Face Housing Shortage Because of Coeds". South Bend Tribune. p. 20.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ^ "Notre Dame Enrollment Estimated To Be 8,750". The Herald, Jasper Indiana. July 24, 1973. p. 11.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  18. ^ "Coed enrollment with double at Notre Dame". Daily Journal (Franklin, Indiana). August 16, 1973. p. 9.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ^ Blasko, Erin (February 14, 2010). "A cold plunge". South Bend Tribune. p. B1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  20. ^ Wallace, Francis (1969). Notre Dame: Its People and Its Legends. D. McKay Company.
  21. ^ Kltisch, Kristi (February 21, 1999). "New store preserves tradition, Hammes name". South Bend Tribune. p. SS6.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  22. ^ Mezzacappa, Gabriella (2016-02-02). "Students respond in outrage over residential hall moves". The Tab. Retrieved 2021-03-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive24&oldid=1211816926"