Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 228: Line 228:
*subguidelines supplement the GNG so if something passes GNG it stays even if it fails the sub-guideline. Deletion arguments were around POLITICIAN but noone seriously refuted the argument that there were multiple reliable sources. That = keep in my book. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
*subguidelines supplement the GNG so if something passes GNG it stays even if it fails the sub-guideline. Deletion arguments were around POLITICIAN but noone seriously refuted the argument that there were multiple reliable sources. That = keep in my book. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
::Yes but the major question brought up was depth; whether the coverage of the subject was trivial or comprehensive. If you look at the sources you will see that the figure is trivial and discussed only in the context of the notable subject of satirical candidacy.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
::Yes but the major question brought up was depth; whether the coverage of the subject was trivial or comprehensive. If you look at the sources you will see that the figure is trivial and discussed only in the context of the notable subject of satirical candidacy.--[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
:::If I look at the sources then I'm substituting my opinion on the sources for the sense of the discussion. That's not what the closing admin should do. We can't close on the basis of arguments that no-one has made in the discussion. No-one on the delete source really made a strong case that the sources were inadequate - just relying on POLITICIAN so if the sources are deemed OK by the discussion then the only issue for the closing admin is to decide whether N/GNG or POLITICIAN are more relevant guideline to apply. DRV has consistantly argued that subguidelines cannot negate N/GNG so if something passes that its irrelevant what the subguideline says. So for me the policy was clear and this was a keep. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


== Question ==
== Question ==

Revision as of 06:27, 15 June 2011


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

Alt
What again?

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2017. That makes me a bit stuck in my ways but I have the benefit of experience and working through many of the changes that have left us where we are. I am getting grumpy. Sorry but all the drama and grief has washed away a lot of my younger idealism...

A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

I mostly work on deletion discussions. I am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources? Also, don’t waste your time asking me to review a close or you are going to DRV because I’m not going to review a close with a sword hanging over my head. Just raise the DRV or ask someone else.

Useful Links:

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
please stay in the top three tiers

Move Under Ground

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

Deletion review for Move Under Ground

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Move Under Ground. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, did you notice the ~3000 bytes of new information that got added after the AfD was filed? DS (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not or I would have relisted it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jacques Duyver

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

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

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

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

EWN

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

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

Request userfication

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

DrV

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

Shabdaguchha

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

Andrew Bloch page deletion

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

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

Radio Sandwell

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

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

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

Agreed. I don't much care about the article, but this was one of the most blatant supervotes I have ever seen. I urge you to reverse yourself and correctly close it as no consensus or soft delete, or extend it for further comment. Thparkth (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the blatant assumption of bad faith on your parts. Consensus is the measurement of arguments against policy. That's what I did. Forgive me, but did not both of your comments support the argument that there was only single source? That's how I read the discussion. Inclusion requires that a subject meets N = multiple (i.e more then one) detailed reliable sources. Your comments suggested that the article did not meet N. Therefore the delete argument was the policy based argument and I closed on that basis. If this isn't the case then tell me now what the sources are and I'll undelete immediately if they are good enough. V is not the same as meeting inclusion standards. The GNG/N are the operators here. Did this article meet them? Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, there is no assumption of bad faith here, I know for a fact that you are one of the few admins that I unquestionably respect.  Your argument that the topic is non-notable I am avoiding discussing, since I would be arguing against the super-vote.  The closing statement did not argue that the nominator's viewpoint had greater weight than all other participants combined.  Specifically, my !vote referenced WP:V which is content policy; not WP:N, which is a notability guideline.  Perhaps the point about the single source is that agreement that only one source has been reported is not proof that other sources don't exist.  I would note that it is "likely" that other sources exist and that this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N, as well as I would point out that public sector institutions generally satisfy the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice" even if only because a little digging is all that is necessary to find sufficient sources, but I didn't go down that road because I think the article should be deleted without prejudice to encourage its recreation rather than spend a lot of time on analysis and research such as is happening now.  Can you please discuss your review of WP:NOQUORUM?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reading is that there is absolutely noquorum whatsoever at AFD but I tend to go for soft delete for singe opinion AFDs. I read your vote as indicating that you had searched for a second source. If you hadn't - well my apologies - but a deletion argument based on sourcing needs actual sources to be brought up to overcome it and I read the discussion to show that other sourcing hadn't been found. I'm making the point in the close that meeting V isn't the same as meeting N and that my plain reading of the discussion was that it didn't meet N because of the lack of sources. That's not a supervote its an explanation of how I applied the policy. I'm a bit confused about what you are asking for here. I can't see that our positions are lightyears away from each other. Are you asking me to undelete this or specifically allow recreation as soon as the second source appears or something else I missed? Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Wangtang, Guilin

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

There is clearly a keep outcome for all so it wouldn't have hurt you to do the maintainable yourself as there is no bot that goes around removing AFD tags from closed discussions. I am removing tags now but for the future you might want to consider the old adage concerning the intersection of flies honey and vinegar. Spartaz Humbug! 13:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for all of the articles. There was only one real vote on "Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi", and that was a deletion vote from Danaman5. I'm going to request a deletion review, and be careful next time. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Please explain to me how there was any delete consensus there for any of these articles? Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think my last post makes this pretty clear that I am going to contest your blind closure of the debate because there was one article that came out questionable from the debate. The rest, I will not bother. Sorry, but being an admin is not an excuse to not read others' comments (and esp. on your talk) carefully. Throw AGF at me all you want, but unless I have worked with you extensively, AGF must be earned and I operate by "guilty until proven innocent". —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade characters

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

Jonathan Stephen

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

  • I deleted it because there are not reliable sources and the position he holds is not inherently notable. The consensus is based on assessing arguments against policy not counting snouts. If you disagree with my interpretation you are welcome to adduce further sources here or show me a consensus anywhere on wikipedia that the head of an institution with 100 students is notable. Spartaz Humbug! 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You never directly addressed either the "rosh yeshiva" argument, nor the fact that he was the head of organizations. Wikipedia doesn't really have a great policy when dealing with heads of major religious organizations. As the director of Affinity/FIEC/BEC I would argue he achieved notability. There are several secondary sources which say this including both Evangelical magazines which meet RS and can be considered secondary. Fountainviewkid 5:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm head of my organisation and I'm not notable so being head of any organisation doesn't make you notable. I didn't feel the rosj yeshiva argument was accepted widely in the discussion as relevant. Were the sources you refer to included in the article and discussed in the AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were noted but not really ever discussed. The "delete" side only accused them of not being "primary" sources since Stephen had small affiliation with one of them. There were 2 or 3 magazines however and he wasn't affiliated with all of them. Both Evangelical Times and Evangelicals Now, as well as the Welsh Presbyterian Journal. Only E Now was he even partially affiliated with. And if you're the head of an organization may I ask, is this organization on wikipedia (as his is)? Also does it have 50,000 members and make up 500 separate churches (or groups) as his does? Also it's interesting that you say the Seminary is not notable because it appears to have survived an AFD. How does the seminary survive while he doesn't? If the Seminary is considered acceptable then I believe he should be as well based on the guidelines. It appears we have an inconsistency. Fountainviewkid 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say the seminary was non-notable? I said it wasn't a significant enough post for the job holder to be inherently notable. Arguments to the contrary need some form of policy basis so please feel free to provide that. As for the sources if they were present during the discussion and the neither the keep or delete side found them notable enough to discuss specifically then I don't think I can disregard the discussion and form my own opinion of the sources. There is plenty of evidence in the discussion of the sources being thoroughly reviewed. Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By arguing the seminary is not "a major institution" you essentially accuse it of being "non-notable", since the criterion for a Seminary to be included is that it must be considered a significant or "major" institution. I argue if it's notable enough to be included on Wikipedia then the director/President is probably notable enough to have an article on here, especially with his leadership in all the other areas. As for the sources, we brought them up. The delete side however simply dismissed them without good policy arguments. For example there are 2 Evangelical magazines in Britain which he has written for and 1 Presbyterian Welsh magazine which does a profile on him. Only one of the 3 is he even partially connected to, yet the Delete side argue that the source was not "secondary". Also you never mentioned the British Centre for Science Education which quotes Stephen as a "leading" and "notable" Intelligent design creationist. BCSE is notable organization which even has it's own article on Wikipedia (as does the British Evangelical Organization Stephen was director and later President of). The only debate about BCSE was if it was reliable since it was a "wiki". It was found however that it is a "closed" wiki which can only be edited by members who are a part of this organization. It was never shown that BCSE was an unreliable source. This provides another secondary source discussing Stephen, and not just a passing reference either. I seriously don't see how his Seminary, his church, all the organizations he directs, all the journals he publishes in, are notable but he is not? Fountainviewkid 23:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its irrekevant whether the institution is notable or not. The policy is WP:PROF which states (inter alia) :
The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. or
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Prof goes on to provide a definition of what is meant by that:
Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc.
Now, my reading of that is that a seminary with 100 students is not a major institution of higher education. That was certainly more the view of the AFD. The problem with your approach to the sourcing is that you understandably don't understand how we use sources as the area is quite complex. So what we are looking for is laid out clearly in the WP:GNG and can be boiled down to multiple independent secondary sources that cover the subject in detail from a publication that has adequate peer review or fact checking. Other wikis are never considered to reliable because of the fact checking element and being quoted or interviewed count as primary sources and do not count. There were several analyses of sources in the discussion and the delete side's arguments were not refuted. Finally you need to look at WP:NOTINHERITED. The issue is that being part or head of a notable thing doesn't make you notable unless you meet a guideline. Essentially it seems like you are looking to find an excuse for the person to be notable rather then looking at the guidance and deciding whether he fits. That's one of the reasons why we discourage WP:COI from editing areas they feel passionate about as this passion affects their objectivity and they end up advocating for their pet POV rather then approaching the evidence objectively. Spartaz Humbug! 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Maybe the reason you feel I'm echoing some of the delete arguments is because these arguments reflect the widely held cross-wiki view of notability, sourcing and inclusion and I certainly don't feel that I have interpreted the guidelines incorrectly. We have almost 1000 active admins so I'm sure you can find plenty who might close differently but I'm consistent in my approach and reasoning. I can't help feeling that you probably need to look to establishing more of a cross-wiki consensus to include this kind of article. Maybe religious figures are under-represented but the problem is that the mainstream sources to allow the articles under our current polices simply are not there. Regrettable maybe but we have hardened our approach to unsourced BLPs or those with inadequate sourcing and my personal take is that this is a good thing as great harm can be done to people's real lives if we don't police our BLPs properly and part of that has to be having a realistic inclusion standard to disbars articles for very marginally or non-notable individuals. I think we probably have to agree to disagree here. Spartaz Humbug! 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe the sources are there. The Evangelical magazines appear to be considered "mainstream sources" albeit focused on specific areas of interest. I still see a double standard especially with the religious articles. The fact that at least half of the commenting editors agree that Stephen meets the notability guidelines is a strong demonstration that while the delete arguments may reflect a widely held view, it is by no means necessarily even a majority view. The "rosh yeshiva" argument points this out rather nicely as it appears the community is heading towards considering leaders of 100-200 student religious seminaries as notable. I think the debate comes down to 1-What is a mainstream source, 2-Do we accept the "rosh yeshiva" argument 3-How strongly do positions of leadership in prominent organizations contribute to notability? I've seen some examples of non-notable people, but Stephen seems to be a leader in his field. Fountainviewkid 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we are going round in circles now. The sources have all been discussed in the AFD and the analysis was that they did not pass muster. Please show me a consensus anywhere that organisations with 100-200 students allow their deans to pass PROF? The Rosh Yeshiva argument has not gained consensus - if it has please point to me to the consensus. If Stephen is a leader in his field then we wouldn't be having the argument about sourcing would we? Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis was that they did not pass muster? You mean one person made this decision? That or 10 out of 21 did. Either way there is still an element of arbitrariness in the whole process. I personally believe that the result was more like this example [2]. Truthfully there was no consensus on the Deletion discussion which is why it should been concluded in that matter. In deletion articles I was under the impression that consensus needs to be achieved (or at least a clear majority towards one position). The near even split demonstrates that to decide either way on this (keep or delete) rather than no consensus is to reach a conclusion not in line with the discussion. You're right that a full consensus may not have been achieved on rosh yeshiva but this example [3] as well as this one [4] both are evidences of rosh yeshiva's that exist because the community accepted the argument you rejected. How can these "rosh yeshiva's" pass AFD muster and not Stephen? From what I've read Stephen is far more notable than several of these leaders. Fountainviewkid 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Bearing Corp

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

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

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

  • Not at all. I'm talking about detailed covered - i.e lots of words not mentions in other context of awards or competition. So the more longer articles there are in trade magazines or the press the better. Usually the standard requirement is 2 decent sources. See WP:CORP for details of exactly what the inclusion criteria is. Winning awards depends on how widely respected and/or exclusive the award is. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article that was deleted/Jacques Duyver

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

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

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

ONLINE PUBLICATIONS ETC... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3tPzzyrxMY&feature=player_embedded - Interview on Summit TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ChKbepx2yk&feature=player_embedded - SAFM interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv4MuzsqVz0&feature=player_embedded#at=14 - SABC 3 TV Interview
http://www.entrepreneurmag.co.za/archive/successstories/OutstandingBrand.html - Business WEEK interview
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/computing/2008/0805301100.asp?A=BUS&S=Business&O=FPLEAD - ItWeb Article
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=647:itecs-r100m-uk-invasion&catid=69:business - ITEWEB
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/future-african-distribution-rights-are-likely-2004-08-20
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/max-sisululinked-company-sees-expanding-niche-as-sa-telecoms-market-evolves-2005-11-18
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/future-african-distribution-rights-are-likely-2004-08-20
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/jacques-duyver-2004-11-19
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/73/4649.html
http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=46328
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10121:itec-signs-massive-communitybased-bee-deal&catid=69
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=647:itecs-r100m-uk-invasion&catid=86
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16683:itec-in-africa&catid=77
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16684:itec-south-africa-lead-the-way-with-colour&catid=77
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page289766?oid=57885&sn=Daily news detail
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16682:itec-focuses-on-colour&catid=77
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page289766?oid=59108&sn=Daily news detail
http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16540:itec-to-distribute-konica-minolta-brand-in-southern-africa&catid=77

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

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

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

User:Pampi1010/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Milam Elementary School

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Spartaz:

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

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

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

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

  • Truthfully, I could have deleted this and dismissed the keep arguments as lacking a policy base - the argument that something is useful is not grounded in any policy and its not uncommon for weak arguments to be given much less weight then policy based arguments. The deletion argument based on NOTDIR and indiscriminate represent a core policy and therefore had a lot of weight but much of this was plain assertion rather then a detailed exposition of why this was the case. What stayed my hand was that a lot of users gave detailed reasons why they felt the list wasn't indescriminate and opinion was evenly split. In essence, there was no keep consensus - the arguments to keep were weak. There was pretty much a delete consensu based on policy but much of the basis was assertion and the keep side did just enough in my opinion that I felt we should give the article some leaway to see how it develops - especially as later keep arguments were allowed to stand unchallenged. That's pretty much within the admins closing discretion in cases where the actual consensus is within a range of opinion where different interpretations of policy or different weightings of arguments allow valid outcomes in different directions. Does this help? Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes that greatly helps my understanding. It's a complicated "business" you/we are in.
I cannot resist asking one more question.. I PROMISE not to ask any further questions about this close. (Please understand that I'm seeking to learn, not to debate your decision.)
The following is part of my KEEP argument.
(Quote) "Here is the beginning of the first pillar of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Five pillars.--- "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
The article in question fits reasonably well under the second sentence." (End of quote)
Does the argument that the article is a specialized gazetteer and thus falls within the "first pillar" carry weight or would you regard it as a sort of creative fantasy?
Thank you and best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right, it is very complicated and its one of the reasons why deletion discussions are so contentious. One side or the other generally doesn't weight opposing arguments in the same way the closing admin will and this leads to friction. The Gazetter argument didn't register in my mind with the close but one of the things that did was a general view that keep side was arguing that this was encyclopedic content even if it didn't quite match the usual metrics for inclusion. I see this kind of thing from time to time i.e a gallery of flags or rank insignia meets on the face of it the deletion argument as indescriminate information but I remember being fascinated by similar galleries in paper encyclopedias when I was a child so I do generally give arguments along those lines much more weight then policy might normally allow. In fact, now I think about it more, that is probably why I closed as NC instead of delete. Another point is that it had been relisted for further discussion and I do pay more attention to opinions given after a relist as there is generally a truth that there is no consensus up to the point of the relist and the views expressed afterwards are generally helpful to see which way the discussion is tilting based on the discussion up to then. A lot of early comments aren't reviewed in the light of further evidence produced so its not always possible to give early views the same weight as later ones based on reviewing extra sources etc, So a lot of deleted followed by a what about these sources where a couple of users endorse the sources and noone objects is a keep in my book despite a numerical advantage for the deletes. Obviously if the deletes come back and effectively refute the sources then it stays delete. Complicated? No? Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visible penis line

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

  • According to the nomination - if this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered [my bolding] Is this not correct? As AFD closer its my job to evaluate the discussion so I can't really be neutral if I then start researching the article and the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, how would I access a copy of the text of the deleted article? (I wish to adapt it for an article I'm about to write titled Crotch bulge.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could ask the deleting admin to userfy the article for you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (You still haven't corrected your close's statement that the topic is covered at Wiktionary, though.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is strange. I went to the close and it says that the deleting admin was you.... Could you userfy the deleted article for me?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problems, you only had to ask. Spartaz Humbug! 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its now sitting at User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden/Visible penis line. Have fun :-) Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've got crotch bulge watchlisted already!--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol @ Milowent. I've broached the subject here: Talk:Cameltoe#Suggested re-naming]. (Btw you still haven't fixed your close's reference to the non-existent Wiktionary entry.) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith that when the nom said it was covered in Wikt that was correct. maybe the search needs to be a bit different. I don't know but if this bugs you so much please discuss with the nom and let me know the outcome. I already said something along these lines earlier in the thread. Spartaz Humbug! 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme

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

  • subguidelines supplement the GNG so if something passes GNG it stays even if it fails the sub-guideline. Deletion arguments were around POLITICIAN but noone seriously refuted the argument that there were multiple reliable sources. That = keep in my book. Spartaz Humbug! 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the major question brought up was depth; whether the coverage of the subject was trivial or comprehensive. If you look at the sources you will see that the figure is trivial and discussed only in the context of the notable subject of satirical candidacy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I look at the sources then I'm substituting my opinion on the sources for the sense of the discussion. That's not what the closing admin should do. We can't close on the basis of arguments that no-one has made in the discussion. No-one on the delete source really made a strong case that the sources were inadequate - just relying on POLITICIAN so if the sources are deemed OK by the discussion then the only issue for the closing admin is to decide whether N/GNG or POLITICIAN are more relevant guideline to apply. DRV has consistantly argued that subguidelines cannot negate N/GNG so if something passes that its irrelevant what the subguideline says. So for me the policy was clear and this was a keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

  1. ^ http://www.shabdaguchha.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=434364961"