Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 |
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2017. That makes me a bit stuck in my ways but I have the benefit of experience and working through many of the changes that have left us where we are. I am getting grumpy. Sorry but all the drama and grief has washed away a lot of my younger idealism...
A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
I mostly work on deletion discussions. I am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources? Also, don’t waste your time asking me to review a close or you are going to DRV because I’m not going to review a close with a sword hanging over my head. Just raise the DRV or ask someone else.
Useful Links:
- Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
Jones & Lawrey
I'm not sure how WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 16 is an Endorse, as it looks like both WP:Articles for deletion/E. J. Jones (rugby union) and WP:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey had no consensus and the closer super-voted. Surely you are judging here the lack of GNG case, while ignoring NOLYMPIC is met - and perhaps another supervote? I don't see how a relist wasn't an option, or does any harm. That aside - a redirect seems appropriate, given as Olympic medallists, it's a reasonable search term. Can you expand the closes to opine on the redirect prejudice? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I also have a question of your rationale for A Lawrey: ...its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option
Which comments were against policy? It seemed that the arguments were one guideline vs. another i.e. WP:N vs WP:GNG vs WP:SNG vs WP:NSPORT. Was the "Endorse" close based more on head count or strength of argument? To be clear, I'm OK if AfD participants !vote to delete when an SNG is met. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) met NSPORTS, but there was a majority supporting deletion (including myself). My contention is that the !voters should decide when to apply one guideline (GNG) vs. another (NSPORT). The top-level Wikipedia:Notability guideline makes a simple either–or statement:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...
It doesn't mention SNG with a caveat about a demonstratable path to GNG. !Voters can apply it that way, or the community can reword the guidelines. I have no problem if the !voters stipulated that and say delete per GNG. I just don't see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS giving closers leeway to weigh one notability guideline more than another.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how the above is anything but IDHT. That failing GNG overrides meeting an SNG which itself explicitly requires GNG (and which explicitly says that an article which meets it does not necessarily need to be kept) is widely accepted and supported by the guidelines as written; and this has been pointed out to the above multiple times (including at the DRV); and seems to be getting community support as well in the ongoing RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, EJ Jones could be E. J. Jones (American football) (whose notability however appears rather borderline, fwiw) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
118 Reunion
Hi, can you please email me a copy of the deleted article. I just want to merge a paragraph, noting the nominator has said he has no objection to a merge, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. Thanks for closing the DRV for Naveen Jain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've never paid close attention to situations like this where a deleted article is restored, but I'm seeing talk page archives that are still deleted. Is there are bot that cleans these up or do they have to be done manually?
Hmmm. Looks like Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) was working on it, but didn't complete it. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Explicit (talk · contribs) restored the archived talk pages that I noticed. I there a way I can help to search for other pages? --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Rajen Sharma XfD.
Please give your rationale for your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajen Sharma. Please also confirm whether or not you have salted Rajen Sharma. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is no need to give a rationale for obvious XfD decisions. I have now salted it, I think enough of the commuity's time has been wasted. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thankyou Black Kite for saling. Please refund Rajen Sharma to draft. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK: I've read the top of the talk page and can understand a waste of time to ask for the refund here. Thnakyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Struggling to understand this AfD close
Hi Spartaz,
Could you perhaps leave a short reasoning as to why you closed Articles for deletion/Vithoji Rao Holkar as no consensus? I'm a bit puzzled, because I was hoping for a qualitative assessment of the discussion, and not just a numerical one. Thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Its NC because there wasn’t one and a delete close would never have stood scrutiny as the discussion was tainted by socks from the outset. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Sydney Smith (photographer)
I went ahead and made Sydney Smith (photographer) a redirect to the museum that houses his work. Can you restore the underlying edit history? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn’t the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Smith (photographer) Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't really a clear consensus there. In any case WP:ATD supports considering alternatives to deletion – even by the closer, where these have not been considered by discussion participants. The redirect is valid irrespective of the discussion, and restoring the underlying history can provide information that can be used to expand Beck Isle Museum. BD2412 T 21:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree and I don’t understand why you nominated it for deletion if you didn’t want it deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have expressly stated in the discussion that I thought a redirect would suffice, but I did not see a clear consensus for deletion developing, so unfortunately I let it slip. At the time that I nominated the article for deletion, it looked like this, and I could not easily find sources for further development (largely due to the rather surprising commonness of the name). Over the course of the discussion I was pointed to possible routes for expansion, and the article developed into this, which made me less certain that deletion was the best course. By the way, I am not saying that this was a bad close. It is a permissible outcome, but not a great outcome, given the existence of an article for which this subject is a subtopic. There is not, in Wikipedia, a process separate from AfD for nominating an article to be converted into a redirect. BD2412 T 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree and I don’t understand why you nominated it for deletion if you didn’t want it deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There wasn't really a clear consensus there. In any case WP:ATD supports considering alternatives to deletion – even by the closer, where these have not been considered by discussion participants. The redirect is valid irrespective of the discussion, and restoring the underlying history can provide information that can be used to expand Beck Isle Museum. BD2412 T 21:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
A question about your close
I looked at this AfD several times, wondering how I might close this. Would you mind engaging briefly? BusterD (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Basically its about the standard to apply. If it was GNG then it would be a keep but there was no argument against NCORP applying, and that is a much harder standard to help us deal with puffery and promotional editing. Once we have the standard we just look at the arguments against it and none of the keep arguments really didn’t engage with that standard and saying it passes GNG kimd of suggests that they weren’t arguing it passed NCORP. On that basis the delete arguments best engaged with the standard being applied and were well argued and demonstrated decent source analysis. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm a former NYC resident and while I'm sure there's a big-city bias in customer-facing business articles, I'm a sort of a sucker for nice city stories like the one Mikey presents. I found myself writing a delete assertion, then changing to weak keep while writing it, then not making any change on the page, awaiting someone with a better closing experience. I have largely stayed out of AfD closes, but yesterday started making some AfD assertions to get back into the rhythm. I find it interesting that NCORP is a SNG which acts as a filter, keeping routine business news to a high standard, whereas FOOTY tends to be an objective SNG bar allowing (what I consider) easy entry to the subject area, using routine sports news. Appreciate the finer points made... BusterD (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Query
Hello, Spartaz,
I hope you are well and looking forward to spring!
I am new to working in the AFD/TFD/RFD area and even less familiar with the fun world of Deletion Review but I was discussing tracking down redirects of Naveen Jain article that had been deleted when the article was deleted on an editor's talk page. I noticed you overturned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) at Deletion Review but when I looked at the AFD, there is no notation there about the overturned decision so it is still listed as "Delete". I'm not sure what is normally done when closing discussions at Deletion Review but when I looked at this other AFD there is a tag linking to the Deletion Review discussion. If typically that is not done, then I'm sorry to bother you about this but it seemed like there should be a notation or something. Any way, take care! Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here's another example where an admin tagged the page differently. It seems like there isn't a standard way of handling this. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- In the absence of a working DRV closing script (I really miss having one of those) we have no standard way of closing discussions. Historically one of the DRV regulars goes through and links the AFDs to their DRVs. There is no requirement in the admin closing instructions to tag theAFD and I have never done it. All is always clear in the article deletion log. Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Given Town
You closed the above AfD discussion as "merge", which was reasonable. Yesterday, I performed the merge to Theresienstadt Ghetto, but the merged information was reverted (diff) by User:Buidhe as WP:UNDUE which is not an unreasonable opinion. Unfortunately, we are left with the anomalous case that the information that was at The Given Town has been functionally deleted even though there was no consensus for deletion at the AfD discussion and with a redirect to a target article that no longer contains any information on the redirected topic. Respectfully, my suggestion for a resolution would be to consider changing your close to "no consensus" and reverting the redirect, thus preserving the information, and allowing any further merge discussions to go forward outside of the AfD process. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Given Town could be redirected to Theresienstadt (1944 film), where it's discussed in the historiography section. If I had been aware of this deletion discussion I would likely have !voted keep as there is probably enough coverage for a stand-alone article. (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Spartaz, do you have a view on how to resolve this? Thanks. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
"Get the L Out" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Get the L Out and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 16#Get the L Out until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
an AFD you closed got redone less than an hour later
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don't_Leave_(Simba_Tagz_song) you closed as no consensus on 07:26, 3 April 2022. One of those who said "delete" started a new AFD for it on 8:15, 3 April 2022. If they didn't like the results they shouldn't mention to you why or gone to deletion review, not repeat it again like that. Dream Focus 06:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)