User talk:Spartaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
What again?

Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2006 and have been an admin since the middle of 2007 with a couple of long breaks due to on and off-wiki stress. Historically I have worked mostly on deletion discussions and at one time was one of the most prolific AFD closers. From November 2012 to early 2014 I closed most DRVs but am no longer very active there. I am a strong proponent of applying the GNG to article content - especially for BLPs.

I am mostly inactive now. If you have a question or a request don't be surprised if there is a delay for an answer. I have no problems with you asking another admin on my behalf.

Useful Links:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Owen Snodgrass[edit]

How can policy dictate deletion when the CMG clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1? It is senior to the CBE, which we have held a number of times to meet that threshold (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Stewart Laurie). I fear you have made a mistake here and would ask you to reconsider. Otherwise I shall be forced to take it to deletion review. I would also ask you to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Brummell, where I believe you have been overly rigid in your interpretation of notability guidelines, especially given a majority of keep opinions. Yes, I'm fully aware that it is not merely a matter of counting votes, but I believe this should have been closed as no consensus. In the past, and given the lack of a specific guideline, ambassadors with a majority of keep votes have been kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't recognise your extreme interpretation of BIO so that anyone with CMG should be assumed to be notable. That's just ridiculous. There is no consensus that Ambassadors are notable by default so an argument to that effect is not policy based - when delete votes argue against the GNG and the wider meta consensus that BLPs require decent sourcing. I saw no arguiment that these articles passed the GNG. Did I miss that? Are there adequate reliable sources? Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Michael Owen Snodgrass[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Michael Owen Snodgrass. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paul Brummell[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Brummell. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Closing AFDs[edit]

Wikipedia:Closing AFDs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Closing AFDs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Closing AFDs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Piguy101 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors[edit]

I believe that you have an interest in this topic. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(Wikipedia Talk: Bringing back the Articles of Brianne Siddall[edit]

Spartaz, it has come to my attention that you had just made a deletion of an article that was never meant to be deleted, and I'm asking you kindly as an editor to recreate the article that you deleted because I believe that this article can still be given a chance for editors to be able to update, edit and change this article for the better, and will prove itself that this article has mean for all edtiors to make it a better one, believe it. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Do you have any sources for this individual that meet the GNG? Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • yes, I do have those sources for this individual that meets the GNG. Norozco1 talk So do the other editors that care about this article as much as I do, But you just didn't give them time to show them to you. comment added 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The AFD ran long enough for people to include the sources. Perhaps you could share the sources with me? Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, well for starters she was in the house of magic as Thunder and Dylan, credited under the alias, Murray Blue, she was even in Mix Master: Final Force as Tomo, also under the alias, Murray Blue. Beside on the deletion debate it was 4 who wanted to keep the article and 2 who wanted the article deleted, so how did this article end up getting deleted if only 4 people who wanted to keep this article up amd running?Norozco1 talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not looking for what she has been in, IMDB would say that and that isn't considered a reliable source for notability purposes. I'm taling about Reliable secondary sources like in the GNG I linked above. That's what you need to rescue this article. Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok, so i've been thinking and since this isn't going to resolve anything, i've decided that we should reopen the Articles of Brianne Siddall deletion review debate and then we shall truly see if the editors get to keep the article or not, besides one editor said "They'll find better sources, and if that is not done in 6 months or so, reopen the debate. In almost all cases better sources exist for people who have had notable roles in multiple shows, we just need to find them." So if your willing to do this, then we should reopen it in August, ok. Norozco1 talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The way it works is you show adequate sources and I undelete the article immediately. If I think the sources you find need discussion then we rerun the debate. If I think the sources suck I say so and you come back to me when you have better sources. That's the policy compliant want of dealing with this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(Wikipedia Talk: Bringing back the Article on Nate Thomas[edit]

The article had participation and comments on whether to be deleted or not. There was not a consensus to delete. Although considered marginal whether the article meets WP:Creative and WP: Bare there were two deletes and two keeps and a strong interest in contributing to the article to improve it. Biographee has produced and directed award winning television PSAs and theatrically released films, received national commendations from FBI director Robert Mueller, and won an Emmy Award, the most coveted award in his field. He is referenced in other Wikipedia articles, and as a tenured film professor viewed as an expert in his field having been quoted various times in major newspaer articles and journals. Biographee, upon my research, is also a member of the Board of Directors for LA36 television station and President of the California Faculty Association- the collective bargaining unit for California State University faculty. Deletion of articles like this one challenges the integrity of Wikipedia. I am willing to work to make article credible. I ask that you restore the article (best and fair scenario) or userify the content that I and others can work on. Prease (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC) (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The Emmy is a regional one according to the AFD and I'd like to see the reliable sourcing to support what you say before I consider it. Please read WP:GNG and highlight me a couple of really good sources which meet that. That's all you need at this point. With regard to the discussion there were 3 delete votes, a weak keep which essentially acknowledged this shouldn't have been in mainspace and you. That's a clear consensus to delete but if you can meet the gng then you are good to go. Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)