User talk:Spartaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

What again?

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:

please stay in the top three tiers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrikonam[edit]

  • I am really disappointed by the deletion of the article Thrikonam. It was the first crowd funded 1 hour short film made in Kerala, India and the page had sufficient references including a Malayalam news channel report about the film.[1] Yes, it was shown only 4 times to public and the numbers will increase. We should have given the right due for that project in wikipedia and I request you to recreate the page as the film has been released officially in youtube. [2]Rajeshbieee (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Your news article seems to have no references to the TV channel at all - which is very unusual. I'd like to see evidence that this was a broardcast news item. Youtube? Counts for nothing here. Its published press and coverage that wins the day/ Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The news appeared in Asianet News, the most watched news channel of Malayalam and please see the link [3] after 3.20 minutes.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, i accept that source but the policy is for a minimum of two. Do you have another press or broardcast source? Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • These two links comes up with the same news channel video [4] and [5], but this [6] news is from Times of India, the most popular news paper of India.Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, you have persuaded me that we should have another look at this; I have therefore relisted the AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 11:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

comments on user pages[edit]

Would this be considered a personal attack [7]. Calling someone Javert. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • DRV closed Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination)[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), would you undelete Vu Digital and redirect it to C Spire Wireless, so I can do a selective merge of its content to its parent company, C Spire Wireless? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I honestly can't see how I could do that without ignoring the actual consensus of the discussion which was a slam dunk delete. I'd feel uncomfortable with a blatent supervote like that. No objection to your creating a redirect as an editorial decision but there is no consensus for a merge. Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This was a well attended afd where the vast majority of the voters said to delete. i have to close by the consensus and there is no policy or practise to justify putting your two votes ahead. I can only redirect/smerge by ugnoring the consensus and I can't do that. Spartaz Humbug! 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Hi Spartaz, I just wanted to come by to say Thank you for not only your contributions to AFD but for also deleting this AFD (To be honest I was expecting someone to Keep it so wasn't really looking forward to DRV!)

Thanks again and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please restore[edit]

You deleted Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) with a supervote, please restore it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • In what way was that a supervote? There is clarity that the sources for standalone are are inadequate for an article on that basis alone and the argument that because his family has a USS ship named after him then there is a degree if implied notability is at odds with any of our inclusion criteria. its certainly not under bio or GNG and do we have a WP:IHAVEASHIPNAMEDAFTERMYFAMILY? Apparently not. The policy based arguments were for delete so that was the outcome. You may disagree but that doesn't mean I have supervoted... just that I'm interpreting consensus by policy. I know that whatever I say you are going to go to DRV anyway so feel free to just go there... Bet you a fiver your nomination will be a personal attack against me rather than acknowledgement that there are different ways of looking at this and only 1 of them has a policy basis. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda_Patrick[edit]

Hi, Spartaz! I disagree with your deletion of the Rhonda_Patrick article. I'll state my case... which has two points, the first of which will speak to DGG's point which is the most important because you cited it in your delete decision:

1.) DGG argues that since the Boston Globe cover[1] story is talking about the science, and not the person, this lacks in notability. A career scientist is made notable mostly from their work, not their golf swing. The Boston Globe article itself features her picture prominently placed above it as the exclusive graphic used. DGG's contention seems to be primarily that the science can't be shown to be hers... yet she is the primary author. I would suggest it's especially rare, in fact, to find any science, a field that is inherently deeply collaborative, that can be said to be the exclusive work of a single scientist. Look at the recent patent contention of the CRISPR gene editing technology as just one example. So by what measure can we assume, then, that science is said to be BY a person, if not lead authorship?[2] It's the best approximation we have... Should they have only one author listed on the publication itself? This is not especially common and would probably not serve as a good standard to measure notability by, but even if a publication itself has only one author (rare), the ideas themselves will surely be materially shaped by materially cited within any given publication.

My second point is one that was actually championed thoroughly by SusunW (WP:GNG) and also somewhere Megalibrarygirl (relevance of "YouTubing")... 2.) Even if Dr. Patrick's work fails notability (I don't think it does), the case for general notability still stands. As a personality[3] she's been on the Joe Rogan Experience four times, and The Tim Ferriss Show once. In general, I wouldn't blame a person for generally dismissing "YouTubing" for lacking some of the qualities we might enjoy in more mainstream media, I think taking a hard look at what the appearance on one of these shows means is warranted: The Joe Rogan Experience, a 3 hour show, is estimated to get around 11 million (or 14 million, depending on who you ask) views or listens per month... if the show adds on 15 new episodes a month, that means that each episode is getting at least 730,000 listens[4]. This is just the Joe Rogan Experience because it's an easier example, but The Tim Ferriss Show is also in the top 50 and can probably be estimated to have similar numbers. Dismissing a show[5] that's getting a viewership that, on a per-episode basis, might even beat out more well-known traditional media names like ABC Nightline[6] seems... frankly, strange. If that's a Wikipedia standard I'd suggest it's a bit backward, and to the extent that I remain involved in more than the capacity of the occasional one-off edit I'd love to be a part of that evolving conversation that helps adapt to the changing times we live in while maintaining a semblance of a standard of quality.

Besides briefly pointing out that the AfD was leaning towards a Keep consensus before your deletion... That's all I've got. Thanks for your consideration, and for the tremendous work you put into Wikipiedia, like everyone else... for free! I love Wikipedia and appreciate it. All the best. Snazzywiki (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ I emphasize cover because it was a point of contention with Agricola44 that Boston Globe does, in fact, have cover stories and noted this one as one of them on the print
  2. ^ From the lead author article: "the lead author of a research article is typically the person who carried out the research, wrote and edited the paper"
  3. ^ I emphasize this because of the assertion that a BLP isn't warranted if notable coverage is of a person's work(?)
  4. ^ 730 x 4 episodes = 2.9 million downloads of 12 full hours of conversation
  5. ^ per DGG, Ireneshih, and JMWt (if less so in JMWt's case)
  6. ^ this source puts ABC Nightline at 1.824 million viewers per week (split between 5 episodes -- weeknights only)
Hi Snazzy, that you very much for the rational and well argued way that you have challenged my close. This is a rare thing on wikipedia and immediately gets me taking your points very seriously. I don't want to start off with policy alphabet soup but there are good reasons why the arguments you put forward don't fit the way that we assess inclusion and I do need to address them to respond properly. Firstly that issue about what the sources are about. For inclusion we normally expect to see multiple (i.e 2 or more) detailed (i.e not a mention) secondary (based on analysis of the subject not primary like interviews) independent (not from the subject or someone really close to them) reliable (published in a reputable publication that has a reputation for fact checking or peer review) sources that are about the actual subject (So a BBC article about ET that mentions Carl Sagen is not a RS for Sagen's notability). This all sits in WP:GNG and WP:RS. When I'm closing a discussion I have to badge the arguments against these criteria and see which arguments most closely reflect the policy. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS means that if 8 people argue that Sagen is notable because of the BBC article and 2 say that actually its not about him, then the policy based voice is actually the delete one. This is how I got the delete close with that discussion. DGG is a good litmus test for academics because he used to be one, knows policy inside out and is a natural inclusionist so when he argues to delete his voice is more powerful. It may well be that is there is good sourcing on the scene then the right thing to do is mention this person on that article in the context of the research? I'm not saying all this to dismiss your concerns but to explain how I got the result I did. What I would appreciate is that you look through your keep argument on the basis of this and then let me know if you follow my reasoning. If you still disagree, I'd be happy to revisit this and see what can be done - especially as you were so nice in your disagreement....
Thank you for taking the opportunity to give me a lesson on community standards, I appreciate it! After your thoughtful explanation, I still feel that the prominent traditional media (RS) coverage of her lead author publications still warrants a thorough consideration of her inclusion. PS: I moved my footnotes under my argument... that may be bad etiquette on someone else's talk page. If it is, sorry! Also, thanks for the barnstar. Snazzywiki (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, can you please highlight the two best sources you have an I will review. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to qualify best, but here are two good ones that stand out, I think: The Boston Globe, Fox 5 San Diego... actually, that last one is an interview but it's on the news? Maybe that's not RS... so here's another one that's an article also: ABC7News
In light of Spartaz comments about about the youtube channel, I'm thinking that could be enough to show notability.But, it seems to me, the page would have to reflect her status as a "medical expert on popular youtube channel" rather than as a researcher, IMO. I think I may support reinstating the page on that basis having heard that argument. JMWt (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't commented about the youtube channel - unless that is the subject that has garnered the coverage? That certainly wasn't clear in the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that should have been "in light of Snazzywiki comments." JMWt (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully support the arguments presented by Snazzywiki above. In addition, I would argue that anyone who has received such wide attention for her achievements in relation to cancer research deserves to be included in Wikipedia, irrespective of the number of papers she has written or her current academic status. Finally, I do not understand why you prefer the arguments of the six people calling for the article's deletion rather than those of the ten who favoured keeping it. At a time when we are trying to feature the achievements of women scientists, this is a move in the wrong direction.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott - I most definitely am not going to apply a different set of criteria to female scientists than I am about male ones. Countering bias is about filling the gaps not preferential treatment. Exactly what is the wide attention that isn't a primary source or in a non-RS? Spartaz Humbug! 10:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I certainly do not expect anyone to apply a different set of criteria to female (rather than male) scientists. Unfortunately, however, I detected a tendency here for you and others to raise problems of acceptability based on a formal set of criteria rather than more obvious general indications of notability, especially those resulting from coverage in the media. The importance of the items from YouTube, including appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience and The Tim Ferriss Show, would probably have been sufficient for notability in their own right if the person in question had not also been an academic. In dealing with articles from new contributors, especially in connection with an editathon, there is ample room for constructive support. Instead, we have a comment from Ozzie10aaaa: "...whenever one sees few edits to an account direct at a specific wonders". To me this implied he (like JMWt initially) assumed the article was written by Rhonda P herself or someone closely associated with her. As I commented in the assessment, there has been "ample coverage of academic position, published works and related media". I cited these three factors in combination, not to be taken individually but as a whole. Nevertheless, those who subsequently favoured "delete" concentrated solely on the academic status prompted by the comments from DGG. There are a considerable number of third party articles featuring Patrick's contributions to science: Causal link found between vitamin D, serotonin synthesis and autism in new study, Vitamin D – could it stop 'modern’ diseases?, Mutagens and Multivitamins, Why Vitamin D Could Prevent Autism, Dr. Rhonda Patrick, CHORI Scientists Identify Key Factor in Relationship Between Diet, Inflammation And Cancer, Scientists find first drug that appears to slow Alzheimer's disease and many more. Some may already have been included in the article but now that it has been deleted I cannot recall which. I monitor a considerable number of new articles every day. This is the first time I have come across a well-referenced article which has been deleted on its failure to comply with a number of criteria established for a limited area rather than its overall general importance to the field. I think it would have been far more constructive to try to build on the draft that was deleted, perhaps inviting those in support to expand the article. At worst it could have been maintained, given the lack of consensus. Now that it has been deleted, it is difficult to build on it further. A barnstar to the creator no doubt offers a modicum of encouragement but I am certain she would have been happier to see her article finally accepted. May I once again suggest that you restore the article and encourage further work on its enhancement.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    I saved a few of these links down in case the article does get reinstead, but I thought this statement from Dr. Ames about Dr. Patrick's work stood out, which may speak to some of DGG's concerns as well (from the Mutagens and Multivitamins article): “The four papers Rhonda is churning out are as important as any that have ever come out of my lab.”
There was a fairly clear disagreement between those who think she met the WP:GNG and those who felt the news articles in question were relating to her status as a researcher who did not meet WP:NACADEMIC. I don't think there was a clear consensus in either direction. JMWt (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Forgive me Snazzywiki but I'm not sure creating a flash mob of users to come and complain about my close is the best way to get those sources reviewed. I'd rather look at your two best sources then spend my time responding to a bunch of similar talk-page messages. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not part of a mob. I saw the closure and wondered if there was to be further discussion. I then read further comments about youtube above and am reconsidering my delete vote. JMWt (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Only 3, I think... I reached out to SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott since I thought had good points. Ipigott actually did link to a few sources that were even missed in the article, which is nice... I actually wouldn't have added to their talk page if I'd realized (which I now have) that simply linking their names in conversation meant they get notified. Still not familiar with all of the systems here. Maybe we can think of this as a flash tea party? Snazzywiki (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
At worst it would have been a "no consensus" closure. The decision to delete is clearly biased and wreaks of BLP paranoia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This was an incorrect close: there was no consensus to delete. Nobody is claiming the subject is notable as a scientist, but the majority of editors who commented consider the media coverage is enough to show general notability. What is the correct formal process to appeal the bad call? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, I reviewed the article and the refs. I reviewed the AfD, and the comments on your talkpage. If I had noticed the AfD discussion before it closed, I would have made a Keep or Strong Keep comment as the BLP meets GNG. Now, I'm not saying that my voice would have swayed you to close the AfD differently, but I do feel compelled to let you know my thoughts. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Dear Spartaz,

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the above AfD for the following reasons:

1. WP:BROADCAST implies, and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES explicitly states that "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios"

2. As @Bearcat: states in this other recent AfD of a community radio station: "As long as a radio station can be reliably sourced as existing, rather than relying exclusively on its own self-published web presence for verification, then per WP:NMEDIA the station does not need to make any further claim of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station. The volume of sourcing does not need to be spectacular — the station's existence just needs to be properly verifiable in at least one or two sources independent of its own self-published web presence."

3. The station has an OFCOM license to broadcast, which in-and-of-itself is a secondary, official, source of notability in the UK. There are only a small number of licensed radio stations in this jurisdiction.

4. There are various other secondary sources including books and local media coverage as I listed on the AfD.

I appreciate that these are not considered policy, however there seems to me a need to be consistent as to which are and which are not considered notable. As Bearcat states above, this should be based on a) having a license to broadcast and b) being mentioned in appropriate media as existing. A small community radio station cannot be expected to be held to a higher standard than this to be notable, otherwise no radio station of this kind would appear on wikipedia.

Thanks for your attention. JMWt (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Sorry Spartaz hope you don't mind me replying.) - 1. As I said on the AFD BROADCAST means nothing here and is very very rarely followed,
2. Sources need to be better than one lined Mentions and you know that,
3. Having a licence to provide a service isn't classed as a source and certainly doesn't prove notability.
4. All again being mentions which aren't good enough.
Consensus was to Delete. –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
These are all good enough for a very local community radio station. I am happy to have this discussion at a review if Spartaz does not review his/her decision to delete. JMWt (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere even I don't expect sources to be amazing but they need to be somewhat better than just mentions (There's tons of community stations here that are either cited through their website or have 1 secondary source and that's it ....and I've not nominated it because I believe it's fine so trust me despite what you may believe I'm not trying to get rid of any of these at all but if a station isn't actually notable then I don't see why it deserves an article ? but then again we don't really agree on this so it's best we just agree to disagree, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Right. We don't agree, therefore there is no consensus and there was a basic disagreement on the policy basis for deletion. By the way, I often do agree with you on deletions of dead and/or internet radio stations, but I do not think you've ever shown a good reason to delete an OFCOM licensed British community radio station. JMWt (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
See I don't see it as a disagreement - I more or less see it as "Sources were provided but they're more or less mentions so notability isn't really met", I know you'll disagree with this but I don't believe having an OFCOM licence should mean it gets an article and I don't believe it proves notability, It'd be like saying all UK companies are notable because they're registered with Companies House if that makes sense? ... Meh we obviously disagree on this entirely so should probably wait for spartaz to comment. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD for FHRITP[edit]

You may want to amend your AfD close to redirect to List of Internet phenomena, as this is where the subject is listed and where I assume you wanted the redirect to point. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Deletion review for Rhonda Patrick[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rhonda Patrick. 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.