User talk:Spartaz/Archive15

Move Under Ground[edit]

Would you mind if I restored the Move Under Ground article? While I think you read the discussion's consensus correctly, I'm not sure that the discussion brought in enough people. This review in particular], 5 years after the original publication, was fairly convincing to me, and since it's also been published in German and (I think) Greek, it would seem to have sufficient notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would mind as its not for admins to substitute their opinons for a consensus. You are welcome to try DRV or relist it for further discussion of your sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I'll give DRV a shot.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Move Under Ground[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Move Under Ground. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, did you notice the ~3000 bytes of new information that got added after the AfD was filed? DS (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not or I would have relisted it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jacques Duyver[edit]

Gooday, I'm trying to figure out why my page was deleted. After many months of arguing with Wikipedia administrators and sending through proof of news worthy articles and updating and changing the WIKI content, I finally managed to get this South African business man listed on Wikipedia. He is a massive part of the South African "telecoms and printing" industry having opened up the first local print house in South Africa and now employed over 10 000 people. I just don't understand why he has now been deleted? This was a massive University project of mine and I passed my Master disitation with me having used wikipedia as part of it. I've now got the univeristy of South Africa jumping on me saying they won't approve my dissitation as it's not there? Please please please help me. User:SouthWiki 19 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry to butt in but I can't let a claim like this stand without challenging it. Now I very much love Wikipedia but I'm also an academic and I know for a fact that no self-respecting university would ever under any circumstance base the approval of a dissertation on the existence of Wikipedia content. In fact when "dissertation" and "Wikipedia" are mentioned in the same sentence, they are usually accompanied by the word "plagiarism". I also find it very hard to believe that your "massive project" involved a copy-paste of a large chunk of content published by Duyver on his websites. Now I can't recall the details of the article but it was clearly something that doesn't qualify as anything remotely close to what a university would consider degree-worthy. Please don't assume we're complete idiots. 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not assuming you are idiots and I will confess that my dissertation was not declined due to this but it was done as part of my dissertation. Having said this, it's no excuse I was just totally shocked that after it was approved and I went through months of changes and additions and deletions that this has all been removed. How do we get this relooked at and please can I get a copy of the Wikipedia article that was removed as well. What steps do I need to take to get this relooked at please User:SouthWiki 24 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All you need to do to get this back is show that the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please then put my ARTICLE back up on a "test" page so that I can reference it. You guys deleted this article and we have no copies of this as we thought it was accepted. User:SouthWiki 06 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

EWN[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:PeRshGo_reported_by_User:Roscelese_.28Result:_No_Vio_.29's talk page. (Sorry, I know you said in your notice that you dislike tbs/wbs - you specified user talk pages, though, so I wanted to err on the side of making sure you knew I'd replied.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. Let me know if this is unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request userfication[edit]

Would you have an objection with userfying John Pappas to my userspace from the recent AFD?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Paulmcdonald/John Pappas Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you kindly!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrV[edit]

Spartaz, one of your deletions has shown up at DrV. As far as I can tell you weren't previously contacted or notified [1]. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabdaguchha[edit]

Dear Sir, Did you check the merit of the article or the magazine by yourself before deleting the article? If so, I have noting to say. Did you see that the same user, ragib, who came up with the question of nobility of the magazine, did manage to delete the first article on the editor of the magazine, and now trying to delete the second one? I know it is hard to get some user's motive, but I believe you should not let him disrespect a well known magazine such as shabdaguchha^[1]and its contributors who live in many different part of the world and speak in many languages. Please post the article back to Wiki and restric it from the User:ragib and his friends' hands. Thanks. --Shabda2009 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shabdaguchha. The article was deleted following a very clear consensus that it did not meet our inclusion standards. If you believe this is incorrect it is for you to show that it passed the threashold. Please feel free to let me know what sources you can find but you might find it useful to read the essay linked in my edit notice before responding further. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bloch page deletion[edit]

Dear Spartaz, I wanted to get in touch to discuss the deletion of the entry for Andrew Bloch. Can we have a dialogue about this so his entry can be restored in a form fully compliant with your guidelines? Please let me know your thoughts.JaySorrels (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted after a listing at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bloch. All you need to do to get it back is to show that the subject meets WP:BIO & WP:GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz thanks. We felt it did in the main, but if you could point to a good analogue (there are lots of entries of people with similar profiles in the industry on there) we could learn from, or agree to examine a new draft entry to be sure it works it would be great. Andrew is a major, well known figure in his field with plenty of references to prove his notability - we just need to get them together acceptably. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers!JaySorrels (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Sandwell[edit]

Spartaz, it seems to me that you have cast a super-vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Sandwell. Only the nominator's view held that the topic was non-notable, but this is your reason for deleting the article. Please explain why you have deleted the article with prejudice instead of without prejudice. Also, please review WP:NOQUORUM.

Personally, I think that we need a speedy soft delete for not having two sources; and in addition software that during article creation requires editors to list two "sources". But the point of such a process is not to prevent such articles from being added to the encyclopedia, it would be to make sure that articles nominally have two sources before they get to AfD.

I look forward to your reply. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't much care about the article, but this was one of the most blatant supervotes I have ever seen. I urge you to reverse yourself and correctly close it as no consensus or soft delete, or extend it for further comment. Thparkth (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the blatant assumption of bad faith on your parts. Consensus is the measurement of arguments against policy. That's what I did. Forgive me, but did not both of your comments support the argument that there was only single source? That's how I read the discussion. Inclusion requires that a subject meets N = multiple (i.e more then one) detailed reliable sources. Your comments suggested that the article did not meet N. Therefore the delete argument was the policy based argument and I closed on that basis. If this isn't the case then tell me now what the sources are and I'll undelete immediately if they are good enough. V is not the same as meeting inclusion standards. The GNG/N are the operators here. Did this article meet them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, there is no assumption of bad faith here, I know for a fact that you are one of the few admins that I unquestionably respect. Your argument that the topic is non-notable I am avoiding discussing, since I would be arguing against the super-vote. The closing statement did not argue that the nominator's viewpoint had greater weight than all other participants combined. Specifically, my !vote referenced WP:V which is content policy; not WP:N, which is a notability guideline. Perhaps the point about the single source is that agreement that only one source has been reported is not proof that other sources don't exist. I would note that it is "likely" that other sources exist and that this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N, as well as I would point out that public sector institutions generally satisfy the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice" even if only because a little digging is all that is necessary to find sufficient sources, but I didn't go down that road because I think the article should be deleted without prejudice to encourage its recreation rather than spend a lot of time on analysis and research such as is happening now. Can you please discuss your review of WP:NOQUORUM? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reading is that there is absolutely noquorum whatsoever at AFD but I tend to go for soft delete for singe opinion AFDs. I read your vote as indicating that you had searched for a second source. If you hadn't - well my apologies - but a deletion argument based on sourcing needs actual sources to be brought up to overcome it and I read the discussion to show that other sourcing hadn't been found. I'm making the point in the close that meeting V isn't the same as meeting N and that my plain reading of the discussion was that it didn't meet N because of the lack of sources. That's not a supervote its an explanation of how I applied the policy. I'm a bit confused about what you are asking for here. I can't see that our positions are lightyears away from each other. Are you asking me to undelete this or specifically allow recreation as soon as the second source appears or something else I missed? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see Wikipedia:Glossary#Prejudice, which helps explain that content policy and notability guidelines are different worlds. There are several directions this could go, but my immediate point is that we want to encourage recreation of this article with more sources, including by the original author(s), and not send a message that this topic does not belong on Wikipedia. I am avoiding responding to your comments about notability guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What exactly is it you want me to do here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A closure of Delete without prejudice is what I have been advising from the beginning, I don't know what is not clear. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no harm in doing that. Its not really necessary as any deletion for sources means that the afd is irrelevant if the sources appear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure that I understand the policy behind your last reply or in the amended close, but I think you have clearly improved the encyclopedia with that amendment by encouraging a sourced article. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Wangtang, Guilin[edit]

Did you notice that there were in effect at least five deletion discussions? "Result was keep" does not mean "Result was keep all". Indeed, you did nothing to the other articles in this discussion, and 9 hours is more than enough time for bots to remove AFD templates. So please go back, re-open the discussion, and make a more specific decision next time. Thanks. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a keep outcome for all so it wouldn't have hurt you to do the maintainable yourself as there is no bot that goes around removing AFD tags from closed discussions. I am removing tags now but for the future you might want to consider the old adage concerning the intersection of flies honey and vinegar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not for all of the articles. There was only one real vote on "Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi", and that was a deletion vote from Danaman5. I'm going to request a deletion review, and be careful next time. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Please explain to me how there was any delete consensus there for any of these articles? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my last post makes this pretty clear that I am going to contest your blind closure of the debate because there was one article that came out questionable from the debate. The rest, I will not bother. Sorry, but being an admin is not an excuse to not read others' comments (and esp. on your talk) carefully. Throw AGF at me all you want, but unless I have worked with you extensively, AGF must be earned and I operate by "guilty until proven innocent". —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi. 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. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting close endorsed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade characters[edit]

Could it be that when you closed this, you forgot to delete one of the three nominated articles? --Crusio (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, must have been some kind of script error. Odd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Stephen[edit]

May I ask why you deleted an article that very clearly did not have consensus for deletion? It has been decided whether 100 students in a school is "notable" or not. Did you see the "rosh yeshiva" argument? There were actually more editors in favor of "Keep" on this article, therefore why delete it? As the head of a major Evangelical organization Stephen seems to meet the notability guidelines. Fountainviewkid 4:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because there are not reliable sources and the position he holds is not inherently notable. The consensus is based on assessing arguments against policy not counting snouts. If you disagree with my interpretation you are welcome to adduce further sources here or show me a consensus anywhere on wikipedia that the head of an institution with 100 students is notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never directly addressed either the "rosh yeshiva" argument, nor the fact that he was the head of organizations. Wikipedia doesn't really have a great policy when dealing with heads of major religious organizations. As the director of Affinity/FIEC/BEC I would argue he achieved notability. There are several secondary sources which say this including both Evangelical magazines which meet RS and can be considered secondary. Fountainviewkid 5:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm head of my organisation and I'm not notable so being head of any organisation doesn't make you notable. I didn't feel the rosj yeshiva argument was accepted widely in the discussion as relevant. Were the sources you refer to included in the article and discussed in the AFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were noted but not really ever discussed. The "delete" side only accused them of not being "primary" sources since Stephen had small affiliation with one of them. There were 2 or 3 magazines however and he wasn't affiliated with all of them. Both Evangelical Times and Evangelicals Now, as well as the Welsh Presbyterian Journal. Only E Now was he even partially affiliated with. And if you're the head of an organization may I ask, is this organization on wikipedia (as his is)? Also does it have 50,000 members and make up 500 separate churches (or groups) as his does? Also it's interesting that you say the Seminary is not notable because it appears to have survived an AFD. How does the seminary survive while he doesn't? If the Seminary is considered acceptable then I believe he should be as well based on the guidelines. It appears we have an inconsistency. Fountainviewkid 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say the seminary was non-notable? I said it wasn't a significant enough post for the job holder to be inherently notable. Arguments to the contrary need some form of policy basis so please feel free to provide that. As for the sources if they were present during the discussion and the neither the keep or delete side found them notable enough to discuss specifically then I don't think I can disregard the discussion and form my own opinion of the sources. There is plenty of evidence in the discussion of the sources being thoroughly reviewed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By arguing the seminary is not "a major institution" you essentially accuse it of being "non-notable", since the criterion for a Seminary to be included is that it must be considered a significant or "major" institution. I argue if it's notable enough to be included on Wikipedia then the director/President is probably notable enough to have an article on here, especially with his leadership in all the other areas. As for the sources, we brought them up. The delete side however simply dismissed them without good policy arguments. For example there are 2 Evangelical magazines in Britain which he has written for and 1 Presbyterian Welsh magazine which does a profile on him. Only one of the 3 is he even partially connected to, yet the Delete side argue that the source was not "secondary". Also you never mentioned the British Centre for Science Education which quotes Stephen as a "leading" and "notable" Intelligent design creationist. BCSE is notable organization which even has it's own article on Wikipedia (as does the British Evangelical Organization Stephen was director and later President of). The only debate about BCSE was if it was reliable since it was a "wiki". It was found however that it is a "closed" wiki which can only be edited by members who are a part of this organization. It was never shown that BCSE was an unreliable source. This provides another secondary source discussing Stephen, and not just a passing reference either. I seriously don't see how his Seminary, his church, all the organizations he directs, all the journals he publishes in, are notable but he is not? Fountainviewkid 23:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its irrekevant whether the institution is notable or not. The policy is WP:PROF which states (inter alia) :

The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. or

The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Prof goes on to provide a definition of what is meant by that:

Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc.

Now, my reading of that is that a seminary with 100 students is not a major institution of higher education. That was certainly more the view of the AFD. The problem with your approach to the sourcing is that you understandably don't understand how we use sources as the area is quite complex. So what we are looking for is laid out clearly in the WP:GNG and can be boiled down to multiple independent secondary sources that cover the subject in detail from a publication that has adequate peer review or fact checking. Other wikis are never considered to reliable because of the fact checking element and being quoted or interviewed count as primary sources and do not count. There were several analyses of sources in the discussion and the delete side's arguments were not refuted. Finally you need to look at WP:NOTINHERITED. The issue is that being part or head of a notable thing doesn't make you notable unless you meet a guideline. Essentially it seems like you are looking to find an excuse for the person to be notable rather then looking at the guidance and deciding whether he fits. That's one of the reasons why we discourage WP:COI from editing areas they feel passionate about as this passion affects their objectivity and they end up advocating for their pet POV rather then approaching the evidence objectively. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the guidelines, but I think we view them differently. They are guidelines and don't possibly cover every angle. I've already noted that I think one area they struggle in is religious institutions which may be "partially academic" but go far beyond such a definition. So who decided that the seminary with 200 students wasn't "a major institution of higher education"? If it's not in that category then how did it survive it's own AFD? It seems to me, from the evidence so far that such seminaries are more and more being considered "major institutions" even if they only have a couple hundred students. In Britain due to the circumstances such a seminary would be rather "major" in the Evangelical world. You made your decision to delete it, but obviously there was no consensus. And clearly there were arguments the opposite way. For example the "rosh yeshiva" argument. The only thing you've said to that is you didn't feel that argument was widely "accepted". Again it depends who you ask. Of course the Delete side wouldn't accept that but the Keep side certainly did. There wasn't really a strong way the "rosh yeshiva" argument could be knocked. And don't forget "rosh yeshiva" came from someone who was against that inclusion but recognized that since the community was starting to accept it, then a double standard should not be created (as the deletion of this article has done). I think we need more editors like Agricola in that regards. I read very carefully how sources are used to determine notability. The "other wiki" as you call it led to a discussion where some of your fellow admins took the opposite position as yourself. The BCSE was deemed reliable and a valid source by several. Certain other editors were more neutral and said "it depends". As for the "delete sides" arguments not being refuted, it depends which side you come down on. That's why I don't like the idea of one person simply reading a long debate seeing 2 equal sides and then somewhat arbitrarily supporting one of the sides. Especially because we are all biased by our previous ideas and experiences. I know other admins that would probably have given a different result as yourself. That's why "guidelines" are different than a "rulebook". I know about a person not inheriting notability from other organizations, however I also know that those other positions and organization can provide evidence and strengthen an argument for notability. I've looked at the guidelines as having many of our fellow editors. At least half that viewed the debate disagree with you and I guess "are just trying to find an excuse for Stephen to be notable"? If so, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree. I still don't know what WP:COI has anything to do with here, since the only thing I have in common with Stephen is that I'm a male and I'm a Christian. For me it's not about passion it's about objectivity and I see evidence that some editors may have certain biases against religious topics on issues of notability. You may not be one of these, however you have made some of the same arguments. Fountainviewkid 2:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the reason you feel I'm echoing some of the delete arguments is because these arguments reflect the widely held cross-wiki view of notability, sourcing and inclusion and I certainly don't feel that I have interpreted the guidelines incorrectly. We have almost 1000 active admins so I'm sure you can find plenty who might close differently but I'm consistent in my approach and reasoning. I can't help feeling that you probably need to look to establishing more of a cross-wiki consensus to include this kind of article. Maybe religious figures are under-represented but the problem is that the mainstream sources to allow the articles under our current polices simply are not there. Regrettable maybe but we have hardened our approach to unsourced BLPs or those with inadequate sourcing and my personal take is that this is a good thing as great harm can be done to people's real lives if we don't police our BLPs properly and part of that has to be having a realistic inclusion standard to disbars articles for very marginally or non-notable individuals. I think we probably have to agree to disagree here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the sources are there. The Evangelical magazines appear to be considered "mainstream sources" albeit focused on specific areas of interest. I still see a double standard especially with the religious articles. The fact that at least half of the commenting editors agree that Stephen meets the notability guidelines is a strong demonstration that while the delete arguments may reflect a widely held view, it is by no means necessarily even a majority view. The "rosh yeshiva" argument points this out rather nicely as it appears the community is heading towards considering leaders of 100-200 student religious seminaries as notable. I think the debate comes down to 1-What is a mainstream source, 2-Do we accept the "rosh yeshiva" argument 3-How strongly do positions of leadership in prominent organizations contribute to notability? I've seen some examples of non-notable people, but Stephen seems to be a leader in his field. Fountainviewkid 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we are going round in circles now. The sources have all been discussed in the AFD and the analysis was that they did not pass muster. Please show me a consensus anywhere that organisations with 100-200 students allow their deans to pass PROF? The Rosh Yeshiva argument has not gained consensus - if it has please point to me to the consensus. If Stephen is a leader in his field then we wouldn't be having the argument about sourcing would we? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis was that they did not pass muster? You mean one person made this decision? That or 10 out of 21 did. Either way there is still an element of arbitrariness in the whole process. I personally believe that the result was more like this example [2]. Truthfully there was no consensus on the Deletion discussion which is why it should been concluded in that matter. In deletion articles I was under the impression that consensus needs to be achieved (or at least a clear majority towards one position). The near even split demonstrates that to decide either way on this (keep or delete) rather than no consensus is to reach a conclusion not in line with the discussion. You're right that a full consensus may not have been achieved on rosh yeshiva but this example [3] as well as this one [4] both are evidences of rosh yeshiva's that exist because the community accepted the argument you rejected. How can these "rosh yeshiva's" pass AFD muster and not Stephen? From what I've read Stephen is far more notable than several of these leaders. Fountainviewkid 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Bearing Corp[edit]

Hello Mr. Spartaz. Would you please reconsider un-deleting "Pacific Bearing Corp"? You deleted it within one week of the Wizard commented about lack of eternal references. I was able to find some additional references; however, by the time I got back to editing the page, it had already been deleted. Please understand that this was my first attempt at an article creation and I thought I did a good job and was very thourough. I didn't realize that it wasn't acceptable to simply reference the company's website as it could be interpreted as corporate spam (oops). I did compare my article to similar articles about business (igus, DeWalt, Belden_Inc., Enfield_Cables) and thought it was much more thorough. If you are able to undelete this, I will be able to reference several trade magazines (which you listed as acceptable in your other messages). Thank you for your (re)consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schbrownie (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources you wanted to add? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources from major trade publications as wells as the local newspaper. (Typical sources would be: Rockford Register Star, Design World, Design News, Motion System Design, Machine Design, New Equipment Digest) (p.s. sorry for listing this at the top of the page) [Note: Machine Design has been in publication for 80 years and reaches +130,000 people, Motion System Design reaches +45,000, Design World reaches +40,000] Schbrownie (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schbrownie (talk[reply]
- Can you link the specific sources you are referencing or are they all offline? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the souces are magazine articles from the late 1980's and 1990's to show historical significance. These articles are not online (or you can not get to them without a paid account). The current websites are: http://www.designworldonline.com/, http://machinedesign.com/?p=1, http://motionsystemdesign.com/, www.rrstar.com . If you want/need details of the articles, let me know and I can summarize a few. Schbrownie (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, a summary of what they are would be really useful. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order to be respectful of your time, I will cite only a few. The following are some of the more recent articles, ones which have active (and freely accessible) web links. There are other aricles which relate to the company and their products, but these two show its importance to the motion control community. If you add these to the existing outside links that were already in the article, I think that this should be enough. If you need/want more, please let me know.
    - http://www.designnews.com/info/1740-Golden_Mousetrap_Finalists.php - this links shows that PBC Linear was selected as having one of the most innovative products (in its category) in 2009. There is a longer article to go along with this list, but I thought this would suffice for this purpose. Voting is done by an editorial board
    - http://www.designworldonline.com/articles/5114/21/PBC-Linear-Wins-Design-World-s-2009-Leadership-in-Engineering-Contest.aspx - This link shows that PBC won an annual award for "Leadership in Engineering". Voting is done by the subscribers of the magazine. (PBC received honorable mention in 2010 and is currently leading 2011)
    - http://www.hononegahlions.com/PDFs/HYSA%20Info%20Page%20%28Website%29%2012-21-05.pdf - this link details some of the company's involvement and contributions to the local community
    - Schbrownie (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly? I don't think these are quite good enough. But I'm happy to relist this for wider discussion of the sourcing. If you have access to the offline sources it would be extraordinarily helpful if they could be put online for a week and linked to allow other users to evaluate them. Not on wikipedia mind as we don't host copyrighted material for that purpose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your reconsideration. If possible, please give me a couple weeks to get the articles online as I don't get much edit time during the (work) week. Also, as a side note/question, how do we define "good enough" when it comes to sources? Wikipedia is not just a popular culture website, but rather a website that appeals to all people in all areas of focus. While it is a niche, as a subset of engineering and automation, the content in these magazines is applicable to people in all countries use bearings and automation. One of the publications has been around for 80 years and reaches more than 130,000 people (worldwide)! This has clearly withstood the historical test of time and 130,000 people is not exactly a small number.

Please don't take this question as argumentative or combaitve, that is not my intent. Rather, I am seeking to understand what is "good enough" so I can use that as a standard and apply it in my future work and add to this article appropriately. Schbrownie (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm talking about detailed covered - i.e lots of words not mentions in other context of awards or competition. So the more longer articles there are in trade magazines or the press the better. Usually the standard requirement is 2 decent sources. See WP:CORP for details of exactly what the inclusion criteria is. Winning awards depends on how widely respected and/or exclusive the award is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again for your reconsideration of this article. I have added more content and there also appears to be one more editor who is adding content; however, there is another party that keeps undoing everything that is added. The sources used are similar to those shown in other articles, so why wouldn't they be allowed in this one? A discussion is going on within the article's discussion page, but the "deleting editor" chooses to not take part in it and to only delete with little to no explanation. Before re-considering deletion, I would respectfully ask that you not only consider the article, but also the discussion page and the history of the article (if content has been recently deleted). Thank you again for your (re)consideration. Schbrownie (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article that was deleted/Jacques Duyver[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I need your advice please. A very successful South African businessman and entrepreneur has had his WIKI article page deleted that I put up for him. It was up for over 6 months, then deleted with no prior notification or any requests to please fix the article. I spent a good 3 months getting this page written the way Wikipedia wanted it written and now it's gone. Honestly Jacques Duyver is a very successful business man both in South Africa and the UK and is seen as one of the most influential entrepreneurs of his time in South Africa having revolutionized the PRINT industry. We really need this article back up, please advise what to do. comment added by User:SouthWiki

Hi, I deleted the page you linked to there as that's not the kind of thing we use here. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Duyver and the concern raised concerned whether the sourcing was sufficiently robust to meet our Inclusion threashold. If you read the essay linked to the big red box that flashes up when you edit my page it will explain what were are looking for and how you can challenge the deletion. Let me know what sources you find and I will happily evaluate and let you know if they will fix the issues. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, thank you your time. I have attached a list of external sources, plus online sources for Jacques Duyver. Please note that majority of his BIG news articles and stories have been offline, so the references to itecgroup.co.uk ALL have the offline publications saved as a PDF on the right side of the page if you wish to validate their authenticity. South Africa being realtively new in the online world didn't have any online PR sites or news sites until a couple of years ago so ALL the news from 1998 to around 2005 were all offline newspapers. Check it out and let me know, I hope you don't mind me pasting all of these in here:

THESE ARE BIOGRAPHY TYPE SITES: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/jacques-duyver-2004-11-19
http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/jacques-duyver-5820
http://www.fundilondon.com/team/jacques-duyver/
http://www.boostprivateequity.gg/about-jacques-duyver
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jacques-duyver/11/9a4/999
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=99672105&privcapId=23904071&previousCapId=24949760&previousTitle=Itec%20South%20Africa%20(Proprietary)%20Limited
http://www.jhnet.co.za/portfolio/websites/duyver/
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Jacques_Duyver
http://www.pcnewswatch.com/news-for-entrepreneurs-jacques-duyver/
http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Business/New_Business_Ventures_-_Jacques_Duyver_479473.html
comment added by User:SouthWiki

Do any of these meet WP:RS or WP:GNG? Rather then a shopping list it would be more effective if you found the best 2-3 and explained how they meet the requirements. It would take me ages to check all these and it seems a lot are PR and puffery sites that won't meet RS let alone GNG. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide this today. comment added by User:SouthWiki —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

NOTABILITY Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views...

TV Interviews: Reliable NEWS Source 1: SABC 3 interview (South Africa's leading News channel and the oldest news channel in South Africa) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv4MuzsqVz0&feature=player_embedded#at=14

Reliable NEWS Source 2: Summit TV interview (Summit TV is South Africa's only business channel similar to Bloomberg, except that it only focuses on African business.), please note that CNN and SKY News both stream African news from Summit TV - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3tPzzyrxMY&feature=player_embedded

Online PR Publications: Written by external sources - http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=647:itecs-r100m-uk-invasion&catid=69:business

New Source - Business Day (South Africa's number 1 online and offline newspaper for business) - http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=46328, this is a R230 million empowerment deal that was to assist the old and disabled in South Africa. Jacques was the main drive behind this.

Then on Notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline

Jacques Duvyer: 1. Massive involvement with GREEN initiatives in South Africa. The leader in GREEN printing solutions in Africa. http://www.itecgroup.co.za/NewsArticle//article_id/231/menu_id/0 (you can download external articles published in BRAINSTORM, leading SA business magazine from our site) http://www.itecgroup.co.za/NewsArticle//article_id/265/menu_id/0 (you can download external articles published in BUS?INESS IT, leading SA business magazine from our site)

Jacques Duyver and his business ITEC Group have a massive invovlement in assisting South Africans in need through a massive empowerment deal see external news source: http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=46328 comment added by User:SouthWiki —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, none of that is any use or counting towards notability. Interviews are primary sources and do not count in any way. Profiles/cut into interviews are dubious and PR sites absolutely don't count. The business day article is about the company not the person. Green initiatives from the company website are no use either. Sorry but I'm not undeleting on the basis of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, please can you tell me... all the news sources are OFFLINE! Newspapers, clippings etc.. This is South Africa man, online was not a news source until 5 years ago. Please tell what you need. It's all offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southwiki (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pampi1010/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems[edit]

According to you, "There seems to be a very clear consensus that concerns about the use of unfree images to create a gallery of seals and logos." But I have deleted that part. The article will not contain anymore non-free images. Thank you! Pampi1010 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are the remaining images all incontrovertibly free licensed? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am uploading new images, all are released in public domain, and are hundred of years old. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Milam Elementary School[edit]

Hi, would you take another look at this close, please? As you acknowledge, there wasn't a consensus for 'redirect'. You used the rationale "its the vote that represents the widely accepted approach". This is the widely accepted approach for most elementary schools but not for those that are 'Blue Ribbon Schools'. Up to now, 'Blue Ribbon Schools' have invariably been kept. The article obviously needed much reworking, but that is an editorial matter. I respectfully suggest that 'no consensus' would have better reflected the debate. TerriersFan (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a consensus or previous example or two where a blue ribbon school has kept against what was previously considered the standard approach? Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)[edit]

This single has now charted, so can you please reinstate the article? Thanks. Paul237 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point to the source? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_singles.asp?chart=1U50 Please note that I'm not the same user as the above. I came across the single on another website and wanted to check when it was released. I had to click on "view history" to read wikipedia's article on the subject. It's quite absurd, really. --175.138.195.127 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This was the same source I would have linked to. :) Paul237 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Its charted. CRYSTAL no longer applies... Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - About this article. A user called Petergriffin9901 keeps deleting an alternative single cover that I uploaded, saying that it doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the article. However, many articles for singles have two cover arts. And why does having one single cover aid the reader's understanding, while an alternative cover doesn't? It just seems very petty to me. He got snippy with me, rather than discuss it though, so are you able to settle it? Thanks. Paul237 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Lithuanian places in other languages[edit]

Hello Spartaz:

You closed this case as no consensus. I'm not objecting to your decision, just trying to get an understanding of the deletion process.

I asked my question HERE in a general way, not referring to a particular case. Perhaps you would look at that. It is not a long discussion.

To summarize my question, how far in one direction or the other does a discussion have to lean for it to be a consensus?

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, I could have deleted this and dismissed the keep arguments as lacking a policy base - the argument that something is useful is not grounded in any policy and its not uncommon for weak arguments to be given much less weight then policy based arguments. The deletion argument based on NOTDIR and indiscriminate represent a core policy and therefore had a lot of weight but much of this was plain assertion rather then a detailed exposition of why this was the case. What stayed my hand was that a lot of users gave detailed reasons why they felt the list wasn't indescriminate and opinion was evenly split. In essence, there was no keep consensus - the arguments to keep were weak. There was pretty much a delete consensu based on policy but much of the basis was assertion and the keep side did just enough in my opinion that I felt we should give the article some leaway to see how it develops - especially as later keep arguments were allowed to stand unchallenged. That's pretty much within the admins closing discretion in cases where the actual consensus is within a range of opinion where different interpretations of policy or different weightings of arguments allow valid outcomes in different directions. Does this help? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes that greatly helps my understanding. It's a complicated "business" you/we are in.

I cannot resist asking one more question.. I PROMISE not to ask any further questions about this close. (Please understand that I'm seeking to learn, not to debate your decision.)

The following is part of my KEEP argument.

(Quote) "Here is the beginning of the first pillar of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Five pillars.--- "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

The article in question fits reasonably well under the second sentence." (End of quote)

Does the argument that the article is a specialized gazetteer and thus falls within the "first pillar" carry weight or would you regard it as a sort of creative fantasy?

Thank you and best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, it is very complicated and its one of the reasons why deletion discussions are so contentious. One side or the other generally doesn't weight opposing arguments in the same way the closing admin will and this leads to friction. The Gazetter argument didn't register in my mind with the close but one of the things that did was a general view that keep side was arguing that this was encyclopedic content even if it didn't quite match the usual metrics for inclusion. I see this kind of thing from time to time i.e a gallery of flags or rank insignia meets on the face of it the deletion argument as indescriminate information but I remember being fascinated by similar galleries in paper encyclopedias when I was a child so I do generally give arguments along those lines much more weight then policy might normally allow. In fact, now I think about it more, that is probably why I closed as NC instead of delete. Another point is that it had been relisted for further discussion and I do pay more attention to opinions given after a relist as there is generally a truth that there is no consensus up to the point of the relist and the views expressed afterwards are generally helpful to see which way the discussion is tilting based on the discussion up to then. A lot of early comments aren't reviewed in the light of further evidence produced so its not always possible to give early views the same weight as later ones based on reviewing extra sources etc, So a lot of deleted followed by a what about these sources where a couple of users endorse the sources and noone objects is a keep in my book despite a numerical advantage for the deletes. Obviously if the deletes come back and effectively refute the sources then it stays delete. Complicated? No? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visible penis line[edit]

Correct your close of the Visible penis line AfD to reflect the fact that the term is not mentioned within an entry at the Wiktionary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the nomination - if this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered [my bolding] Is this not correct? As AFD closer its my job to evaluate the discussion so I can't really be neutral if I then start researching the article and the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to Wiktionary:Visible penis line but there appears to be no text there.... --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best you sort that out with the nominator then I guess. Let me know what the outcome is and I'll revisit the close if necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, how would I access a copy of the text of the deleted article? (I wish to adapt it for an article I'm about to write titled Crotch bulge.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could ask the deleting admin to userfy the article for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (You still haven't corrected your close's statement that the topic is covered at Wiktionary, though.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange. I went to the close and it says that the deleting admin was you.... Could you userfy the deleted article for me?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problems, you only had to ask. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its now sitting at User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden/Visible penis line. Have fun :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got crotch bulge watchlisted already!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol @ Milowent. I've broached the subject here: Talk:Cameltoe#Suggested re-naming]. (Btw you still haven't fixed your close's reference to the non-existent Wiktionary entry.) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith that when the nom said it was covered in Wikt that was correct. maybe the search needs to be a bit different. I don't know but if this bugs you so much please discuss with the nom and let me know the outcome. I already said something along these lines earlier in the thread. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I incorrectly assumed it'd be you who'd care about an inadvertent mis-statement, or something that at least could be interpreted that way. After all, top-flight newspapers which regularly print corrections of the most minor sort. IAC, Wiktionary:Visible penis line obviously has never existed: if it had ever been deleted, it would say so on the empty page, just as is the case with the English-language Wikipedia. Apparently the nom got confused and assumed that this was the case, since there is an entry at Wiktionary:Mooseknuckle. I don't think visible penis [out]line merits its own dictionary entry, however. Although it is a reasonbly concise description in plain English of a common phenomenon, as a precise coinage it's fairly rare.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme[edit]

The result of this AFD should have been "no consensus" at the very least, though there seemed to be a consensus (with no objections) to merge the content to a new article. It seems evident that the process was hijacked by a cult hoping to elevate this non-notable figure.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

subguidelines supplement the GNG so if something passes GNG it stays even if it fails the sub-guideline. Deletion arguments were around POLITICIAN but noone seriously refuted the argument that there were multiple reliable sources. That = keep in my book. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the major question brought up was depth; whether the coverage of the subject was trivial or comprehensive. If you look at the sources you will see that the figure is trivial and discussed only in the context of the notable subject of satirical candidacy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I look at the sources then I'm substituting my opinion on the sources for the sense of the discussion. That's not what the closing admin should do. We can't close on the basis of arguments that no-one has made in the discussion. No-one on the delete source really made a strong case that the sources were inadequate - just relying on POLITICIAN so if the sources are deemed OK by the discussion then the only issue for the closing admin is to decide whether N/GNG or POLITICIAN are more relevant guideline to apply. DRV has consistantly argued that subguidelines cannot negate N/GNG so if something passes that its irrelevant what the subguideline says. So for me the policy was clear and this was a keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi ... leaving this in your hands, as I'm not sure of the answer. I would think we don't simply recreate deleted articles in article talk pages, and that if we do we collapse them, but I see that has been done here. Might you take a look, and do (or not do, as the case may be) whatever you think is best? Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. You can't merge deleted content and hosting a cut and paste job like that breaks the attribution. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Would you tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love) with <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2011 June 11}}</noinclude>? The AfD page is protected. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed and unlocked. Thanks for the heads up Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request[edit]

Could you move Cameltoe to Camel toe? Per (with hat-tip to user:Enric Naval): Partridge's "dictionary of modern American slang and unconventional English", "Sex slang" from Routledge, Mo' Urban Dictionary and another Urban Dictionary from Andrews McMeel Publishing--it is seen that dictionaries universally list this compound slang term in the unjoined form.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to check whether you'd helped with this request or another administrator did, but in either case, thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is not going to result in a speedy. If you intended to vote Keep, as I believe you did, I think you need to say so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 8[edit]

I think you accidentally deleted the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 8. Unless I'm wrong and there was a reason to delete that page, can you please restore it. Calathan (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry script malfunction and I think when I checked my logs it wasn't showing deleted so I thought I got to it in time. Very very sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel González[edit]

Hi Spartaz, can you please restore that deleted article and userfy it for me, just because I don't want my work to be lost :) thank you Diego Grez (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian combat arts[edit]

Hello Spartaz, you were the closing administrator in a recent deletion discussion on Italian martial arts where the result was deletion (14 June 2011). Although I was not involved in the discussion, I did take a look at the article out of interest. In recent work on another issue, I noticed that the Italian combat arts article had been created, apparently later the same day that the Italian martial arts article was deleted. From my recollection of the first article, it seemed that the second article was clearly a straightforward reproduction of the first (deleted) article. I placed a speedy deletion request on the second article (CSD G4) and also posted a note on the creating contributor's talk page. I noticed just now that a second contributor has contested the speedy deletion, but then a third contributor has replaced the deletion request, only for it to be removed again. (I do not believe either of the latter two contributors is an administrator, but I have not checked thoroughly.) Just bringing this to your attention as the closing administrator on the deletion discussion, in case it is appropriate for you to comment or act on this. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The other editor who tried speedying was me - I didn't notice Janggeom's previous speedy attempt. AFAIK this is pretty much word for word the same article. There's some valid material in here as was mentioned in the AfD but overall it was and remains SYNTH. The editor who removed the speedy didn't give a valid reason, hasn't done any work on the article and place a pretty weird comment on my talk page, so I have no realistic hopes of this article being improved. andy (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The perfect solution to this situation is probably to put some sourced content into the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spartaz, I am the author of the articles on “Italian Combat arts” and “Italian Martial Arts” . The article was cancelled and the reason given is that there were no “sources”. Yet I had included numerous references (more than 20) and sources (organizations that practice the Art, in Italy, England and the United States). Nowadays there are at least 5,000 practitioners in Italy and more than 20,000 practitioners in the English speaking world. Let me repost here some of the sources that were overlooked by the “experts” who decided to delete (one of the experts even admitted he had not looked at all the material provided). Here you will realize that Italian Martial Arts are now practiced internationally:

Italian Martial Arts at Chicago Swordplay Guild
Italian Martial Arts at Rocky Mountain Swordplay Guild
Italian Rapier at Accademia della Spada

and even in your own country, England (see link below).

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/

Moreover, at least in Italy there are competitions and tournaments organized at the National Level as these videos from you tube prove:

FISAS championship of medieval fencing
FISAS National Championship, category Rapier and dagger

Thirdly: these skills have been proven on the battlefield and, not just 500 years ago.

The Alpini Units who served and saw actual combat in Afghanistan were trained in hand-to-hand and dagger combat by Prof. Merendoni (whose school was named in the deleted article). And so were the Lagunari who fought at the “battle of the bridges” in Nassyria against the Iraqi insurgents.

In WWI the “Arditi” assault troops fought in at least 20 engagements, capturing Austrian and German trenches armed with daggers. I had listed two references, including General Erwin Rommel who at the time was a leutenant and found himself at the receiving end of an Arditi incursion in his own trench. The sources cited were:

Italian Arditi: Elite Assault Troops 1917-20. Osprey; Paperback; March 2004; 64 pages; ISBN 9781841766867 Erwin Rommel, Infantry Attacks, Zenith Press 2009, ISBN 0-7603-3715-2

Many centuries ago there were more examples of the effectiveness of the italian style of swordsmanship: the battles in question are recorded in history and anybody can verify the claims made in the articles (nevertheless I had added the proper references in the deleted article).

Examples were the Battle of Arbedo (1422) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arbedo were Lombard Man at Arms armed with swords annhilated the heretofore invincible swiss pikemen.

There are of course more examples: The battle of Calliano (1487) pitting the venetians against the Landsknecht; The exploits of Giovanni the Medici against the Landsknecht (1527) and of Gian Giacomo Trivulzio against the swiss at Marignano. The Battle of Nordlingen (1634) against the swedes. All of these can be verified by anyone willinig to do a minimum of historical research.

If we go further back in time you can also find the “Battle of Watling Street” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street) and the Battle of Mons Graupius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Graupius) if one wants to have further confirmation of the effectiveness of the italic method of combat based on the point.

All these things should make a martial art notable. Let us compare with some “notable martial arts” which were given the privilege of being listed on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_martial_arts

while the article on Kenpo, when following the links available leads to this page:

http://www.nickcerioskenpo.com/

which shows a martial art as dead as its founder.

Finally, there are many jokes still going around about the cowardice of Italian soldiers in WWII. Let us laugh together then: In WWII after the 8th of september 1943 not all italians surrendered. The Northern Italians created the Italian Social Republic and fought against the allies for 600 more days. In this video you will see footage of Italian soldiers executed by firing squad after the “official” surrender of Italy because they kept on fighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2TdwsMwWM. By comparison the japanese surrendered to the allies before a single marine set foot on the Japanese mainland, when the Emperor ordered them to do so. The italians instead called their king a traitor, founded a republic and fought on for 600 more days. THIS IS HISTORY!!!

Not what you think this is[edit]

Spartaz, YOu may want to re-check your comment on [| this]. You closed it as "deletion endorsed per consensus". Even though I'm the one that is nominating it for deletion, I think the consensus is not for deleteion. (Don't get me wrong, it's an attack page and should be deleted, but consensus wasn't for delete ) Perhaps you meant "deletion not endorsed " ? KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 11:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple typo, don't worry. Though I'm puzzled as to why you still think it should be deleted when (literally) dozens of people have said it shouldn't. m.o.p 12:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, it's an attack page. And yes, I figured it was a typo, but because I'm involved I didn't want to change it.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 12:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Slightly dull moment on my part I guess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Daoud Bokhary closed as no consensus[edit]

As the nominator for the deletion, I would like to know the detailed reasons behind your decision. Many thanks. STSC (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I thought there were valid keep and delete arguments and I didn't feel that either argument had gained a clear consensus either way and it seemed there wasn't a killer argument either way that might make a relist and further discussion something that would lead to a clearer outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you thought that the "keep" argument was valid (to satisfy the multiple secondary sources requirement)? STSC (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were two fallacies in the interpretation of notability you advanced in the AFD. Firstly that significant coverage has to be exclusively/primarily about the subject and, secondly, that sources have a validity period. You and the deletes argued that the Standard and Dawn articles were inadequate and the keep side argued that they were enough. Neither side had a clear consensus so the outcome remains no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "fallacies" you mentioned were just side issues developed during the debate. The main issue was always the "multiple secondary sources requirement" as stated in my introduction. The "keep" side had mostly argued on "reliability" which was not an issue. I would like the case re-listed to get more inputs from other editors. STSC (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not side issues, you were seeking to refute the keep votes on the sources with non-policy based reasons and there was no-consensus in the discussion. I don't see any point relisting this as arguments on both sides had been aired and neither argument had primacy. If you want to appeal you can go to DRV but its rarer then a snowball in hell for a no consensus close to be overturned. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a renomination would be the better option. Thank you for your time. STSC (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting question[edit]

There are questions about why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1899 VMI Keydets football team, would you mind returning there and commenting on your thoughts behind relisting this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a clear consensus and thought further discussion would be beneficial.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate it if you posted your thoughts on the relisting in the AFD rather than here as I'm not the only editor who was confused by the relisting. Also a bit more detail in what you hope to occur in that relisting other than "further discussion" would be helpful.--RadioFan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulenz[edit]

Would you be willing to take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulenz? It appears that all the keep !votes have few or no edits outside of the topic. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, could you explain the reasoning for a no concensus? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

essentially when I closed this the delete votes were based on sources and then the Vator.tv source was brought in at the end of the discussion and not challenged. It wasn't clear that the deletion votes were still valid based on this source so I felt this was no-consensus. Certainly not a keep but not clearly a delete. In retrospect I can see looking at the source that its pretty poor but I'm wary of substituting my opinion on the source as that smacks of a supervote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the reasoning, then should you not have closed it as keep? If the delete !votes were no longer valid, all that is left is the keep !votes. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really no, because its one opinion that it was a valid source and no-one else had supported it and, as you said, the other keep votes were worthless. The GNG requires multiple sources so on its own the source wouldn't have got it over the line but I thought there was just enough to make the delete consensus unclear. I'm not strongly wedded to the close but I really don't see a keep consensus there. NC or delete are the only valid outcomes there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I was trying to get at is that you've simply ignored the delete !votes based on a single poor source added by an SPA to arrive at a no concensus. I don't agree. Will you reconsider the outcome? -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have not ignored any votes but its long standing custom to allow for improvement during an AFD and a deletion argument based on sources is surely not very strong if someone then produces a source? No? Anyway, obviously the issue is the source and I have no objection to relisting the AFD for further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A relisting would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And its done... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic[edit]

You deleted this informative and encyclopedic article and I would like to pursue due process regarding your decision to delete, as it seems like an arbitrary deletion on your part as those wishing deletion were in a minority and you arbitrarily sided with their point of view when their arguments were in fact terribly weak. Per Deletion review, I am supposed to discuss this with you before filing a deletion review. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be a discussion? It seems more like a stream of invective so you can pretend to have addressed the close with the admin before a predetermined DRV. Perhaps, it might flow easier if you actually tried this without the wild accusations and addressed the specifics of my close and how my interpretation of the arguments fitted against policy. Remember consensus is not a vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC) In retrospect I shouldn't have responded when tired and stressed after a long day. I took your message much worse then it actually is. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing uncivil nor inapproriate toward you and stand by every word I have said since I am following the proper recommended procedure perfectly. I do note the considerable emotion in your response to my attempt at discussion which was matter-of-fact and emotionless. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets look at the discussion and my reasoning for the close. Firstly, the relevant policy is the GNG which requires the presence of multiple reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Sources are required to specifically address the subject of the article and per arguments to avoid in deletion discussions assertions and unevidenced claims carry much less weight then specific sources and policy based arguments. The onus is on the keep side to produce sources if they are challenged. Original research was cited as a specific concern, which means that sourcing and verification are paramount in the discussion. Now to analyse the discussion.

Nomination :- Addresses policy directly. Highlights issues with lack of sourcing, cogently explains why there are issues with OR and also raises an inherent POV issue. Solid policy based vote

Your vote Cited Its interesting and can be sourced. Both arguments are not policy based and carry very little weight. You argued through assertions rather then producing any sources.

IP 149.... Again, a pure assertion of usefulness and desire for better sourcing. Not a strong vote and accorded little weight in the close.

Evertype Indicates a previous attempt to improve the article through discussion, raises a specific issue to evidence their contention of OR and also supports the V argument about the sourcing. A very solid policy based vote.

Stuartyeates argues for deletion by citing OR and challenging the value of some of the websites the article is based on. Good policy based argument if a bit Me Too.

Angr comments that they don't understand the nomination and that the sources could be improved. It also discusses the scope of the article This isn't a policy based argument and I also note that Evertype challenged the vote by reinforcing the lack of sources.

Frédéric Grosshans essentially addresses the content of the article which is outside the scope of a deletion discussion but does reflect concerns about sourcing and the article scope. Something of a me too and given less weight as a weak argument

kwami makes a comment not a vote but challenges the scope of the discussion and essentially this is a Sofixit which isn't a valid argument. Not a vote and not persuasive.

Kanguole suggests a rewrite and refocusing of the content. Not really relevant to whether this article should stay.

Hermione is a dude uses a bald assertion that the content is well known and suggests that better sources would help. They clearly have no sources to offer as they suggest asking some wikiprojects for help.

In conclusion, the keep side did not in my opinion put forward any strong arguments based on policy to refute deletion arguments based on sourcing, OR and V. Everyone accepted that the sourcing was inadequate and the split was those who felt that sources could be provided and those who felt that it should be deleted. The argument that sources could be provided actually cuts no ice whatsoever in a deletion discussion as the rule tends to be source it or lose it. Its really simple, If you have sources you provide them in the AFD and if the sources are accepted as RS it gets kept. If you don't have sources it gets deleted. That's policy based and in accordance with deletion practise. If you want this back DRV will expect you to provide sources and policy based reasons for inclusion - not a nose count in the discussion because WP:CONSENSUS requires the closing admin to weigh arguments not tabulate the votes. I hope you now see that I did indeed analyse the various arguments against policy and that my close reflected the policy based arguments in the discussion. If you wish to provide further sources for me to review that's fine. If you want to go to DRV that's fine too but I ask that you include my analysis of the voting in your nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dropping by, the problem is rather simple: the subject is notable, but there were no references at all. This is a classic example of WP:OR, unless you can find a source. Spartaz made the only possible decision--there is no way an encyclopedia can include such material on faith alone. I can't see there will be any serious objections to a new sourced article, if you can find good sources from the academic literature--the people who said the content is inaccurate will need to find sources for their alternative theory, which could then be included. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge assistance related to Newcomb's Tables of the Sun[edit]

I would like to execute the decision found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcomb's formula. I have already added the relevant information to Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, and while there is still plenty of good material that could be added, it is in better shape than Newcomb's formula. I noticed that when other people merge articles, there is a whole series of deletions and tricks to merge histories of the article and talk page. Is it necessary to be an administrator to do those tricks? If not, can you point to a location that shows how to do it? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxing AfDs[edit]

In light of your recent closure, you might want to check out the continuing attacks on me here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Critical Countdown 2004. I have consistently argued on policy grounds for deletion, but I feel that kickboxing fans display strong ownership of these articles and will resort to personal attacks to get their way. thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should be able to see through that and I'm sure you know your way to the appropriate DR mechanisms for that. I'm not great in managing behaviour on wiki so I tend not to do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta edit warring close[edit]

The defense for 3RRs does not apply if there is not consensus that it's unambiguously a NFCC violation, and Delta's assertion that it is is being rejected by multiple other admins and editors, which demonstrates lack of consensus. It's procedurally incorrect to assert that the defense is valid because it exists; the controversy over its validity in fact automatically disqualifies it.

Quoting from 3RR:

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

This is a logic jump too far.

Please undo the close. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. In one fell swoop you managed to elevate the essay to part of NFCC policy. - J Greb (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. The only thing unquestionable here is that 3RR was exceeded and that beta/delta edit-warred. Please reverse your close. Thanks. R. Baley (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop forum shopping. This was a valid close, especially given the history and repeated number of times Ive been dragged to AN3RR for similar cases only to be proven correct. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the close. It clearly wasn't a straightforward violation so the AN3 discussion clearly wasn't going to lead to a block. If any of you think a block is merited then my closing the discusion isn't going to prevent you using your judgement is it... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what those above and elsewhere are concerned about is what precedent such a close might set. You've closed it as "No vio", whereas perhaps "No action taken" might be a more acceptable closure summary - with a suggestion to discuss the matter at a more appropriate general venue to determine whether edit warring over what many consider to be a subjective interpretation of the non-free content criteria qualifies for the 3RR exemption. That there is such a division is itself an indication that "unquestionably" does not apply in this instance. –xeno^talk 12:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to that is that one admin closing an an3 report does not a meta consensus make and whether you go no action or no vio its still not a straightforward block of the type that AN3 was designed to deal with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lone Ranger (film project)[edit]

At the discussion above no one was proposing that the article be "kept"... and there was some unaddressed and apparent misunderstanding of Deletion policy's instructions toward the intent of WP:INCUBATION. The relevent section states "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted". As the article was not yet ready for mainspace, and as a per WP:INCUBATION guideline, a rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time, and a willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article, would you please either move the article to Wikipedia:Article incubator/The Lone Ranger (film) for collaborative editing, or barring that, please userfy it to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Lone Ranger (film) where I will invite those aforementioned interested editors to contribute to its growth and improvement. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, MQS also asked me to do this, but you were the closing admin. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. What's there isn't adequately sourced and I tend to take the view that starting from scratch is a better option in a case like this but I don't feels trong;y about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no probem with the deletion, and agree that the article did not meet notability requirements. I wished the incubation or userfication to preserve the editing history, and intended a rewrite during a subsequent expansion and sourcing. Were I to simply copy the article from goggle cache and without the history, I do not think I would be properly respecting or attributing the work of others, even if I were to modify it later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. This is now userfied Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best reagrds, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulenz[edit]

While looking at this AFD, I noticed that VQuakr had struck through this comment because he couldn't figure out where it came from...

Keep Sources cited are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As Cullen328 correctly points out, a source does not need to be solely devoted to a topic to establish a presumption of notability for the topic, merely to cover the topic in more than a trivial fashion. WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "significant, interesting, or unusual" are subjective judgments; if I may be permitted to quote a very good essay on this topic, "notability is not fame and importance, [and] notability is not subjective". Deletion is called for when an article fails WP:N or passes it but fails WP:NOT; neither case has been demonstrated here. cab (call) 8:40 am, 20 June 2011, Monday (12 days ago) (UTC+4)

After picking apart the history I couldn't figure it out either but now it seems to have been added by you when you undid your close. Was this your !vote or am I missing something else buried in the history?. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not mine, I don't vote if I relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Women's Sevens[edit]

Re: your decision to merge this article with the Rome Sevens article.

This would be fine but for one small problem. All of the other women's rugby tournament page (pretty much all of which I have created) are separate from the men's page (Hong Kong, Dubai, Six Nations, etc. etc.), mainly because of objections I had from those responsible for editing the men's pages when I tried to add women's information to them. If there has been a change of heart in the rugby community about this then great - we can merge ALL of the pages. If not, surely it is inconsistent to merge just one? Especially when the Rome Sevens (men's) article currently does not contain the same information as the women's (ie. no match results).

If people object to the term "Roma" in the title, well that is the title given to the tournament by those running it on their English language webpage - see [5]. I fail to see the problem in using that instead of "Rome" if that is what they wveryone associated with the event calls it! Johnlbirch (talk)

Are not the Roma and Rome Sevens the same thing? If so, the consensus is we use the common Anglicised title not the direct transliteration. So Moscow not Moskva & Kiev not Kyiv. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Dreamed of Africa[edit]

I came across this deletion since the film poster was listed as orphaned. The reasoning for your deletion was the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airagwani, but I Dreamed of Africa was not one of the articles listed as being up for deletion, it was simply used as why an editor though Ol Ari Nyiro Ranch should have been kept. This article clearly passed WP:FILMNOT and as such you should reverse your deletion of this film article that had nothing to do with the Kenyan places deletion discussion. Aspects (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was a script error. I have undeleted and fixed the DL tag. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad that I could point out a script error so that it will not occur again. Thank you for restoring the article. Aspects (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WITHDRAWN on Articles for deletion/Marshall ShredMaster[edit]

I have withdrawn this nomination because I included an excessively wide range of similar articles. Could you please speedy keep? I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this, I'm new at this. Thanks. Kilmer-san (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'll have a look if I get time. I looked yesterday and there seemed a lot of articles to take tags off - which isn't much fun. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool[edit]

I'm letting you know I will be recreating the page Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool, which you are responsible for deleting, soon per the request on the edit page template. If you want to discuss it in the meantime there is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King's_Field_Making_Tool. If you want to elevate the AfD beyond the level of the page itself that's fine. If not, please leave it alone. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't address the reasons for deletion from the AFD then it will get deleted G4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for deletion were already addressed when the article was deleted...--72.173.2.163 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreeing with the outcome of a discussion is not an excuse to ignore the substance of it. The fact that you did not win other editors over to your point of view should surely indicate that this isn't notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Moveable_Museum[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Moveable_Museum -- you relisted it on 9-July. I think the page would be better talking about mobile museums in general, and so I renamed it and changed the focus. Wxidea (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell[edit]

I am rather distressed by your strange decision to close this as "no consensus". The summary seemed to imply TL;DR, which is not an acceptable rationale for a closure. I seldom find fault with your decisions, but feel you went astray with this one; I wanted to bring it here before going to deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how I could have closed that any other way. Finding a consensus on the sourcing in the garbage strewn ruins of that discussion is simply impossible. It's not TLDR but so much crap its impossible to read a consensus. This isn't pointed at you but I was sorely tempted to block some of the other participants for wasting electrons. If you can find another admin willing to find a consensus there I'm more then happy for you to invite them to reclose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GenerateXY[edit]

As this AfD's closing admin, I wanted to bring to your attention that two articles were nominated in that AfD, with a consensus to delete both, but only GenerateXY was deleted (the author has since re-created it, and a CSD tag has been placed there as a result). Tankogen was also nominated (and the AfD tag regained on the article until the author removed it after the AfD was closed), but was accidentially not deleted. I have tagged the second article for deletion under G6. Singularity42 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. All taken care of. Singularity42 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Cant you count? On my article More votes said Keep than delete. So why delete it? Goldblooded (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can you reference the article or deletion discussion please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the AfD being referred to. (I've been busy reverting his post-closure comments there). Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that. I don't think that close is out of process at all.Noone has any sources and wikiprojects can't override a sitewide consensus on inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links?[edit]

I see you deleted Special Operations Forces Tier System (not that I particularly care, although it seemed modestly reasonable content to me), but it created a lot of red links in other articles, which might grate on our readers - maybe you could fix them all? Noel (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piña, Darién[edit]

Hello. I'd like to discuss this close, as it's at odds not only with the existing guidelines on general notabiity, it also ignores the guidelines to administrators on determining rough consensus. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are also bound by overarching community consensuses and have to be aware of what the general view of specific types of article are. I closed this on the basis of Wikipedia:Common_outcomes#Places since my reading of the discussion was that since a site had been found to confirm the existence of this as a place of habitation, the overarching consensus on such articles is that they are inherantly notable. I don't agree with that myself and I'd personally like to sweep away a lot of perma stubs on barely notable places but admins are supposed to find a consensus from what the community thinks not use their own interpretation of notability to close stuff. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding so promptly! My concern is that that page may not reflect true consensus, and (at least in this case) is in opposition to... wait, I'm repeating myself. I'm pretty torn on this: I think your stance is reasonable, but I'm deeply uncomfotrable with the outcome itself. A deletion review would probably be a drama-fest and would again be only a tiny cross-section of the population. Thinking while typing, a request for comment also seems like a sub-optimal choice. In the absence of anything else, A) Do you have any objections to DRv, 2) Any other suggestions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind you taking it to DRV but verified locations are always going to be upheld, but feel free to ask. It will make a change for me to taken to DRV for keeping something rather then for a deletion. I'd be interested to know what the grounds would be. Disagreeing with the close never gets you anywhere unless you can show the admin was unreasonable or ignored policy. I'd say you were on a loser on both. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, what I'm wanting isn't so much "reverse this" since (like I said I think you were reasonable) as "discuss this" since (per my reading) the "past consensus says" page doesn't align with our other policies and guidelines. I also have only the tiniest shred of investment in this particular case as opposed to the larger question of how we collectivly handle these, so that article staying or going... *shrug* I'm just thinking out loud right now, but I wanted to go ahead and get permission in advance to shoot myself in the foot. Thanks again,
      Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've also re-read my first comment here and it didn't sound at all like I meant it. I need to get better at adding "softeners" in, I think. Sorry I was brusque when I only meant to be brief.

DRV is the wrong venue to discuss the policy. I think you would better looking for a neutral policy talk page to raise a discussion. if you get traction then an RFC would be the next step. And no worries, I didn't read any rudeness in your earlier comments - but then I remember you from way back even before you were an admin and I knew you aren't snarky. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Frangicetto[edit]

Hey I'd like to talk about the deletion of Colin Frangicetto's page, guitarist of the band Circa Survive, also has a side project called Psychic Babble and does a lot of art work, too. I know the page was considered a stub, and that there were not enough sources at first... but I added a lot of content and links to confirm the information was true and abundant. Please get back to me with whatever I might need to get his page back up on wiki. I'm new to editing articles so any assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrevrhodes (talk • contribs) 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find better sourcing you are basically not going to get anywhere. Try asking Chubbles as they are really good at finding sources for obscure musicians. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Is spin.com not a big enough source though? I feel like there was a lot of useful info. Colin's band has a top 10 album on billboard as well. Mrevrhodes

(talk page stalker)That makes the band notable; it does not make him notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spin's article is about Colin. Not Circa Survive. Mrevrhodes (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice re: BLP and consensus[edit]

I'm trying to understand the process here. And I'm trying to understand your note [6].

The WP:BLP page focuses on how information must be verifiable, well-referenced and NPOV. Giving the _facts_ of a libel lawsuit, as described in the NY Times _clearly_ meets that standard. So, I'm curious why _you_ think it was a violation of WP:BLP.

Secondly, a question about consensus. How can consensus be achieved when one person insists that things must be done his way? Can a single editor decide what BLP means, and censor every page to his own personal standards?

Or is there some other process to prevent a "fanatical" defender of privacy from removing notable, well-referenced, verifiable information from articles?

Thanks for your thoughts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting from the wrong point here. Everything you write shows that you are determined to include this content but this is a collegiate environment where other editors working to the same policies and rules may legitimately take a diametrically opposed view. This is where consensus comes in - a process of discussing the issues until a suitable compromise is reached. In the meantime editors are supposed to wait for the consensus to appear before resuming the edit that is opposed. Edits that are challenged as BLP vios are specifically prohibited from being reinstated until there is a clear consensus on the point. Therefore Rob was acting legitimately in reverting out the edit until that consensus has emerged. What you should have done is waited to revert until there was a clear consensus to include the material. I'm not actually taking a position on the edit. It may well be that you have the right but what has happened is that your actions have disrupted the discussion of the point because the issue has become the revert warring rather then what the consensus is on whether or not its a BLP vio. That's not helpful and being disruptive does, in my experience of 5 years on the project, lead other users to be less likely to support your point of view. Does this help you understand where my comments were coming from and how you can better handle issues like this in the future? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might see it that way. But I've promoted every compromise I can think of: adding additional information to give more context to allegations in the libel suit _or_ deleting the thing entirely. And, I'd like to think that I understand the basic ideas of consensus and compromise. Though, correct me if I'm wrong, consensus is only possible if all parties involved are welcome those ideas.

Here was one recent comment from rob on the BLP noticeboard:

"Dude, unless your a typist looking for practice you should stop wasting your time posting here - we are not going to repeat this claimed insult/demeaning allegation in our article. Just as we are not going to name her either. This sort of push against policy and guidelines is a waste of your time. To call a spade a spade - three Jewish focused editors - you, User:Bus stop and User:Epeefleche want to add the the accuser of the Jewish person, a Muslim... is a claimed prostitute, it is so tiresome as to be laughable, in a really sad way. - move along - the level of partisan POV is deafening"[7]

He seems to think that he's the sole arbiter of what BLP is, and he discounts the views of everyone who disagrees with him because they're "Jewish focused".

So, I do want to ask about wiki processes again. Can one fanatical protector of privacy simply refuse to compromise, refuse to stand aside to the will of the majority, claim there isn't consensus, and thus delete whatever they feel like? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The solution when there is an impasse like this is to involve other editors' opinions. Ways to do this include RFCs, content noticeboards like BLP/N or seeking a WP:3O. More complex solutions include WP:MEDCOM and asking an admin to close any discussion with a statement of what the closing consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful. Hopefully, this will be my last question. And if I'm bothering you, I can try taking this to the help pages instead. Mediation is totally voluntary. What if an editor (as in this case) obstructs consensus and _refuses_ to join in mediation? How do you ask an admin to close a discussion with a statement of consensus? Do you just pick a random admin, or is there some there other process? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put your finger on the main problem with mediation. Its requires both sides to be willing to move. From your point of view I suggest that a content RFC would be best with a note at AN or ANI asking for an admin to close it after 30 days. Then you just stand back and see who steps up to the plate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreement and un-protection[edit]

Hi. As I have come to an agreement with User:Dobbs User_talk:Bob_drobbs#moving_forward - to have the disputed comment removed, and as I understand it, there is no other objections - if this is the case I would like to suggest that the protection can be lowered on the article. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Bob Droobs agree to the compromise? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In mediation Errant and I worked out a mutually agreeable solution. Off2riorob now agrees to that compromise. So, I'll second the thought that the protection can now probably be lowered.

Let's just _hope_ that no one else strenuously objects to this compromise. *sigh* -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its unlocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your measured administration and advice/mediation in regards to this dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are having a great holiday and at your convenience could you please get back to me[edit]

I want to first congratulate you on over 21,000 contributions. I know first hand the feeling you get when achieving great things. You and your fellow administrators have made, and continue to make, Wikipedia a brilliant place to go for correct information. I want to apologize if the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_J._Esposito (Brian J. Esposito) violated any of these internal rules. I was under the impression that my accomplishments which were sourced by companies such as Inc. Magazine, Hearst Publications, BIR Report, Beauty Store Business, Asbury Park Press, KikScore, The National Retail Federation, NRF and many more were valid enough. I would like to work with you in correcting any issues and to have this page restored. I am continuing to make great strides for my companies, employees, and my family. Having this page also acted as a way of helping me continue to accomplish my goals and dreams. I look forward in hearing back from you and also learning from you on how to correctly do the right thing when it comes to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time,

Brian J. Esposito CEO - AVEYOU Beauty Boutique CEO/President/Founder - paybaQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjesposito (talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really so much my decisioon to delete this as my enforcing a consensus of editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian J. Esposito. I'd suggest that thorough reading of my essay on fixing deleted content if you are interested in getting back but, frankly, we are non profit project not a vehicle for self-publication and promotion and I would advise you to stay away from the page to avoid a conflict of interest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to get back to me regarding this issue. By no means was the page created to self promote or profit. It was added and continued to be updated with all the great work we are getting done at Salon Professional Services, Inc, and paybaQ. All the articles, mentions, and partnerships displayed that success. Especially the work we did together with Microsoft in helping small business around the globe. I apologize if the page came across looking in any way a violation to the policies. I have reviewed the page and am not sure what else can be done to correct this and hopefully have it un-deleted. There are real credited milestones and achievements myself and my team have reached. We also have a few more credits including a book released by the Small Business Association which we have a big part in, and the Internet Retailer 2011 Edition 500.

Thank you for your continued help and I hope you are having a great day, and had a beautiful vacation,

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.133.135 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being friendly[edit]

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I know how working hard on Wikipedia can build up an appetite, so I hope this cookie will make your day. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to get back to me regarding this issue. By no means was the page created to self promote or profit. It was added and continued to be updated with all the great work we are getting done at Salon Professional Services, Inc, and paybaQ. All the articles, mentions, and partnerships displayed that success. Especially the work we did together with Microsoft in helping small business around the globe. I apologize if the page came across looking in any way a violation to the policies. I have reviewed the page and am not sure what else can be done to correct this and hopefully have it un-deleted. There are real credited milestones and achievements myself and my team have reached. We also have a few more credits including a book released by the Small Business Association which we have a big part in, and the Internet Retailer 2011 Edition 500.

Thank you for your continued help and I hope you are having a great day, and had a beautiful vacation,

Brian

AfDs[edit]

Thanks for that. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a fast learner for him to learn about AfDs and to to do them so quickly. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does look rather like a re-tred but since I'm on holiday i can't really be bothered trying to work out who he is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-marxism[edit]

Hi, just saw your decision concerning the AfD on Neo-marxism. I am not sure if I agree with your decision - as you know, the task of an admin is not to tally the votes, but to read the reasoning for each vote and decide which side has the stronger case.

I do not wish to start a protracted argument with you but I would ask two favors of you. First, read my comment here. Second, a month from now please take a look at the article, and compare the state of it a month from now to its current state. If there is no serious improvement I ask you to consider the possibility that the reasons of the people who voted "delete" are stronger and should thus be deciding.

If at that time you decide to stick by your decision, I will not argue with you. I ask only that you take these two steps and think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I have raised the issue of User:FireTool87's creating disruptive/retaliatory AFDs regarding articles you created. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello Spartaz, was this an accident? If you do not agree with my opinion, feel free to block, but I cannot see how just having "hell" embedded in the username constitutes a blatantly inappropriate username that warrants immediate blocking, especially since the user's userpage implies s/he is here to contribute constructively. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yes that was an accident. I'm very sorry. Completely inappropriate use of the rollback tool. I'm using my dad's laptop and its a bit slow and cranky. I guess I must have clicked on the wrong link on my watchlist. I'll take more care. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Slender Man deletion[edit]

First of all, I'm not asking why the article was deleted. I understand why. I'm merely asking if it would be possible to undelete the article and move it to User:Cougar Draven/Slender Man, so that I can continue to work on the page for resubmission at a later date. Thank you in advance for your time. Cougar Draven (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied this with history at User:Cougar Draven/Slender Man.For attribution reasons I cannot make two copies so this will have to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man Deletion[edit]

I've spent the last hour or so reviewing the AfD for Slender Man, and while I, like Cougar, understand why it was deleted, I'd like to get a copy of the article in full. The Slender Man has sort of caught a hold of my imagination and I'd love the ability to possibly help Cougar give the article some proper sourcing so as to bring Slender Man up to standards. KaynetheDragon (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group[edit]

Hi!

Yes, you deleted the article Dominant group, but that is in response to the voting of six (delete) vs. four (keep) so no problem with your deletion. I am the creator of the article and would like to ask your advice on two matters regarding the voting. I noticed that one of the wikipedians voted per a claim of Synthesis or Original research. And another for POV. Although time did not permit my request for a third party to respond to the POV claim by one voter (for deletion), do you know if Wikipedia also has a third party request regarding WP:SYN or Wikipedia:No original research? I know of the Noticeboard but with POV the request is specifically for a third party to appropriately comment: NPOV or POV. I am familiar with Wikipedia synthesis and NOR, even prove it by description of authors works, yet voters will claim this as their reason for deletion.

According to WP policy, such claims are unsupported and constitute false statements or pushing POV which is censoring, not editing. I don't mind wikipedians voting to delete because they want to, but voting per false statements really is inappropriate. I am, of course, taking the advice of one of the voters to prepare alternative forms of the article such as a disambiguation page, etc. But, these matters bother me and your advice would be helpful since I have only been contributing here since 2009. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to these matters. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NLT and refactor your comment to bring it into agreement with the NLT guideline. Until you do that I'm not prepared to respond to this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. I have read NLT. I am not a lawyer so no threat is intended nor should it be perceived. I have refactored the matters mentioned. The statements above are because the article deleted per voting was attacked through the use of false statements, pushing POV, and censoring, per these articles on Wikipedia. I asked you for advice on how to handle these, if you don't have any advice, no problem. I asked you for help in good faith. Please assume the same. While every article on Wikipedia can always use improvement, occasionally there are topics that a 'dominant group' may instinctively not want to acknowledge. For example, some 90% of the sentences in the article voted on, actually even a higher percentage, came from authorities (cited references). They are allowed to perform synthesis and original research, yet some voters refused to realize that. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a group that specializes in understanding exactly what that is. By the way, one of the voters completely blanked the 'Religion' section, replaced it with an incoherent sentence, then voted against the article. The section did not cover all religions, but the authors cited discussed two. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that the other users who commented in the AFD didn't agree with your interpretation of OR. In fact, I see Orangemike commented specifically to that point on your talk page just this morning. The point of wikipedia is that we report what other people publish so its true that we don't mind authorities sythnethising information but, as reporters of others' thoughts, we do not indulge in original research or synthesis ourselves. Unless you can evidence sources that specifically discuss the subject of Dominant Group then it doesn't matter how well sourced your article is if the sources are being used in the context of another article. Finally, I'm still very uncomfortable with your comment according to WP policy and referring to false statements. I consider it remains a borderline legal threat and I am asking you again to redact it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except for text originally from other articles here on wikipedia that may not have had citations attached, all other sentences in the article had citations attached except a summary sentence in the intro. What is disturbing me is that it seems anyone can use the phrase, words to the effect, "this contains original research or synthesis" when the article has none. One of the wikipedians actually commented that authors being cited were performing original research or synthesis, which of course, is their responsibility not mine as the article creator or as an editor. With respect to "Unless you can evidence sources that specifically discuss the subject of Dominant Group then it doesn't matter how well sourced your article is if the sources are being used in the context of another article.", each cite was doing exactly that, specifically discussing the subject of 'Dominant group' in the context used. It is another argument used before, when some editors did not like what the cited authors were stating.
  - Coming to your 'redact' request, I think the phrase, "According to WP policy", is bothering you in some way that I am not perceiving. The first redact definition is to put in shape (matter for publication); to edit. The phrase is not directed toward you, nor toward the other wikipedians, but, specifically towards the following: over 2650 people (ten times normal!) read the article starting on the 16th, during the AfD period, and only eleven people voted, the ten on the AfD page, and someone (not me) rated the article at 5's all across. It is my understanding that anyone (Wikipedian) can vote as in a political election any way they wish, without justification or explanation, although I believe a reason is requested. If we have no definitive way to understand 'original research', or 'synthesis' in the context, then the comment is meaningless. Further, if voters misuse the concept, or if they understand it but don't like the article's cited content, then they may make false statements about the content. If a reason is required for the vote to count, then they may make false statements to push POV or to censor. How would you know the difference? If a reason is required and it is not factual or the truth, then harm to wikipedia has occurred; hence, the phrase 'according to WP policy'. When harm has occurred, in this case to wikipedia, there must be redress, but what is it? Who decides if a 'dominant group' is present? I realize many of the 3200 probably cannot vote, but ten out of 2650!
  - Another meaning of redact is to "censor", the third meaning, same source, is "[t]o black out text for other purposes, such as in law, when legally protected sections of text are obscured in a document provided to opposing counsel, typically as part of the discovery process." We are not conducting discovery. If the phrase is still bothering you, what is it specifically? "According to WP policy" is a point of view as indicated, specifically aimed at achieving NPOV. One of the voters clearly censored, and replaced material from two cited texts with unreferenced dribble, then voted to delete after vandalizing that section of the article. I wouldn't count that vote, but I do not know if you are allowed that option, and without it the tally is 4 (keep) to 5 (delete), which is no consensus.
  - Also, I looked at about a half dozen of Orangemike's articles. Everyone contained a majority of uncited sentences; hence, each article lacks notability and appears to be personal essay, unsuitable for wikipedia. What would you like me to do, put each one up for deletion, make entries on the 'Discussion' page (as was not done for the 'Dominant group' article), or try to find references for Orangemike's article creation and editing failures? That's really Orangemike's responsibility for being article creator. Orangemike is an excellent example of exactly what I'm writing to you about. There is a difference between expressing an opinion, and making false statements, pushing POV, or censoring. Orangemike, clearly does not know what original research, or synthesis is, by his own failure to cite appropriate references for his own articles. Your task isn't easy I guess, or is it? If you do not evaluate, or are not allowed to evaluate the voters, then I understand your position, and redress must come elsewhere. Suggestions? 'Dominant group' was Afd for twelve days, yet the last deciding votes all came within a ten hour period, starting with the voter who censored, ending one hour before closure. How is that reasonably possible? After the first seven full days (19th to 26th) of posted AfD, the voting is tied at four each. Again, thank you for your kind attention to these matters. I hope I have answered your concerns and clarified mine. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just read the next entry regarding another article where you are asking if the article creator is asking to have you review the close. If this is possible, and you can, please do so for 'Dominant group'. But, if you cannot properly evaluate the actions of John Pack Lambert, you may not have the freedom necessary to render 'no consensus', but please consider this as a request to do so anyway. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm really unhappy with the juxtaposition of according to WP policy and false statements here. I have raised it at ANI for a second opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have replaced with the phrase "according to WP policy", per the independent opinion. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I will come back with a response to your comments later today as I'm about6 to take my kids out to play in the woods for a couple of hours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your deletion policy[edit]

so to my understanding you deleted the article I created because lack of sources (Ultimate Glory 11), dont you think you could have given me more time to gather my sources before deleting my article???? Sepulwiki 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm presuming that you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights. That discussion was up 21 days and no sources came to light. Policy allows us to delete after 7 if there is a clear consensus. How much more time do you think you need? Do you have any sources? If you find some, you can always come back here and ask me to review the close on the light of the sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeshift9[edit]

Hi Spartaz. As the DRV closer of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5, would you take a look at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2? There is a disagreement about whether Timeshift9 (talk · contribs)'s recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the MfD close. I have also contacted Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), the MfD closer. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably more Tim's field then mine. I tend not to involve myself too closely in editor behaviour issues because I really suck at that side of the admin role but thanks for the heads up. I'll watch what happens closely. I'd be tempted to blank and protect but that's quite an extreme action for a user talk page so I'm inclined to this going to a drama board for a discussion. Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at the situation. I have a small correction. I think you mean user page, not user talk page, since the blog-like material is on User:Timeshift9. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the community to review the user page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

Hi Spartaz. I think in this case you've made a wrong judgment. Please take another look at it. The sources in the article were reliable and independent, the coverage was substantial. Besides those mentioned in the article, there were more RS with substantial coverage which were mentioned in the discussion, but not yet used in the article. Also, while working on the article I've made some research and found even more sources which I planned to use in the future, but didn't cite them in the deletion discussion or on the article talk page. Please also note, that what we were arguing about in the discussion is not about sources being reliable or not (the article was sourced only to first class reliable and independent sources), but about WP:DUE. Please also note that many of those who voted for deletion failed to give valid arguments and didn't even participate in the discussion. For example, one of the guys said delete, because the article fails WP:SCHOLAR, but Thompson was not a scholar.Gaura79 (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this later today when I have time (see comment about kids and woods above). Just one comment for you to consider is that the opinion of experienced external editors can be quite compelling in AFDs like this because we already know the views of the keep side and nominator. When the external editors do review the sources and find them wanting you need something special to overcome that. I give much less weight to inexperienced editors and spas in deletion debates and this is accepted practise. More later when I have worn my kids out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When the external editors do review the sources and find them wanting" - In this case "external editors" who voted delete didn't review the sources. The only one who did review and discuss them was Hrafn. If you look through the discussion you will note that he didn't question relialibility of the sources used in the version of the article you deleted (all the sources were reliable and independent of the subject), what we were discussing was WP:DUE.Gaura79 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did however question the independence of the source that the biography section was (eventually) cited to, and the WP:UNDUE weight given, due to the fact that the bulk of the article was cited to a single book review & 5 pages from a PhD thesis. The problem is that a WP:DUE-weighted article would be almost entirely on Forbidden Archaeology -- a subject that is already handled elsewhere. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the independence of the source the biography section was initially cited to was questioned, I cited most of the biography section to an article in Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science and completely removed the questioned source from the article. Perhaps you didn't notice that. Also, the coverage of Thompson in what you call PhD thesis (but what is actually a monograph written by a Danish historian of religion and published by Aarhus University Press) is about 20 pages (and even if it was 5 pages like you say, still it would certainly qualify as "significant"). Also Thompson's books gathered much more than "a single book review" and it's evident from the deletion discussion and from the article itself. Then you say: "The problem is that a WP:DUE-weighted article would be almost entirely on Forbidden Archaeology -- a subject that is already handled elsewhere" - that doen't change anything and it doesn't change the fact that Thompson and his work received significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources which makes him pass WP:GNG. Gaura79 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the claim that this 'monograph' was the republication of the guy's PhD thesis originates to Sdmuni108 -- so take it up with him if you think this claim is incorrect. Regardless, only 5 pages of it were ever cited by the article. And my main point remains the level of undue weight needed to move the focus of the article away from Forbidden Archaeology onto his other works, when the former has generated an order of magnitude of coverage more than the latter combined -- and also a viewpoint from a critic as prominent as Richard Leakey that it is "pure humbug". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question whether it was a "republication of the guy's PhD" or a "monograph" doesn't change the fact that it is a RS that can be used to establish notability. WP:Notability and WP:Weight are two separate issues. Neither the problems with WP:Weight nor the harsh opinion of the prominent scientists can serve as a reason for an article's deletion. In the second case it's quite the opposite: it makes Thompson even more notable. By the way, I have the sources in question ether in printed or digital format and can always quote them to prove that the coverage is indeed substantial.Gaura79 (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability and weight become inter-related when a topic's main claim to notability overlaps another topic, and you have to judge non-overlapping notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the relevant Wikipedia guidelines to prove your point? In any case, even if Thompson would not co-author Forbidden Archeology, he still would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Gaura79 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly obvious conclusion of reading WP:DUE & WP:CFORK in conjunction with each other. You have repeatedly asserted Thompson's notability independent of Forbidden Archeology, but have done little to substantiate it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not an obvious conclusion to me. You're welcome to explain your point in more detail. "You have repeatedly asserted Thompson's notability independent of Forbidden Archeology, but have done little to substantiate it" - yes, I could have done better and I still can do it if the article will be undeleted and discussion will continue. Gaura79 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal cycling[edit]

Hi Spartaz; just letting you know that I fully support your close with Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal cycling. I can't believe that I didn't find the Cryogenic_treatment article that DGG came up with... which is a better article title anyway. Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Speedy deletion declined: Achuthanand[edit]

He's not a first-class cricketer, the article is a hoax! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article under the name Achuthanand Ravi was previously deleted here in June 2011. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That will teach me to take claims in an article at face value. :-( Its gone now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He crops up so often on cricket articles I have his picture on my userpage with the caption "If you see this picture, then the article is a hoax!" I expect he'll be back in one form or another!!! Thanks :) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remergence[edit]

The label itself is tagged for A7 because its artist roster has only one other blue link. So I still think A7 applies for the artist. "Many albums" is not an assertation of notability, especially if most of them are self released and the rest are on a non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point about the article but the threashold for a valid a7 is somewhat subjective. In my bookmultiple albums is a claim to notability. Determining the nature of the albums requires discussion. no? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it reeks of promotion since they link to their website a bazillion times. Any fool can crank out a stack of CDs in their own basement. Maybe we should let another admin make the call; I really see no reason to let this slog through AFD or PROD for a week, since the eleventy bazillion links to the band's webpage are reason alone to kill it with fire — never mind that it was edited heavily by User:Rembeatz, which matches the domain of said site. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great argument for the AFD and I'll be sure to give it full weight if I end up closing it. I made a reasonable call on the speedy and if there is any grounds for discussion its generally not a great speedy candidate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're being a process wonk. "Multiple albums" is not a criterion of WP:BAND, "Multiple albums on a notable label" is. And their label is clearly not a notable label — just because it has an article is immaterial. Tell me what we benefit from letting this rot in PROD hell for a week or longer. Oh wait... nothing but process for the sake of process. Crap like this should not be allowed to stink up Wikipedia. It should be shot down instantly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Unlock the damn article so I can tag it for prod. And then watch it sit around for 13 days because no one notices it's still stinking up the PROD list. You're bludgeoning the process big time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See ANI Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still think it's an A7. "Multiple albums" by itself is not, and never will be, an assertation of notability. Process is important, but it's not chiseled in stone. Loosen the hell up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. Feel free to list this at DRV and see how much support you get? I'm well aware you don't agree, but that's the point with a wiki sometimes users don't agree but until you get your own delete buttons you have to accept that sometimes the reviewing admin doesn't agree with your interpretation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPH[edit]

Mm-hmm...he prodded Short Stories (Kenny Rogers album) twice and eventually ran it at AfD - it got kept having been mentioned in Billboard, a notable source. I wonder what might turn up for this one...but TPH has very strong opinions about his musical perusing on here, has to be expected since there isn't really anyone else going around looking for stuff to delete in it. CycloneGU (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really looking to get involved in an anti TPH witch-hunt. They generally do good work but have issues when it doesn't go their way sometimes. There are many editors with worse faults then that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, neither am I. I just know I've seen TPH at a number of things I've questioned (I trouted him last time something appeared at AN/I in fact, before this). But at the same time, somebody's gotta do it, eh? CycloneGU (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool. 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. Truth Glass (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bouygues[edit]

Hi, yes this was only a few minutes ago, so I thought I'd come here to ask you, how does that work? Do you move the article wholesale back into the main article or does it need to be worked on etc.? It's not back in the main article yet.
As someone living in France, I am well aware of these allegations and feel it needs to be in the article, while respecting NPOV. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just move across the material that makes sense and then redirect the article to preserve the attributation history. The material can be reworked and reworded as necessary to make it fit into the article. You don't need to move everything and the incoming material needs a consensus from the receiving page to be retained. Does this make sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes fine, makes sense, will see what i can do as to sources etc., thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I noticed you kindly tidied up the mess after my raid on an old AfD discussion, so you deserve a kitten!

FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request to close MfD on User:Surturz/AdminWatch for now[edit]

Based on the prior discussion at DRV, it seemed that Surturz was willing to rework the AdminWatch page to attempt to weed out material perceived to be in violation of WP:ATTACK or WP:UP#POLEMIC (diff here.

Is there any reason not to assume good intentions on the part of this editor and allow them to attempt to make such changes? If there is not, could we close the MfD for now, and recommend that other editors provide feedback over the next 14 to 30 days to Surturz on how to best accomplish the goal? In all of this, we've seen rapid actions by administrators, which is usually a very commendable trait, but it might be miscontrued in this case as overzealousness, given the particular criticisms involved.

I think such a set of events would definitely set a better tone for everyone and would give everyone a chance to demonstrate good faith and a willingness to work with everyone. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall extend this list exactly the same good faith that Surtaz extended towards my closing of the earlier DRV. In case you are unclear what that means, the answer is none. If I see my name on a shit list for closing a perfectly straightforward DRV without any discussion with me then I'm going to want that shit lost gone from Wikipedia. I don't that that's unreasonable do you? (Don't bother replying I'm going on holiday and won't see the response for two weeks unless I luck out with internet access). Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which DRV that is, but I guess I'll go look. I think that a willingness to cooperate is never out of line, but you should do what you feel is best. -- Avanu (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the shit list, didn't you see me named or are you actually defending this list without finding out if admins accused are actually in the wrong or not? Incredible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OK, I went and looked at that Deletion Review, and just in straight up !votes, I see 8 (or 9) in favor of Overturn, and 11 in favor of Endorsing the deletion. So, I guess you used administrative discretion, and Surturz feels you probably shouldn't have? I don't see this as a 'shit list', but again, to each his own. I still think you might get a much better outcome with a different take on things, but its entirely your call. I appreciate you checking back in on this and your quick response even though you're on vacation. I wish you the best. (and in response to your last comment, I'm not anti-admin, I don't see his words as being harsh and I'm not sure why they seem to strike such a nerve, to me its right near meaningless, but I think its a good thing to support critical speech of the actions of authority, even if we don't agree with it specifically) -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your time, and I can see we seem to have a different take on things, if I were an admin and my name/action was there, I would probably just go try to discuss it with the guy, but maybe that just isn't how things work? -- Avanu (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is kind of mooted by the comments I have made below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator myself and if I saw my name on that list, I'd be at first puzzled and I'd want to figure out why that user had a problem with one of my actions, and even if the user were mistaken, I'd push for polite discussion, rather than an MfD. I would prefer, in the interest of reconciliation and mediation, that we close it for now, sort it out with the user personally, and pursue the MfD if there's no other solution. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I basically extended the same level of discussion and good faith as was extended to me i.e. none... It wasn't very nice finding out by accident that a straightforward admin action was being paraded round the community as an example of admin abuse when the author didn't bother raising the action with me or discussing the action they disapproved of with me.Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a rather personal comment there at [8], and if you object, I'll remove it. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the comment but the nomination was informed by two issues, firstly the fact that It would have been ridiculous for me to use a neutral nomination given the context and secondly, I may have a thick skin but I'm allowed to be upset when I'm being hoist up as an abusive admin without any notice discussion or warning... I only found out about the content when I was researching the content for the DRV of the deletion. That's pretty shitty and I have never encountered that kind of thing before in what must be 5 years of editing and 23K edits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not justifying the ed., or--especially-- his playing games with just how much he can get away with and teasing us by reducing the contents bit by bit just to make a point-- just that, especially in view of the incredibly unhelpful debate over them, it might have been better to IGNORE, But I know that sometimes on and off Wikipedia I get very upset by what at other times doesn't concern me much--and so does almost everyone else, nobody is consistent that way. As nastiness on Wikipedia goes, it was really quite minor--you & I both have by and large escaped the worst of it so far. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AdminWatch[edit]

Hi Spartaz. For the record, I didn't exactly disagree with your close of the DRV concerning the deletion of Timeshift9's user page. Your closing comments were accurate and rightly noted the lack of consensus in either direction (I can't fault you for refusing to overturn a deletion without consensus). I included it on the AdminWatch page more to show that the original MfD had no consensus. As for the MfD for AdminWatch, I was a little peeved that as one of the admins named on the page, you didn't leave it to one of the many uninvolved admins to close the DRV and open the MfD. You did so presumably as an admin with the authority of the WP:CONS of the DRV, but undermined that when you raised the MfD on your own behalf as an editor. If you had at least made passing reference to the debate at the DRV it would have helped eg adding something like "SurturZ claims WP:ADMINACCT applies" to the end. I would strongly suggest you leave it to another admin to close the MfD. I won't further contest the issue even if you do decide to close it, but you might want to consider the role impartiality plays in enhancing admin legitimacy. --Surturz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away for the last two weeks so haven't been closing anything. I certainly wouldn't close any discussion I opened or took any kind of content position on as that would be inappropriate. My closing of the DRV was mostly a housekeeping exercise as the deleting admin had accepted that the CSD shouldn't stand and moving this to MFD was the obvious next step. As a party to the page I decided to do the MFD and the DRV close was, as I said, housekeeping otherwise I wouldn't have done it as clearly involved. While I'm sorry that my action peeved you, I should say that I was pretty upset that a straightforward admin action was then being held up as admin abuse on a shit list that was widely seen across the community but that at 'no time had you felt the need to either tell me about it, or discuss the admin action with me. That frankly disgraceful and shows no regard for the feelings of another (admin or not) and encourages the kind of battleground bullshit that actively feeds into the disconnect between professional admins and some of the wider editing community. Had I behaved in this way I would have rightly expected a severe trouting and wide-spread criticism. Some food for though perhaps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, your close of the Timeshift9 talkpage DRV was actually there to prove T Canens closing comments on the Timeshift9 MfD were misleading (he claimed consensus when there was none). I'm sorry if you were offended. --Surturz (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press Play on Tape[edit]

Hello. This is a request for you to please consider reviewing your decision at Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape in light of these sources:

The Past as the Future? Nostalgia and Retrogaming in Digital Culture
Playing with videogames by James Newman
NZ Reseller News
Slot at 21:00 at Roskilde Festival 2008

Please note that I have no conflict of interest, and have never even seen the band. I stumbled across the deleted article in connection with researching retrocomputing. Thanks for your time. --Trevj (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think this coverage is anywhere near enough for an article. The sources are either insufficiently detailed or essentially tangential. I can userfy the article if you wanted to try and work in the sources to see how it looks. Let me know what you think. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem. I'll leave it for the moment as I've got plenty to concentrate on already and this would be a distraction! I may come back to you again for the userfication some time. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines[edit]

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+like :-) Excellent work Michael. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Seeing a big odd redlink on your page must have been a surprise. Glad though that you found WP:PRIMER and approve. I know it will not prevent spam articles from those whose only intent is to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, but for those newcomers who truely wish to coonribute and need only to better understand how to do so, I am hoping it will be of help. Thanks much for the star. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 21#Capture bonding[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 21#Capture bonding with the summary that capture bonding "has been restored to mainspace this is closing as relisting [at] AFD at user discretion". I don't see any nontrivial changes since it was userfied on 7 December 2007. Does {{db-repost}} apply to the article? Note: I've also asked Chick Bowen (talk · contribs), the 2007 AfD nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination), to review the article to see whether it should be renominated for deletion if db-repost does not apply. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the article's log and Stifle (talk · contribs) deleted it under {{db-repost}} on 22 August (link). Cunard (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for reopening the discussion. Cunard (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD closes[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Your recent MfD closes do not include links to the MfDs. Would you include links in the future? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU![edit]

That's all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist again?[edit]

Do you see any value in re-listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (2nd nomination) one more time? Get all the opinions out there to weigh in before closing? Will you be the closing admin? Austex • Talk 05:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relists last for a week unless closed early so no need to worry about that now. This wasn't by anuy chance an obvious try-on to see if you could get me to close the discussion now that the votes have gone your way was it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see where you might well think that, but no. I am just not all that familiar with the process, especially the closing process (who does it, does it happen automatically, how much input is enough? etc). Your first re-list brought out several new editors when prior to that it has been only three of us. That really helped. I figure the more viewpoints the better. I'm happy of course that votes have "gone my way" lately but I'm also happy to let the process work. I don't want to screw it up by trying to get it closed too soon (hence my ? about re-listing again for more input) or to get in the way of the process. I'm not very good about patience. Looking back I am also quite embarassed that I over-edited the AfD and gave far too much input, so I guess I need to know when to quit while I'm ahead. Advice is ALWAYS welcome. Austex • Talk 07:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Convention Travel Document[edit]

A tag has been placed on Convention Travel Document requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Live[edit]

Hi, you redirected his page following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Chess Live, and that's just fine. However, I notice that an earlier version was deleted. Would you please userfy the earlier version to me, so I can see if there is any material that may be useful in a rewrite. Thanks. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the history so everything should be sat behind the redirect. Just remember you can't undo the redirect without a consensus to do so. See WP:ND3 for more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for this prompt response; it also saves a future history merge that would be needed if the page is ever recreated. Your point about undoing the redirect is well taken. However, for this to survive as a standalone page, reliable independent sources will be needed first, in any case. Meanwhile, I have tagged Worldchesslive for g4 deletion - it is a cut and paste recreation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deleted biography[edit]

Re Stephen Richards (author); I think that the arguments put forward by the two people (including myself) to keep the article were better that the four people who supported deletion (including the nominator). As I said, in the deletion discussion, I think that some of the comments make be editors supporting deletion were over-egging the pudding. Please review your action and undelete the article, or make the article visible in its own name space with all the edit history and then make it a redirect to the Mirage Publishing article about the publisher that he founded and where he features. This appears to be a substantial article about the author, which may or may not be written by the author. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The test I close AFDs by are guidelines and the consensus of the discussion was that the sources were inadequate. This is a BLP and recent trends are that we tend to apply the GNG more closely to BLPs then previously. Can you confirm on what guidelines you think this should be kept under and why? I'm not averse to a redirect but I'd be very reluctant to substitute my opinion for that of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that some of the statements made to support deletion do not stand up to examination. I would be grateful if you would make it a redirect and show all the article history. I would be able to consider the article to make improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assertion. Please can you provide a specific policy based argument as I requested? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about common sense? According to policy I have first asked you as the deletor of an article. I will now ask elsewhere else and ask someone else to make the article visible. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense? You asked me to overturn an AFD for a redirect and when I ask for a policy reason to ignore the outcome of the discussion I get assertions and appeals to common sense. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, what is the policy basis for overturning the AFD or ignoring the outcome. Its very disappointing that you don't seem to be interested in engaging on such a simple request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that you do not seems to have acknowledged that I have asked you to "make it a redirect and show all the article history". I will ask elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of disappointing can I ask what prompted you to look through my contributions to find an action you felt like reversing? [9] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be presumptive. I have nothing extra to say to you at this juncture. I am not watching this talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.S. Todi Calcio[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering if I could ask your reasons for closing this AfD with a delete please? I am considering taking it to DRV, and thought I would check with you first. Thanks, Giant Snowman 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis will you take this to DRV? Which guideline did this pass? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think there was consensus to delete - relisting would perhaps have been a more suitable path to take. As for the basis, please see this discussion and AfDs number 1 and 2, which all points to Serie D clubs being notable. Giant Snowman 16:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject football can't subsitute their own notability standards for those agreed by the community and neither AFD has closed and the consensus can easily change. The arguments advanced don't seem very grounded in policy to me accept acknowledging that FOOTYN isn't a community accepted inclusion guideline. Can you point to a community agreed guideline that this passed? That's really the test we are looking for and my understanding is that passing the GNG or being fully professional team is the marker of inclusion in the lower leagues. We had this discussion with Irish football clubs earlier this year and if you are going to take this to DRV you need to have a policy based argument as DRV has been consistantly supporting GNG based deletions recently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows that there is community consensus that these articles are notable, a point you are choosing to ignore. Giant Snowman 13:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this consensus written down anywhere? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the page I have linked to above... Giant Snowman 15:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not being obtuse but wikiprojects don't set inclusion thresholds, it needs a consensus from the wider community. You opened that thread after I closed the AFD and unless there is a guideline that you can refer me to that covers serie D clubs then I have to use the wider community accepted standard of the GNG - which this clearly doesn't pass according to the AFD. So when I ask for a comminity consensus I mean I need something from those outside WP:FOOTY. If you want me to set aside the GNG I have to have some guideline to refer to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that the community needs to set consensus - which it has. Answer me honestly - if the exact same discussion had had the exact same result (i.e. Serie D teams are considered notable) had happened elsewhere (i.e. Talk:Serie D) then would you be happier? Giant Snowman 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the venue and format. The community is not WP:FOOTY. Time after time DRV refuses to accept Wikiprojects as arbiters of notability within their spheres as there needs to be a wide community agreement that all areas on wikipedia can roughly agree with. WP:FOOTY is less inclusionist then say WP:ARS and there has to be a central consensus that acts as balance between the different standards. What I'm after - and what is required on a wider basis - is a consensus from outside WP:FOOTY. So if you have the chat at Talk:serieD its probably not going to have the wider community input we need unless you run a RFC and advertise it widely - at which point its a perfect consensus. Alternatively you can open a thread at WP:N or suchlike and ask there. Obviously its not any use if the thread is flooded by members of your WP but a discussion at the the talk page of a notability guideline is just right as the input will be external and relevant to the existing guidelines. Frankly, the inclusion standard for clubs in lower leagues has been a running sore for a while and a draft guideline put to an RFC is long overdue and will prevent these little arguments. Does this help? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, thank you. There are similar ongoing AfDs that look they are going to end in a "keep" - but depending on how they go, I will go to DRV and/or seek wider community input. Thanks for all your help so far, Giant Snowman 16:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV isn't going to set aside the GNG for this without a guideline or meta consensus. In fact, GNG has been gaining precedence over subguidelines for a while and in any event one case isn't going to resolve the general issue. You really need to find that community consensus first and then everything can flow from that. After all, I'll happily void the AFD is there is something to justify it with but I can't ignore the community set standards to judge the AFDs against without effectively substituting my opinion for the wider community and that's not acceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was using consensus at a number of AfDs to show wider community consensus. But it's all yet to be done. Giant Snowman 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two AFDS you linked aren't going to count as you linked to them from WT:Wikiproject football in that thread you referred me to and they got flooded out with keep votes. I know you didn't intend it but it had the effect of canvassing. Best find some discussions that haven't been highlighted in that way. AFDs are not a good precedent unless you had a lot of them and by that I mean dozens. An RFC/thread at WT:N is a much better option in my opinion. Again, not being difficult but trying to give you the value of my considerable experience at DRV/closing AFDs. If you want this to stick you need something solid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALL football-related discussions get listed at WP:FOOTY - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves - and you can't say that a discussion becomes invalid when some members of a certain WikiProject give their opinion. If that was the case, then NOTHING would get done around here. Giant Snowman 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Manikfan[edit]

In your decision on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Manikfan you wrote: "The test for inclusion is the GNG that requires at least two detailed independant reliable sources. I am excluding votes that cite no policy based reasons so arguments to keep based on assertions and mentions do not cut the mustard. The bottom line is that the sourcing has been rubbished and the keep side hasn't refuted this effectively."

At the time I recommended "Keep" (AfD recommendations are not "votes"), the article contained more than a few references to independent reliable sources: one a fairly detailed article in The Indian Express, another to a source in Malayalam, which I can't read, but since it was an encyclopedia entry, it may well have been detailed, and a quite detailed article by Xavier Romero-Frias. The Maldives Royal Family website where this latter article was found may itself not be reliable, but the author is a recognized authority on issues regarding the Maldives, and so this article should still be considered a reliable source, according to our guideline. (Additionally, the same article can be found on the Maldives Culture website, perhaps also not strictly a reliable site, but a serious website whose main editor, Michael O'Shea, is also a specialist in Maldives issues and a member of the Dhivehi Observer editorial staff.) There was also a reference to an article in The Hindu, less detailed but more than a passing mention, and also helping to establish notability. So, understandably, I did not think that notability was an issue, and did not attempt to refute the (then clearly false) statement of nominator that "Sources to establish notability are all to the individual's page promoting use of the calendar". Maybe this was true when the AfD discussion was opened, but definitely no longer when I added my recommendation.

In conclusion, I think your assessment did not take sufficient account of the state of the article as it was when the discussion it was closed, so I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision. --Lambiam 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion took no account of the article at all as AFD closers are supposed to assess the discussion not the article. If Its OK with you, I'm going to have to review this tomorrow as I'm flying today. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You make good points and this was by no means a perfect discussion - unfortunately like so many recently, I'm minded to relist this for more focused discussion on the sourcing. Please give me a day or so to consider this more closely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! Any developments? --Lambiam 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have relisted the AFD with a comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Key industries[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. I'm just dropping by to let you know that a DRV has been placed regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key industries, which you closed. Best regards — frankie (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web app[edit]

It looked to me like the consensus was to redirect to Web application, not Rich internet application. Msnicki (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, yes you are right. fixed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computation and Neural Systems[edit]

Hi -- do you think you could restore the contents of that article (which you deleted per AfD) into my user space? There really won't be much difficulty in adding enough sources to establish notability (though as I said in the AfD, the article should have a different name). I would have done so already if I hadn't presumed that the AfD would end in a "no consensus". Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DoneUser:Looie496/Computation and Neural Systems -- Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Killings of Muhammad[edit]

Hi Spartaz, regarding your close rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad, would you mind taking a second look?

Initially I was thinking of serving as the closing admin for this, but I decided to wade in and participate instead.

There was a small problem with SPAs, although some had been tagged incorrectly and two actually complained about being tagged as such, suggesting they were regular contributors with dynamic IPs. An argument isn't automatically disqualified because it comes from an SPA.

Policy-based arguments were presented on both sides. In particular, sources were presented that discuss the subject of assassinations involving Muhammad. The article contained reliable sources discussing this also, in particular Muir and Gabriel. Those familiar with Arabian history know that assassination has been an integral part of it, and Muhammad's use of it isn't considered unusual or controversial by historians.

Given the arguments presented, it looked to me like a "no consensus" close, rather than a delete. Would appreciate a second look. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz.

I've read your essay and carefully read over the four links you've included.

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad is an important topic because future generations of Muslims followed (and are still following) every aspect of Mohamed's life, including his frequent use of assassination as a tool in war. This is [Wikipidea:Verifiable] information, found in multiple [Wikipidea:Reliability] sources - some religious works and commentary, and others written by mainstream university professors.

The importance of the topic, as one title of a book suggests, is that Mohamed was the first Muslim general and role-model which others followed, including the tactic of assassination. Assassination is a powerful tool in war and the recent assassination of Abdel Fatah Younis, a Libyan opposition leader, shows that the practice is acceptable and alive and well in the Muslim world.

Whether its true that the historical practice of political assassination by Muslim leaders can be traced directly back to Mohammed is debatable. Yet, according to the very first sentence of [Wikipidea:Verifiable], "threshold for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Nor did the list even attempt to make such bold claims regarding future patterns, but listed the notable actions of a significant historical figure.

The information about Mohamed's use of assassination is verifiable through multiple reliable sources. The list is neutral, does not contain any original research, and is not a fringe theory.

Please reconsider your 'delete'. Perhaps a second look at the policy based arguments presented for keeping the article versus a single argument for removing it; The main objections of the few editors against the topic seem to center around possible misuse of the article by extremists (agenda), vague objections to references (perhaps a case of when a thousand is not even enough?), as well as being uncomfortable with the topic itself, rather than on Wikipedia policy.

Thank you for your time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My actual closing statement was I have given no weight to arguments by obvious spas and very little weight to non policy based arguments, The killer arguments are NPOV and the need for sources to specifically discuss this as a separately notable subject. Discounting spas and non-policy based arguments is the norm at AFD and helps us combat canvassing and ensure the discussions are closed according to policy and not head-count. Which is what consensus means in wikipedia. Obviously the degree of NPOV compliance is something open to interpetation but the policy with lists is that they can't be indiscriminate so there needs to be a basis on which to list something. You assert that political assassination is an important subject to muslims and can be traced back to Mohammed but if that is the case then there should be plenty of reliable sources discussing the use of assassination by Mohammed. There seemed a consensus at the discussion that these sources were absent and that's what tipped this into a delete. Is this not the fact? Can you provide the missing references for further review? Otherwise, how do we know this isn't some random intersection of articles? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a consensus that sources were absent. One source that discusses the topic of Muhammad's assassinations is the Gabriel source I mentioned above. It's cited twice in the deletion discussion (once by me, with a link and a quotation); you must have seen it so I won't re-hash it here.

The book by William Muir, a recognized historian specializing in Muhammad's time period, (first one cited in the article, I recall) also went into detail about each assassination. The nominator dismissed it as a "tract", although that's a topic for WP:RSN, not WP:AFD.

Another one that didn't get mentioned is Fundamentals of Islamic asymetric warfare. Edwin Mellen Press (a publisher of scholarly works, according to our article on it), 2008, p. 154. "In this sense the use of assassinations by Muhammad went outside the experience of his opponents".

Numerous other sources, if they didn't discuss it in depth, acknowledged the fact that Muhammad used assassination as a political tool. This acknowledgment by multiple sources is sufficient to support the assertion that the fact is accepted and non-controversial among historians — I brought up one of them (Maxime Rodinson) in the AfD discussion.

The original article was extremely well referenced, including not only scholarly western works but also references to middle eastern sources.

In my view, this was definitely not an indiscriminate list, and there is ample basis for the list to exist. On that basis I decided to act as a participant rather than an admin, because the nominator's original rationale seemed clearly invalid. Not counting heads, but I did note that among the trusted, high volume contributors to Wikipedia (including two admins who supported keeping), there was no consensus. So I was perplexed to see it closed as "delete". ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

Hi Spartaz! I'm really sorry to bother you again with this, but could you please give another look at your deletion discussion close? It seems to me there was no consensus for deletion. All sources in the version of the article you deleted where perfectly good. Thank you in advance. Gaura79 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for the closing admin to substitute their assessment of the sources for the discussion. Those participating in the discussion felt the sourcing wasn't up to snuff. Specifically the issue was that many of them didn't discuss Thompson in detail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you when you say that "Its not for the closing admin to substitute their assessment of the sources for the discussion". But my point is that there was no consensus for deletion. You should have given more time for the discussion. Those who thought that sources "were not up to snuff" failed to prove their point (and most of them didn't even try to do that). I wanted to save the article and edited it extensively while it was up on the AfD. In the version you deleted there were absolutely no questionable sources. It was an article of a reasonable size, with every statement sourced to an independent, reliable source. If you look at the discussion page of the deleted article, you will see that at the time of the deletion we were discussing WP:WEIGHT and there were no questionable sources in the article at that point.Gaura79 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, you are demanding I substitute my opinion for the participants of the AFD. Lets try looking at this another way, why don't you make a list of those editors who were happy with the sourcing and the reasons they have for this and then compare that with a list of the editors who were unhappy with the sources and their reasons. Once you do this we can look at the arguments against WP:ATA and see which arguments were policy based. Clue:assertions aren't worth much. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, dropping by; I think non-consensus would have been the better result. You are of course correct that the key issue was whether the sources proposed were significant and reliable; but I do not think there was agreement on that point. To a considerable extent RS questions are not evidence-based, but opinions, since reliable/unreliable is often not black/white. (I sometimes use the phrase "reliable enough") What I'm saying is based just on the discussion, I have not examined the sources myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets review the arguments. Just let me point out, that the article had been edited extensively during the deletion discussion and most of the initially raised issues were later addressed. Also there was a parallel discussion going on on the article's talk page.

Delete side:

Nominator Ism schism
- There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that show how he is a notable person who has made any notable contribution to his field of study. Does not pass either WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR.
- All the sources presented by the editors favoring keeping of the article "don't demonstrate notability. There's nothing Thompson is notable for, there are no "reliable sources to verify notability".
- Thompson is not "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Hrafn
- Delete or merge (to Hindu views on evolution initially, but possibly eventually to an article specifically on Vedic creationism)
- Thompson appears to be known almost solely for his work on Vedic creationism
- no reliable third-party sources have been forthcoming on his other work
- There appears to be no secondary coverage for biographical matter at all
- "It therefore makes far more sense to cover Thompson's more noteworthy work in an article on the general topic of that work, rather than in a biographical article"
- "outside this piece of Vedic Creationism, coauthored with Cremo", the opponents offer "no third party citations to support notability of Thompson's work -- implicitly acknowledging my point that Thompson is only notable for this material".
- "WP:ACADEMIC requires "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (my emphasis), I'm not sure that 'ISKCON perspectives on the relationship between science and religion' counts as broadly construed, or that Thompson has had any significant impact on the relationship between science and religion generally. "

Blueboar
- does not pass either WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. If there are independent secondary sources that significantly discuss either Thompson or his works, I have not been able to find them.

IRWolfie-
- The article has little merit as a stand alone article. The only notability appears to be from some criticism he has received for a book and a tv appearance.

Bobrayner
- non-notable. There are some content problems too.

Xxanthippe
- No impact on mainstream scholarship.

Rocksanddirt
- meh. Delete - i'd rather not, but there is just not enough third party information on him to confer encyclopedic notability.

Steven J. Anderson
- In spite of recent attempts to pad the article with numerous trivial mentions, the subject still fails, WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLAR, and WP:AUTHOR.

Keep side:

Sdmuni108
- Thompson co-authored a work heavily and extensively criticized by reliable third party sources either as a direct review of the book, or in commentary on creation/development debates.
- Thompson was also a prolific author who wrote extensively on religion and science, as well as ancient astronomy, cosmology and world view with reference to Eastern philosophy and Gaudiya Vaisnavism, a branch of Hinduism. Further, he did extensive professional scientific work in the fields of computer biological modelling and satellite remote sensing; all work acknowledged by leaders in the field both in secondary and primary sources.
- there is most certainly other third party sourced information concerning Thompson besides his Vedic Creationism work.
- Prominent British evolutionist, J. Maynard Smith, favorable, if not enthusiastic appraisal of Thompson's conference paper published in Smith's edited volume, Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution (1990).
- There is a favorable 3rd party reference to the quality of Thompson's scientific work in an otherwise generally critical volume authored by Mikael Rothstein (Associate Professor at the Department of History of Religions at the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen). The title of the book is, Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Science and Religion in TM & ISKCON (Aarphus: Aarhus University Press, 1996), ISBN 8772884215. The author brought samples of Thompson's work to physicists at the notable Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark for assessment. Rothstein reports that Sadaputa dasa (Richard Thompson) is a "dominating figure" and "leading person" in ISKCON exploring the relationship between science and religion, and "the leading figure" researching ancient Vedic cosmography and astronomy. Within an extended discussion, Rothstein specifically devotes eight pages to Thompson's ancient cosmology work. According to Rothstein: "ISKCON's dominating figure in science, Sadaputa dasa, write about 'Science: The Vedic View' in nearly every issue of ISKCON's bimonthly Back to Godhead Magazine. . . . In discussing ISKCON's relationship to science these articles are excellent starting points, and as Sadaputa dasa is the leading person in this field of work in ISKCON, it is necessary to focus attention on his contributions" (126). "The judgement of ordinary scientists is well known to Sadaputa dasa" (131). "The most striking examples of the development and use of higher dimensional science is the work of Sadaputa dasa (Richard L. Thompson), the leading figure in ISKCON's work in this respect. 'Holding a Ph.D. in mathematics, Sadputa dasa has written extensively on scientific subjects from [that] perspective . . . . In Sadaputa dasa's book {Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy] the higher dimentional level of science is, among other things, exemplified through the quantum theory of physicist Niels Bohr" (122) "In order to appraise Sadaputa dasa's scientific competence, I have shown a substantial part of his production to a leading physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The scholarly judgement was in favour of Sadaputa dasa. His work was considered competent, although the physicist emphasized that he himself did not share the conclusions. As a matter of fact scholars at the Niels Bohr Institute were willing to meet with Sadaputa dasa for scholarly purposes." (209, fn11)
- Varadaraja V. Raman, a notable scholar, did a review of Thompson's book God & Science in Science & Theology News. Raman writes: "God & Science is mathematician Richard Thompson’s well-written collection of essays, showing the connection between science-and-religion and Hinduism. Through the book, Thompson proves himself to be a thoughtful writer with a solid mathematics and physics background. Furthermore, he shows a clear understanding of Hindu and other religious texts and a devotional sympathy for Vaishnavism, a metaphysically sophisticated form of Hinduism dedicated to the worship of Vishnu, a major Hindu god. Thompson clearly argues that the myths surrounding Vaishnava literature can be meaningfully interpreted in terms of current science — in conjunction with the many-worlds theory, geological time scales or evolution. "The book’s chapter themes range from cosmology to consciousness..... In the process, God & Science explains, in laymen’s terms, some of the complex ideas of current physics.... Most technical physicists wouldn’t concur with efforts to harness physics into a God-centered worldview, but this book will open readers’ eyes to the richness and multiplicity in human culture. For those who take God as the substratum of the universe, this Vaishnavite version of that conviction will prove both interesting and insightful."

Gaura79
- There're several "independent secondary sources that significantly discuss either Thompson or his works" cited in the article and/or on the article's talk page.
- WP:ACADEMIC cannot be applied to Thompson because Thompson was a religious figure and a writer. In no way Thompson is described in RS as a scientist, but "as a religious figure who extensively wrote on this topic and who presented and formulated ISKCON views on this subject".
- According to independent RS presented here and in the article Thompson was a leading representative of a Hindu religious denomination (ISKCON) in the field of the relationship between science and religion.
- Since the nomination the article has been rewritten and expanded. Independent, reliable sources have been added.
- There's a lot more material on Thompson and his work. It means that in the future the article can be expanded further.
- Judging by the sources cited in the article, on article's talk page and in the deletion discussion, the subject of the article clearly passes WP:BIO, particularly WP:AUTHOR. According to intelectually independent RS he's

"regarded as an important figure"
"has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
his work "has won significant critical attention"

There're at least a half-dozen reviews of Thompson's books in academic journals plus 20 pages in Rothstein's book. This is significant coverage in independent RS.

Wikidas
- There are independent RS that significantly discuss Thompson and his work, but the delete votes are based on the assumption that there no such sources.
- Obviously there are sources outside of the Thompson's Vedic Creationism work, as illustrated on the deletion discussion page. So it is much more than just WP:ONEVENT.
- Vedic creationism is not the "only notability". There are other RS (listed on the deletion discussion page) that are independent of the subject that discuss his work and also talk about Thompson as a "leader" for this religion.
- Just saying "non-notable" is the argument to be avoided in AFD discussions.
- The nominator Ism schism in previous deletion discussions voted strong keep on articles where no RS existed to establish notability, "and when there are sources he keeps refusing to admit it".
- The WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR do not even need to be looked at since Thompson is fully compliant with the standard of GNG. Wikidas quotes some of the RS covering Thompson: 1)Creationism: The Hindu View. A Review of Forbidden Archeology, by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. By Colin Groves 2) Constance Holden. "Anti-evolution TV show prompts furor". Science. March 8, 1996. p. Vol. 271, Iss. 5254. p.1357 3) John Carman. "NBC's Own Mystery Science". San Francisco Chronicle. June 7, 1996. D1. 4)Thomas, Dave (March 1996).NBC's Origins Show, 5) Nada, Merra. "Vedic creationism in America". Frontline. January 14–27, 2006. 6) Wodak, J.; Oldroyd, D. (1996). "Vedic Creationism': A Further Twist to the Evolution Debate". Social Studies of Science 26 (1): 192–213. 7) Brown, C. Mackenzie (2002). "Hindu and Christian Creationism: "Transposed Passages" in the Geological Book of Life". Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 37 (1): 95–114. 8) Rothstein, Mikael (1996). Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relation Between Science and Religion in Transcendental Meditation (TM) and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. p. 122. 9) Henry, Granville C. (June 1984). "Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science: An Investigation Into the Nature of Consciousness and Form by Richard L. Thompson" (in en). Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 19 (2): 377-380. I would stress also the specific dedicated source that only reviews the subject, which is on top and over the requirements of the GNG policy -- and that is А. С. Тимощук (2008). "Р. Томпсон – нестатистический махатма (1947 – 2008)". In А. С. Тимощук (in ru). Махабхарата, Бхагават-гита и неклассическая рациональность: материалы III Международной научно-теоретической конференции. Владимир: Издательство Владимирского государственного университета. p. 141-144. ISBN 9785893689181.

JivaGoswami
- Thompson's Vedic creationism work was only "a small part of what he did". According to the RS presented, Thompson is "notable based on his prominence in ISKCON, Hinduism, new religious movements, and his presentations on vedic cosmology".
- "There appears to be an anti-creationist wave trying delete this page based on a religious like fervor to diminish his importance based on his co-authorship of some controversial creationist literature".

Cinosaur
- "Quotes from Rothstein show R. Thompson to be notable enough in his own right, as a leading figure in comparative research of modern science vs. Hinduism – a unique subject that he contributed arguably more than anybody else towards, and demonstrably took well beyond the scope of FA and creationism".

MBest-son
- Thompson "is really not just an academic". There are sufficient independent from the late R.L.Thompson/Sadaputa Dasa sources that establish his notability. For example hits [10]) One academic publication in Danish states "It is especially a single, prominent leader of the movement, Sadaputa Dasa (born Richard L. Thompson is the name he writes under) like this exist."
- Because nominator did not checked alternative spelling of this Hare Krishna sectarian leader, as per the source quoted, and did not list this spelling of the name I suggest the reasons of nomination are to be reconsidered.
- Since the general notability is present (and more sources is found on the talk page), there is no need of any other notability, such as academic notability, for inclusion of this article.
- Just because that may be a pseudo science, that does not make the person meeting the general notability non-notable and certainly is not a good reason to delete the article about this religious leader.
- I am puzzled about the actual reasons of this nomination. He passes the GN requirement thus failing WP:SCHOLAR can't serve as the reason for deletion (unless it is a policy to delete controversial figures)

Userify NodeXL?[edit]

Hi, Can I get a userified copy of the NodeXL article? I've looked at the AfD and suspect I can clean this up. Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of killings of Muhammad[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of killings of Muhammad. 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Just in case you were unaware... in referencing the close of an earlier AFD for Travis Gordon, and without mentioning you by name, it was stated "the person who closed it as keep did so not following common rules for such things by accepting votes from clear sockpuppet/single purpose accounts." Looking at earlier AFDs, I see you were a closer. Not exactly a nice accusation. Just wanted to let you know. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for brightening up my day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've not always agree, but with your 5+ years of experience and twentyfivethousand+ edits, you deserve respect for making tough decisions... and know well how to recognize a sockpuppet or SPA... and outright rudeness from others. The accusation was not a nice thing to read. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for your administrative close of the debate.

I have a few questions:

You mentioned that there are 2 sources which arose that "... have been shown to demonstrate that there is scholarly discussion of the most important publications in maths.": I believe these are the sources you are referring to; correct me if I am wrong:

Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness:[11]

A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith:[12]

Is there anything that makes these a minimum threshold acceptable for the list?Curb Chain (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Essentially lists have to have a scope. We can't decide for ourselves that a subject is notable for a list. It depends on someone actually addressing the subject. Its a bit subjective, but consensus seems to fall around lists being includable if there are a couple of decent sources that address the specific subject of the list. So a book that deals with a particular theory would be useless to justify a list about a range of topics even though it well sourced a subject, but a couple of books/articles that address the actual topic of the lists - the most important maths topics - would serve the purpose of providing a scope that wasn't OR and a guide to what the content should be. Does that help? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does help, and I agree fully 100% with this view. I guess the debate centered around the inclusion criteria, and as you bring up, the resources we can draw-up for this inclusion criteria.

The inclusion criteria is very loose, plainly speaking. The sources themselves are very loose: The sources are limited to time periods.

The deletion discussion didn't seem to have brought up any better sources: I've looked at A Source Book in Mathematics (David Eugene Smith) and Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 (Ivor Grattan-Guinness): They seem to compilations.

A Source Book in Mathematics (David Eugene Smith) isn't much of a commentary, as much as it is a compilation of the works as they appeared when they were first published. This is also on the backcover. Other than that the title of the work ("A Source Book in Mathematics") includes the word "source", which is the closest word could mean possibly something "important".
Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 (Ivor Grattan-Guinness): I don't have much to say about this except for that it is unfortunately biased towards a certain time period (on "page "x""). We don't have the rest of the pages in the Introduction, so we don't know the limitations of Western mathematics, if there are any.

So, with these "shortcomings" if I can call them that, is it still sufficient to use this as the reason to keep the article?Curb Chain (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because their very existance shows that the scope of the list is viable. Inclusion in wikipedia shouldn't be too high a bar so the inclusion threashold isn't that daunting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further? This is view itself is something I don't agree with.Curb Chain (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more research and I've verified a source submitted by WestwoodMatt which could be used for that article. I have no debate with the decision of the close. I'm glad I argued my side of the debate.Curb Chain (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Goldblooded[edit]

As far as I know, that's not a requirement. Besides, he seems genuinely remorseful and understands what he's done wrong. If we do end up reblocking, I will accept a trout. — Joseph Fox 14:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Alright, I'll accept I was wrong on that one, then. Sincere apologies - but would you have done anything different? (I would also note that it says at the top of your talk page that you are "busy", so contacting you might not have been fruitful anyway.) — Joseph Fox 15:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link; of course, I'm no Sherlock Holmes so that kind of finer detail is difficult to fish out. But I understand and apologise for acting rashly, and will take steps to ensure a more well-informed response next time. Best, — Joseph Fox 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:)[edit]

Thanks for the reassuring message on my page , ll try my very best to abide by the ruls and you wont be seeing me again on the admin noticeboard :) (Unless of course im the reporter :P ) Goldblooded (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CityO fSilver 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize admins are supposed to follow policies, not act like they no longer have to follow them, right?[edit]

Alternatively, I might have felt the consensus was to keep. Certainly there was no consensus to delete. Anyway, keep because the nominator is being really nasty and unpleasant. Which is as logical a reason for my vote as their incredibly pathetic, ignorant and ill-informed comments are. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As an admin you should already be aware of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and countless other rules of conduct. Furthermore, as someone participating in AFD discussions you might want to actually read the notability requirements instead of merely tossing out insults at people who point them out to you. Furthermore, based upon your comments you also seem unaware of the concept of "no consensus" on an AFD vote. Frankly, you owe an apology for making those comments. If you do not feel like you can swallow your pride and make the apology to me, please apologize to other admins for your lapse in judgment. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I can't believe you are trying to give civility lessons to anyone.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost. After the way you spoke about me you have the brassiest neck in the world coming on my talk-page and berating me. Don't ever post here again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Clear Warning[edit]

[13]: Is this a willful or genuine misinterpretation of your comments? Thank you for your voice of reason in this discussion, but I am sorry you got involved in this mess. Note also my comment here. Cunard (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_decision_reversed_by_fiat..._three_months_later.[edit]

I've asked for this to be reviewed. It seems odd, at the very least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Spartaz! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

important[edit]

List of important publications in sociology – recreation of a new article from scratch permitted There is a clear consensus that we can have such an article but no real refutation of the deletion reason - removing original research. – Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't original research. The closing administrator for that AFD stated he felt that the word "important" made it original research, while most everyone else said otherwise. So saying that it should stay deleted because the word "important" equals original research, then saying you can recreate it with the word "important" still in the title, seems impossible. The article clearly defined its requirements for inclusion. This same argument was done in a dozen or so other articles that listed important publications for various things, and had the word important in the title, consensus being an overwhelming keep for almost all of them. You could rename the article to be List of publications in sociology seen as notable enough by the media to be commented on and which also have their own articles in Wikipedia, since that is the inclusion criteria, but its rather long. So the word important was determined to be fine instead. Dream Focus 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its original research if you haven't got a clear scope to define important. That's been a long standing given as long as I have been closing AFDs. Just recreate the article and sort your scope out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had a scope clearly defined at the top of the article, it the same one all the other articles had.

This is a list of important publications in sociology, organized by field.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:

Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic

Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly

Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic

Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world

Latest and greatest – The current most advanced result in a topic

Isn't that clear enough? Dream Focus 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is "says who?" Who says they created a new topic, who says they changed scientific knowledge significantly, who says the publication is a good introduction or survey to a topic, who says the publication has significantly influenced the world, who says the current most advanced result on a topic. Clue is the answer if you and some random guy then its OR. Also, who decided that these are definitional of important topics in the field? Scopes in important topics need to come from an independent evaluation not made up on the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources such as media coverage and especially university level textbooks says who. Dream Focus 10:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So write yourself a scope that references the standard for media coverage or the university level textbook and knock yourself out recreating the topic with this as your reference. Have fun :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND[edit]

Please place Romsey Town Rollerbillies in my userspace or the article incubator. I have added several sources to it and I intend to continue to improve it until others think it deserves inclusion. Dualus (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you undertake not to restore it to mainspace unless the draft has been approved by DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where on WP:GRADUATION is DRV mentioned? Dualus (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not. No reason why it should be. DRV has precedence and as closing admin to the DRV I'm telling you that the page can't be restored until after DRV has endorsed the draft, If you accept that I'll be happy to userfy the page... Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my plan is to move it to the WP:INCUBATOR, mark it for pending assessment, take it off my watch list, and never look at it again. Dualus (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent plan. I'm going to move it back to the incubator myself shortly with a header note about DRV but first I'm looking into the dispute between you and amadscientist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue[edit]

If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion to the article talk page and try being specific as to how this violates BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

To recap, here's a potential scenario where slavish adherence to policy could result in a bad outcome:

Confused newbie posts an inappropriate promotional article on an (apparently) non-notable roller derby club
The article is nominated at AFD, where it is deleted
Confused newbie complains to a bunch of people about it
Experienced editors explain the relevant policies and suggest that the article could be improved at the WP:INCUBATOR
Newbie takes their advice and works on the article to bring it into line with the policies. After some effort he feels the concerns raised at the AFD have been addressed.
DRV however endorses the original close since the closing administrator correctly interpreted the discussion.
The newbie moves the improved article into mainspace, where it is deleted due to the previous AFD. But that AFD and the subsequent DRV were both about the original version, not the substantially improved new version.

See where I'm going with this? I imagine it would all look very Kafkaesque to a new user. causa sui (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because our policies and practices are kafkaesque. I looked over the sources presented at the end of the DRV before closing it. The best source was in the AFD and wasn't accepted as good enough and most of the rest of the sourcing wasn't anywhere close to detailed or meeting RS. If I had thought the sourcing was good enough then I wouldn't have closed it. As far as I can see, the incubated article was available for consideration throughout the DRV and many of thise commenting were regulars who are not frightened to overturn a valid AFD close based on new sourcing. I can't see that I could have closed the DRV differently and moving a draft into mainspace immediately afterwards is .. well .. going to lead to trouble. There is nothing to stop the user from asking the draft to be considered at DRV for restoration. If the consensus is that its good enough then it will be restored. Its entirely possible that the agressive and bludgening responses to DRV comments lost the nominator any possible sympathies from those wavering over the close but truthfully, we can only close by what we have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your understanding of policy leads you to believe that your hands are tied here. As it happens, I don't think policy actually obligates you to this view; I would think that if an AFD closes to delete it should not preclude re-creation if the new revision addressed the concerns raised at AFD. But aside from that, even if policy does seem to prescribe salting, you have an ace up your sleeve that allows you to do the right thing here, whatever you think that is in this particular situation. For my part, I'm not judging that the revised article is improved enough to be re-instated over the AFD: but I do think that "the AFD (on the old revision) closed as delete, the DRV (on the old revision) closed as delete, so you can't recreate this article no matter how much you improve it, even though we told you that you could" is a very bad reason to salt an article, and it is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that WP:IAR is there to help us avoid. With that said I'll leave it to your judgment. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would say that IAR in deletion discussions has never worked and always leads to more drama than light. I do feel that the article as it stands has been rejected and letting another AFD and possibly a DRV run for 7-14 days would be much more disheartening for a new user then a clean break and a clear outcome. If it gets further improved nothing to stop a new DRV allowing recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the recap. I'd say it goes something like this:

Editor on Wikipedia since June joins a mailing list dedicated to addressing Wikipedia's gendergap problem. They see a request for participation on a roller derby article deletion because of a fear of setting precedent. They see another post suggesting people work on local articles.
After the deletion request was posted and never having participated, after having not participated in the subsequent discussion about what a notable roller derby is, the editor who has been participating since June and who was currently involved in a highly contenious editing situation on Occupy Wall Street ask causa sui to restore the deleted article to his user space.
User does minor fixes that fail to address the substantive points of the WP:AFD in a way that would make it clear that the article is NOW notable, having adequately addressed the problem. These fixes are either on Incubator or on Userspace.
User seeks support from regular roller derby contributors, but ends up alienating them instead because of rambling, off message comments that may or may not have linked roller derby to female on male domestic violence, and to pornography. In any case, the roller derby editors active on Roller derby, getting roller derby articles to WP:DYK, participating in the notability discussion for the sport aren't supporting him.
User moves article to main space or is user sets a redirect from main space to article incubator. Not entirely certain. (Am certain something in main space was deleted.)
User goes to deletion review. User is repeatedly told no, the incubator article has not been improved enough but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [14] It is pointed out the European inclusion does not count as international because skaters from the league, NOT THE LEAGUE OR AN ALL STAR LEAGUE, competed, and the league has not competed in any notable bouts at the highest levels. User is told the sources used in the incubator version have not been substantially improved and do not help it meet WP:GNG. User is told this in two different rooms on IRC when seeking help.
User causes disruption on other articles by inserting non-free images on unrelated articles.[15] User is told this is not appropriate and on IRC, where he is told this is a blockable offense. On IRC, user encourages another user to take similar action to get her non-free images on Wikipedia.
User adds red links to the article on articles to help bolster the article. (These are removed and conspiracies are alleged that this was only done in regards to the article he was working on.)
User nominates article for a peer review citing "I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been through a contentious deletion, deletion review, incubation, further editing by an uninvolved editor, and nomination for speedy deletion. I would like other perspectives on whether the sources provide enough depth." [16]
User goes to IRC, complains about users with such gems as "Why isn't she supporting the article? It is feminist!" (in regards to another topic) and finds a sympathetic editor. User apparently fails to tell sympathetic editor the article had been denied recreation on Deletion Review.
Sympathetic editor moves article over. User SHOULD at this point know the article will be nominated for deletion. They failed to garner support from existing roller derby editors. There was consensus on the Deletion review the article should be kept deleted.
Article is subsequently nominated for a procedural AfD. It gets three delete votes based on the same criteria that the article was voted for deletion.[17] The two keep votes are from user and sympathetic editor who moved it to main space.
Concurrently, user is before at least one ANI for disruptive editing for violating WP:3RR related to other activities on wiki.

The important parts: He should have known he lacked consensus and the votes that did not support recreation were based on the incubator version, NOT the original, deleted version. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the more detailed narrative. But if the DRV was considering the 'improved' (depending on whom you ask, apparently) version, then that's all we need to consider and the issue is settled. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zia McCabe no consensus[edit]

Zia McCabe[edit]

how is it possible you see a no consensus in this discussion? I see a "Delete" nomination by Lachlanusername ("no notable articles about her independent of The Dandy Warhols"), three "Merge and Redirect" (with Dandy Warhols) votes (for the lack of significant coverage of her independently from Dandy Warhols) and just ONE "Keep" vote with a poor argument... "she might be only famous as a member of a band but she's received fairly substantial independent coverage", not indicating at least one reliable source of this "fairly substantial independent coverage" that concerns her and not the Dandy Warhols ... Cavarrone (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that the discussion was relisted twice before, which means that the reviewer didn't see a consensus and there has been no comment whatsoever in the last two weeks. A further relist is clearly pointless and how can I possibly find a consensus there if two other reviewers have failed to do so? Potentially an issue with a NAC relist but once Sandstein relisted I'm stuck to find any other outcome then NC without any addition to the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification... bizarre, bureaucratic but absolutely correct and however not your fault--Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing like a boss[edit]

Stuff like this makes my heart swell. I guess that AFD's super-closed now? :P m.o.p 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cameron dollar[edit]

hello, can you please explain why you deleted the cameron dollar (fighter) page. i am unsure why it got deleted and am just curious. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenPGold (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stdlib.h close rationale[edit]

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stdlib.h. I support the outcome but question your rationale. I understand the issue like this: there is nothing encyclopedic to say about Stdlib.h, so an article isn't justified. Stdlib.h is a subtopic of C standard library, so the article would be a WP:SPINOFF, not a fork.

I think we're likely to refer to this Afd when discussing some of the other problematic articles in this area, so I'd like to ask you to take another look and consider modifying the rationale. --Pnm (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a great precedent for a series of XFDs. I chose CFORK because of Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. SPINOFF is to the same guideline so I don't see the point of the change. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Babble - could a copy be made available to me for merging with other pages?[edit]

Hi. I had proposed merging Bubble Babble with other pages, and had thought we'd have a bit more time to do so - I hadn't gotten any responses back either way from the cryptography people (possibly aside from the one guy who didn't even fully read the article before deciding it was "snake oil"). BTW, what are "spa" votes? And my vote was for keeping it, if that wasn't clear. (Incidentally, it isn't "my" page - nobody owns a page on Wikipedia, as I recall. I simply found the thing interesting.) BTW, yes, I've checked the Wayback machine - its last copy is from 2008. Allens (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request at the "undeletion" page also, specifying that it was not for a full undeletion but for a copy of the page moved into my userspace or alternatively emailed to me for working on merging it. Allens (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, there are no reliable sources for this material so you may not merge it into any other article without a) breaking our attributation policy and b) it would be original research and therefore not verifiable to a RS. Sorry. WP:SPA explains the term. In the context I'm referring to inexperienced editors, IPs and non-policy based arguments. Its a short of AFD shorthand but I'll clarify my meaning in the rational. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is its usage in a well-known piece of software not a reliable source? (And if I were to follow the above policy, I'd start deleting things wholescale in various articles instead of being polite and tagging them with "citation needed".) And I'm certainly not a single-purpose account, nor an IP-based account; inexperienced, yes, but that's neither of those. (BTW, you're succeeding at discouraging me from making contributions to Wikipedia - ones that are certainly backed up with reliable sources, even by your standards. I suggest doing a bit better job of WP:BITE.) Allens (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring this but RL has claimed me for the moment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allens, I'm sorry you feel that way but enforcing community agreed standards on article inclusion is not biting. The issue was finding reliable sources that discussed the subject in detail. Well known ^{[according to whom?]} ^{[citation needed]} is subjective and isn't what we judge inclusion on. Look at WP:GNG for the best explanation of our basic standard. I'm sorry but the discussion rejected the merge option in favour of deletion so you can't just go ahead and merge it anyway because that isn't how it works on a collaborative project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WrestleSlam Magazine[edit]

Hi Spartaz

Wondering if you'd intended to comment on or take any action on the other article nominated for deletion at the above-captioned AfD discussion.

Thank you, ^Bongo_matic 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it and fixed it! Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoDak Con - Hi, could you please expand on you Keep close rationale for this AFD please. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to expand do you have an objection to my sending the AFD for Deletion reviewing the close? Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy with real life and haven't had time to do this. I never object to anyone going to DRV but it might be more constructive if you told me what your beef with the close is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the AFD again. After Ron Ritzman relisted the discussion the commentary was all keep and mentioned references that were not rebutted. I this case, Ron clearly couldn't find a consensus otherwise they wouldn't have relisted and after that there was only one way traffic. I can't see that I had any choice to close other then keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

questioning why you deleted an article about elections in an area[edit]

You closed the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2001_United_Kingdom_general_election_result_in_Essex with delete. I was wondering why. There are hordes of other articles just like it, as I mention in the group AFD for many identical articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall. You didn't provide any reason for your closure. Is this election less notable than others for any reason? Dream Focus 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on this. I think we need an overarching discussion to reach a meta consensus rather than doing this a county at a time. The issue is whether a county is a sensible region around which to build election results articles. To do that we need reliable sources that discuss the subject of election results by county X. Without this the articles fail the GNG and are OR and SYNTH with a dash of INDISCRIMINATE thrown in... I have expressed that view in the AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He jumped the gun.[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

post made at the time of the DRV close and related issues[edit]

An administrator has issued me a warning on my talk page because of an edit at [18] which you closed. As you may recall, administrator Bushranger participated in WP:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay, I identified his !vote as WP:JUSTAVOTE during the DRV, and his !vote was not defended by any of the participants at the DRV. Please consider removing the template part of the edit on my talk page. Are you willing to help in dispute resolution with administrator Bushranger and User:Ahunt? Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I can't avoid the conclusion that Bushranger's actions were reasonable. You can't say you didn't know about the policy about not commenting on closed AFDs when you were recently hauled over the coals for just that. Sorry, but if I intervene its not going to be on your side. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that your refusal to stand up against administrator misuse of WP:INVOLVED to be inconsistent with your willingness to risk your real life identify by standing up to the GNA. While this remains unresolved, I am effectively prevented from doing other routine edits that involve modifying a closed discussion, so I am requesting your assistance in making the following edit. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houngan (comics), please modify:

Fails the general notability guideline. Simone (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

with:

<small><strike>...</strike> sock of Claritas, see [[WP:Banning policy]]. ~~~~</small>

with the edit comment being "WP:Banning policy, revert of banned user". Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth is the first part of your post about? As for the second, I'm sure that someone will get round to it eventually. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally edit closed AfDs just to flag one of its participants as a sock; these are not really "routine" edits. I'm not sure why Unscinitillating is so keen on re-opening closed AfDs to provide irrelevant commentary on its participants, but there really isn't any point. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRESS PLAY ON TAPE deletion[edit]

I just tried to look up more information on the band PRESS PLAY ON TAPE and found that you deleted this page. I've read the deletion discussion and cannot figure out why the page was deleted. This question needs to be revisited. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE is a well known band that's been active for many years. I came to learn about the band from mainstream press here in Sweden and cannot understand why there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article. The band frequently does public appearances and have released several albums. Removing articles like this in the interest of the public is Wikipedia administrators at their worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.255.8 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion which led to the deletion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Press_Play_on_Tape. You need to demonstrate decent reliable sourcing such as described at WP:GNG to show that this band meets our inclusion standard. If you can do that, I would be happy to restore the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter)[edit]

I would like to start off by saying that I do not intend to be rude to you, if I do say something that does offend you, then I apologise in advance as I want your help on this.

Now I don't want all the pages to be reinstated, but just Alan Omer. There are several reasons to why Alan should not have been deleted, one reason being that he was the very first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, which is already very significant, and there are many sources out there which will talk about this.

In case you don't know them, BAMMA is the biggest MMA Promotion in Europe and is getting more and more recognised by the United States with each event. They have signed talent such as Tom Watson (fighter), Nate Marquardt and Jimi Manuwa. If you look at the criteria supporting notability on WP:MMANOT, BAMMA meets all of them, which means they are a notable organisation, which means Omer was the first to win a major title for a notable promotion in that particular division, which should mean that he is also notable. He has fought with this promotion twice, but because he was their first featherweight champion, he meets at least one criteria for notability.

I have looked up information on this guy, and there is some interesting information on him. The 'Bloody Elbow' website has an article on him, which has him ranked as the forth biggest prospect in his division in the world. There is also a 'Prospect Watch' on him by Sherdog, which despite being a few years old, it is still a major article on him.

There are also articles on him that are in German and Polish which talks about his wrestling training and fights in Poland, but I think there is a policy in Wikipedia:Notability (people) that says different languages doesn't matter, as long as they translatable, which can obviously been done through Google Translate, and notable articles. Because of this paragraph and the one above, I'd say that these articles (which can all be found on Google news search as '"Alan Omer"') meets WP:GNG, in which he meets the very first criteria for fighters in WP:MMANOT.

Because of all this I say that Omer is notable, and I would him reinstated with you help please. Thank You for your time to read this. BigzMMA 10:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but I wasn't seeing a consensus for that article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Shamrock_(fighter) but it wasn't clear cut either. I'm happy to review but we need sources. Please read WP:GNG and let me know the best 2 - 3 sources you have and I will look. Foreign language sources are permitted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you very much, I will add in the links just below this and say what it is exactly -

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Sherdog-Prospect-Watch-Alan-Omer-17130 - Sherdog article, headlined as 'Sherdog Prospect Watch: Alan Omer.'

This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage" as it address the subject directly in detail, "Reliable" as it is a verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline, and "Sources" as the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources and multiple sources are generally expected. See below's link for evidence of this.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/2/12/1989095/world-mma-featherweight-scouting-report-4-alan-omer - Bloody Elbows article, headlined as 'World MMA Featherweight Scouting Report: #4 - Alan Omer'

This article meets the same WP:GNG guidelines as the link above, however, they are both different as where the top link talks about Omer's background, this article breaks down Omer's whole fighting style, and ranks him amongst the other prospects in Europe.

http://www.mmauniverse.com/events/reports/bamma-2-event-report-by-julian-radbourne - Article, goes into full detail about each fight result on the BAMMA 2 card.

This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage", as it is shows all of the BAMMA 2 fight results, which has other sources covering the event as well, "Reliable" as the website covering the results is independent from BAMMA and again it is widely available in other sites covering the event, "Sources" as it is a secondary source (not produced by BAMMA or their parent company), "Independent of the subject" as I already mentioned it wasn't produced by BAMMA or their parent company.

Your last edit removed a comment by me referencing the GNG and RS and asking you to explain how the sources met RS. Please cut this down to the best 2-3 sources you have and explain how the source meets GNG & RS. If you can't be bothered to properly evaluate the sources, why should I? Also please bear in mind that blogs, fan sites and websites that do not have robust fact checking and peer review are not reliable sources and that detailed coverage means precisely that and that mentions aren't going to help. Thank you Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, I have now just left the best 3 on here and I have given a short paragraph to each to say which GNG guidelines they should meet, so now it should be made easier to go through. BigzMMA 09:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion of this now Spartaz? Does it meet WP:GNG? BigzMMA (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering a relist, please bear with me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, take as long as you need. BigzMMA (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, I have asked you about this over 3 weeks ago, and I haven't had a clear cut reply for what I have presented to you as you requested to see whether it meets GNG, now I can and have be patient, but that has its limits, and now I am asking you again, will you please look over the links I have presented to you and tell if they are enough to sustain Alan Omer's position on Wikipedia? Thank You BigzMMA (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently sick and not very focused on anything but I will try to review this tomorrow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thank you for the reply and I look forward to your reply. BigzMMA (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now relisted this for discussion of the sources you have provided. Personally I think it falls a little short but that should be a community, not an individual decision. My apologies for the delay in dealing with this. I'm still sick by the way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair enough, at least now I can get the information across of why it is notable and point of the things that has similar pages kept on Wikipedia, thank you for your time doing this. BigzMMA (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier[edit]

I take your closing summary as a huge compliment, and thank you. Exploring the fr.Wikipedia was an education as, like many, I had previously asssumed that other Wikipedias were pretty much just like us. Wow, what an eye-opener. From now on, whenever I see a nomination based upon "deleted by (non-English) xx.Wikipedia", I'll be sure to visit that non-English one and educate myself on the differences between them and us. This is an inspration for a new essay... WP:We are not them, to explain that we do here is not to be based upon what others do elsewhere by different sets of rules. Off-hand, might you be able to advise if there is another Wikipedia that more organized in defining inclusion critera than are we? As it seems to me that the others seem far less organized. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Try the German and Swedish wikipedias for strict inclusion criteria and very firm governance... I like the idea of the essay. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question + Request[edit]

I already asked Master of Puppets about this (as the original deleting admin), but he's been gone since the 12th, so I though I'd ask you instead.

I see you recently deleted Air Hawke's Bay

a. Can I create a redirect to Hastings Aerodrome, where it is mentioned?

b. Can you let me see a copy of the article, preferably by userfying it to my userspace or, less ideally, by e-mailing me a copy?

Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2[edit]

Thank you for your confidence. Though I still wince with the memoery of the last, I'll accept and see if other deletionists have that same confidence. It seems that the RFA has not transcluded properly, so I'll wait until it does to do an official acceptance there. And unlike the last one... my answers will come slowly and only after careful thought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may go ahead and transclude the RFA nomination for discussion. And thanks again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please...[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullah Rahmatullah. It was a discussion where there were multiple discussion points raised, on both sides.

Your closure does not say why you discounted the keep arguments.

I am reviewing the articles on individuals named Rahmatullah. I just did a google search on "Mullah Rahmatullah" taliban. It seems to show there are lots of references available.

In my experience, when administrators close {{afd}}s as delete they either think:

An article on this topic is so hopeless the article name should be WP:SALTed;
An article on this topics seems a hopeless proposition, but not so hopeless that salting the name is necessary;
An article on this topic is a possibility, but the current version is missing key elements that are important enough it can't be kept in article space, in its current form. Another version, that fixes whatever weaknesses this version contains -- better references perhaps, could belong in article space.

In my experience, it would be far better if every administrator's closure made clear whether the idea of an article on the topic in question fell into the third group above, or the other two groups. After the discussion is over, and the article has been deleted, it can no longer be obvious to good faith contributors, who aren't administrators, why an administrator reached the conclusion they did.

In particular, I raised what I regarded as an important problem about the challenges in this {{afd}}. In earlier {{afd}}s, when multiple references used a name, and it was not clear whether the multiple references referred to a single individual, or a bunch of namesakes, I had created multiple articles. And challengers in those {{afd}} called for references that would substantiate that there were multiple individuals with the same name. In those {{afd}} closing admins closed in favor of those who argued the articles should be merged, unless a reference definitely said there were multiple individuals. In the {{afd}} you closed challengers took the opposite position -- all the individuals named should be assumed to be multiple individuals, unless there was a reference explicitly stating there was just a single individual. It seems to me, in our {{afd}} system, that it falls to the closing admin to make a determination on issues like this.

Ironically, I believe that some of the challengers who took one side in the earlier {{afd}} took the opposite side here.

So, I would appreciate it if you could explain this closure now.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, you expect me to have any recollection about what my thinking was 11 months ago? I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday. Reading the discussion again I don't see any rebuttal to the argument that the sources related to multiple people called Rahmatullah and that even if they did the subject hadn't met the notability threashold. Under BLP we can't restore the deleted content or recreate the article unless we can a) show convincingly that the sources used relate the to same person and b) that this subject is notable enough. My advice, if you want to revisit this discussion is to produce credible sourcing and ask DRV for permission to revisit the content. What is the point by the way of the odd AFD templating in your message? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other administrators who don't record the reasonings behind their closures say they only record their reasoning when it isn't "obvious". No offense, but may I suggest being unable to remember your reasoning later is an excellent argument for recording your reasoning at the time you made the closure?
- The nominator complained that I had made attempts to improve the article, while it was before {{afd}}. This does not seem like a criticism that should be taken seriously
- You write: "Reading the discussion again I don't see any rebuttal to the argument that the sources related to multiple people called Rahmatullah". I did write

"WRT to whether he is dead or alive -- Abdullah Mehsud was reported to have been killed three times. When WP:RS differ over whether an individual has been killed, or when they were killed, neutral reporting of what the WP:RS say is in order. I suggest it is not our role to try to interpret which of the conflicting RS is correct."

I wrote:

"WRT whether there were multiple individuals named "Mullah Rahmatullah" -- It is possible that the Taliban had multiple leaders named Rahmatullah. In other afd challengers asked for more references after I had created multiple articles when I thought multiple references referred to multiple individuals. Challengers there expressed a challenge 180 degrees opposed to those voiced here. Challengers there thought I needed further references to support that all the multiple references weren't pointing to a single individual. Here, in this afd, I am being asked for further references to substantiate that multiple references are all to the same individual."

You write: "Under BLP we can't restore the deleted content or recreate the article unless we can a) show convincingly that the sources used relate the to same person ..." I would appreciate you being specific as to which passage or passages of wiki policies says this.
One of the most troubling aspects of BLP is the surprising state of flux it is in. In 2010 the policy was edited something like 1000 times -- 1000 edits with practically no indication those edits were the result of any kind of prior discussion or agreement. While I am sure that most of those 1000 edits were made in good faith, intended as routine copy-edits I am also sure that those edits have gradually, incrementally, pushed the policy to a more extreme position, without meaningful discussion.
Are you familiar with Jābir ibn Hayyān and false Geber? False Geber wrote under Jābir ibn Hayyān's name. For centuries no one suspected there were two different individuals. This confusion continues to cloud coverage of these two individuals today. The Jābir ibn Hayyān article has been improved. But when I first started citing false Geber as an example of someone notable, for whom all the normal biographical details were absent, (1, 2) the Jābir ibn Hayyān article attributed false Geber's work on Sulphuric acid to the earlier man. My point here is that we are not publishers of original thought. If our references are contradictory it is not our role to state the references refer to multiple individuals, or that multiple articles refer to a single individual.
So, again, I would appreciate a specific quote of the passage you think requires I "show convincingly that the sources used relate the to same person".
I suspect, from the brevity of your original response, and that you neglected to address all the points I raised, that you don't have much patience with this issue. I am going to end by encouraging you to make a greater effort to explain your reasoning, at the time you make your closures. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humbug[edit]

Hi there.

WRT Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship and If you can't gain the communities trust you shouldn'y have access to the toolset - would you mind if I played devil's advocate?

(If/when this is at all annoying or 'badgering' or just can't-be-arsed, just tell me, and I will shut up)

I'm coming from the angle that - yes, ideally, RfA would be no big deal, but we know that's a lie, and it's clearly resistant to change. (that's a premise; if you don't accept that, just let me know)

Assuming you accept that premise, then Q. Would you trust me - Chzz - specifically - with 'delete' permission, for one month? (I'm sure you can predict which direction this discussion is heading)

Chzz ► 18:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, do you think that any user who has failed to pass an RFA should be able to acquire access to the toolset without asking the community for a recount? Its about the credibility of the deletion process not the individual... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should be permitted e.g. 'delete', without the fuss and angst of Rfa - for just a month? Do you think I might destroy the project? If - for whatever reason - I don't want to go through RfA, do you think I am unworthy? Chzz ► 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear but the issue is about the credibility of the process. How do you think a newish user seeing their article will feel if the user deleting their article has failed an RFA and acquired the ability to delete without the full scrutiny of the community. My objection is not based on personalities but on the required structure for the deletion to be credible. Its about process being seen to be followed not about getting the right decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; is there any way of adjusting the proposal to resolve that concern? For example, if it clearly said that they could only delete uncontroversial CSD's, or unanimous AfD's? Or, if we just remove "delete" entirely, and only allow other rights? Chzz ► 08:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, there is more to closing an AFD then counting the votes and we have no backlog of prods. I personally believe the whole process is dangerous because its basically sticking two fingers up to community approval in the allocation of tools. I simply don't see that you can resolve that concern. Additionally, it seems to be attracting far too many users who don't have a hope in hell of passing an RFA because they see it as an easier route to power on the project. I'm personally finding that quite revolting but I'm not including you in that. I'd probably support a fresh RFA for you but diluting the processes for acquiring tools is simply not on the table for me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I sort-of understand, even though I don't agree. And thanks for your confidence in me. Quite a number of people have suggested I should do RfA, but I'm reluctant, because I've seen so many editors ripped to pieces there. Chzz ► 12:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD error[edit]

I just realized that one of my comments in an AfD you recently closed was triple-signed and was wondering if it would be appropriate for you to remove the two extra signatures.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz has closed many AfDs recently. Would you provide a convenience link to the discussion? (I could not find the AfD in your past 100 contributions.) Cunard (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here.

Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U1[edit]

Per speedy deletion criteria U1, will you please delete User talk: Interchangeable/A Point on Featured Articles? Also, I would like some sort of action against TCO. His behaviour is extremely disruptive, as you may see from my talk pages and his block log. Inter change able|talk to me 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Inter change able|talk to me 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final[edit]

Hi do you know if it will be possible to retrieve the information for this article somehow? Jprw (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have email enabled? I can email it to you as long as you agree not to recreate it unless there is a consensus to do so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I post it onto a user page? Jprw (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There consensue here seems pretty clear and its obvious you have tried everything to keep the article so my judgement is that this isn't coming back anytime soon. Userspace is for working on stuff that will be put up at some point so I personally think its more reasonable to email it to you to keep offline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicklaus Golf Equipment[edit]

Hello! I was surprised that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicklaus Golf Equipment by saying "the result was delete". There were only two !votes for "delete", against one for "keep". One of the "delete" !votes was the nominator. The other was user:stuartyeates, who pastes the same canned "delete" comment into hundred of AfD discussions, often at the rate of two or three a minute, so IMO he doesn't add much weight to the discussion. The "keep" vote was from me, with a link showing coverage. I am wondering if you might want to revert this closure and instead relist it for further discussion. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discounted your keep votes as a vague wave at google. If you have specific sources for me to look at then I'd be happy to review but we don't expect closing admins to wade through google looking for sources - that's the job of the AFD participants. As best I could see, this was unsourced and therefore deletable OR and I also made the redirect you requested. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, that's not the decision I would have made (the two "delete" !votes were also vague waves, so you could have relisted it to get some more solid rationales to either keep or delete) - but you're the administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathlands[edit]

Saw your close and per request, began removing AFD tags from some of the affected articles.[19] I'm quite willing to do them all, as it requires a one-by-one-by-one bunch of edits. But before I get too far, what appropriate note shall I put on the related talk pages? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The old afd notice from the lead article will do. You can just cut and paste it across... Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you[edit]

Thank you for your nomination of my successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect anything less Michael, and you deserve it. Good luck and I'm always happy to help or give an opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applause[edit]

Hey Spartaz, I wanted to give you due credit for coming to AN/I and seeking review of your block. A lot of admins would be hesitant to do so and ask for feedback on their actions (especially after univolved admins already denied unblock requests). You did, and got an honest response (and people disagreeing, which is a good indication that your action was well within discretionary range). I wish more of us had the balls to do so. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That means a lot to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Buffy and Angel episodes Deletion[edit]

Hi there. Regarding your decision to delete List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes because you thought the arguments to keep it where ITISUSEFUL. That was actually not the (only) reason why people were arguing for the page to be kept. Indeed, one member arguing for its deletion wanted proof of the claims being made by those who think the page should have stayed... He did not think the arguments were invalid, just that he needed proof that the claims made were legitimate. Looking at the debate I actually think those that argued for the page's deletion did not fully understand its contents. I would kindly ask that you take another look at the page, with the point of view that you may very well be examing something that is completely unique in the history of television: Two shows designed by the same creative team to be watched alongside each other. Literally a same timeline occurring simultaneously, with the same characters existing in the same universe, not uncommonly affecting the events in both shows. And that's not including the shows that shared themes. Indeed I would argue that the Buffy/Angel chronology is as valid as the individual series episodes lists, and so would respectfully ask that you re-asses your decision. Thanks. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you direct me to an archived version of the page so I can at least make a backup copy...? I'd really appreciate it and can't seem to find out how. Thanks! Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a reliable source proving that the Buffy/Angel chronology is a s valid as the individual series lists? Has anyone else provided the same timeline? Its all very well to say it but unless people are writing about it its not a notable subject for a list. And the onus falls on those who want to keep content not the other way around. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're saying that you WILL re-evaluate the claims on that page? Wonderful, thanks. I can certainly try and find something that backs up its notability. What kind of article would you suggest? Also, can you point me to an archived version so I can ensure all that work is not lost to the ages due to a misunderstanding. Thanks Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:RS and WP:GNG. The sources you provide must be detailed secondary reliable sources addressing directly the subject of the importance of the merged chronology. That's not a repetition but something that addresses this as an independantly notable subject. Primary sources, blogs, fan websites and wikis are not going to meet the RS threshold. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and find suitable articles. Thanks. Also, could you answer my question: Please let me know where I can find a copy of the page. I can't imagine it's actually been permanently deleted from Wikipedia's servers, so there must be a copy of it available somewhere. At the very least it could be moved over to the Buffy Wikia. Thanks again. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the article at User:ThunderPeel2001/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes. If you move it to wiki remember to do a transwiki to preserve the history for attributation purposes per our licence. (please don't ask me how to transwiki because I have no idea how it works but it sounds cool when you say it). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons OTRS[edit]

Hi Spartaz. As a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team, would you be able to review some of the image permission requests? There is a 29-day backlog. Would you keep an eye on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 29#Ricardo Martinez and whether 66.176.42.2 (talk · contribs) (who says he is Ricardo Martinez) submitted a permission request? I would hate for Mr. Martinez to have to wait a month to receive a reply. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticket but since its a non-specific generic email address, I have sent a confirmation and will sort out the images when I get a reply. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resolved now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you, Spartaz. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xebian[edit]

Hi. I see that Articles for deletion/Xebian was closed with a Delete. This looks a little like a supervote, because there was just one !vote for delete (which actually said Delete or Merge to XBox). The consensus doesn't look to me like delete, and it would appear that the content should have been merged in. (However, I can't see that content - of course.) -- Trevj (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I deleted it on the basis that it wasn't properly sourced for a standalone article and must have rejected the merge on the basis that the article as it stood was OR and therefore not merge-able. I have reviewed the close here. I would still oppose merging any OR but if you can source any of the content you are welcome to merge it now. Thanks for highlighting this for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for wading in after 5 months! You have a good memory. Anyway, I see what was meant by OR. All I found worth including was one book, and the project wiki itself now seems dead! Anyway, some content (although a citation is needed!) is now in Xbox Linux. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Improving_AFD_debates[edit]

Note to self : need to work on this and start ball rolling... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN[edit]

I added the diffs to show what's going on, I have added a couple more after a big add and another editor added one as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"[edit]

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Hollywood[edit]

Hey,

I don't have anything invested in this page, but I've provided references in the deletion discussion which can verify 80% of the article. I am not questioning its notability, rather, that it was closed way too soon, and without much effort put into improvement. One vote for delete and one for merge in only a week does not seem like much input, especially not grounds to delete. I suggest that you at least redirect to the album. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just rereviewed the articles. Billboard is a sentance around a review of the album, I can't see what sound and vision say and the google books reference doesn't lead to any text that I can see referencing the song. A week is the standard length of an AFD discussion. I saw evidence that the participants had considered the sources and what I have seen doesn't = reliable sourcing. If you want to set up a redirect that's OK but the article as it stood was unsourced and therefore original research. WE don't merge original research. Nothing would stop you taking the factoids from the sources you found and adding them to the album article - in fact that would be best because the text would be based on sources and more trustworthy that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination)[edit]

I followed your DRV close of Death Valley Driver Video Review, which gave me leave to renominate the article in a few weeks. I analyzed the sources in the article and started an an AfD. Two "keep" votes at the AfD have accused me of a bad faith nomination. One has recommended that I be blocked. I do not believe I have engaged in block-worthy behavior. Would you comment at the AfD about whether my AfD nomination was done in accordance with your DRV close? Goodvac (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD reclose[edit]

Hey Spartaz, As I noted on the original closer's talk page, I think the best outcome would have been to keep and make it an event article (per BLP1E), but a NC close or even a keep could be reasonably justified given that discussion. There was certainly no consensus to delete as far as I could see. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Hilton Hobit (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And... I posted this before I read your closing statement (that was dumb). I see where you are coming from, but I think it's pretty clear a fair number of those in the discussion felt he was important enough to overcome BLP1E. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I really don't see delete there given that creating an event article is a clear option. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)Even the delete side agrees that this was a one event person so the closing policy was BLP1E. Cherrypicking from the policy
  Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
  This isn't a John Hinkley, its a marginally notable blogger who failed to get elected to his local council. There were two questions I considered, was there an appropriate merge target or rename - and I didn't see a consensus for that in the discussion and secondly, was there evidence of the person being more then a low-profile individual - well so far no. Keep votes that reference GNG for a BLP1E don't address the reason for the nomination and provide no policy basis to overcome the BLP1E argument. At the end of the day there is absolutely nothing to say for this person except for the 1E and perhaps a line of speaking fast. That's not a biography and the article can never overcome the balance issue inherent of being famous for only one thing that makes you look stupid. I did think this through and I do believe that precedent has supported this interpretation in the past although I can't remember a specific case to quote and I'm too preoccupied with RL to research this. If you have an alternative that addresses the UNDUE argument satisfactorily then I'd be happy to listen but I didn't see any alternative in the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Picking up on the second point I saw most of the keep votes as only addressing the notability aspect - hardly any of them argued that BLP1E was overcome and there was no consensus to move to another article and I'd be honest if asked to look at it whether it was sufficiently notable for enduring interest. Maybe a couple of lines in an election related article but there wasn't a clear direction on that from the discussion. Maybe if RCSprinter hadn't closed this as a keep I could have relisted it with some direction but in voiding the NAC close I felt obliged to reclose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I get where you are coming from, but I don't think a delete outcome is a fair reading of consensus here. If the keep !votes had no leg to stand on, it would be one thing. But with the (completely independent) world record thingy and the sustained coverage (over years from what I recall) of the one event, I think they do have a leg to stand on. Next step? I'd say relist would be reasonable (as you suggested above) or DRV to review the whole thing would be fine (especially as you feel the relist option got taken from you). Eh, I don't really care too much (just got drawn in because of another non-admin closure by the same person). Hobit (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, what confuses me about your closure is the comment that BLP1E overrides GNG. However specific notability guidelines normally exist to clarify the GNG, not override it, and so I read BLP1E to mean merge and redirect if a suitable redirect candidate exists. Since the debate concluded that GNG is satisfied, I think that the debate concluded as "keep". What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing yourself about the relative strength of a guideline (N/GNG) and a policy BLP. Noone disputes that this guy passed GNG/N but he is still notable for one event. There would be no need for BLP1E if the subject wasn't notable as there would be no article anyway. The point is that we don't have articles on even notable figures if they are only notable for one event. In short, a policy trumps a guideline when it comes to BLP1E. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that BLP is a policy, but I think you are mistaken, as paragraph 1E is simply a rewording of NOTNEWS and BIO, and says nothing about deleting articles. It is a regular occurrence for articles about people who are notable for only one event to survive AfD. May I request that you restore the text of the article for reworking (or possibly relisting / review) at a new title of Adrian Hilton parliamentary candidacy? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've responded on my talk page. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Riddance[edit]

"Nobody likes a non-cooking food critic." Usually because they lack the talent or drive to create because pissing on everybody else's work is much easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharskjold (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

No problem, I've also switched to semi-protection on User:Spartaz/table, the only other fully protected page in your userspace, hope that's okey. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erb?[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I do hope you didn't drop your admin bit because of my comment. As noted (on my talk page) I just screwed up and certainly didn't mean to offend. I've been working 60-80 hour weeks and just am not where I should be. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. You have mail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two bickering editors[edit]

Well done, sir. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah Humbug....[edit]

.. er I mean happy new year to all my talk page watchers Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Island UFO incident deletion[edit]

Hello, I re-visited the deletion process for the Kodiak Island UFO incident and since you were the person who approved the deletion of it, I was wondering if there was enough solid consensus to move forward with it? True, it's in the past and we will more than likely not see it again, but considering that the support and opposition was close to balanced, was it appropriate to delete it, rather than calling for no consensus? DarthBotto_talk•cont 09:32, 02 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that you need better sources then you had before, so if you want to move forward you need to find more references. See WP:GNG and WP:RS to get a feel for what we are looking for, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqib Khan please?[edit]

I improved the article. Nominator and sole delete vote reversed based upon the improvements. Seems a textbook speedy keep now... but for me to close as keep would be "in my interests". Needs an outsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't, I gave up my bit. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone else closed it. I was thinking WP:NAC. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have never been a fan of a NAC speedy close but I'm a bit puritan about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 25‎[edit]

Can you make head or tail of this? Unscillinating seems to be making comments to no one in particular; he references an editing restriction you handed down on him. The comments seem to be violating the spirit of the restriction if not the letter Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscillinating isn't bothering me so no reason for it to bother you. What he is referring to was a threat to block him for persistently disrupting deletion discussions after they have closed by posting additional comments and arguments. Using the talk page to continue as discussion is perfectly fine in these circumstances but I already had my say and have no intention to respond. After all, it looks like the outcome will support my vote. Its a bit like you, where you can't let the other party have the last word and I think he has the same issue sometimes. You shouldn't really have posted in response because it only encourages him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa...don't compare me to him. I don't ramble on endlessly Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I'll grant you that your arguments are more policy based but neither of you can let someone else have the final word. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about User[edit]

Hi, I am not upset and don't want to file a formal complaint but I do have a few concerns with user: Luciferwildcat. Today, while patrolling the new pages I noticed an article on an obscure language that was very poorly written, contained no citations and actually seemed to make the argument that the language was unnotable. Since I was a little quick with my CSD trigger finger, I decided to slow down and simply propose deletion. I sincerely felt that my action was justified. I then received a few posts on my wall from the author: Luciferwildcat telling me that I had no right to do what I did, that the tag was being taken down, and going on rants about certain things being instantly notable. I tried to tell the user they were being disrespectful and that my action wasn't a vendetta but rather simple maintenance. The article has since been improved and its notability confirmed so no problems there. I am just a little disturbed by Luciferwildcat's actions especially, the last post where they described my head as "delicious" , refereed to me as "baby" and signed off "love you." I know that you have had a history with this user so that is why I posted this message. I don't want any formal actions taken against them, I just don't believe these actions belong in a community such as wikipedia. I also would like to keep this situation low key but if that is not an option than please don't take any further action. I will save the posts on my talk page. Have a good day Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding Luciferwildcat to be a challenging editor and they seem a little more resistant than most to feedback. The situation is complicated because Purplebackback and Luciferwildcat are like oil and water and rub against each other every time they interact. I'm going to monitor for a while but should this continue then we will gave to consider a more formal way of preventing disruption and that will require evidence. Thanks for letting me know about this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Muscat International Airport, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BAA and Muscat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recent involvement[edit]

You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, this one. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Even without a mop, you deserve this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but its a shame that neither party is listening. I fear I will be an admin again very shortly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might beat you to a dual block if they keep this up. FWIW, as you said above, in one respect the one is righter than the other, but it really doesn't matter. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

I have responded on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you could clear some items up for me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, please see my remarks there and tell LCW if I'm representing a consensus of editors there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done. I'm not going to block since I am too involved, but I won't oppose anymore. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your opening sentence in this discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Judaism[edit]

In April, following this deletion discussion, you deleted this article. I had previously moved it to User:Rabroy's Userspace. I notice that he has now recreated the article by moving the userspace page into mainspace.

If you decide to redelete it, you might want to send a warning to Rabroy, so that he can preserve what he has done. He has invested considerable work in the essay. I mentioned it on his talk page, and also at the talk page of Project:Judaism

Thanks,

--Ravpapa (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further your post of the speedy deletion notice, I have copied it to the userpage of the author of the article (not me - I had nothing to do with it!), User:Rabroy. Thanks for your speedy handling of this. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton-Byrne[edit]

I have made an entry on the AFD page for the above article, but I must confess I don't know what BLP1E means. Can you enlighten me?

Sardaka (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Perhaps you can revisit your opinion after you read them? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Template[edit]

Hey; as you'll now see from the tag at the top, I'm closing this TfD. Please do not make any more edits to it. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Alpha_Quadrant. Thank you. —Taric25 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you![edit]

I saw you non-admin-closing a DRV! *grins*—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Lone Ranger (2013 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Western and Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of other edds material[edit]

You should not remove another edds talk page comments, it is against the rules. If you do so again I shall request assistance at ani.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[20]]Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No idea how that happened. Must have clicked something accidentally on my watchlist. Sorry about that. I do think however, that a little thought might have helped you realise that that had to be an accident and that such an aggressive message was unnecessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Saskia Hampele article deleted?[edit]

And there was no mention of why in the ruins of the article or in this talk page. WillardWorsley (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion log I deleted this in July 2011 because of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saskia_Hampele. Do you have any better better sourcing that might show this person is now notable enough for an article? You can find more useful advice at my essay on deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.shabdaguchha.com

[1] ttp://www.shabdaguchha.com

[1]