This is an archive
Hi Spartaz, I don't think you know me. But I've seen you around AfD and have always seen you as a model administrator. Just came around to tell you that I was sad that you handed in your bit and do hope you re-take your tools whenever you feel like it, and continue your stellar contributions. Most warmly, Lourdes 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Spartaz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please can I be unblocked so that I can pay my respects to SBHB who has sadly passed away?
Accept reason:
I believe you asked to be blocked, thus you are free to request to be unblocked. Therefore, I have lifted your block. Yamla ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Strike a light.... |
You want to burn some witches, here you go. (Just make sure logically they weigh the same as a duck, so you know they're made of wood....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
Nice to see that you also have decided to return! Also, in case you don't already know (I gave this warning to Randykitty) there's been several compromised accounts recently, 3 of them admins, so just a heads up on security. Semi Hypercube ✎ 22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Hey, since the parent article has been deleted, can you delete the following related pages:
Regards.-- N Ø 17:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just curious how you determined the consensus was "delete" at this AfD. Thanks - wolf 11:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have closed this AfD saying that the "result" was Redirect. How did you determine that, when 6 editors argued that the subject met WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED? One vote was an outright Delete, three were redirect or delete/redirect, and two (including the nominator) suggested a minibio. How does that result in a redirect? Also, how does it help establish notability guidelines for supercentenarians, which the Wikiproject LONGEVITY argue that they are doing? Or have they already been established, but not actually stated anywhere, so that editors waste time arguing on AfDs for cases that the LONGEVITY project have already determined are outside their unstated guidelines? I will ask this question on the LONGEVITY page, though in reality it is an ANTILONGEVITY project, with some of the most emotional language I have seen in Wikipedia discussions used by those trying to delete all these articles, rather than assessing them individually. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You closed this as delete in May. I started a new page at Draft:Patrick Little (American politician). He has coverage beyond his senate campaign now. Someone else thought he was important enough to mention at Gab_(social_network)#History. Do you think this is enough to not have WP:G4 apply? "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" Џ 02:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Spartaz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello,
You recently deleted the article Four C's of 21st Century Learning. I saw the advanced notice but didn't had time to respond with edits, etc. I would like to re-write the article addressing the concerns raised. How can I get a copy of it? I apologize if there is a better way to communicate with you - just point the way.
Thanks, Architect21c ( talk)Architect21c
Hi Spartaz!
Is there any other way to contact you outside wikipedia? Sir Josh Mangila, the person who you removed the wikipedia page last April 2018, wanted to talk to you.
Thank you!
Maywardjedi ( talk) 01:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Try OTRS. I only discuss deletions on wiki Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz- it has been a while since this happened but a page I authored ( /info/en/?search=Tim_Mohin) was removed before I was able to copy the content. I see from some other comments that you are able to userify their removed pages - could you please do this for me, or otherwise make the original text accessible? Thank you, and happy new year. Tatter Software ( talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not exactly sure what the process is for attempting to make a wikiarticle for Dillon Danis, but I've already started the page in my sandbox and I think it is at a stub level. I have his medals corrected, his mma record, and I've started discussing his involvement in the UFC 229 controversy. Let me know what I can do, I just didn't want to try creating the article before asking you because that's what the message said to do. Cheers Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. You blanked this BLP as a redirect. You need to put this to AfD if you want to do this unless you achieve consensus on the BLP talk page first. Britishfinance ( talk) 02:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
...is at DRV again, and this is your pro-forma notification. — Cryptic 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, could you please move this deleted article to draftspace? I'm finding some coverage since the close and would like to work on it. Thanks. FloridaArmy ( talk) 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of reading this AM over at ARCA, and your following comment made me smile "...my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked." Mine keeps changing it to crambo. Atsme 👩💻 📧 12:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Humbug! I believe your handing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) was flawed. There was no consensus to delete. There was a possibility of discussion coming to a merge/redirect. But it requires someone to do it. I cannot offer merge unless I am prepared to commit future time to do it. Of major concern was this content removal [1] it not appropriate to be marked as WP:MINOR not does it match the description which implies removal of wikilink. Please resolve these matters. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kst. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Samsara 23:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you plan to request comments on your block of Legacypac? If so, I will support the block as being appropriate for the string of personal attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl. If the block was for some other reason, I don't know what my opinion is, but you can see that several users including me tried to caution Legacypac that their attacks had gone too far. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For the block of a usually valued editor who was engaging in out-of-control personal attacks on a respected administrator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding recent deletion of article for Jonathan Peizer /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Peizer_(2nd_nomination) This was created by an unaffiliated 3rd party in 2012 and since I have referenced it in multiple links over the ensuing years I'd like to make a case for maintaining it at the risk of a lot of 404 errors.
Please find additional references not on the current article page: - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer - https://everything.explained.today/Jonathan_Peizer/ - http://moussemagazine.it/influencing-machine-galeria-nicodim-bucharest/ (See references Jonathan Peizer) - Morino Institute From Access to Outcomes, Digital Divide Report http://www.morino.org/divides/participants.htm - https://socialsourcecommons.org/appreciations - Wired June 1998 pg 106 Netizen Section - Sysop for Soros by Ben Green - Uncanny Networks The MIT Press, A Leonardo Book March 2003 ISBN 0-262-12251-0 7 x 9, 392 pp.- (Description of Background on page 144 prior to the Actual Interview Chapter) - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/651/566 (Background information proceeds interview)
3rd Party reviews of my Books / Manuals: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/book-review/the-dynamics-of-technology-for-social-change-jonathan-peizer/ https://fcw.com/articles/2006/07/24/welles-the-dynamics-of-technology.aspx https://www.philanthropy.com/article/What-Grant-Seekers-Should-Know/174201 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Book-Explores-Role-of/172427
Thank you for your time. Jpeizer ( talk) 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer April 21st, 2019
@ Spartaz: Agree with you 100% that I am clearly not practiced here with the variety of rules and procedures. Per your request:
Jpeizer ( talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer 22 April 2019
@ Spartaz: Really? https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer is not even close? I'm never disappointed by the arbitrariness displayed on Wikipedia. An article goes uncontested for five years. Out of the blue it is deemed unworthy, invalidating years of reference links to it. Is there consideration taken of the consequences of that? Not an iota. While we who ask questions are told to always be polite, more often than not we encounter rather unnecessary snarkyness as a reply and derision for not being expert in following multiple levels of distributed and ever changing rules that all too often make something that was fine one day, an egregious sin the next. Thanks for your "consideration/considerateness" in deeming my accomplishments unworthy, including, most ironically, supporting Wales/Wikipedia through the Information Program in its early years at OSI. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. "
Could you please refrain from applying the word "creepy" to other contributors' character?
In 2011 I started an article on Dawn Dumont, a multi-talented Native American woman, who was a lawyer, an actor, an author, a journalist, and a stand-up comic. I had even found a couple of freely re-usable pictures of her, a fan of hers had uploaded to flickr, from one of her stand-up performances, to illustrate that article.
I was impressed by Ms Dumont. I thought the article I had written was neutrally written. I thought it didn't say anything negative, or objectionable.
Well, a month or two after I started the Dawn Dumont article I learned Ms Dumont wasn't happy with it. Her initial complaint was over the freely distributable picture I had chosen. She uploaded some alternate photos, she preferred, and replaced the free picture with one of her proprietary images. She then seemed not to understand that those images were going to be deleted, because she had not specified a free license when she uploaded them.
When her images were deleted she got angry, said she resented any kind of online profile of herself, that she didn't control, and said she wanted the article deleted.
I had been the only contributor who had altered the article's editorial content, so I had the option to apply a G7, author requests deletion speedy tag. Ms Dumont's wishes were clear. I could have told her how to use our procedures to go through the usual channels to make a request for speedy deletion. But, I decided not to force her to jump though those hoops.
That was my intent in leaving a note on one of Ms Nelson's YouTube videos.
While I think Ms Nelson measures up to our inclusion criteria, I also think she is close enough to the cusp that she would win a courtesy deletion, if she were to request one. Traditionally, while we would not agree to delete an article about a really major figure, like OJ Simpson, we have agreed to delete articles on BLPs who have measured up to our inclusion criteria, who are less notable - as a courtesy.
I would prefer to save my time, and not work on an article that may get a courtesy deletion. If Ms Nelson is going to consider requesting courtesy deletion, I can save her time, and the time of everyone who reads her request, by a request not to bother.
I think this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
We are not prosecutors. Perhaps some people who have voiced opinions on Ms Nelson's mother's artistic choices think she should have faced criminal charges? Tough. She didn't. If she had I am sure we could have found a way to cover those charges using a neutral voice. I think anyone who is disturbed that she didn't face charges, who then wants to delete this article to suppress an instance where the free expression they oppose won, would be seriously lapsing from NPOV.
What will your position be if Ms Nelson says she has no objection to having the article restored? If she were to say my note was considerate, not creepy, are you going to withdraw your characterization of my note as "creepy"? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)In respect to *Joseph Olusola Iji " and it's entry into the articles for deletion, subsequently your actions deleting links in Ondo state notable people. Would appreciate if efforts were in improving the article rather than deleting.
Best regards. Krazo 10:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, can you help me by advising what is the appropriate license for these visas photo? Since no one hold the copy right of the visa and I am the person who took the photo and edit it. Hope to hear back from you soon Hoangkid ( talk) 08:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have marked the file Yemen visa.jpg for deletion. I am the author of it and I don't know why the license it's not appropriate. Can you explain to me? Thanks. -- Ayaanle ( talk) 23:33, 9 August 2019 (GMT+1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yemen_visa.jpg
Damn, again? Come back whenever you want. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
... with thanks from QAI |
One of your AfD closes is being discussed here. Reyk YO! 11:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, you had deleted Death of Mohammad Habali as a result of the AFD and I just restored it per this fresh source. Would you please just merge the histories and talk pages? Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, It was brought to my attention that you were the Administrator who closed the discussion of my wiki page. I understand because of constant updates from my radio audience it was taken down (after 10+ years) but I assure you, there are appropriate references & sources to back up the important information. Im requesting a copy of the old wiki and code to be "draftified" so the proper changes can be adjusted to meet your requirements. Your help is appreciated and apologize for any inconvenience.
Steve Covino -TV & Radio Host Sirius XM / ESPN
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacman76 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Reversing your deletion of the halle hazzard. New competitions added.
Hi Spartaz, Manjappada was twice nominated for deletion, ( 1, 2 and resolved as "delete" by Jo-Jo Eumerus and you, respectively. User Farzanfa007 has tried to bypass this deletion by moving pages. Can you please look into this and WP:SALT the page? Coderzombie ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Facepalm jeez.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, your sysop access has been restored per your request at WP:BN. Welcome back, — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
How can you possibly say there was a "clear consensus" to delete that article? There were considerable disussions arguing that the article did meet the general notability guideline. Just because the loudest voices on the debate (like Bearian's response to everyone) dominate discussion does not mean there is a consensus. Bookscale ( talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the potential confusion over merge and TNT, maybe Merge, then delete and redirect once merge is complete would’ve been a better phrasing. I don’t think it needs to be reopened or anything, I just wanted to clarify what I meant since you’re closing note seemed to think it was confusing. - 2pou ( talk) 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I think Teacher's Pet (video game) should have been deleted as I noted, Arms Corporation is an animation studio that made OVA (which should be redirected), and not a video game developer. Knowledgekid has said "the other one can and should be deleted" (meant for video game). Teacher's Pet (OVA) staying as a redirect is find as you closed. Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I personally feel that delete needed a stronger consensus and merge/redirect is a valid compromise between the two sides. Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I wish to open an adminstrative investigation into the premature closure of the AfD discussion for the Hayley McLaughlin article, in this run up to the holiday. That discussion featured repeated issues with editors failing to AGF, and making completely unjustified POV accusations (and in so doing, exhibiting prohibited bias against non-logging editors). (It was after such an unjustified accusation of relationship of this editor with the subject, that I took a break from the discussion, only to find the discussion closed, despite the impending US and European holiday.) Please advise which venue this might be best raised, and how I might reference that AfD discussion, now that your action has deleted the record that was in process. Please reply here. Thank you. 2601:246:C700:9B0:ACE8:FBE5:9149:3FE6 ( talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
For your reference, see WT:AN#Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはSpartazたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
02:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hayley McLaughlin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C ( talk) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz - I think the consensus on this was to "Merge" rather than to "Redirect"? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I want your humble opinion on how to create an article. Your quick responce would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarcss ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Spartaz,
Did you mean to delete this article after your DRV closure? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
– 2020 is a
leap year –
news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (
#0F4C81), Pantone's
2020 Color of the year
– North America 1000 22:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristian Pache. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 ( talk) 09:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Please restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. thanks -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 ( talk) 09:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz,
As you can see (with our magical sysop spectacles) this article has been recreated by
Marino73 using bits of the article deleted via
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi.
I'm leery of an outright
WP:G4 tag, given the
WP:Good Faithyness
categorical imperative. What do you think would be the best way to deal with this?
Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
09:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello!Recently you deleted a page in wikipedia.May I know the reason for that? Page- Murali Krishna Woww guys ( talk) 10:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The "you noticed it, you fix it" boiled sweet of individual responsibility |
So basically what you are saying is "hey, I did my job at the AFD, you've noticed it has popped up again, and now you are asking me to do your job? Point taken. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider Shirt58 ( talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
Dear Spartaz, I'm writing to you regarding discussion for deletion of WOWCube article. I would like to restore any drafts of that article (if they exist) and move it to my personal sandbox so I could rewrite the article and prepare it for possible moving to mainspace (I think I can rework it so no signs of any promotion would exist there). I have recently made request for undeletion thinking that any drafts may still exist. Unfortuantely, the request was declined according to the fact that there was a discussion. So I was adviced to contact you as the administrator who closed the discussion. I am interested if any opportunities of restoring the draft of article and moving it to my personal sandbox still exist. Best wishes, Mark Ekimov ( talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back! -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess you weren't convinced by the argument that "X" is not a fork of "history of X", but the other way around. It would be nice if you would start the DRV yourself, also. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Race and intelligence. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please return to the deletion discussion the ShifCustom. The nominator claimed that there are no reliable sources, but this is the opinion of one user. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail ( svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, interfax.by, onliner.by, abw.by). These sources comply with the criteria of reliability. References to awards confirmed the assessment of the subject, its notability by professionals.
You wrote that no sources were added after the nomination. In reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian " Moto", a catalog of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Sources may still be or new ones may appear ( WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). In 2020, there is a new publication, added to the article. There was no consensus to delete.
The article may be added and improved ( WP:NEXIST). In the home wiki (be:) added, did not translate into English until I finish. Best -- Maksim L. ( talk) 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ShifCustom. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maksim L. ( talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my friend! I requested for undeletion of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship, and they told me to talk with you to see if you can help us and accept because this is important to the kickboxing history. It was wrongly deleted. I will explain the situation:
The article and the years 2011-2018 in this kickboxing promotion established by Eduard Irimia (World Promoter of the Year in 2011 and 2013 Medalist of Honor of the Italian Republic) were wrongly deleted because the first SUPERKOMBAT article were created in the beginning of 2011. At that time some MMA users were deleting a lot of kickboxing, since then there were established some rules for all the combat sports. That's why it had more Deletion Nominations. Following the dissolution of Europe's No 1 promotion It's Showtime, SUPERKOMBAT was considered the No 1 promotion on the continent and until the creation of Glory World No 1 for a short time. All the events used to be Eurosport broadcasts, highly popular show. You can check on the article's multiple sources from the largest newspapers! Furthemore, SUPERKOMBAT co-promoted with K-1 in their last big year (2012). SUPERKOMBAT promoted the next Glory champions and challengers such as Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira, Pavel Zhuravlev, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Yousri Belgaroui, Yoann Kongolo etc and K-1s Albert Kraus (K-1 WGP MAX Champion), Ismael Londt (runner-up), Hesdy Gerges, Bob Sapp, and many more ranked to the top 10 of the world - some even World's No 1 and even p4p No 1 like Verhoeven and Pereira. After the Dutch scene of the Netherlands, Romania is one of the largest kickboxing scenes in Europe and in the world. I want also to create years with kickboxing in Romania, to cover all the promotions. I repeat, the articles had several nominations because of the past and anyway since 2011 this promotion was also awarded World's Promotion of the Year in a year (the main article has sources about this fact). In 2011 the promotion was unknown and new, although many, many big K-1 and It's Showtime stars were joining it even then. Please correct this injustice! Superkombat is on Wikipedia Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Poland and Portugal.
If you decide to reinstate, please undelete it but also move the main page to Superkombat Fighting Championship instead of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship. As per UFC.
Just look at Youtube also! We have fights with over 1 million views, plus the MMA magazines and channels are also relaunching.
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
You forgot to help me. :(
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeff Bezanson. Since you had some involvement with the Jeff Bezanson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bruno H Vieira ( talk) 18:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The file File:My poor swamped watchlist.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, no encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Contact me when you are on!
Good close, thanks, although with an implicit criticism of my actions? I'm not sure how, having moved a page, I could've predicted that another editor would nominate it for deletion in a couple of hours time! :) cheers, —— SN 54129 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you consider restoring Superkombat Fighting Championship please? It was the Promotion-of-the-Year in Kickboxing in 2011, beating Ultimate Glory (eventual Glory) and It's Showtime of the Netherlands (formerly No. 1 in Europe for years). Rico Verhoeven, Roman Kryklia, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Mladen Brestovac, D'Angelo Marshall and Ismael Londt fought in SUPERKOMBAT, 6 out of top 10 heavyweights [ on the list. And the list can continue, No 2 light-heavyweight Pavel Zhuravlev, No 1 middleweight Alex Pereira (kickboxer), No 4 middleweight Jorge Loren, No 5 middlweight Yousri Belgaroui, No 7 middleweight Igor Bugaenko etc My arguments are very valid! .karellian-24 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India. I see you found that there was enough consensus for a TNT. However, I read the consensus more as a consensus to merge personally (full disclosure: I !voted keep). Many delete !votes simply argue that the events covered in the article aren't true. While most of them cite the absence of "riots" as evidence, these riots had already been removed from the article. Keep !voters challenged their narrative by saying large parts of the article are covered by reliable sources. If you discard those votes, that say the article as a whole is a "hoax", you end up with a pretty balanced debate, though still leaning towards delete.
Towards the end of the debate, a lot of users !voted to merge, and this proposal got support from both keep and delete !voters. While indeed not more support by numerical votees than delete, I do think a close as merge would be proper here. A merge would fix the issue of a POV fork, which is the basis of many delete !votes, and it was clear that merge was gathering a lot of support in the last few days, also from delete/keep !voters. I would say that alternativelty, if you didn't see consensus to merge, you should have relisted the debate, because it was clear that a new consensus (to merge) was likely arising and thus consensus may be much clearer after a week of debate. I hope you reconsinder your close, -- MrClog ( talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i participated in, and disagree with your closure of "Delete" upon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrea Head HallP. I think other(s) might disagree too. Could you please reconsider your action and cancel your closure, to allow the AFD to continue and be closed by someone else? I disagree with your close because the article is substantial (developing to be more substantial, with additional source(s) during the AFD itself). At least one Delete vote, out of three total counting the nominator, was well before the development happened. Another Delete voter was stuck, incorrectly IMHO, in wondering whether the article must be solely about the building vs. solely being about the hotel as an organization (it can be about both, both aspects add to notability, is the answer). There were five Keep votes, including the last three votes (therefore the most informed ones). And there was one commentator expressing interest in one aspect of the article, which in fact was developed, so I think it is reasonable to consider them as "leaning Keep". On the vote numbers, that is not a "Delete" outcome. About number and quality of sources in existence, note the original deletion nomination acknowledged one, some more were produced, and a decent argument was made that others exist (pre-internet). You disagree about the sources, I guess, but your opinion on that would be better put as a vote rather than a closure, I suspect. Could you please reconsider? Either way, could you please fully restore a copy of the article to, say, Draft:Wrea Head Hall, to inform further discussion? sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep and expand") and the other votes - in my opinion - fail to establish what sources concretely satisfy GNG. I won't further discuss the close here, as I'm sure the closer will be able to, and otherwise I will offer my opinion at DRV, though I figured I'd put my 2¢ in. -- MrClog ( talk) 22:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree with the article being deleted. The article was still being improved and consensus to not delete it did seem to be growing as a result. The hotel is referenced in a number of current books, but the (more important) older history of the Hall itself is mainly in off-line material, which makes the references more difficult (especially at the moment). Please could you restore a copy of the article (to Draft space?) to enable the time for further improvements. -- GhostInTheMachine ( talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why Spartaz has not replied, but I have gone on to request a copy be refunded by this request at wp:REFUND. Next step after receiving that, hopefully at Draft:Wrea Head Hall, is to open deletion review (which does require having tried to discuss with deleting editor, done by this discussion). -- Doncram ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review has opened. Please consider participating, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_8. Please note, if you're not very familiar with deletion review process, that it must not be a rehash of the AFD. It is a review of the AFD decision, is not for merely re-stating arguments made already or making new arguments. Don't repeat yourself, please, I repeat! There are participation guidelines linked there, I suppose. Offhand I think it is not helpful to ping everybody who participated in the AFD, but maybe that would be okay, not sure. -- Doncram ( talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wrea Head Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Doncram ( talk) 07:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You've probably already seen this, but Estimate of the Situation ( AfD discussion) is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 9, and this is your probably-redundant and certainly-late notification. — Cryptic 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have never created a deletion review, but it the instruction suggests I contact you, the closer. There is an event of Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention every four years and each of the event has a different name. I originally suggested merging Still Hacking Anyway into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention, because SHA is the 2017 event of the convention. I argued that the specific event fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE, because the key referenced mostly occurred between June to August of 2017 and nobody has produced evidence supporting substantial coverage (beyond a mere mention/announcement) outside of the immediate time before/after the event. One user casted a vote of keep by appealing to his personal experience, but did not provide supporting references. In WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, it says "When in doubt, defer to the policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors.". I don't believe "keep" consensus was reached, because evidence of continued coverage was not established. I believe Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention being notable may have been misread as the ONE EVENT SHA-2017 on its own is notable to the point of having its own article. Graywalls ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Davide Scaramuzza, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Ged UK 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Estimate of the Situation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Estimate of the Situation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — S Marshall T/ C 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you not have closed it as Redirect? Or asked for more discussion on whether redirecting was a valid option? The deleters argued against a standalone article; that surely doesn't preclude ATDs that don't retain it as one. I would have thought admins had enough discretion to do that when presented with a good redirection target. Plus there was one Keep, albeit more a vote than argument. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
She has fantastic presence with an expertly done with "wiki-feel" official site, not to mention her "everpresence" on Fantastic Fiction. I don't know why did you delete this page and why there were such a "fuss" to remove her, when she is like Phillippa Gregory in hist-fiction field. She is one of the most notable Australian historical novelists. I'd wished to recreate it, but I don't want to enter in useless discussions. Your behaviour is such that it's almost like our Talev- Giovagnoli do(es)n't deserve twice their (his) articles in their (his) giving for the historical fiction on every countryside possible, dude. Good Riddance in deleting. I don't want to work with you, respectful admin.
Could you please userfy to me List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories? I want to see if there is any content that can be merged into other articles, please. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You just closed a discussion India Whatsapp lynching where there was no clear consensus and rather the topic was not failing the policies. May I know on what basis you closed the discussion as delete ? Drat8sub ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey you say "Bearcat's analysis.was compelling" as your reason for closing as "Delete". Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. If review version 11 May you will note that Bercat's case was no longer valid since the concerns raised were addressed (mostly about being incomplete) & article was significantly improved since that analysis had been made. In other words, the argument was no longer valid as is no argument made that it shouldn't be keep for other reasons. Therefore, there is no consensus to delete. There is community consensus about the usefulness of these lists. Indeed, Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. This list is complete and ref'd. Can you please change the closure to reflect that or re-list it for further discussion. Thank-you.
Bearcat says (italics)
Do you now understand the point or require further explanation? If so, am pleased to provide it. If not, can you please correct the closure? Thank you. Djflem ( talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
?? Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CactusJack ( talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Spartaz. You were the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinobots. With the closing comment that TNT applies and restoration with proper sourcing would be acceptable, I put a split draft I had created offline into the draft space intending to overhaul it (which I haven't really gotten around to). It looks like someone came across this and thought it was an article ready for the main space, but in reality, it has only slightly changed since the AfD. Dinobots needs to go back to the draft space, but I had a procedural question for you. In theory, if it gets re-written with proper sourcing, will the new version need to go through a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted content along with the Talk page? And if so, should it be done now before moving back to draft space, or would that just wait for if a real article actually gets formed? I don't know if the recent move back to main space interferes with that at all. If a restored article does come around, do you know if images that were deleted as orphaned images post article deletion can be restored? Anyway, any thoughts or assistance is appreciated. - 2pou ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Interested to understand what you consider the relationship between BASIC and GNG, given your comment that no one argued for the GNG. Thanks, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof.I'm asking specifically what you consider the relationship between the GNG and BASIC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Gng and basic relate to sources not indicators. And imo the basic sources need to be solid but lacking detail and thevaggregation covers different infornation. So 4-5 one liners with the same details will be less compelling then 4-5 one liners giving different information. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You just closed a discussion Traefik, I'd like to resubmit with additional sources that meet the criteria for notability, but need the most recent edit to make the appropriate updates. I do not believe this software belongs under "Docker" as the sole vote for DELETE mentions, as there is no history of related projects in that page that aren't owned by Docker. — Kcmastrpc ( talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Demery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Gnome ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to tell you how to do your job, but it might have been worth re-listing the AfD to get more opinions. Especially since the keeps were based on extremely bad sources that didn't meet the standards of NCORP. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your close of this AFD was simply incorrect.
since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I disagree with your delete close on this article. There was one Delete "vote" after the nomination, by an IP user, and I had listed several references, all from RS. Not only that, but the issue of the actual article title was never addressed. This seemed very strange, and very much hurtful to an encyclopedia built on consensus. Thank you. Caro7200 ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really agree with the closure. One, both sides presented policy based arguments and the vote was the same. I am not sure the policy rationale behind "he CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." I would suggest this should be a no consensus close. Casprings ( talk) 15:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence Powell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings ( talk) 02:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged
Daniela Zacherl with {{
prod blp}} for
proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it was in draft then you sent it to mainspace before it was ready and then deleted after a discussion. So the article you want restored is identical to the one the community decided to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, I was hoping you could shed a little more light into your closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. It has one Keep and two Deletes, including nominator (myself). Axem Titanium ( talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You relisted this earlier today. I moved from delete to keep since, and there is an additional keep vote. It could be closed now as a keep I think if you are willing. John from Idegon ( talk) 02:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know that I recreated this article, in a sense. I'm hopeful that an editor will eventually be able to add references from The Source, as they both covered and reviewed 2 Black 2 Strong; as it stands, The Source hasn't really digitally archived a lot of their really old stuff. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I spent a lot of time creating Ava Bahram's article and now I'm surprised. Please help me where should I search for the deleted text? Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, is it possible for me to re-register this article in the future? Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, if possible, revive Ava Bahram under my page to complete new resources and necessary corrections. Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not having sent you the correct notification. as you rightly note, you should have been informed via the template below. I have never used this forum page before; regardless, I should not have omitted that important step and simple courtesy. thanks for your understanding. [template: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}}]~~~~ thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Please report on Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang. There has been a lot of chaos perhaps because of scope creep losing control. He looks provoked (without any cause). I would request you to please remove acontextual comments from the thread so that it becomes easier to review the comments. Regards Pesticide1110 ( talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of RevSpace. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Graywalls ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not leave any messages. Feel free to ask another admin your question. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrish Banerjee. If I'd realised that List of Bengal cricketers existed I'd have made that very suggestion... I imagine a merge proposal will follow at some point. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caste-based prostitution. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JustBeCool ( talk) 05:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You made a series of edits with " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java version history closed as delete (XFDcloser)" in the edit summary (including removing links and deleting redirects, etc.), however that discussion was closed as "keep" and not as "delete". Please reverse those edits. Thank you. — Uzume ( talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Ask someone else please. I'm not playing at the moment. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was writing and completing an article called Ava Bahram that has been deleted by you. Please revive the article on my home page. I want to edit and complete the article. Regards Gimbouri ( talk) 20:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am sorry for this anonymous message but I am somewhat concerned about the behaviour of another user. He/she has been on Wikipedia for over a year and apparently done nothing whatsoever except nominate articles for deletion and delete "non-notable" people's names from articles, almost exclusively in the field of broadcasting. I note that you left a message on his/her user talk page last month relating to this.
I would like to contact you privately to discuss this. This user has started following me around Wikipedia and getting involved in my discussions with the admins, which is why I am not signing my name here. I tried reporting him/her for harassment but he/she simply reported me in retaliation. He/she has been making my participation in Wikipedia almost impossible.
I have had an account since 2011 and never had any problems like this before. It is becoming quite distressing. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks. 86.9.92.48 ( talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You had a disturbing statement in your close. The result was delete. I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight. The delete side has given a detailed source analysis showing they fall short and has reviewed their votes after improvement. Consensus to delete is therefore solid Spartaz
I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. Giving more weight to arguments that just keep repeating patents are not important is not a winning argument. I did some work to the article and I made some rational arguments - I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, and the delete argument was simply that patents are not important. If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD.
Lightburst (
talk)
10:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem. You deprecated my !vote due to canvassing. I had already warned DarklyShadows that they should stop canvassing, and that I was willing to express my opinion, but it was canvassed. You and I both played by the rules. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, why did you delete his wikipedia page??? He's one of the best Pakistani Singers, And i dont think he's that active to annoy you. Please kindly return the page and if there's an issue discuss it and solve it. This page contained the exact info of his career. He was my role model and you just deleted the page without any Valid Reason😥😥 17ishahid ( talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I want to ask if you will consider backing out the closing of this AfD and relist? The article was a strong keep as (
Yoast) in August 2919. User High King then gave the article a name change, and the original participants did not know that the article was up for deletion. In the
Yoast AfD even JW !voted to keep. Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales
. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of a bad close of the Yoast SEO AfD. I am just asking for a relist.
Lightburst (
talk)
23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised at the outcome as well; Yoast SEO is probably the gold-standard for that type of functionality on WordPress, itself the most widely-used CMS on the internet. At least one person favoring delete didn't realize that (thinking the product was two weeks old), and the comments in general didn't really engage with the topic. I realize that this doesn't translate into passing the GNG, but I would be shocked if sources didn't exist and the article deserves a better debate than what it got so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, back on June 15 you deleted an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram. A new article for this singer was re-created almost immediately with no improvement on the original. I nominated the new one for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram (2nd nomination) and the ensuing discussion is becoming a real slog with repeated arguments all around. There are also some repeated votes. Would you mind taking a look at that second AfD in an Admin capacity and possibly reinforcing how the notability guidelines are supposed to work? Or ask another Admin to do the same if WP:INVOLVED is a problem? I think that would help. Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
[4]. Since you were the closing admin, I would rather also ask you prior to starting DRV. Note that two legitimate users voted without any argumentation except saying that they are convinced by the sockpuppet account who started everything [5]. What would you say on the DRV? If you agree this should be restored, may be you could just reverse your action, which could save some time? My very best wishes ( talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, following up about this. I don't really understand why the article was deleted. I did leave it as all but a stub for a very long time but once that was flagged I beefed it up and I thought it was a pretty good entry -- lots of independent references, the lack of which had been the grounds for deletion nomination in the first place. Sometimes there seems to be no pleasing you guys, it's hard to get better at contributing with so much discouragement. Please could you "draftify" it for me (whatever that means). Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 17:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Spartaz, the three people who made those comments made them BEFORE my final edits. I made the edits to respond to their comments. Specifically, I added more detail and a large number of independent sources. In other words, I've already done the work to redeem it. I don't think there were any critical comments after my more recent edits, but you deleted it anyway. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 07:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The comment made after my edits doesn't seem to have taken them into account, it is just a general comment; and I shouldn't have to make special mention of the fact that I had made changes, it's all recorded in the edit history and the article was substantially (visibly) longer. As you've asked, no, I don't think it's fair that a beginning contributor is expected to "learn the hard way" by having to run around lobbying voters -- that kind of hard-nosed philosophy should cut both ways, don't delete articles without checking the edit history and allowing time for a proper discussion. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 10:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It's only that there seems to be a bit of a double standard, whereby more junior Wikipedia users are expected to jump through hoops so that more senior Wikipedia users can keep their decision-making time to a minimum. It would not have been any more difficult to check the article history to see that the edits postdated those comments on the deletion page than it is to do what you're asking -- but the latter is only required because the former was omitted. There's an inherent injustice to that, as there is to asking me to carry on four separate discussion pages because the deletion discussion page was so promptly closed. I think what would be fair would be to reopen the discussion on that centralised forum. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Papas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! You closed the sparsely-attended AFD for this article in 2018, noting "The result was delete. For now but ping me or drop me a note if you find sources". I did find a review in this issue of Computer Gaming World, and then I hit up archive.org and found:
before I stopped looking for more. Do you think that would be enough for an overturn to Keep? BOZ ( talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz,
You recently deleted Krugarr as a redirect to a deleted page. This article was turned into a redirect after a merge discussion, which I believe occurred on Talk:Krugarr, and there were other possible merge targets discussed at the time. Could you please restore the history of Krugarr in my userspace (or copy paste it to my sandbox) so I can preserve some of the information elsewhere? Thanks! Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite ( talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,
This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,
This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. Would you give me your advice?
I wrote an article that you deleted today, Delta Pi, after a thin AfD discussion. (It's your role, I'm not questioning your work.) I have no connection to this group, just trying to clean up this page along with many of the fraternities and sororities articles.
Am I mis-reading this? There were four votes to delete, three to keep. Those who wanted to delete seemed so zealous about it, mocking the references I had provided. I get their criticism, that some of the references were weaker. But certainly not false or fraudulent. I note that many nicely-written and formatted and non-controversial articles are allowed to remain, with a simple template at the top inviting additional references. It's clear that this group exists. I don't know these editors who voted to delete, and some have far lengthier WP resumes than I do. See, I've not seen this kind of mocking or zealousness against a non-controversial subject before: is there a sense of anti-semitism here? Or simple anti-fraternity bias? Or did they just perk up with a 2nd and 3rd AfD campaign came in, and decided to jump on the bandwagon? It didn't seem ...rational, so I ask your opinion, and if anything else ought to be done.
My sense is the group will continue to chug along, growing slowly. I inserted a post about this on the Jewish Fraternities and Sororities Talk page to capture the current situation and inform newbies they they should look for good references, but wonder if I should appeal this decision on other grounds. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Jax MN ( talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You didn't let us know how it turned out :) "I have already made a private bet to myself... I'll let you know after this closes how accurate my guess was." -- Green C 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Mahapatra as delete? Foxnpichu ( talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, You closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank as delete only after one hour of Bearcat's post. You did not give any time to improve the article based on his feedback. Can you please revert the article as a draft so I can work on it? Thank you -- Wil540 art ( talk) 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Walche Cut, Kentucky. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Walche Cut, Kentucky until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
11:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Could I get POSaBIT refunded to my user space so I can incorporate elements of the deleted article elsewhere? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think your close is correct, but could you please elaborate on when it is "time for this?" As I noted in the discussion, the Trump article was created on 26 November 2016, so we're close. Cheers! SportingFlyer T· C 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi I spent weeks writing up the wiki article about Mokaev that was recently deleted.
Can you send me the wiki markup article so that I make continue to amend it for future submission.
It has all the references and markup I used and now that it’s been deleted I don’t have the access to retrieve it. Rassmallai ( talk) 02:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
May I ask you to reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown? Only a couple of users suggested a merge and I think that their arguments were rather weak since they appeared to be based on incomplete or innaccurate information. It seemed to me like the discussion was not close to a consensus, whereas extra days of informed discussion may have allowed for a clear consensus to be reached. -- JECE ( talk) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I know you closed this AfD a while ago, but I have a favour to ask. You listed the result as Move to draft. I know this seems trivial, but could you please change it to Draftify or Userfy? Under the state it is at the moment, it is not logged properly on AfD logs. (Notice how the consensus is listed as "UNDETERMINED"?) Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, I'm just raising this in relation to the recent closure made, as I believe the 'delete' was incorrect. I appreciate that you are a long term admin; however my reading of the situation was a "no consensus". I've attempted to be objective here but please do bear in mind that I was the original editor.
This is my reasoning behind it.
There were two 'keep' users, two 'delete' users, the original proposer, and a comment by a non-voter that found that WP:GNG was met. Therefore, on a simple tally, three each.
But when we dig a little deeper into the comments, you will see that the basis for the delete and the undue weight given to their comments (that the sources are invalid) is incorrect. One of the 'delete' stated that as they couldn't see the inside of a magazine that featured the subject as a cover feature and multi page feature, and as they couldn't read a physical book, that they were not to be counted. WP:SOURCE does not require sources to be both online and freely available to a casual observer, and we know that there is a wider world than that found on a 2 minute search of Google! In fact, WP:OFFLINE, although not policy, provides us with a reminder of this fact - and in the current age of paywalls, this will become more prevalant (a good handful of the citations in the article are unfortunately paywalled but in physical print editions).
Following this, the second 'delete' was also solely based on an online search - despite other 'keeps' demonstrating several sources.
Your concern may have come about through the inclusion of a piece by a Forbes Contributor and the lengthy discussion around the validity of that. But putting that piece to one side, WP:GNG appears to still be met, so it would appear to be wrong to use the weight of discussion there to undermine the validity of the other sources which are independent of the subject, and consist of sources in the national press.
I hope we can get this resolved without a deletion review, and if there is an area of policy that I've misunderstood I'd really appreciate your support in explaining it, as it stands I'm a little confused by the closing decision - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser249325 ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I am quite concerned about your close of the Thinkmarkets article. You are supposed to gauge consensus when you close an AfD debate, not just assert your own view. Scope creep made an assertion that is not even backed up by evidence, didn't answer my question, and you have entirely sided with him. I'd ask you to reconsider the outcome of the AfD. Deus et lex ( talk) 09:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your closing comment here. To clarify, none of these articles have been created in years; no more are being created (the most recently created were mostly written by a banned user and have been deleted); and from the other direction, most of the deletion nominations have been the work of Fram. To "hit the pause button" on this current series of nominations, Fram would have to change his or her behaviour. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
May I ask how exactly you arrived at keep? The whole thing is uncited save but for a source proving he was in ice cubes movie in a non leading capacity and voice a character in a movie that won none of the awards he was supposedly up for. I figured the closing admin would provide some light on their decision to keep, delete, or relist, but you've done neither and I am very much so curious about what you took into account here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fury in other media with "IMO the policy based arguments are the delete votes but there is clearly no consensus to delete". I'm genuinely curious to know what these policy-based arguments were, exactly. Because not only does the topic of this character in other media (specifically in other media) have extensive coverage and meets the requirements outlined in WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, but the delete arguments were cookie-cutter responses ( [6], [7] being variants of commonly-used votes from those users), people declaring that there are insufficient sources without really checking ( [8], [9]), an NEXIST / "I don't know it" / "Not well-written" argument, and for the most part, subjective declarations of triviality.
I was honestly prepared to re-open the case at WP:DRV if it somehow passed, because the arguments in favour of it (to me) seemed very weak and presumptive. Dark knight 2149 02:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reginald Bachus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You blocked Duncan079 for socking. Who is the sock master? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
More than seven years ago, you blocked Blueyefinity for copyright violations. They now wish to return to editing and have generally provided reasonable answers to User:Yunshui/decline copyvio questions. Your block was definitely appropriate, seven years ago. Any objection if I lift the block now? -- Yamla ( talk) 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Samaj Party (2nd nomination). The article had 17 indepedent references including few of them were added by me and 5 out of the 7 believed it was enough to pass WP:GNG. There is lot of coverage in the Hindi Language as well. Why was this closed as a Redirect when the consenus was against it , you could have closed No consenus at worst but not Redirect? Can I take this to WP:DRV.Thanks.Wish You a Happy New Year. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Fuck her right in the pussy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Fuck her right in the pussy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
Rummskartoffel (
talk •
contribs)
15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
About three years ago, you and "salted" an BLP for David G. MacAfee. I would like to resurrect the article as I think he may now meet the standards for notability. He now has an book published by a real publisher, Macmillan. And he has a rather huge following on Facebook (not sure how to document that for notability purposes). In the atheist community, he's pretty much the subject of both positive compliments and very negative attacks.
Books, shows he's the author of 8 books, most of them not of the self-published variety (I don't think any of them are).
He also was one of the leading voices regarding the scandal of sexual misconduct with Neal deGrasse Tyson, which could be a negative for a lot of people.
Nevertheless, the book authorship seems to fall well within the parameters of WP:Notability. As you can see from my edits, I have only created a few BLP articles, it's not really my thing, so I could be screwing this up big time. But I think the rules say that you, as the deleting admin, should be my first step in resurrecting the article. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
With respect to a Facebook author's page, [10]. It has over 250,000 followers, which seems to be quite high. My damn page has like 50,000, and I thought that was a lot, but I write about boring stuff like vaccines. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
And he has a verified Twitter account with nearly 25,000 followers. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A stub page for the non-notable song " Cheating on You" has been repeatedly recreated over the past week. I would really appreciate if you could salt it. Thanks in advance.-- N Ø 07:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Spartaz! I request the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship (plus all its pages - the years), because a mistake was made back in time. First of all this article had been deleted several times in the past because in the beginning the kickboxing promotion was unknown. And also there was a war on Wikipedia from the MMA "users" against kickboxing, until new regulations.
My reasons are:
1. These are precious info for the history of the sport, SUPERKOMBAT of top promoter Eduard Irimia is considered the 2nd best promotion of Europe all-time after the Netherlands-based It's Showtime. Before it was called Local Kombat (2003-2013). SUPERKOMBAT had headquarters in Bucharest, Romania, but also in London, Las Vegas and New York City.
2. SUPERKOMBAT was named Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of GLORY (Ultimate Glory), that now is according to the Kickboxing task force "the kickboxing's UFC - World No 1. promotion in the world". Additionally, SUPERKOMBAT was nominated in the top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world.
3. GLORY champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY title challengers Benjamin Adegbuyi, Daniel Ghiță, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Anderson Silva, Yousri Belgaroui and Yoann Kongolo competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY tournament winners Ismael Londt and D'Angelo Marshall competed in SUPERKOMBAT. Other top 10 kickboxers in their divisions competed in SUPERKOMBAT: Roman Kryklia (currently #2 heavyweight), Zabit Samedov (current #6 heavyweight), Murat Aygün (current #8 heavyweight), Tarik Khbabez (current #9 heavyweight), Felipe Micheletti (current #8 light heavyweight), Zinedine Hameur-Lain (current #10 light heavyweight), Igor Bugaenko (current #6 middleweight), Jamie Bates (current #5 welterweight) and many more from the past rankings. Several of these are SUPERKOMBAT products, it is proved that no other promotion has been feeding GLORY like SUPERKOMBAT.
4. SUPERKOMBAT is not on Wikipedia, but even regional kickboxing promotions are allowed, such as King in the Ring, W5, Global Fighting Championship and more. Just saying, make justice for SUPERKOMBAT.
5. SUPERKOMBAT had received coverage from the largest European newspapers such as MARCA, Gazeta Sporturilor etc. It had a contract with the most known sports European channel Eurosport and also with CBS Sports in the United States of America. SUPERKOMBAT's official YouTube channel has fights with over 1 million views.
6. SUPERKOMBAT was still deleted, although 5 people said to Keep it and 3 to Delete it (4 with the nominator). The nominator Jayjg STRANGELY retired later from Wikipedia.
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Superkombat Fighting Championship. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I'm pretty new, so I just wanted to get your opinion of the sources I found for the two AfDs you put up today. Is that much coverage generally enough to meet notability? How many sources independent of industry trade magazines would normally be good to establish notability? Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Renaissance Capital (US company) was taken down in June 2020. I'd like to request the page be undeleted. After reviewing I can see why the page was flagged as promotional in the AfD (link), since much of it appears to be copied & pasted from the company website, but I believe the firm still qualifies under notability. I'd be happy to explain why, or edit a draft of the page to be less promotional with new/more sourcing. -- IPOKennedy ( talk) 03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dropping you a line as I'm quite confused about your rationale to close the Articles for Deletion entry for Jendrik Sigwart. There didn't appear to be any actual consensus leaning either way re keep, redirect or delete in the discussion itself, so I'm curious as to why it was redirected and not relisted to gain a better actual consensus? Rather than going straight to DRV I said I'd raise it with you first. ser! ( chat to me). 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Request for undeletion: Ateaa Tina page. Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Please, could you take another look at the closure of AfD for the article Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, that resulted in complete deletion, but only one user voted for that solution. In the order of voting:
Since only one user supported complete deletion, while all others had complex votes and explicitly allowed some form of merge, or keep, the outcome should have been somewhat different? Where did you see the consensus for total deletion? Sorabino ( talk) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a typo in your close here that prevents me from getting what you are saying. (Personally, I make about ten such typos a day.) Thanks. --- Possibly ( talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You said on my talk page if I had any questions I could come here, and this literally just came up. I was perusing AfDs and came upon an AfD for a photographer. After looking for sources it seems that most of my searching brings up articles, books, magazines etc giving her credit for photographs. Do you think this would count as citing her work in such a way to meet CREATIVE #1? Is there a noticeboard for a discussion about that? I don't see any sort of interpreting notability notice board, and plain notability noticeboard is basically just AfD. Any input would be appreciated before I irk people voting in AfDs with a silly rational. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
→
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dick Sheppard (stuntman). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SportsOlympic ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please can you take another look at the discussion that was closed as deletion, since two users voted to keep, only one for deletion, and one for deletion or selective merge. Does such a divided vote constitute a consensus for deletion? Sorabino ( talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've already stated I'm happy to revert back to anything anyone wants, as long as it's properly verified by BLP-quality references.
Given the onus within a BLP, maybe we just protect the article from the ips? They've not participated in any discussion in over a year.
Given the history of problems with have with BLPs of people in adult film, maybe full protection? Sanctions apply for BLPs in general, and the type of problems with get with adult film tend to be serious. I'm already seeing hints of it going down hill quickly, spilling over from the recent Right cite ( talk · contribs) problems. I've refrained from formally notifying editors of the sanctions. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I've requested partial protection after the references from the most recent ip edit failed a simple check at RSN and even RSP. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
On my talk page, it states I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.
Is this enough?
Policy requires removal of unsourced and pooorly sourced content from BLPs. These are not my personal conditions. Sanctions apply. I've offered solutions, and I'll continue to do so. Consensus requires adherence to policy. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected, so that will help. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I understand that the Celliant page was deleted. Unfortunately, the comments related to deletion were on the old page and not related to the proposed changes we were suggesting. Who could I reach out to that would consider to userfy either "Celliant" or "responsive textiles"? I would like an open discussion with an admin to discuss the science of infrared, its biological effects on the body and how it can be incorporated into textiles. We are not trying to promote or sell through Wiki but we would hope that Wiki would want to cover this science. Appreciate any additional info/advice. Also, as the deletion page has been archived, and Celliant has been deleted, I don't know where to respond further. The last delete comment from Blue Riband was again based on a review of the old listing. Thanks for any help/advice. Borristhedog ( talk) 21:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cara Spencer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
On behalf of STLPublicI as they have not notified you. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! It would have been good had you given your reasoning why you deleted Sindhu Joy w.r.t. GNG since both the keep and delete arguments were persuasive. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 04:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sindhu_Joy_(2nd_nomination) for ease of reference Vikram Vincent 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Will do! Vikram Vincent 07:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. In the reason for the deletion section, you wrote, "The result was delete. Fundamentally there are two arguments here. Whether the subject passed BLP - and consensus is it doesn’t but the source analysis debunking the gng argument. Much of the delete argument about the gng just asserts which is a weak argument against a compelling analysis based on policy. Secondly, does the subject pass ACADEMIC, and there is no consensus that she does. That only leaves one outcome." But in
WP:NPROF, the guideline states, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.
I have been trying to figure out why your reasoning does not result in a 'no consensus' closure, based on the determination that there was no consensus per NPROF, so I figured I would ask. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I've edited before on other wikis online about fan interests related to video games. Was more of a lurker for a while, reading and contributing here and there. Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 20:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came across your user page, when you closed the AfD Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha, thanks, further I noticed that you are willing to userfy the deleted pages. Would be thankful if you can refund me above pages for improvements, although I was not the page creator but as a Wikipidian I feel are worth their page with proper citations. I tried to save them in Deletion Review Jethwarp ( talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. I had thought that at minimum, there appears to be WP:CREATIVE notability, due to WP:BASIC coverage related to her prominent role as the co-founder of SafeCity, and the regular coverage of her as an expert and commentator on a variety of subjects, and that there were likely other sources for the student editor assigned to the article for their class to review if the article cleared AfD. I still feel quite new to the AfD process, but I wanted to check in with you for a review, because 'no consensus' seems like it could have been an outcome of the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 20:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Spartaz, could I have this article userfied into my sandbox so I can redraft it into an article about Safecity? I think there is a lot of coverage in independent RS about the organization, and while D'Silva can be mentioned, she would not be a prominent focus of the article. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Done
Spartaz
Humbug!
09:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Spartaz could you please at least move the article I started on J.D. Mata to a draftspace so that I can continue to work on it? Alternatively, undelete and relist for discussion. I feel that I addressed many of the issues raised by the early delete votes but if you could at least give me my draft, I can continue to improve it. Thank you. Larry Grossman ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for taking it so poorly when you questioned me about any previous accounts. In my short time editing I've started to get an idea of the sheer amount of shenanigans that goes on. I got involved in Nightingale College through a bot rfc notification and it turns out the whole situation was precipitated by a sock. I've also seen a ton in AfDs. I didn't really expect that it would be as common an issue as it seems to be. I can much better understand why you would have been suspicious. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, I'd like to discuss what I believe is an improper closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination). For several reasons, I believe your closure was too hasty and with an incorrect outcome, hence I would like you to revert your own closure. Here are my reasons:
Hence, I'd like you to revert your closure and let the discussion continue. Eccekevin ( talk) 01:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkrzywicki1 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment:
I suspect it was a rhetorical comment, as the reason seems pretty obvious. 😏 Pre-Trump it was normal to keep science and facts separate from deviant political positions and deception. It wasn't normal for mainstream politicians to openly deny them. They accepted the views of experts, especially in science and medicine. Trump broke that pattern by mainstreaming fringe nonsense, denying well-known facts, and pushing conspiracy theories.
Sure, there have been politicians and public persons who have touched the edges of such foolishness, but they usually paid a heavy price for doing it. Fox News prepared the soil for Trumpism to fall on fertile ground and thrive. Suddenly it became the required norm (a loyalty litmus test) for Fox viewers=Trump supporters to boldly deny scientific facts (because of their pro-Trump political views) and believe the most absurd falsehoods while accusing those who believed experts and accepted scientific facts of "politicizing science," when the opposite was the case. Even editors do this. That's the "insane reason" we got here, but you know that. 😀 Have a great day, and good luck with expelling insanity from this place. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It's good to see you back. Jclemens ( talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lothlorien Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
The article was redirected and its content deleted, you can find the last version in history. Rybkovich ( talk) 04:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Although this photo was approved by you, it has been removed by Rabat in the draft article ( Draft:Andreh Arzoomanian). If possible, guide me to know where the problem is. Sincerely. Musiban ( talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
:02
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This is an archive
Hi Spartaz, I don't think you know me. But I've seen you around AfD and have always seen you as a model administrator. Just came around to tell you that I was sad that you handed in your bit and do hope you re-take your tools whenever you feel like it, and continue your stellar contributions. Most warmly, Lourdes 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Spartaz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please can I be unblocked so that I can pay my respects to SBHB who has sadly passed away?
Accept reason:
I believe you asked to be blocked, thus you are free to request to be unblocked. Therefore, I have lifted your block. Yamla ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Strike a light.... |
You want to burn some witches, here you go. (Just make sure logically they weigh the same as a duck, so you know they're made of wood....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC) |
Nice to see that you also have decided to return! Also, in case you don't already know (I gave this warning to Randykitty) there's been several compromised accounts recently, 3 of them admins, so just a heads up on security. Semi Hypercube ✎ 22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Six years! |
---|
Hey, since the parent article has been deleted, can you delete the following related pages:
Regards.-- N Ø 17:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just curious how you determined the consensus was "delete" at this AfD. Thanks - wolf 11:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have closed this AfD saying that the "result" was Redirect. How did you determine that, when 6 editors argued that the subject met WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED? One vote was an outright Delete, three were redirect or delete/redirect, and two (including the nominator) suggested a minibio. How does that result in a redirect? Also, how does it help establish notability guidelines for supercentenarians, which the Wikiproject LONGEVITY argue that they are doing? Or have they already been established, but not actually stated anywhere, so that editors waste time arguing on AfDs for cases that the LONGEVITY project have already determined are outside their unstated guidelines? I will ask this question on the LONGEVITY page, though in reality it is an ANTILONGEVITY project, with some of the most emotional language I have seen in Wikipedia discussions used by those trying to delete all these articles, rather than assessing them individually. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 08:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You closed this as delete in May. I started a new page at Draft:Patrick Little (American politician). He has coverage beyond his senate campaign now. Someone else thought he was important enough to mention at Gab_(social_network)#History. Do you think this is enough to not have WP:G4 apply? "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" Џ 02:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Spartaz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello,
You recently deleted the article Four C's of 21st Century Learning. I saw the advanced notice but didn't had time to respond with edits, etc. I would like to re-write the article addressing the concerns raised. How can I get a copy of it? I apologize if there is a better way to communicate with you - just point the way.
Thanks, Architect21c ( talk)Architect21c
Hi Spartaz!
Is there any other way to contact you outside wikipedia? Sir Josh Mangila, the person who you removed the wikipedia page last April 2018, wanted to talk to you.
Thank you!
Maywardjedi ( talk) 01:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Try OTRS. I only discuss deletions on wiki Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz- it has been a while since this happened but a page I authored ( /info/en/?search=Tim_Mohin) was removed before I was able to copy the content. I see from some other comments that you are able to userify their removed pages - could you please do this for me, or otherwise make the original text accessible? Thank you, and happy new year. Tatter Software ( talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not exactly sure what the process is for attempting to make a wikiarticle for Dillon Danis, but I've already started the page in my sandbox and I think it is at a stub level. I have his medals corrected, his mma record, and I've started discussing his involvement in the UFC 229 controversy. Let me know what I can do, I just didn't want to try creating the article before asking you because that's what the message said to do. Cheers Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. You blanked this BLP as a redirect. You need to put this to AfD if you want to do this unless you achieve consensus on the BLP talk page first. Britishfinance ( talk) 02:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
...is at DRV again, and this is your pro-forma notification. — Cryptic 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, could you please move this deleted article to draftspace? I'm finding some coverage since the close and would like to work on it. Thanks. FloridaArmy ( talk) 11:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of reading this AM over at ARCA, and your following comment made me smile "...my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked." Mine keeps changing it to crambo. Atsme 👩💻 📧 12:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Humbug! I believe your handing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) was flawed. There was no consensus to delete. There was a possibility of discussion coming to a merge/redirect. But it requires someone to do it. I cannot offer merge unless I am prepared to commit future time to do it. Of major concern was this content removal [1] it not appropriate to be marked as WP:MINOR not does it match the description which implies removal of wikilink. Please resolve these matters. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kst. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Samsara 23:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you plan to request comments on your block of Legacypac? If so, I will support the block as being appropriate for the string of personal attacks on User:BrownHairedGirl. If the block was for some other reason, I don't know what my opinion is, but you can see that several users including me tried to caution Legacypac that their attacks had gone too far. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For the block of a usually valued editor who was engaging in out-of-control personal attacks on a respected administrator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding recent deletion of article for Jonathan Peizer /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Peizer_(2nd_nomination) This was created by an unaffiliated 3rd party in 2012 and since I have referenced it in multiple links over the ensuing years I'd like to make a case for maintaining it at the risk of a lot of 404 errors.
Please find additional references not on the current article page: - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer - https://everything.explained.today/Jonathan_Peizer/ - http://moussemagazine.it/influencing-machine-galeria-nicodim-bucharest/ (See references Jonathan Peizer) - Morino Institute From Access to Outcomes, Digital Divide Report http://www.morino.org/divides/participants.htm - https://socialsourcecommons.org/appreciations - Wired June 1998 pg 106 Netizen Section - Sysop for Soros by Ben Green - Uncanny Networks The MIT Press, A Leonardo Book March 2003 ISBN 0-262-12251-0 7 x 9, 392 pp.- (Description of Background on page 144 prior to the Actual Interview Chapter) - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/651/566 (Background information proceeds interview)
3rd Party reviews of my Books / Manuals: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/book-review/the-dynamics-of-technology-for-social-change-jonathan-peizer/ https://fcw.com/articles/2006/07/24/welles-the-dynamics-of-technology.aspx https://www.philanthropy.com/article/What-Grant-Seekers-Should-Know/174201 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Book-Explores-Role-of/172427
Thank you for your time. Jpeizer ( talk) 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer April 21st, 2019
@ Spartaz: Agree with you 100% that I am clearly not practiced here with the variety of rules and procedures. Per your request:
Jpeizer ( talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer 22 April 2019
@ Spartaz: Really? https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer is not even close? I'm never disappointed by the arbitrariness displayed on Wikipedia. An article goes uncontested for five years. Out of the blue it is deemed unworthy, invalidating years of reference links to it. Is there consideration taken of the consequences of that? Not an iota. While we who ask questions are told to always be polite, more often than not we encounter rather unnecessary snarkyness as a reply and derision for not being expert in following multiple levels of distributed and ever changing rules that all too often make something that was fine one day, an egregious sin the next. Thanks for your "consideration/considerateness" in deeming my accomplishments unworthy, including, most ironically, supporting Wales/Wikipedia through the Information Program in its early years at OSI. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. "
Could you please refrain from applying the word "creepy" to other contributors' character?
In 2011 I started an article on Dawn Dumont, a multi-talented Native American woman, who was a lawyer, an actor, an author, a journalist, and a stand-up comic. I had even found a couple of freely re-usable pictures of her, a fan of hers had uploaded to flickr, from one of her stand-up performances, to illustrate that article.
I was impressed by Ms Dumont. I thought the article I had written was neutrally written. I thought it didn't say anything negative, or objectionable.
Well, a month or two after I started the Dawn Dumont article I learned Ms Dumont wasn't happy with it. Her initial complaint was over the freely distributable picture I had chosen. She uploaded some alternate photos, she preferred, and replaced the free picture with one of her proprietary images. She then seemed not to understand that those images were going to be deleted, because she had not specified a free license when she uploaded them.
When her images were deleted she got angry, said she resented any kind of online profile of herself, that she didn't control, and said she wanted the article deleted.
I had been the only contributor who had altered the article's editorial content, so I had the option to apply a G7, author requests deletion speedy tag. Ms Dumont's wishes were clear. I could have told her how to use our procedures to go through the usual channels to make a request for speedy deletion. But, I decided not to force her to jump though those hoops.
That was my intent in leaving a note on one of Ms Nelson's YouTube videos.
While I think Ms Nelson measures up to our inclusion criteria, I also think she is close enough to the cusp that she would win a courtesy deletion, if she were to request one. Traditionally, while we would not agree to delete an article about a really major figure, like OJ Simpson, we have agreed to delete articles on BLPs who have measured up to our inclusion criteria, who are less notable - as a courtesy.
I would prefer to save my time, and not work on an article that may get a courtesy deletion. If Ms Nelson is going to consider requesting courtesy deletion, I can save her time, and the time of everyone who reads her request, by a request not to bother.
I think this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
We are not prosecutors. Perhaps some people who have voiced opinions on Ms Nelson's mother's artistic choices think she should have faced criminal charges? Tough. She didn't. If she had I am sure we could have found a way to cover those charges using a neutral voice. I think anyone who is disturbed that she didn't face charges, who then wants to delete this article to suppress an instance where the free expression they oppose won, would be seriously lapsing from NPOV.
What will your position be if Ms Nelson says she has no objection to having the article restored? If she were to say my note was considerate, not creepy, are you going to withdraw your characterization of my note as "creepy"? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)In respect to *Joseph Olusola Iji " and it's entry into the articles for deletion, subsequently your actions deleting links in Ondo state notable people. Would appreciate if efforts were in improving the article rather than deleting.
Best regards. Krazo 10:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, can you help me by advising what is the appropriate license for these visas photo? Since no one hold the copy right of the visa and I am the person who took the photo and edit it. Hope to hear back from you soon Hoangkid ( talk) 08:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have marked the file Yemen visa.jpg for deletion. I am the author of it and I don't know why the license it's not appropriate. Can you explain to me? Thanks. -- Ayaanle ( talk) 23:33, 9 August 2019 (GMT+1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yemen_visa.jpg
Damn, again? Come back whenever you want. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
... with thanks from QAI |
One of your AfD closes is being discussed here. Reyk YO! 11:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, you had deleted Death of Mohammad Habali as a result of the AFD and I just restored it per this fresh source. Would you please just merge the histories and talk pages? Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 14:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, It was brought to my attention that you were the Administrator who closed the discussion of my wiki page. I understand because of constant updates from my radio audience it was taken down (after 10+ years) but I assure you, there are appropriate references & sources to back up the important information. Im requesting a copy of the old wiki and code to be "draftified" so the proper changes can be adjusted to meet your requirements. Your help is appreciated and apologize for any inconvenience.
Steve Covino -TV & Radio Host Sirius XM / ESPN
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacman76 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Reversing your deletion of the halle hazzard. New competitions added.
Hi Spartaz, Manjappada was twice nominated for deletion, ( 1, 2 and resolved as "delete" by Jo-Jo Eumerus and you, respectively. User Farzanfa007 has tried to bypass this deletion by moving pages. Can you please look into this and WP:SALT the page? Coderzombie ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Facepalm jeez.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, your sysop access has been restored per your request at WP:BN. Welcome back, — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
How can you possibly say there was a "clear consensus" to delete that article? There were considerable disussions arguing that the article did meet the general notability guideline. Just because the loudest voices on the debate (like Bearian's response to everyone) dominate discussion does not mean there is a consensus. Bookscale ( talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the potential confusion over merge and TNT, maybe Merge, then delete and redirect once merge is complete would’ve been a better phrasing. I don’t think it needs to be reopened or anything, I just wanted to clarify what I meant since you’re closing note seemed to think it was confusing. - 2pou ( talk) 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I think Teacher's Pet (video game) should have been deleted as I noted, Arms Corporation is an animation studio that made OVA (which should be redirected), and not a video game developer. Knowledgekid has said "the other one can and should be deleted" (meant for video game). Teacher's Pet (OVA) staying as a redirect is find as you closed. Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I personally feel that delete needed a stronger consensus and merge/redirect is a valid compromise between the two sides. Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I wish to open an adminstrative investigation into the premature closure of the AfD discussion for the Hayley McLaughlin article, in this run up to the holiday. That discussion featured repeated issues with editors failing to AGF, and making completely unjustified POV accusations (and in so doing, exhibiting prohibited bias against non-logging editors). (It was after such an unjustified accusation of relationship of this editor with the subject, that I took a break from the discussion, only to find the discussion closed, despite the impending US and European holiday.) Please advise which venue this might be best raised, and how I might reference that AfD discussion, now that your action has deleted the record that was in process. Please reply here. Thank you. 2601:246:C700:9B0:ACE8:FBE5:9149:3FE6 ( talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
For your reference, see WT:AN#Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはSpartazたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P
02:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hayley McLaughlin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C ( talk) 05:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz - I think the consensus on this was to "Merge" rather than to "Redirect"? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I want your humble opinion on how to create an article. Your quick responce would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarcss ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Spartaz,
Did you mean to delete this article after your DRV closure? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
– 2020 is a
leap year –
news article.
– Background color is Classic Blue (
#0F4C81), Pantone's
2020 Color of the year
– North America 1000 22:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cristian Pache. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 ( talk) 09:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Please restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. thanks -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:6C0E:DE1F:73EE:4BF3 ( talk) 09:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz,
As you can see (with our magical sysop spectacles) this article has been recreated by
Marino73 using bits of the article deleted via
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi.
I'm leery of an outright
WP:G4 tag, given the
WP:Good Faithyness
categorical imperative. What do you think would be the best way to deal with this?
Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
09:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello!Recently you deleted a page in wikipedia.May I know the reason for that? Page- Murali Krishna Woww guys ( talk) 10:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The "you noticed it, you fix it" boiled sweet of individual responsibility |
So basically what you are saying is "hey, I did my job at the AFD, you've noticed it has popped up again, and now you are asking me to do your job? Point taken. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Spider Shirt58 ( talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
Dear Spartaz, I'm writing to you regarding discussion for deletion of WOWCube article. I would like to restore any drafts of that article (if they exist) and move it to my personal sandbox so I could rewrite the article and prepare it for possible moving to mainspace (I think I can rework it so no signs of any promotion would exist there). I have recently made request for undeletion thinking that any drafts may still exist. Unfortuantely, the request was declined according to the fact that there was a discussion. So I was adviced to contact you as the administrator who closed the discussion. I am interested if any opportunities of restoring the draft of article and moving it to my personal sandbox still exist. Best wishes, Mark Ekimov ( talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back! -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess you weren't convinced by the argument that "X" is not a fork of "history of X", but the other way around. It would be nice if you would start the DRV yourself, also. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Race and intelligence. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Please return to the deletion discussion the ShifCustom. The nominator claimed that there are no reliable sources, but this is the opinion of one user. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail ( svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, interfax.by, onliner.by, abw.by). These sources comply with the criteria of reliability. References to awards confirmed the assessment of the subject, its notability by professionals.
You wrote that no sources were added after the nomination. In reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian " Moto", a catalog of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Sources may still be or new ones may appear ( WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). In 2020, there is a new publication, added to the article. There was no consensus to delete.
The article may be added and improved ( WP:NEXIST). In the home wiki (be:) added, did not translate into English until I finish. Best -- Maksim L. ( talk) 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ShifCustom. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maksim L. ( talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my friend! I requested for undeletion of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship, and they told me to talk with you to see if you can help us and accept because this is important to the kickboxing history. It was wrongly deleted. I will explain the situation:
The article and the years 2011-2018 in this kickboxing promotion established by Eduard Irimia (World Promoter of the Year in 2011 and 2013 Medalist of Honor of the Italian Republic) were wrongly deleted because the first SUPERKOMBAT article were created in the beginning of 2011. At that time some MMA users were deleting a lot of kickboxing, since then there were established some rules for all the combat sports. That's why it had more Deletion Nominations. Following the dissolution of Europe's No 1 promotion It's Showtime, SUPERKOMBAT was considered the No 1 promotion on the continent and until the creation of Glory World No 1 for a short time. All the events used to be Eurosport broadcasts, highly popular show. You can check on the article's multiple sources from the largest newspapers! Furthemore, SUPERKOMBAT co-promoted with K-1 in their last big year (2012). SUPERKOMBAT promoted the next Glory champions and challengers such as Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira, Pavel Zhuravlev, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Yousri Belgaroui, Yoann Kongolo etc and K-1s Albert Kraus (K-1 WGP MAX Champion), Ismael Londt (runner-up), Hesdy Gerges, Bob Sapp, and many more ranked to the top 10 of the world - some even World's No 1 and even p4p No 1 like Verhoeven and Pereira. After the Dutch scene of the Netherlands, Romania is one of the largest kickboxing scenes in Europe and in the world. I want also to create years with kickboxing in Romania, to cover all the promotions. I repeat, the articles had several nominations because of the past and anyway since 2011 this promotion was also awarded World's Promotion of the Year in a year (the main article has sources about this fact). In 2011 the promotion was unknown and new, although many, many big K-1 and It's Showtime stars were joining it even then. Please correct this injustice! Superkombat is on Wikipedia Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Poland and Portugal.
If you decide to reinstate, please undelete it but also move the main page to Superkombat Fighting Championship instead of SUPERKOMBAT Fighting Championship. As per UFC.
Just look at Youtube also! We have fights with over 1 million views, plus the MMA magazines and channels are also relaunching.
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
You forgot to help me. :(
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeff Bezanson. Since you had some involvement with the Jeff Bezanson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Bruno H Vieira ( talk) 18:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The file File:My poor swamped watchlist.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, no encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Contact me when you are on!
Good close, thanks, although with an implicit criticism of my actions? I'm not sure how, having moved a page, I could've predicted that another editor would nominate it for deletion in a couple of hours time! :) cheers, —— SN 54129 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you consider restoring Superkombat Fighting Championship please? It was the Promotion-of-the-Year in Kickboxing in 2011, beating Ultimate Glory (eventual Glory) and It's Showtime of the Netherlands (formerly No. 1 in Europe for years). Rico Verhoeven, Roman Kryklia, Benjamin Adegbuyi, Mladen Brestovac, D'Angelo Marshall and Ismael Londt fought in SUPERKOMBAT, 6 out of top 10 heavyweights [ on the list. And the list can continue, No 2 light-heavyweight Pavel Zhuravlev, No 1 middleweight Alex Pereira (kickboxer), No 4 middleweight Jorge Loren, No 5 middlweight Yousri Belgaroui, No 7 middleweight Igor Bugaenko etc My arguments are very valid! .karellian-24 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India. I see you found that there was enough consensus for a TNT. However, I read the consensus more as a consensus to merge personally (full disclosure: I !voted keep). Many delete !votes simply argue that the events covered in the article aren't true. While most of them cite the absence of "riots" as evidence, these riots had already been removed from the article. Keep !voters challenged their narrative by saying large parts of the article are covered by reliable sources. If you discard those votes, that say the article as a whole is a "hoax", you end up with a pretty balanced debate, though still leaning towards delete.
Towards the end of the debate, a lot of users !voted to merge, and this proposal got support from both keep and delete !voters. While indeed not more support by numerical votees than delete, I do think a close as merge would be proper here. A merge would fix the issue of a POV fork, which is the basis of many delete !votes, and it was clear that merge was gathering a lot of support in the last few days, also from delete/keep !voters. I would say that alternativelty, if you didn't see consensus to merge, you should have relisted the debate, because it was clear that a new consensus (to merge) was likely arising and thus consensus may be much clearer after a week of debate. I hope you reconsinder your close, -- MrClog ( talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i participated in, and disagree with your closure of "Delete" upon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrea Head HallP. I think other(s) might disagree too. Could you please reconsider your action and cancel your closure, to allow the AFD to continue and be closed by someone else? I disagree with your close because the article is substantial (developing to be more substantial, with additional source(s) during the AFD itself). At least one Delete vote, out of three total counting the nominator, was well before the development happened. Another Delete voter was stuck, incorrectly IMHO, in wondering whether the article must be solely about the building vs. solely being about the hotel as an organization (it can be about both, both aspects add to notability, is the answer). There were five Keep votes, including the last three votes (therefore the most informed ones). And there was one commentator expressing interest in one aspect of the article, which in fact was developed, so I think it is reasonable to consider them as "leaning Keep". On the vote numbers, that is not a "Delete" outcome. About number and quality of sources in existence, note the original deletion nomination acknowledged one, some more were produced, and a decent argument was made that others exist (pre-internet). You disagree about the sources, I guess, but your opinion on that would be better put as a vote rather than a closure, I suspect. Could you please reconsider? Either way, could you please fully restore a copy of the article to, say, Draft:Wrea Head Hall, to inform further discussion? sincerely, -- Doncram ( talk) 21:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep and expand") and the other votes - in my opinion - fail to establish what sources concretely satisfy GNG. I won't further discuss the close here, as I'm sure the closer will be able to, and otherwise I will offer my opinion at DRV, though I figured I'd put my 2¢ in. -- MrClog ( talk) 22:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree with the article being deleted. The article was still being improved and consensus to not delete it did seem to be growing as a result. The hotel is referenced in a number of current books, but the (more important) older history of the Hall itself is mainly in off-line material, which makes the references more difficult (especially at the moment). Please could you restore a copy of the article (to Draft space?) to enable the time for further improvements. -- GhostInTheMachine ( talk) 13:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why Spartaz has not replied, but I have gone on to request a copy be refunded by this request at wp:REFUND. Next step after receiving that, hopefully at Draft:Wrea Head Hall, is to open deletion review (which does require having tried to discuss with deleting editor, done by this discussion). -- Doncram ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review has opened. Please consider participating, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_8. Please note, if you're not very familiar with deletion review process, that it must not be a rehash of the AFD. It is a review of the AFD decision, is not for merely re-stating arguments made already or making new arguments. Don't repeat yourself, please, I repeat! There are participation guidelines linked there, I suppose. Offhand I think it is not helpful to ping everybody who participated in the AFD, but maybe that would be okay, not sure. -- Doncram ( talk) 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wrea Head Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Doncram ( talk) 07:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You've probably already seen this, but Estimate of the Situation ( AfD discussion) is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 9, and this is your probably-redundant and certainly-late notification. — Cryptic 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have never created a deletion review, but it the instruction suggests I contact you, the closer. There is an event of Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention every four years and each of the event has a different name. I originally suggested merging Still Hacking Anyway into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention, because SHA is the 2017 event of the convention. I argued that the specific event fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE, because the key referenced mostly occurred between June to August of 2017 and nobody has produced evidence supporting substantial coverage (beyond a mere mention/announcement) outside of the immediate time before/after the event. One user casted a vote of keep by appealing to his personal experience, but did not provide supporting references. In WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, it says "When in doubt, defer to the policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors.". I don't believe "keep" consensus was reached, because evidence of continued coverage was not established. I believe Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention being notable may have been misread as the ONE EVENT SHA-2017 on its own is notable to the point of having its own article. Graywalls ( talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Davide Scaramuzza, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Ged UK 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Estimate of the Situation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Estimate of the Situation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — S Marshall T/ C 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you not have closed it as Redirect? Or asked for more discussion on whether redirecting was a valid option? The deleters argued against a standalone article; that surely doesn't preclude ATDs that don't retain it as one. I would have thought admins had enough discretion to do that when presented with a good redirection target. Plus there was one Keep, albeit more a vote than argument. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
She has fantastic presence with an expertly done with "wiki-feel" official site, not to mention her "everpresence" on Fantastic Fiction. I don't know why did you delete this page and why there were such a "fuss" to remove her, when she is like Phillippa Gregory in hist-fiction field. She is one of the most notable Australian historical novelists. I'd wished to recreate it, but I don't want to enter in useless discussions. Your behaviour is such that it's almost like our Talev- Giovagnoli do(es)n't deserve twice their (his) articles in their (his) giving for the historical fiction on every countryside possible, dude. Good Riddance in deleting. I don't want to work with you, respectful admin.
Could you please userfy to me List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories? I want to see if there is any content that can be merged into other articles, please. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You just closed a discussion India Whatsapp lynching where there was no clear consensus and rather the topic was not failing the policies. May I know on what basis you closed the discussion as delete ? Drat8sub ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Cliffside Park, New Jersey you say "Bearcat's analysis.was compelling" as your reason for closing as "Delete". Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. If review version 11 May you will note that Bercat's case was no longer valid since the concerns raised were addressed (mostly about being incomplete) & article was significantly improved since that analysis had been made. In other words, the argument was no longer valid as is no argument made that it shouldn't be keep for other reasons. Therefore, there is no consensus to delete. There is community consensus about the usefulness of these lists. Indeed, Bearcat says him/herself: the value (bold mine) of a list of mayors does not necessarily vest in how many of them do or don't already have articles to link to — it's more important that a list of mayors of a town or city be complete. This list is complete and ref'd. Can you please change the closure to reflect that or re-list it for further discussion. Thank-you.
Bearcat says (italics)
Do you now understand the point or require further explanation? If so, am pleased to provide it. If not, can you please correct the closure? Thank you. Djflem ( talk) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
?? Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CactusJack ( talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Spartaz. You were the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinobots. With the closing comment that TNT applies and restoration with proper sourcing would be acceptable, I put a split draft I had created offline into the draft space intending to overhaul it (which I haven't really gotten around to). It looks like someone came across this and thought it was an article ready for the main space, but in reality, it has only slightly changed since the AfD. Dinobots needs to go back to the draft space, but I had a procedural question for you. In theory, if it gets re-written with proper sourcing, will the new version need to go through a WP:HISTMERGE of the deleted content along with the Talk page? And if so, should it be done now before moving back to draft space, or would that just wait for if a real article actually gets formed? I don't know if the recent move back to main space interferes with that at all. If a restored article does come around, do you know if images that were deleted as orphaned images post article deletion can be restored? Anyway, any thoughts or assistance is appreciated. - 2pou ( talk) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Interested to understand what you consider the relationship between BASIC and GNG, given your comment that no one argued for the GNG. Thanks, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof.I'm asking specifically what you consider the relationship between the GNG and BASIC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Gng and basic relate to sources not indicators. And imo the basic sources need to be solid but lacking detail and thevaggregation covers different infornation. So 4-5 one liners with the same details will be less compelling then 4-5 one liners giving different information. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You just closed a discussion Traefik, I'd like to resubmit with additional sources that meet the criteria for notability, but need the most recent edit to make the appropriate updates. I do not believe this software belongs under "Docker" as the sole vote for DELETE mentions, as there is no history of related projects in that page that aren't owned by Docker. — Kcmastrpc ( talk) 17:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
References
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Demery. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Gnome ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Not to tell you how to do your job, but it might have been worth re-listing the AfD to get more opinions. Especially since the keeps were based on extremely bad sources that didn't meet the standards of NCORP. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your close of this AFD was simply incorrect.
since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I disagree with your delete close on this article. There was one Delete "vote" after the nomination, by an IP user, and I had listed several references, all from RS. Not only that, but the issue of the actual article title was never addressed. This seemed very strange, and very much hurtful to an encyclopedia built on consensus. Thank you. Caro7200 ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really agree with the closure. One, both sides presented policy based arguments and the vote was the same. I am not sure the policy rationale behind "he CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." I would suggest this should be a no consensus close. Casprings ( talk) 15:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence Powell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings ( talk) 02:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged
Daniela Zacherl with {{
prod blp}} for
proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you.
Adam9007 (
talk)
20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
since this was deleted a long time ago, i don't think there's anything wrong with restoring given that the deleted version is likely poorly sources content or original research. Mr. Storm Eagle ( talk) 07:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it was in draft then you sent it to mainspace before it was ready and then deleted after a discussion. So the article you want restored is identical to the one the community decided to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, I was hoping you could shed a little more light into your closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards. It has one Keep and two Deletes, including nominator (myself). Axem Titanium ( talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You relisted this earlier today. I moved from delete to keep since, and there is an additional keep vote. It could be closed now as a keep I think if you are willing. John from Idegon ( talk) 02:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know that I recreated this article, in a sense. I'm hopeful that an editor will eventually be able to add references from The Source, as they both covered and reviewed 2 Black 2 Strong; as it stands, The Source hasn't really digitally archived a lot of their really old stuff. Thanks. Caro7200 ( talk) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I spent a lot of time creating Ava Bahram's article and now I'm surprised. Please help me where should I search for the deleted text? Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 16:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, is it possible for me to re-register this article in the future? Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, if possible, revive Ava Bahram under my page to complete new resources and necessary corrections. Zabihsohrabi ( talk) 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not having sent you the correct notification. as you rightly note, you should have been informed via the template below. I have never used this forum page before; regardless, I should not have omitted that important step and simple courtesy. thanks for your understanding. [template: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}}]~~~~ thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Please report on Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang. There has been a lot of chaos perhaps because of scope creep losing control. He looks provoked (without any cause). I would request you to please remove acontextual comments from the thread so that it becomes easier to review the comments. Regards Pesticide1110 ( talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of RevSpace. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Graywalls ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not leave any messages. Feel free to ask another admin your question. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrish Banerjee. If I'd realised that List of Bengal cricketers existed I'd have made that very suggestion... I imagine a merge proposal will follow at some point. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Caste-based prostitution. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JustBeCool ( talk) 05:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You made a series of edits with " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java version history closed as delete (XFDcloser)" in the edit summary (including removing links and deleting redirects, etc.), however that discussion was closed as "keep" and not as "delete". Please reverse those edits. Thank you. — Uzume ( talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Ask someone else please. I'm not playing at the moment. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was writing and completing an article called Ava Bahram that has been deleted by you. Please revive the article on my home page. I want to edit and complete the article. Regards Gimbouri ( talk) 20:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am sorry for this anonymous message but I am somewhat concerned about the behaviour of another user. He/she has been on Wikipedia for over a year and apparently done nothing whatsoever except nominate articles for deletion and delete "non-notable" people's names from articles, almost exclusively in the field of broadcasting. I note that you left a message on his/her user talk page last month relating to this.
I would like to contact you privately to discuss this. This user has started following me around Wikipedia and getting involved in my discussions with the admins, which is why I am not signing my name here. I tried reporting him/her for harassment but he/she simply reported me in retaliation. He/she has been making my participation in Wikipedia almost impossible.
I have had an account since 2011 and never had any problems like this before. It is becoming quite distressing. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks. 86.9.92.48 ( talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You had a disturbing statement in your close. The result was delete. I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight. The delete side has given a detailed source analysis showing they fall short and has reviewed their votes after improvement. Consensus to delete is therefore solid Spartaz
I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. Giving more weight to arguments that just keep repeating patents are not important is not a winning argument. I did some work to the article and I made some rational arguments - I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, and the delete argument was simply that patents are not important. If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD.
Lightburst (
talk)
10:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem. You deprecated my !vote due to canvassing. I had already warned DarklyShadows that they should stop canvassing, and that I was willing to express my opinion, but it was canvassed. You and I both played by the rules. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, why did you delete his wikipedia page??? He's one of the best Pakistani Singers, And i dont think he's that active to annoy you. Please kindly return the page and if there's an issue discuss it and solve it. This page contained the exact info of his career. He was my role model and you just deleted the page without any Valid Reason😥😥 17ishahid ( talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I want to ask if you will consider backing out the closing of this AfD and relist? The article was a strong keep as (
Yoast) in August 2919. User High King then gave the article a name change, and the original participants did not know that the article was up for deletion. In the
Yoast AfD even JW !voted to keep. Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales
. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of a bad close of the Yoast SEO AfD. I am just asking for a relist.
Lightburst (
talk)
23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised at the outcome as well; Yoast SEO is probably the gold-standard for that type of functionality on WordPress, itself the most widely-used CMS on the internet. At least one person favoring delete didn't realize that (thinking the product was two weeks old), and the comments in general didn't really engage with the topic. I realize that this doesn't translate into passing the GNG, but I would be shocked if sources didn't exist and the article deserves a better debate than what it got so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, back on June 15 you deleted an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram. A new article for this singer was re-created almost immediately with no improvement on the original. I nominated the new one for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram (2nd nomination) and the ensuing discussion is becoming a real slog with repeated arguments all around. There are also some repeated votes. Would you mind taking a look at that second AfD in an Admin capacity and possibly reinforcing how the notability guidelines are supposed to work? Or ask another Admin to do the same if WP:INVOLVED is a problem? I think that would help. Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
[4]. Since you were the closing admin, I would rather also ask you prior to starting DRV. Note that two legitimate users voted without any argumentation except saying that they are convinced by the sockpuppet account who started everything [5]. What would you say on the DRV? If you agree this should be restored, may be you could just reverse your action, which could save some time? My very best wishes ( talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, following up about this. I don't really understand why the article was deleted. I did leave it as all but a stub for a very long time but once that was flagged I beefed it up and I thought it was a pretty good entry -- lots of independent references, the lack of which had been the grounds for deletion nomination in the first place. Sometimes there seems to be no pleasing you guys, it's hard to get better at contributing with so much discouragement. Please could you "draftify" it for me (whatever that means). Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 17:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Spartaz, the three people who made those comments made them BEFORE my final edits. I made the edits to respond to their comments. Specifically, I added more detail and a large number of independent sources. In other words, I've already done the work to redeem it. I don't think there were any critical comments after my more recent edits, but you deleted it anyway. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 07:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The comment made after my edits doesn't seem to have taken them into account, it is just a general comment; and I shouldn't have to make special mention of the fact that I had made changes, it's all recorded in the edit history and the article was substantially (visibly) longer. As you've asked, no, I don't think it's fair that a beginning contributor is expected to "learn the hard way" by having to run around lobbying voters -- that kind of hard-nosed philosophy should cut both ways, don't delete articles without checking the edit history and allowing time for a proper discussion. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 10:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It's only that there seems to be a bit of a double standard, whereby more junior Wikipedia users are expected to jump through hoops so that more senior Wikipedia users can keep their decision-making time to a minimum. It would not have been any more difficult to check the article history to see that the edits postdated those comments on the deletion page than it is to do what you're asking -- but the latter is only required because the former was omitted. There's an inherent injustice to that, as there is to asking me to carry on four separate discussion pages because the deletion discussion page was so promptly closed. I think what would be fair would be to reopen the discussion on that centralised forum. Karl Buxtehude ( talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Papas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! You closed the sparsely-attended AFD for this article in 2018, noting "The result was delete. For now but ping me or drop me a note if you find sources". I did find a review in this issue of Computer Gaming World, and then I hit up archive.org and found:
before I stopped looking for more. Do you think that would be enough for an overturn to Keep? BOZ ( talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz,
You recently deleted Krugarr as a redirect to a deleted page. This article was turned into a redirect after a merge discussion, which I believe occurred on Talk:Krugarr, and there were other possible merge targets discussed at the time. Could you please restore the history of Krugarr in my userspace (or copy paste it to my sandbox) so I can preserve some of the information elsewhere? Thanks! Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of InnerSloth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Right cite ( talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,
This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RELIST at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack Trick,
This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. Would you give me your advice?
I wrote an article that you deleted today, Delta Pi, after a thin AfD discussion. (It's your role, I'm not questioning your work.) I have no connection to this group, just trying to clean up this page along with many of the fraternities and sororities articles.
Am I mis-reading this? There were four votes to delete, three to keep. Those who wanted to delete seemed so zealous about it, mocking the references I had provided. I get their criticism, that some of the references were weaker. But certainly not false or fraudulent. I note that many nicely-written and formatted and non-controversial articles are allowed to remain, with a simple template at the top inviting additional references. It's clear that this group exists. I don't know these editors who voted to delete, and some have far lengthier WP resumes than I do. See, I've not seen this kind of mocking or zealousness against a non-controversial subject before: is there a sense of anti-semitism here? Or simple anti-fraternity bias? Or did they just perk up with a 2nd and 3rd AfD campaign came in, and decided to jump on the bandwagon? It didn't seem ...rational, so I ask your opinion, and if anything else ought to be done.
My sense is the group will continue to chug along, growing slowly. I inserted a post about this on the Jewish Fraternities and Sororities Talk page to capture the current situation and inform newbies they they should look for good references, but wonder if I should appeal this decision on other grounds. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Jax MN ( talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You didn't let us know how it turned out :) "I have already made a private bet to myself... I'll let you know after this closes how accurate my guess was." -- Green C 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Mahapatra as delete? Foxnpichu ( talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, You closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank as delete only after one hour of Bearcat's post. You did not give any time to improve the article based on his feedback. Can you please revert the article as a draft so I can work on it? Thank you -- Wil540 art ( talk) 01:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Walche Cut, Kentucky. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Walche Cut, Kentucky until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
11:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Could I get POSaBIT refunded to my user space so I can incorporate elements of the deleted article elsewhere? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think your close is correct, but could you please elaborate on when it is "time for this?" As I noted in the discussion, the Trump article was created on 26 November 2016, so we're close. Cheers! SportingFlyer T· C 22:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi I spent weeks writing up the wiki article about Mokaev that was recently deleted.
Can you send me the wiki markup article so that I make continue to amend it for future submission.
It has all the references and markup I used and now that it’s been deleted I don’t have the access to retrieve it. Rassmallai ( talk) 02:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
May I ask you to reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown? Only a couple of users suggested a merge and I think that their arguments were rather weak since they appeared to be based on incomplete or innaccurate information. It seemed to me like the discussion was not close to a consensus, whereas extra days of informed discussion may have allowed for a clear consensus to be reached. -- JECE ( talk) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I know you closed this AfD a while ago, but I have a favour to ask. You listed the result as Move to draft. I know this seems trivial, but could you please change it to Draftify or Userfy? Under the state it is at the moment, it is not logged properly on AfD logs. (Notice how the consensus is listed as "UNDETERMINED"?) Foxnpichu ( talk) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, I'm just raising this in relation to the recent closure made, as I believe the 'delete' was incorrect. I appreciate that you are a long term admin; however my reading of the situation was a "no consensus". I've attempted to be objective here but please do bear in mind that I was the original editor.
This is my reasoning behind it.
There were two 'keep' users, two 'delete' users, the original proposer, and a comment by a non-voter that found that WP:GNG was met. Therefore, on a simple tally, three each.
But when we dig a little deeper into the comments, you will see that the basis for the delete and the undue weight given to their comments (that the sources are invalid) is incorrect. One of the 'delete' stated that as they couldn't see the inside of a magazine that featured the subject as a cover feature and multi page feature, and as they couldn't read a physical book, that they were not to be counted. WP:SOURCE does not require sources to be both online and freely available to a casual observer, and we know that there is a wider world than that found on a 2 minute search of Google! In fact, WP:OFFLINE, although not policy, provides us with a reminder of this fact - and in the current age of paywalls, this will become more prevalant (a good handful of the citations in the article are unfortunately paywalled but in physical print editions).
Following this, the second 'delete' was also solely based on an online search - despite other 'keeps' demonstrating several sources.
Your concern may have come about through the inclusion of a piece by a Forbes Contributor and the lengthy discussion around the validity of that. But putting that piece to one side, WP:GNG appears to still be met, so it would appear to be wrong to use the weight of discussion there to undermine the validity of the other sources which are independent of the subject, and consist of sources in the national press.
I hope we can get this resolved without a deletion review, and if there is an area of policy that I've misunderstood I'd really appreciate your support in explaining it, as it stands I'm a little confused by the closing decision - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser249325 ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I am quite concerned about your close of the Thinkmarkets article. You are supposed to gauge consensus when you close an AfD debate, not just assert your own view. Scope creep made an assertion that is not even backed up by evidence, didn't answer my question, and you have entirely sided with him. I'd ask you to reconsider the outcome of the AfD. Deus et lex ( talk) 09:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your closing comment here. To clarify, none of these articles have been created in years; no more are being created (the most recently created were mostly written by a banned user and have been deleted); and from the other direction, most of the deletion nominations have been the work of Fram. To "hit the pause button" on this current series of nominations, Fram would have to change his or her behaviour. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
May I ask how exactly you arrived at keep? The whole thing is uncited save but for a source proving he was in ice cubes movie in a non leading capacity and voice a character in a movie that won none of the awards he was supposedly up for. I figured the closing admin would provide some light on their decision to keep, delete, or relist, but you've done neither and I am very much so curious about what you took into account here. TomStar81 ( Talk) 15:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fury in other media with "IMO the policy based arguments are the delete votes but there is clearly no consensus to delete". I'm genuinely curious to know what these policy-based arguments were, exactly. Because not only does the topic of this character in other media (specifically in other media) have extensive coverage and meets the requirements outlined in WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, but the delete arguments were cookie-cutter responses ( [6], [7] being variants of commonly-used votes from those users), people declaring that there are insufficient sources without really checking ( [8], [9]), an NEXIST / "I don't know it" / "Not well-written" argument, and for the most part, subjective declarations of triviality.
I was honestly prepared to re-open the case at WP:DRV if it somehow passed, because the arguments in favour of it (to me) seemed very weak and presumptive. Dark knight 2149 02:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reginald Bachus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You blocked Duncan079 for socking. Who is the sock master? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
More than seven years ago, you blocked Blueyefinity for copyright violations. They now wish to return to editing and have generally provided reasonable answers to User:Yunshui/decline copyvio questions. Your block was definitely appropriate, seven years ago. Any objection if I lift the block now? -- Yamla ( talk) 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Samaj Party (2nd nomination). The article had 17 indepedent references including few of them were added by me and 5 out of the 7 believed it was enough to pass WP:GNG. There is lot of coverage in the Hindi Language as well. Why was this closed as a Redirect when the consenus was against it , you could have closed No consenus at worst but not Redirect? Can I take this to WP:DRV.Thanks.Wish You a Happy New Year. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Fuck her right in the pussy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Fuck her right in the pussy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
Rummskartoffel (
talk •
contribs)
15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
About three years ago, you and "salted" an BLP for David G. MacAfee. I would like to resurrect the article as I think he may now meet the standards for notability. He now has an book published by a real publisher, Macmillan. And he has a rather huge following on Facebook (not sure how to document that for notability purposes). In the atheist community, he's pretty much the subject of both positive compliments and very negative attacks.
Books, shows he's the author of 8 books, most of them not of the self-published variety (I don't think any of them are).
He also was one of the leading voices regarding the scandal of sexual misconduct with Neal deGrasse Tyson, which could be a negative for a lot of people.
Nevertheless, the book authorship seems to fall well within the parameters of WP:Notability. As you can see from my edits, I have only created a few BLP articles, it's not really my thing, so I could be screwing this up big time. But I think the rules say that you, as the deleting admin, should be my first step in resurrecting the article. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
With respect to a Facebook author's page, [10]. It has over 250,000 followers, which seems to be quite high. My damn page has like 50,000, and I thought that was a lot, but I write about boring stuff like vaccines. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
And he has a verified Twitter account with nearly 25,000 followers. SkepticalRaptor ( talk) 23:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A stub page for the non-notable song " Cheating on You" has been repeatedly recreated over the past week. I would really appreciate if you could salt it. Thanks in advance.-- N Ø 07:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Spartaz! I request the undeletion of Superkombat Fighting Championship (plus all its pages - the years), because a mistake was made back in time. First of all this article had been deleted several times in the past because in the beginning the kickboxing promotion was unknown. And also there was a war on Wikipedia from the MMA "users" against kickboxing, until new regulations.
My reasons are:
1. These are precious info for the history of the sport, SUPERKOMBAT of top promoter Eduard Irimia is considered the 2nd best promotion of Europe all-time after the Netherlands-based It's Showtime. Before it was called Local Kombat (2003-2013). SUPERKOMBAT had headquarters in Bucharest, Romania, but also in London, Las Vegas and New York City.
2. SUPERKOMBAT was named Promotion of the Year in 2011 in front of GLORY (Ultimate Glory), that now is according to the Kickboxing task force "the kickboxing's UFC - World No 1. promotion in the world". Additionally, SUPERKOMBAT was nominated in the top 4 kickboxing promotions of the world.
3. GLORY champions Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira and Pavel Zhuravlev competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY title challengers Benjamin Adegbuyi, Daniel Ghiță, Errol Zimmerman, Mladen Brestovac, Anderson Silva, Yousri Belgaroui and Yoann Kongolo competed in SUPERKOMBAT. GLORY tournament winners Ismael Londt and D'Angelo Marshall competed in SUPERKOMBAT. Other top 10 kickboxers in their divisions competed in SUPERKOMBAT: Roman Kryklia (currently #2 heavyweight), Zabit Samedov (current #6 heavyweight), Murat Aygün (current #8 heavyweight), Tarik Khbabez (current #9 heavyweight), Felipe Micheletti (current #8 light heavyweight), Zinedine Hameur-Lain (current #10 light heavyweight), Igor Bugaenko (current #6 middleweight), Jamie Bates (current #5 welterweight) and many more from the past rankings. Several of these are SUPERKOMBAT products, it is proved that no other promotion has been feeding GLORY like SUPERKOMBAT.
4. SUPERKOMBAT is not on Wikipedia, but even regional kickboxing promotions are allowed, such as King in the Ring, W5, Global Fighting Championship and more. Just saying, make justice for SUPERKOMBAT.
5. SUPERKOMBAT had received coverage from the largest European newspapers such as MARCA, Gazeta Sporturilor etc. It had a contract with the most known sports European channel Eurosport and also with CBS Sports in the United States of America. SUPERKOMBAT's official YouTube channel has fights with over 1 million views.
6. SUPERKOMBAT was still deleted, although 5 people said to Keep it and 3 to Delete it (4 with the nominator). The nominator Jayjg STRANGELY retired later from Wikipedia.
— .karellian-24 ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Superkombat Fighting Championship. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I'm pretty new, so I just wanted to get your opinion of the sources I found for the two AfDs you put up today. Is that much coverage generally enough to meet notability? How many sources independent of industry trade magazines would normally be good to establish notability? Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that the Wikipedia page for Renaissance Capital (US company) was taken down in June 2020. I'd like to request the page be undeleted. After reviewing I can see why the page was flagged as promotional in the AfD (link), since much of it appears to be copied & pasted from the company website, but I believe the firm still qualifies under notability. I'd be happy to explain why, or edit a draft of the page to be less promotional with new/more sourcing. -- IPOKennedy ( talk) 03:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dropping you a line as I'm quite confused about your rationale to close the Articles for Deletion entry for Jendrik Sigwart. There didn't appear to be any actual consensus leaning either way re keep, redirect or delete in the discussion itself, so I'm curious as to why it was redirected and not relisted to gain a better actual consensus? Rather than going straight to DRV I said I'd raise it with you first. ser! ( chat to me). 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Request for undeletion: Ateaa Tina page. Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Please, could you take another look at the closure of AfD for the article Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, that resulted in complete deletion, but only one user voted for that solution. In the order of voting:
Since only one user supported complete deletion, while all others had complex votes and explicitly allowed some form of merge, or keep, the outcome should have been somewhat different? Where did you see the consensus for total deletion? Sorabino ( talk) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a typo in your close here that prevents me from getting what you are saying. (Personally, I make about ten such typos a day.) Thanks. --- Possibly ( talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You said on my talk page if I had any questions I could come here, and this literally just came up. I was perusing AfDs and came upon an AfD for a photographer. After looking for sources it seems that most of my searching brings up articles, books, magazines etc giving her credit for photographs. Do you think this would count as citing her work in such a way to meet CREATIVE #1? Is there a noticeboard for a discussion about that? I don't see any sort of interpreting notability notice board, and plain notability noticeboard is basically just AfD. Any input would be appreciated before I irk people voting in AfDs with a silly rational. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
→
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dick Sheppard (stuntman). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SportsOlympic ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please can you take another look at the discussion that was closed as deletion, since two users voted to keep, only one for deletion, and one for deletion or selective merge. Does such a divided vote constitute a consensus for deletion? Sorabino ( talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've already stated I'm happy to revert back to anything anyone wants, as long as it's properly verified by BLP-quality references.
Given the onus within a BLP, maybe we just protect the article from the ips? They've not participated in any discussion in over a year.
Given the history of problems with have with BLPs of people in adult film, maybe full protection? Sanctions apply for BLPs in general, and the type of problems with get with adult film tend to be serious. I'm already seeing hints of it going down hill quickly, spilling over from the recent Right cite ( talk · contribs) problems. I've refrained from formally notifying editors of the sanctions. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I've requested partial protection after the references from the most recent ip edit failed a simple check at RSN and even RSP. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
On my talk page, it states I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.
Is this enough?
Policy requires removal of unsourced and pooorly sourced content from BLPs. These are not my personal conditions. Sanctions apply. I've offered solutions, and I'll continue to do so. Consensus requires adherence to policy. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected, so that will help. -- Hipal ( talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Please I got a notification that the page I created, Ateaa Tina has been deleted. Please I humbly request for you to review the deletion and undelete it as the decision is a mistake. Ateaa Tina is a notable and popular musician who has been in the Ghanaian music industry for about two decades. Her 2003 collaboration with Ghanaian legend Daddy Lumba, "Bubra" is regarded as one of the best duet albums in Ghana's history. Recently she announced her comeback in the music industry after a decade hiatus. Please consider and undelete the article. Thank you. Mellowdeaous ( talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I understand that the Celliant page was deleted. Unfortunately, the comments related to deletion were on the old page and not related to the proposed changes we were suggesting. Who could I reach out to that would consider to userfy either "Celliant" or "responsive textiles"? I would like an open discussion with an admin to discuss the science of infrared, its biological effects on the body and how it can be incorporated into textiles. We are not trying to promote or sell through Wiki but we would hope that Wiki would want to cover this science. Appreciate any additional info/advice. Also, as the deletion page has been archived, and Celliant has been deleted, I don't know where to respond further. The last delete comment from Blue Riband was again based on a review of the old listing. Thanks for any help/advice. Borristhedog ( talk) 21:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cara Spencer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
On behalf of STLPublicI as they have not notified you. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 09:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi! It would have been good had you given your reasoning why you deleted Sindhu Joy w.r.t. GNG since both the keep and delete arguments were persuasive. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 04:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sindhu_Joy_(2nd_nomination) for ease of reference Vikram Vincent 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Will do! Vikram Vincent 07:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm also writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. In the reason for the deletion section, you wrote, "The result was delete. Fundamentally there are two arguments here. Whether the subject passed BLP - and consensus is it doesn’t but the source analysis debunking the gng argument. Much of the delete argument about the gng just asserts which is a weak argument against a compelling analysis based on policy. Secondly, does the subject pass ACADEMIC, and there is no consensus that she does. That only leaves one outcome." But in
WP:NPROF, the guideline states, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.
I have been trying to figure out why your reasoning does not result in a 'no consensus' closure, based on the determination that there was no consensus per NPROF, so I figured I would ask. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk)
00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I've edited before on other wikis online about fan interests related to video games. Was more of a lurker for a while, reading and contributing here and there. Thank you, Right cite ( talk) 20:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came across your user page, when you closed the AfD Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha, thanks, further I noticed that you are willing to userfy the deleted pages. Would be thankful if you can refund me above pages for improvements, although I was not the page creator but as a Wikipidian I feel are worth their page with proper citations. I tried to save them in Deletion Review Jethwarp ( talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to follow up on the recent deletion of this article, as an involved editor and keep !voter. I had thought that at minimum, there appears to be WP:CREATIVE notability, due to WP:BASIC coverage related to her prominent role as the co-founder of SafeCity, and the regular coverage of her as an expert and commentator on a variety of subjects, and that there were likely other sources for the student editor assigned to the article for their class to review if the article cleared AfD. I still feel quite new to the AfD process, but I wanted to check in with you for a review, because 'no consensus' seems like it could have been an outcome of the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 20:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Spartaz, could I have this article userfied into my sandbox so I can redraft it into an article about Safecity? I think there is a lot of coverage in independent RS about the organization, and while D'Silva can be mentioned, she would not be a prominent focus of the article. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Done
Spartaz
Humbug!
09:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Spartaz could you please at least move the article I started on J.D. Mata to a draftspace so that I can continue to work on it? Alternatively, undelete and relist for discussion. I feel that I addressed many of the issues raised by the early delete votes but if you could at least give me my draft, I can continue to improve it. Thank you. Larry Grossman ( talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for taking it so poorly when you questioned me about any previous accounts. In my short time editing I've started to get an idea of the sheer amount of shenanigans that goes on. I got involved in Nightingale College through a bot rfc notification and it turns out the whole situation was precipitated by a sock. I've also seen a ton in AfDs. I didn't really expect that it would be as common an issue as it seems to be. I can much better understand why you would have been suspicious. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Spartaz, I'd like to discuss what I believe is an improper closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination). For several reasons, I believe your closure was too hasty and with an incorrect outcome, hence I would like you to revert your own closure. Here are my reasons:
Hence, I'd like you to revert your closure and let the discussion continue. Eccekevin ( talk) 01:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I heard that Danny Mann just got deleted from Wikipedia, and I wanna bring him back onto this wiki were he absolutely deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkrzywicki1 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment:
I suspect it was a rhetorical comment, as the reason seems pretty obvious. 😏 Pre-Trump it was normal to keep science and facts separate from deviant political positions and deception. It wasn't normal for mainstream politicians to openly deny them. They accepted the views of experts, especially in science and medicine. Trump broke that pattern by mainstreaming fringe nonsense, denying well-known facts, and pushing conspiracy theories.
Sure, there have been politicians and public persons who have touched the edges of such foolishness, but they usually paid a heavy price for doing it. Fox News prepared the soil for Trumpism to fall on fertile ground and thrive. Suddenly it became the required norm (a loyalty litmus test) for Fox viewers=Trump supporters to boldly deny scientific facts (because of their pro-Trump political views) and believe the most absurd falsehoods while accusing those who believed experts and accepted scientific facts of "politicizing science," when the opposite was the case. Even editors do this. That's the "insane reason" we got here, but you know that. 😀 Have a great day, and good luck with expelling insanity from this place. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It's good to see you back. Jclemens ( talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lothlorien Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
The article was redirected and its content deleted, you can find the last version in history. Rybkovich ( talk) 04:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Although this photo was approved by you, it has been removed by Rabat in the draft article ( Draft:Andreh Arzoomanian). If possible, guide me to know where the problem is. Sincerely. Musiban ( talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
:02
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)