User talk:Spartaz

I-DEAS deletion

I had cleaned up the I-DEAS article & after my cleanup, there were no comments made in the AfD. Since AfD is not a vote, I thought that I'd check that you had actually (i) seen that I went to efforts to clean the article up and (ii) that these efforts were somehow insufficient to rescue the article. Prior to these edits, I had no experience with the page, so I don't know if I might have missed anything that wasn't in the deletion discussion. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm afraid that what appears to be a brief discussion in a lecture does not multiple independent detailed sources make so the consensus that this did not meet our inclusion standard was valid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As noted in the discussion, there are multiple sources that can be cited. After my comment regarding these sources, Pxtreme75 (who called for deletion) agreed that I-DEAS is notable & said the article just sounded spammy and needed a "fresh start" (presumably from those sources). Rather than start from scratch, I see no reason not to keep the non-spammy parts of the article. I included multiple sources (not just the lecture notes) in my cleanup, but you are correct that more sources should be added to the article. I believe that the multiple books on this topic show that WP:V can be met easily. So, my impression is that either:

1. You think that nobody would agree with me (contrary to my reading of the deletion discussion) that there are sufficient sources that could be added to this article. Please let me know if this is the case and why.
2. You think that it is debatable whether there are enough sources that can be added. If this is the case, can you relist the debate?
3. You think that there are enough sources that can be added, but that the article did not contain them. If this is the case, can you please restore the article & we can add the needed cleanup tags?

--Karnesky (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Premature Deletion Syndrome

Please see my request for undeletion here. You seem to have deleted without fully reading the discussion. A number of questions were not addressed, a number of issues were not resolved, a number of arguments for retention left unaddressed. Could you please read through the page carefully and confirm that the page was deleted prematurely. Thanks. - PtAuAg (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be so patronising. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that I didn't read the discussion. AFDs run for 7 days. They are not infinitely extended for the benefit of one keep voter arguing over minutiae. Notability is demonstrated by providing multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Wriggling and arguing about obscure metrics is simply a distraction to avoid addressing the elephant in the room - that no-one else thinks this bloke is important enough to write about. Since wikipedia isn't here to contain original writing that is not recorded elsewhere this person does not qualify for an entry and that was the consensus of the discussion. I'm presuming that you read the essay linked in my edit notice (the one surrounded by the large red box)? That contains everything you need to understand about inclusion thresholds and sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Bullet

Thanks! If it was a hoax they'll have to do a better hoax and if it was real they'll have to do a better real article ... I must say I'm strongly inclined towards "hoax" but either way, I'm glad it's gone. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Swan Story

Hi Spartaz, thanks for closing the deletion debate for Black Swan Story and deleting Black swan story. Just in case you hadn't spotted it, I thought I'd better mention that Black Swan Story still remains. This is a result of another user changing the article name after I'd opened the deletion discussion. Sorry for the bother, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. This is now toast. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, cheers. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request user-space copy of Ralph Kauzlarich

As I said on the AFD, this guy has already had a whole book written about his military service. I'd like to keep a copy of the article around in case any new sources come to light. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Its at User:Kendrick7/Ralph Kauzlarich. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Danka! -- Kendrick7^talk
    • Det var sa lidt. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I had to google that one. Very few Danes in my homeland (q.v.), but a big one in my latest home of online poker! -- Kendrick7^talk 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Spartaz, I'd like to apologise for the way I reacted at the edit war noticeboard. I do think you made the wrong call, but it was a bit confusing. There was no need for me to suggest you were incompetent or corrupt, I don't think that's the case. I should have explained more calmly. Anyway, hope there's no hard feelings. mikemikev (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• While I accept your apology I'm sure you will understand that your behaviour did not leave me with a happy feeling, even now after you said sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society

The Irving article has been noticed on the WikiProject New York page; some helpful comments sent back. Did not receive notice on your G4 decision; we will be asking to move the article back to mainspace shortly. Thanks for the aid. --Cmagha (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• No. Unless you have addressed the significant issues concerning allegations of misrepresenting sources and the contention that all of the sources are tangential or trivial then this isn't going back into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning aggressive opposition

There's an editor who I believe has gone too far in his efforts to oppose the outline project.

He's placed a very odd notice on Portal:Contents, and he has placed "disputed" tags directly into Wikipedia's navigation menus at template:Contents pages (header bar) and template:Contents pages (footer box).

These pages are at the very top of Wikipedia's navigation hierarchy, and they receive a lot of traffic.

I'm pretty sure the notice and tags are inappropriate, but I can't stop him. The notice instructs readers not to create new outline articles.

Initially, he removed the links to the Outline of Knowledge altogether, and when addressed on the talk page, he changed his tactics.

Please take a look to see whether or not admin intervention is needed, and please instruct me on how to handle this type of thing better in the future.

Thank you,

The Transhumanist    21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* and I see you revert warring with him over it as well. This private war between you two is becoming very tiring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to compromise, but as TT has become a WP:SPA it is quite hard. Quiddty, Karnacs and I are actually working on the RfC and fixing a lot of the problems TT has caused. This is a "war" between TT and the community. Spartaz, I apologise if you feel dragged into this - please feel free to remove this comment. Please note I attempted to address each of TTs concerns when he raised them (although he didn't raise them with me or at the RfC workpage). Verbal chat 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Armoured Car

Interesting choice. Methinks you be getting a bit too quick for your own self. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed! Don't you love scripts and cut and paste. In the old days it would take 10 minutes to physically close an AFD but now its only seconds.... Ironic the level of deletion debates are decreasing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your close of this matter seems improper. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why does it seem improper? What exactly would you like me to reconsider it too? IIRC the single source you cited was considered tangential. Is there more information to consider or are you simply relying on your own conception of notability rather then the one more widely accepted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The close was defective in at least two respects:

1. There was no consensus for the hybrid result which you seem to have created yourself
2. You stated that the keep arguments were not based upon policy. There did not seem to be any significant difference in this respect between the keep and other arguments made which were all concerned with the facts of the matter. The close seemed to go out of its way to gratuitously delete the article when this action was redundant. This action seems contrary to policies such as WP:PRESERVE. (Also please note again that notability is still not a policy). Colonel Warden (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

N is a strong guideline and widely accepted as the inclusion standard around here. I know you don't agree with it but that's the standard I close to and the standard the DRV upholds. So, do you have anything that meets N here? Your appreciation of how we assess consensus here appears to be playing up. If we look at the votes in detail we have:

Nomination - not the best but uses the a good policy based argument - no sources and looked

Withdrawn delete vote

Assertion of 2 sources. 1 of these was examined and challenged and found too insubstantial and the other was asked for further details and there was no reply. So this didn't add up to multiple detailed sources

Your keep vote recycling the source that had already been challenged as being insubstantial

2 keep votes from the same user based on non-policy grounded reasons of its important and this is a forgotten area (i.e. no sources and leaning towards deletion)

1 Delete vote based on a thorough search - including offline - that raised no sources.

1 support for a central artice on the subject of Irish armoured vehicles

The withdrawn delete voter supporting this.

1 vote to redirect.

So there was a clear consensus here that this didn't justify a standalone and the policy based votes were for deletion. Like it or not, that's the inclusions standard round here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keaton in limbo

You've deleted Harry Keaton, but what about Louise Keaton who was also nominated in the Afd? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I got to that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

saul farber article

I recently noticed that my article on saul farber, the republican candidate for 2010 in ny's 26th senate district, was deleted. i am new to wikipedia but i am pretty sure that he meets the basic notability requirements. in your page "rescuing deleted articles" you say an article should have at least 2 nontrivial citations by reliable sources. saul farber has 3. (1): http://www.nysun.com/opinion/new-yorks-rising-sarah-palin/86036/ (2):http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/albany/20081101/204/2730 (3):http://www.observer.com/lydiadepillis/344/swimming-against-tides-young-republican-challenges-gottfried. all sources are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. saul farber is the main focus of all three sources, and he is included as more than a trivial mention in several other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmiller558 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let me think about this. Cudos for the sources but, for some reason, we treat candidates slightly different and I need to research this a little. I'll come back to you on that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Dylan AfD

Hi there, Spartaz. I saw you closed the AfD for Natalie Dylan as merge to Moonlite BunnyRanch#Publicity stunts, but it seems to me the arguments for merge drill down to the comment by Whpq. Even though some others agreed with that premise, I think the comments by Milowent and me went into a bit more depth on identifying the best target for this article. Specifically, since the extent of the article's topic and relevancy covers several other similar cases, I believe it makes sense to keep it separated from that single Moonlite BunnyRanch publicity stunt, perhaps merging into Virginity instead, or moving the article into a title that covers this kind of event generically. What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• The merge target is really a matter for editorial discretion as it doesn't require admin tools to do. I went with what was suggested but you have my blessing if you can think of a more appropriate article to merge this to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rachael Faye Hill

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachael Faye Hill. 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.