User talk:Spartaz/Archive13

Thanks

Thanks for letting my article get reconsidered. I have left an example source that shows the Dalai Lama is a postmodern Buddhist, so you suggestion has really helped, I hope I am doing this right because I am new to wiki.

• Thanks Spartaz, if not for you so much of my time would have been wasted and a good topic ditched. I just don't have time to go through the thousands of Google books but here is a quote that might be useful from one of the Google books.

"Postmodern Buddhism is seen in much of the Shamb-hala community of Tibetan Buddhism led by the Dalai Lama, and in the widespread fascination with the mystique of zen. Postmodern Hinduism is found in the teachings of many popular Indian gurus, in the West's discovery of the wisdom of Vedanta, and in the growing popularity of yoga and other Vedic traditions. Postmodern Taoism is seen in the popularity of tai chi, chi gong, and feng shui, and in the renewed interest in traditional Chinese medicine. Postmodern Judaism can be recognized in the newly revived tradition of the Kabbalah." - Steve McIntosh, Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution- Amazon.

• Just to save time - Ghandi is a postmodern thinker. Dalai Lama etc. I would think that given that we have postmodern religion now (did not get deleted) and given that Postmodern Christianity did not get deleted, Buddhism should be included too?--Kary247 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fresh third party sourced Howard Bloom article

This is to let you known I have created entirely anew a fresh Howard Bloom article based upon citations of third party sources (accessed from LexisNexis or Google books). Specifically, no use is made of Howard Bloom's own sites or internet descriptions of him that are not also printed sources.

An individual like Howard Bloom is difficult to write up for wikipedia since as a publicist he has provided much of the literature about himself used by others. Moreover, the rock and roll industry goes for hype and overstatement which can be confusing when considering issues of notability. However, I think sufficient third party sources exist to show that he is notable such as the discussion of his contribution to their early careers in books about major rock and roll performers. There is also a large number of Association Press articles in the LexisNexis database that mention him in his role as publicist with major artists--though I have not used them since these are not published in print. In regard to his books, they have been widely cited: acording to Google books, the Lucifer Principle has been cited by 110 sources and the Global Brain 130 ones. Google scholar picks up a lot of dross but a substantial percentage of them are articles in proper scientific journals.--LittleHow (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• well you are right that its really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff amoungst so many primary or tangential sources but I had already seen one decent one so I'm happy enough to leave it to see if anyone objects to the new article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

a huge thank you. howard bloom 71.125.245.250 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin

Moving the Arash Ghorbani-Zarin article to Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin is a lovely example of Wikipedia's obsession with the idea of imposing a framework of rigid principle at the expense of facilitating access to information. "Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, Murder of" might have made sense but on the basis of WP:How to make finding information more difficult that would almost certainly have been inconsistent with policy. Opbeith (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Just to add, this is not personal criticism of you but exasperation at the way Wikipedia rules operate. It is sad to see such an innovatory concept showing the symptoms of advanced arteriosclerosis at such a young age. The basic idea of Wikipedia is inconsistent with absolute consistency. Instead of relying on general steering principles, allowing swerves either side of the main course that take account of a complex world, the idea now seems to be to apply rigorous discipline over short sections of the journey that are susceptible to a narrow focus and then apply the same strict principles across all areas of the map that come under haphazard scrutiny. What has happened here is not that the information has disappeared, as often happens, but that its wrapped in a "noisier" package. Redirect means that anyone looking for the article on Wikipedia itself will be taken to the right place, but anyone looking in search engines now has the additional clutter of the general "Murder of" component to deal with first. Not a big thing in itself but more and more unnecessary distraction to add to the existing problems of a increasingly complex information environment. The essential point of Wikipedia was meant to be its openness and flexibility rather than its adherence to dogma. Opbeith (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• But that's what an encyclopedia is, a structure and a consistent approach to recording important things. You can't have 3 million articles that don't conform to the same style and by the same point you can't have a policy and then ignore it because someone feels like it. (Please don't quote IAR as that's supposed to cut through crap not legalise sticking two fingers up to consensus. The bottom line is that there is a meta consensus - a site wide acceptance - of how to deal with these kinds of articles and absolutely no justification for a local discussion to discard this in this case. That's why we judge discussions against policy to find the consensus to make sure that article and inclusion standards are consistently applied even when flash mobs or local wikiprojects can numerically vote for something they prefer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about basic consistency, my argument is that is in the nature of a massive massive, accumulating and heterogeneous collection of information - whose dynamic nature is Wikipedia's great strength - that there will inevitably be conflict between competing principles of organisation and that situation is best dealt with by steering rather than constraint, except where absolutely essential. That doesn't mean abandonment of general policy but a flexibility of approach. In the end Wikipedia's essential openness means that it will always have heterogeneous content. Perfection is the enemy of adequacy. There are limited human resources to deveote to quality assurance, so it's better to improve the general quality of the content rather spend time and effort maintaining the sort of framework that generates enervating deckchair shifting like this. Don't worry, I know I'm onto a loser, but I don't feel any the less strongly about it for that. Opbeith (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The position of the deckchairs is crucial to the establishment of that meta consensus as there are wide arcs of opinion across the spectrum on contentious subjects. Flexibility quickly descends into chaos if we allow ourself to do this without an overarching structure/system to follow. One of the steps that was needed to get BLP widely accepted was the arrangement of articles about specific crimes rather then about the victims or perpetrators. Acceptance of this consensus was a key brick to BLP1E being widely accepted and this is one of the times where the structure is necessary. Of course, with so many different strands of opinion in this place its understandable that we don't see eye to eye on this for this particular case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I stick with my general point of view but I appreciate you explaining the underlying considerations here. Explanations take time but they're far more useful than being fobbed off with a shortcut reference to a principle that's being partially applied (as so often). Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Coal Alliance (2nd nomination)

Hi. I just had a quick question about this AfD. In your closing rational, you noted that mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. I was wondering how much weight, if any, was given to my !vote. I noted that I had found more than 60 articles mentioning the Alliance on the offline news archive Factiva, and that many of them were primarily focused on the organisation, rather than mentioning it in passing. For the record, I'm not hugely bothered about the deletion (I've no intention of going to DRV or whatever), I was just interested in your thought process.  -- Lear's Fool 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• How can they be mentions if they focus primarily on the organisation? Possibly I misinterpreted your comment? Anything in depth will be more then happily reviewed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Ugh, sorry, my grammar above is terrible. I'll rephrase. In your closing rationale, you indicated that brief mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. However, in my comment at the AfD (where I !voted weak keep), I noted that a number of the offline sources I had found had significant coverage of the Alliance, as opposed to brief mentions. I was wondering how this factored into the closing.  -- Lear's Fool 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  I read it that the editors who came after your contribution had reviewed the references and found them mentions rather then extensive coverage. But for that, I would have relisted for evaluation of the sources you identified. Was this in error, were the other editors looking at different sources? I'll happy review anything you wish to offer me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's what they were talking about, they seem to be discussing a different reference and a mention in hansard. I can't actually see which references I added (it's been deleted, and I'm not an admin) and I believe at least one of them was offline. Anyway, as I say, I'm not particularly bothered.  -- Lear's Fool 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I think you are about to be promoted from the state of the 'crat chat so I'll leave the digging into the deleted revisions to you - it will be good practise but the offer to review still stands... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, hopefully I'll have the chance to look into it. I'll let you know.  -- Lear's Fool 16:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, thanks for your openness to consider further evidence. The problem is that in the end life (as well as activity on Wikipedia) has other pressing priorities. Opbeith (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

List of 20th-century state leaders

Spartaz, you speedy deleted "List of 20th-century state leaders" ‎and marked the reason as CSD G8, but this is not a CSD G8 issue since it was not a subpage (or such) to any other page that was deleted. It was just a redirect to Lists of state leaders by year, a page that is still there. Was this a typo or a confusion? Please respond or correct, thank you. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Script malfunction. I bulk deleted a bunch if stuff in an afd and made a slight hash, I'll fix it now. I thought I had everything :-( Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, where are my manners?? Thanks for the heads up and polite notification. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Woolaston

Spartaz,

You recently closed an AfD by redirecting Woolaston Common to Woolaston. However, there were two other pages in the scope of the AfD - Woolaston Slade and Woolaston Woodside. I did not see much discussion about the other two locales, but we should at least remove the big fat "Gonna delete it" tag from those pages. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• For consistency I have redirected these two as well. My Bad, since they were bundled in the safe discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What happens to the content of Redirected articles? Is it just flushed away? Opbeith (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nope its in the article history for anyone to merge material into the target article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to the Woolaston Revision History and there's nothing there about the Woolaston Common article. Or do you mean that you can access the Woolaston Common Revision History still? How? It's not a transparent process. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Very little on mediawiki (the software wikipedia runs on) is simple. If you click on a page that is a redirect, the linked from page is named at the very top left corner of the redirect target page - right underneath the article title. This name is a wikilink and you can click on that to reach the original page where you will find the history under er history. Its simple when you know how but a bit confusing if you don't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As no-one advocating the Merge/Redirect bothered to abstract the useful content that would have made it a genuine merge, I tried, as Woolaston could do with an adapted version of the map at the Woolaston Common article. The only way I could edit the content seemed to be by using Page Code in my browser, which must have literalised all the Wikipedia templates, so when I tried to insert it at Woolaston and Page Previewed all I got was a mess of html code. Almost totally untransparent and rebarbative procedure, so as far as the content of a Merge/Redirected article is concerned for most people it's equivalent to a delete followed by Redirect, essentially a dishonest procedure. Anyone advocating Merge/Redirect should be obliged to specify how and what precisely they would Merge and then do it themsleves. Opbeith (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Got there in the end and inserted the map at Woolaston. The existing coordinates were wrong and put the village outside the southern boundary of the county instead of on Severnside. Woolaston Common had the correct coordinates. So Merge/Redirect was not only untransparent and dishonest, it also diminished the overall accuracy of the accessible content. So much for Wikipedia principles. What I don't get is why I should have had to waste all that time rather than the proponents of Merge/Redirect. Opbeith (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That last question is probably one to ask the proponents of the merge rather then me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just me venting frustrations, but you sidestep the substantive points. Opbeith (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Trouble (nickname)

I've given a policy based delete argument, so if you wanna close it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• We now have a consensus so I have closed it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I know Spartaz had relisted and asked for policy-based comments, but soliciting an admin to close an AfD after you've !voted is pretty seedy. Spartaz, why didn't you allow the debate to remain open for the rest of the relisting period? I'm not going to drag this to DRV or ANI or anything, I just think that actions that give the appearance of being partisan need to be avoided. Fences&Windows 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean and in retrospect I can see that I probably would have been better leaving it to run a little. The second two votes are also pretty worthless although that the outcome is probably right. I'm not opposed if you wanted to void the close and let the relisting run its course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Nah, I'm not feeling like enough of a bureaucratic fuck to do that. Fences&Windows 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Seriously, look at it again. This was not at a consensus. I finished my argument, got up to take a phone call without submitting, came back and submitted it, only to see that it had already been deleted. This is very suspicious. There was no reason to to restart the discussion, because there were only six responses. Not only that, but the keeps were winning. You also should not have made your own opinion. If you are in essence moderating the discussion, shouldn't you not be allowed to give your opinion. I am really seething about this. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Keep votes based on assertion carry very little weight so the keeps were most certainly not winning. I am considering relisting this nevertheless. Please confirm if you would be happy with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Definitely relist it. Soxrock24 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Malik Mumtaz Qadri

Hi. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Mumtaz Qadri. For completeness could you please also apply the closing formalities, whatever they might be, to Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri and Talk:Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri? MMHQ was moved from MMQ at some point and it's been causing slight problems ever since with a sort-of life of its own. At the moment, in particular, there's nothing to attract people's attention to its having been AfDd albeit under the previous name, and the Talk page - and its categories and so on - still look like those of a current article. I would intervene myself but I was involved in the debate and I am sure that it's 100% better coming from the closing admin, given that it really is the same article. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• It really annoys me when people move pages during AFDs as it always breaks the closing script. Anyway, someone already redirected the page and I just redirected the talk page. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, fine, thanks. I wondered if the MMHQ Talk page was meant to get a magic post-AfD tag like that at the MMQ Talk page, but no worries. Yes, it's a complete mess having had it moved halfway through; it also didn't help that the merge debate (on the Taseer talk page) and the AfD were going on at the same time, which had a slightly weird effect too, I think. But ho hum, and thanks. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That's brilliant, thanks! You might want to note that Salman is a redirect and he was really Salmaan, but Oi'm not touching none of that towny-folk AfD complicated electrical stuff, nossir. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I did the old afd thingy, I had a slight senior moment and couldn't remember what you are supposed to do with the talk page of redirected articles. :-/ Hope this is all right now, its ok for you to correct mistakes and errors by the closing admin, its more clerking then anything else and you probably know that the general consensus is that admins are always wrong anyway... :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
        • That's great, many thanks. Yes, I'd heard that admins are usually wrong about everything but then the alternative might be to have admins who are always right about everything, which would just be really annoying! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Query on csd procedure

Hi, I hope you don't mind - I picked you as an admin from the deletion review list - I've was wondering if you could give me a second opinion regarding speedy deletion. I recently listed the album Pulse_(Thomas_Giles_album) for speedy deletion (as it hasn't been released yet and the reviews regarding it are not RS, so it doesnt meet GNG) under A9 db-album. However the deletion was rejected as the album's artist had an existing page (See User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ) and the description of the A9 asks for no notability AND no article (copied below). This seems to make no sense to me as the next sentence states that the standard is lower than notability.. Am I interpreting this wrongly? or should the 'and' below be changed to an 'or'?.

A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings).

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles

I'd be grateful for an opinion, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) ps- I've also asked a couple of others othes, but noones been entirely clear yet..

• I'm not entirely sure I am the right person to ask as I tend to take a practical rather then legalistic approach to deletion but here goes. My reading of the language is that to be a valid A9 the article has to meet both conditions - that it is has to fail to demonstrate significance/notability and it has to be from an artist/group that does not have their own wikipedia article. This means that A9 was not valid because the article only met one of the conditions. i.e. by having an article on the group it can never meet A9 as both conditions are required to make the speedy valid. The language of the CSD is a bit unclear because you have to read it in reverse almost to understand that the CSD requires both conditions to be met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Nicholas Hagger

Please consider the following for undeletion. You have helpfully asked for “specific independent third-party sources from reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail”, and in your Rescuing Deleted Content you say that a deleted subject needs at least two non-trivial citations by reliable sources and that “reliable” may include published books, trade magazines, broadsheet newspapers and other encyclopaedias.

The references in the article were overhauled on Tuesday 11 January – the 27 references are now completely different from the original ones – and some of these can be grouped under “reliable” headings.

Books: A 6-page letter to Hagger, dated 19 March 1994, about his first five books (Selected Poems, The Fire and the Stones, The Universe and the Light, Awakening to the Light, A Mystic Way) published in Letters of Ted Hughes, selected and edited by Christopher Reid, 2007, pp.663-668. This says near the beginning, “I read your books with a sort of automatic assent. You are saying what I have always believed – and I mean always.” Hughes is a reliable source, one of the 50 most recognisable poets according to WP. Can scan pp.663-668 to you to provide evidence?

One of the top Amazon reviewers, Robert Steele, reviewed Hagger’s The Secret Founding of America. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2WFSRMHG1YBR6/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm Another Amazon reviewer, Michael Tozer, reviewed Hagger’s The Secret History of the West. http://www.amazon.com/review/R70OQIPVAHLW/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R70OQIPVAHLW

Trade Magazines: A 20-page typed review of Hagger’s first six books (the five in previous para plus A White Radiance, first Collected Poems) by Sebastian Barker sent to Acumen (see http://www.acumen-poetry.co.uk/), signed in ink and dated 24 June 1994 for publisher to extract comments. Barker is a reliable source as he was then Chairman of the Poetry Society. Can’t find online, can scan this to you to provide evidence?

Nexus, on sale in shops in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Japan, Romania, Serbia and Russia. Reviews on Hagger’s The Syndicate, vol. 13, no. 3, http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php? and WP link; and on Hagger’s The Light of Civilization, vol. 13, no. 5, August-September 2006, (see http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=17&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=120&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=44). Nexus is a reliable trade source. Can’t find text online, they want you to buy the magazine, but can scan this to you to provide evidence?

Broadsheet Newspapers: Hagger’s Scargill The Stalinist? was greeted by a three-column first leader in The Times of Thursday 29 November, 1984, leader entitled ‘We have been warned’ . The Times is a reliable source. Believe too early to be online, can scan this to you to provide evidence?

Other Encyclopaedias: Entries for Hagger in International Who’s Who in Poetry, International Who’s Who of Authors and Writers, Dictionary of International Biography, The Cambridge Blue Book, Writers Directory and similar publications for many years. Can scan these to you to provide evidence?

Radio/TV: Jay Weidner (daily trade US radio interviewer), radio interviews with Hagger in depth, on The Secret Founding of America and other works of his, in four parts. Transcripts can be found at http://jayweidner.com/blog/2010/04/the-secret-founding-of-america-part-1/ (leads to other three parts). Radio station’s website http://www.sacredmysteries.com/public/department39.cfm.

Bennett Freeman, review of Hagger’s The World Government in 11 videos/parts on Youtube, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-pDR_wJqlc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (leads to other 10 parts). Freeman’s website and stance on consentientism, see http://consentient.wordpress.com/. This seems to be commercial as there is a subscribe option. 11 videos indicate study in depth.

Many more radio/TV transcripts in archives, too many to list here.

Have not listed tangential references in books and magazines and comments by authors on Hagger’s books, some of which are in overhauled references. Have not listed references to Hagger in other WP articles, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_Martin. Hagger’s books have been translated into Russian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. and are sold worldwide. Incidentally, an aide to Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, the Prime Minister of Qatar, asked Hagger to dedicate and sign his books on Libya and Iran to Sheikh Hamad, who has presumably now read them.

The above includes at least two non-trivial citations by reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail in accordance with WP’s guidelines for inclusion. Hope that setting it out like this has helped. Have tried to set out facts without wasting time. Please re-assess if possible and any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. With many thanks. Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks good enough for me. Were these sources in the deleted article? If not, you need to add them quickly to avoid the article being relisted. Thank you for taking the time to read up on the way we do this and presenting the information in a clear understandable way. I'll void the AFD now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your help Spartaz, I will take your advice on board and I am making sure that all these sources are included. Hope to make the changes tomorrow. Sanrac1959 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we reclose this and take it to DRV instead? he sources proffered by Hagger's personal assistant haven't swyed me. Amazon reviewers? Who's whos? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I concur with DC; don't second-guess yourself, Spartaz. Your initial deletion was proper, and the s.p.a.s should have to take this fluffy advertisement to DRV. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • You are more then welcome to go to DRV if you like. It will make a nice change from my being accused of deleting stuff unnecessarily. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Alternatively, I have no objection to your renominating this at AFD. Just bear in mind that I am generally pretty strict on sourcing and that sourcing is the issue here. I don't tend to accept rubbish so if the sourcing looks decent for me, I'd be very surprised if DRV or AFD didn't support that view. As closing admin I have full discretion on my own closes if I think that further information renders the close unsafe and I would normally relist unless, as was the case here, some of the sourcing looked really decent. Clearly you disagree, maybe further discussion will help. You can choose DRV or AFD - I don't think it really matters which. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
            • The sources added are hardly compelling. There is a fringe aspect to Hagger's writings that may not have been apparent to you - note that in the issue of the quote trade magazine unquote "Nexus" in which a review of Hagger's book appears, there is also an article on "An information-processing technique developed by US clinical psychologist Dr Allan Botkin allows people to overcome grief while communicating with a deceased loved one". Given the circumstances, and since there is already a request open to "undelete" this article, it seems simpler to delete the article again and allow Hagger's personal assistant to make their argument for overturning the original close there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The process here is clear, I have explained it. What you do next is dpwn to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

All the references above are now in the article. The article has been rewritten to make it more neutral and reduce size. I hope this is now an improvement and that the article addresses the points in the tag and is acceptable. Thank you very much for your help, I would be grateful for any further advice if you feel it is necessary.Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, I have no desire to debate your closure or needlessly nominate this article a second time so soon after the first one - the simplest thing here is to just re-open the AfD. Can you do that, please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have raised a DRV of my own on this. Please see the DRV. What would be most compelling in the discussion is for proponents of either side to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why they think it is/isn't compelling. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work with that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, I support and endorse your voiding of the AFD. The present brief is to “review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling”. The offered sourcing under discussion is that of today’s date, 15 January.

Why the offered sourcing is compelling

The sourcing includes the then Poet Laureate and Chairman of the Poetry Society, and nine references cite notable writers (nos. 10, 12, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30). Sourcing includes reference to other encyclopaedias and British national broadsheet newspapers (nos. 3-6, 8). Also books, trade magazines and radio/TV.

Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling

Delicious Carbuncle (from now on DC) claims that “there is a fringe aspect to Hagger's writings”. The writings are outside the sourcing, but as this comment may impact on this review of the sourcing it should be pointed out that DC is here merely expressing an opinion. The facts speak for themselves. Hagger’s books include many mainstream primary themes, e.g. the Second World War, the War on Terror, a study of 25 civilisations, the founding of America, the US’s seven expansions, the attempt to create a world government, a view of the up-to-date scientific knowledge about the universe. Hagger is attempting to reflect the Age, mainstream, fringes, the lot. The sourcing is not made uncompelling because Hagger’s writings are untruly alleged to be fringe rather than mainstream.

DC suggests that Nexus sometimes covers fringe topics. The main features of the Nexus issue for August-September 2006, vol. 13, no. 5, which is to hand, are: global news, obesity, Tibetan Buddhism, a massacre in Tasmania and African gold in Illinois. This is a very wide range of subjects. Because a review of a book by Hagger appears in the same issue as a topic that DC finds unacceptable does not detract from the quality of the review. Nexus is a trade magazine which is on sale in shops in Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Japan, Romania, Serbia and Russia. The sourcing involving Nexus is compelling because of the breadth of its global topics, as evidenced above.

More generally

Although this DRV is confined to the offered sourcing and why it is/isn’t compelling, I should nevertheless point out that I have to hand an itinerary of 13 live broadcasts Hagger made to the US in May and June 2007, but did not include these in the offered sources as it would make the references too bulky. These can be sent if required. There will be more material in the 80 boxes of Hagger’s catalogued archives, but I have tried to reduce the article rather than increase it with further reference material.

I am concerned at the tag/reference on DC’s profile “This user may be under the control of a ‘Chinese secret service agent’ named Xing.” Is this a joke, or does it cast doubt on DC’s reliability?

With thanks, Sanrac1959 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Would being under the control of the Chinese secret service make me more reliable or less? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian script

Hi Spartaz! The consensus was a merge to protochronism. As I had already included the content of the article in protochronism, I don't have a problem with the redirect. But shouldn't the talk page be merged? Maybe a subpage of the talk? Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, we don't merge talk pages. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Racconish ^Tk 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Undelete Mode Lifestyle Magazine, Thanks: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mode Lifestyle Magazine

Every point mentioned in the original request for deletion by User:CactusWriter and User:Sven Manguard were addressed by me as shown below. It appears that User:Sven Manguard simply visited a website that was being updated and based the whole request to delete the article on that. It appears that User:Sven Manguard simply repeated what User:CactusWriter said without any actual research.

It is clear that you are an a very active member of the Wikipedia community and I truly value your attention to this matter. Please read my response below and undelete the article if that is your determination. Thanks:-

[edit] Mode Lifestyle MagazineMode Lifestyle Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) (Find sources: "Mode Lifestyle Magazine" – news · books · scholar · free images) Do Not Delete: Have just read a deletion statement for Mode Lifestyle Magazine (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ISSN: 1948-2892). The magazine is a real publication and the website is not a single page website. A publication that has been seen by thousands of people including celebrities that have attended it’s fashion shows surely meets any standards for verification with thorough research, especially since one of the many events is shown on a slideshow on the front page. The notice stated that the reason many of the pages are being updated is because the website was hacked and action was taken to protect the site and client information, and to rewrite the code with improved security. The magazine is not confused with the fictional magazine you mentioned, especially by the thousands of people that have attended the magazine’s fashion and lifestyle events over the years, some of which have been televised.

Referencing some of the points made in the AFD:

a) Re “the website is a single front page”: The website is not a single front page. Some pages are being updated and some are fully live. Click on the “Shop MODE” and it takes you to the ecommerce section: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/index.php

b) Re “Clicking any button such as subscribe”: Clicking on subscribe takes you to the subscriptions page, a full ecommerce section that is being updated: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

c) Re “Someone’s wishful thinking, not to be confused with another magazine”: Here is a small list of some of the events hosted by the magazine over the years and attended by thousands of real people in the fashion and lifestyle industry at some very high profile locations:

i) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub9TykOa7Rs
ii) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixp_zufI0E
iii) 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FffG-ScwA
iv) 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv49Yp4cfdI

d) Re “ Not for sale”: The is an exclusive publication and is for sale by subscription on the website and other places including avenues easily available to people in its target segment. You can purchase the magazine here: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

e) Re “An actual publication”: Here is a link to an edition of the magazine. Most editions are not available for free online unless you are a paid member as it is not a free publication: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/editions/nov-dec-2009-edition-mode-lifestyle-magazine.html#page_top

Brightsky777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightsky777 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I never really give much regard to requests that start off by rubbishing other editors so I'll be really simple here. Has anyone actually written about the magazine in what we generally regard as a reliable source? Has anyone except the people behind the magazine ever written about it, commented on its circulation or acknowledged it's existence in any way? Has the magazine won any awards or received other form of recognition? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently Miami Herald and South Florida Sun-Sentinel acknowledge this magzine's existance,[1] but there appears to be no coverage outside Florida. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Do these not look like recycled press releases rather the specific independent sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (Transformers Animated) merger

Can I merge the page to Optimus Prime (other incarnations), which is the page is spawned off from a few months ago? Optimus Prime is currently just a disambig page. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• If everything is being merged it makes sense to consolidate everything there. Is there anything left to disambuigate? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, after these proposals there will still be TWO Optimus Prime pages. One for the original, and one for all the later versions. That's why I suggested that the one from this merger go on the "everyone else" page, since he's not the original. Mathewignash (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh I see, OK, well use your best judgement then. merging is subject to editorial discretion so need for the closing admin to supervise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to the President

I do not believe your deletion of the article reflected the consensus achieved at the discussion. At the minumum, I might have anticipated a no-consensus default to keep, but your reasoning appears to be use of a supervote... imposing your own opinion and not reflective of the actual consensus... giving more weight to the few and less to the many. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

His close was spot-on. None of the sources provided showed evidence of notability per the GNG or NFILM, as was pointed out in the debate ThemFromSpace 07:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As your personal interpretation of NF and GNG is occasionally at odds with consensus, I would never expect you to ever disagree with a deletion of an article you yourself nominated. And as my comment was to Spartaz, perhaps you might allow him to respond for himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal interpretation of these guidelines lies entirely within community consensus. ThemFromSpace 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, personal interpretations are often used, but not always successfully... which is why I stated "occasionally at odds with". I still contend that weight of policy and guideline supported arguments in favor of retention showed consensus to keep this article. But again, and while appreciating you wishing to interject on his talk page, I'd still like to hear from Spartaz. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This fell within the discretionary zone and I did not feel after the discussion that the sourcing offered was sufficient to overcome to analysis of the sourcing provided by Themfromspace. Several keep votes were just assertions and this wasn't going to overcome detailed examination and challenges to the sources provided. I have to say Michael that my experience of your approach to AFDs is that you are much more generous towards sourcing then the norm and that there is a range of opinion where I like to think my views sit. I do expect sources to be detailed and independent and from reliable sources. I'll happily revisit but it would help if you told me specifically which two sources you thought were best. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Every AFD falls within a "discretionary zone", but I think you stretched that discretion to the point of supervote, giving undue weight to refuted arguments and ignoring consensus. The reviews met the criteria of "full-length magazine reviews and criticism" (online), and the topic then met the criteria set by WP:NF... even if "just"... and it had enough to allow a reasonable expectation of more, not less. Meeting GNG and NF, even if weakly, is still meeting GNG and NF. Wikipedia does not have the same expectations of sourcing for an low-budget independent documentary film as it does for a highly touted, big budget, studio blockbuster. We're here for the readers, not the studios, and not for ourselves. With just the very few who participated in the discussion, there were proper policy and guideline supported arguments in the consensus to keep. The nominator's few arguments were soundly refuted through policy and guideline. While a no-consensus close might reasonably been reached, the discussion did not equate to nor merit an outright deletion. And yes, I've read your essay User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: I work primarily in films and film-related articles, and it is recognized that film reviews are, by their very nature, opinion pieces from individuals qualified in some manner to offer opinion toward the film being discussed. So aside from where the opinion is offered, we are also encouraged by guideline and policy to consider the credentials of those offering such opinions. If for some reason Roger Ebert were to write spmething in a neighborhood gazette, we might still be able to quote him due to his expertise in the field, even though the place where his opinion is offered has not itself been certified as an RS. Conversely, even the most respected RS can contain imformation totally unacceptable. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier such as "(Author) says..." A prime example of this is Op-ed colums. Sources in the article at time of deletion included a lengthy and in-depth review by a David Cornelius,[2] a respected member of the Online Film Critics Society,[3] an OpEdNews review by Rady Ananda,[4] who appears to have the experience and credentials for speaking about black-related political documentaries,[5][6] and a review by Anthony J. Nocella II of SUNY Cortland for Political Media Review.[7] And though the site itself has not been evaluated,[8] the individual reviewer is a cited[9] author[10] and academic with the credentials[11][12] allowing him to opine knowledgably on a political documentary. These reviews met the criteria of "full-length magazine reviews and criticism" (online), and the topic then met the criteria set at WP:NF, even if weakly. Had the reviews been from individuals with no credentials qualifying their ability to offer opinion on the subject, I would have been opining delete right alongside the nominator. A considered no-consensus-default-to-keep would have respected consensus and been a far wiser choice for such a film, than was an outright deletion based upon the refuted arguments of the nominator... whether any of us personally agree or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The point in NFILM that you refer to is about multiple full length reviews by nationally known figures. Nobody knows who Rady Ananda and Anthony J. Nocella, are, they are not nationally known figures and they did not write in widely-respected publications within the film industry. That you are disagreeing here is suprising since these figures are nowhere close to being nationally known. They are not even locally known. The borderline case you cite is David Cornelius, but even his review wouldn't meet the criterion for multiple reviews. ThemFromSpace 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The point you miss, as was explained at the AFD, is that a review by a nationally known critic is NOT a requirement of NF, and your insistance on "nationally known" is NOT what NF states or mandates. The "additional criteria" are set as "attributes to consider" in that if the condition described by the attribute existed, it allows a presumption that sources toward the film, as described earlier in WP:NF, are likely to exist. These attributes are set simply to encourage diligent searches for sources. They are not a guideline mandate. Their not being met does not somehow automatically mean that sources do not exist. So please, get "nationally known" out of the argument, as it is an incorrect assertion. However, that a someone offering an opinion toward a subject must be seen as credible and knowledgable in being able to offer that opinion, no matter the field, IS a requirement. And again, please let Spartaz answer for himself. There is no need for your continued interjections, as your perspective is quite clear. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll need some time to write up a long response to this lot so you will have to wait until either this evening or tomorrow morning for that but I'm very disappointed Michael that in your desire to defend this film you seem to have veered into assumptions of bad faith by myself and themfromspace simply because we do not share your interpretation of the sources. I'll expand later but nothing provided comes anywhere near being from a published (either RL/online) reliable source. We are therefore already drawn into discussing the merits of the poster of the sources used to see whether they can be a subject expert so the text counts as a review by a national expert or effectively counting in te same way that blogs by some people can be used. The fact that we have reached so low on the reliability scale is a good indicator that this is marginally notable at best and its neither right nor collegiate to start throwing emotive assertions like supervote round when you disagree with the interpretation we have taken. I really think you need to pull back but, in the meantime, I'll write up my thoughts on the proffered sources in much greater detail as soon as I have time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Your're making tha same error as the nominator. "Nationally known" is NOT a mandate of WP:NF. It is an "attribute to consider" set to encourage a diligent search for sources. So it's not about "depending" a crappy film... it's about defending guideline and policy. And somone having the credentials and expertise to speak knowledgably on a topic IS per guideline, no matter if the nominator has heard of them or not... no matter if I have ever heard of them or not. Their credibility as opinion givers able to speak knowledgably on a topic is what matters... specially as there are an uncountable number of experts in various fields that none of us has ever heard of. And credibility is also found within such individiuals being cited and respected by their peers... those who DO know them. So take as long as you wish, as this is going to Deletion Review. It was a crappy article that was being improved... and I personally do not agree with the documentary nor its hypothesis. But 4 editors voiced guideline supported reasons for retention. The nominator misquotes guideline in order to seek deletion, both at the AFD and here. Let's not ignore that, please. One anonymous IP makes a short comment and says nothing else. Another shares that he feels more sources are needed. Guideline encourages that we consider the credentials of opinion givers (reviewers), as shared above. I am very disappointed that you give so much credence to someone who repeatedly demands "nationally known reviewers" when that is specifically NOT a mandate of NF. And that I examine the credibility of reveiwers and their qualifications to speak knowledgably on a topic, is per guideline... as we do not usually acknowledge a ballerina when seeking opinion on pig farming, just as we do not seek ballet expertise from a pig farmer. So if we have a film review from an expert film reviewer, and political opinion from credentialed politcial experts, guideline is met... as long as these individuals have reknown and respect in their respective fields... whether "we've" ever hard of them of not. Supervote was used to overrule consesnsus. As Wikipedia itself recognizes that it is a work in progress and imperfect, not allowing continued improvements to an article with potential does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MQS asked me to comment. All I can do is give my own personal opinion. The article is borderline. There is no clear understanding about what to do with borderline notability--I could make plausible arguments in a case like this for almost any closure, & if I had participated it would have been to say either "uncertain" or possibly "weak delete". There is no neat separation into two disjoint halves: those films that are and are not worth covering in Wikipedia. There is a possible merge, which might just give a minimal listing: we have an article on the producer. So there is a tendency for me and for others (whether or not they realize it) to go by auxiliary factors that are not party of the formal criteria and make no part of the actual guidelines: As a preliminary, no information is lost or even made more difficult to find when a film is not covered in Wikipedia, because of the comprehensive and high-quality resources, IMdB and allmovies; there are relatively few subjects where this is the case. Then, the initial article had some promotional elements about the political theme. And more important, the initial sources were ones well established here as being usually accurate enough to meet WP:V, but firmly and correctly considered as not at all proving notability . Finally, paid articles are subject to rather strict scrutiny: I have no total objection to them, but they leave me as well as many other people somewhat uneasy. I suspect in the absence of that last factor, the article might not have attracted enough attention to be deleted. I know that I personally am very reluctant to defend the work of paid editors unless it is unambiguously satisfactory--the justification for it is as a way of producing good articles on important topics that would otherwise not be covered. If they're not clearly in need of covering and not of unambiguously good quality and sourcing, it is not reasonable to take money for writing them. There are one or two paid editors who do produce well-sourced articles on worthy topics, and their stated standard is that they are good enough to be undetectable as such, and that they would not accept a commission unless they can accomplish it. Such paid editing I will support. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

correction: MQS pointed out to me that the sponsor of the article said in a related discussion [13] that, observing the reaction, they did not employ the company but wrote it themselves, asking someone who knew WP to insert it for them. That this was apparently not noticed by me, or in the discussion, shows the extent of the prejudice--a prejudice caused, as prejudices often are, by our fear of something that we do not know how to prevent. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring this, I'm really busy looking after an inward delegation. My line manager is visiting, I'm chairing a liasion meeting and I'm also trying to organise a transfer- so its a bit difficult at the moment to find the time to respond to this properly. I should say that the only issue that I consider significant here is the sourcing with regard to notability and any arguments based on anything else are not relevant and therefore carry little weight. More on this when I have more time.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Detailed response by Spartaz on close

I have a bit more time now so I'll try to give this a better response. I think I should be crystal clear about one thing from the very outset - no matter how much certain inclusionists try to stretch the inclusion standard on Wikipedia - an admin closing a deletion discussion is expected to assess the consensus against relevant policies and guidelines and the by no means uncommon failure to do this is a substitution of their opinion for that of the community. Individual AFD discussions that do not reach conclusions mandated by specific site policies and guidelines are perverse and CONSENSUS requires admins to look at meta standards as well as locally expressed views in reaching their determination of consensus. The very difficulty of doing this fairly creates a degree of uncertainty that is effectively expressed in wikipedia as the closing admins' discretion although a more accurate view would probably be to describe this as a gray area wiggle room to avoid admins being unfairly being castigated for the fact that the complicated interaction between local consensus, sitewide consensus and the tension between what is written down and actual practice concerning specific guidelines and policies inevitably introduces a certain lack of unanimity in the way that different admins would approach closing the same discussions.

My personal view is that consensus is rarely served by a mechanical counting of votes and that on a website where there exists a site-wide super-majority that support a view of our inclusion standard being based on notability assessed by reliable sourcing as expressed in the GNG. When I close AFDs my view is that reliable sourcing is the key issue for discussions where the argument revolves around notability and that the keep side will lose if they fail to demonstrate an adequate level of sourcing to pass what is, at the end of the day, a ridiculously easy standard for inclusion compared to real world encyclopaedias. The quality of AFD discussions has deteriorated in recent years to the point that this key issue is rarely clearly explored in the way that it might have been in the past. Inevitably this leads to poor outcomes and an understandable greater expectation by editors that sources are not fundamental to a close but any plain reading of the inclusion criteria enshrined in the GNG and all the sub-guidelines shows this not to be accurate and the substantial reliable sourcing remains the threshold for inclusions. Sometimes this leaves admins to parse discussions to see whether the standard of sources offered is good enough. In the past participants would have done this be more recently there has been less of an effort to do this and the closing admin has to use their own judgement about this. I personally have my doubts about the fairness of doing it this way and recently opened a thread about it on WT:AFD but there wasn't any clear consensus or mass participation and I certainly haven't seen any improvement in the quality of discussions as a result. Surprisingly Jclemens - a noted proponent of keeping content where possible and now an arb - advanced the view that admins should/could use their own judgement on the sources if the AFD reached no conclusion and while I initially disagreed with this I was sufficiently persuaded after a couple of days thought to accept that the quality of the sourcing could be a policy based assessment for the closing admin. I remain without a fixed opinion on this and would muchly prefer to see clear consensuses in discussions but I am now prepared to accept that the closing admin should and can make a determination on the sourcing if that is the relevant point and the discussion isn't clear. This is what I did here and I'm more then happy to see wider discussion on the viability of this point.

Now to specifics, the sources offered in the article/AFD came nowhere near the standard expected for the GNG.

• Efilmcritic appears to offer accounts based on a single submitted review and reviews are then self submitted. This isn't what we would expect from a reliable source and there is no evidence of the fact checking or peer review that we would usually expect from a reliable source. The contributor to the source is a member of an online film critics society and according to rotten tomatoes he is a presenter of a film review show in a local TV area but no evidence of a wider national footprint for this reviewer has been presented.
• Opednews appears to be another site where you can submit your own content. This will also have the same problems with regard to fact checking and peer review as the previous site and is clearly not a reliable source for the GNG. The reviewer appears to be the subject of 5 current entries on google news and a quick look at th archived references from them shows mostly the stuff they have contributed to opednews rather then reliable sources. According to their description in opednews the writer is a citizen journalist. I'm not sure exactly what that means but it doesn't connotate a significant writer with a nationwide reach to me.
• Political Media Review accept submitted reviews although the reviewer is shown on their list of reviewers. Becoming a reviwer requires an on-line application although there is no clear indication of the criteria required for acceptance. The site doesn't look like a reliable source to me and the reviewer concerned is a phd student in social science which doesn't appear to make them a nationally recognised film reviewer. That said they are a published author in social areas so clearly have some expertise.

NFILMS is the relevant guideline here and states inter alia .. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the three sources presented count as RSs and no evidence of more reliable sourcing as been presented so prima facie the article lacks notability.

There are, however, ancillary criteria that may be relevant to the notability of the article and the first of these is the one that MichaelQSchmidt has specifically cited. The specific criteria are:

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

In this case the requirement is that the attributes are supported with reliable sources that is demonstratively not the case but the question is whether the film has received reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Unhelpfully there is no wording on how to assess whether someone is a nationally known critic but I would usually expect someone like that to be widely cited by reliable sources for their reviews. Publication in non-reliable sources is clearly not going to demonstrate that the writer is nationally known and none of the 3 offered reviewers has been demonstrated to meet this standard. I might accept that there is some case for the first reviewer but frankly I have doubt about any reviewer who is not syndicated outside their local area as coming anywhere near this standard. Overall I see no evidence that the reviews meet this criteria and looking at the publications and google footprint of the reviewers strikes me as original research as nationally known presumably means that the subject's views have been nationally recognised and commented upon. Where is the evidence of that??

Overall I see no evidence that the film meets any of the criteria in NFILMS and the suggestion that I should ignore this and use some other standard to determine notability seems to me to be too far from applying site-wide agreed standards for inclusion for my comfort. I am not therefore prepared to change the close and, given the already extensive discussion, I feel that I have discharged any reasonable expectation of explaining myself. Spartaz ^Humbug!

• In your summation you concentrate on only the part of guideline dealing with publications and fail to address guideline also dealing with authors and writers themselves as possible reliable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states that the creator of the work... the writer or journalist himself... may have his expertise determined as reliable by its clarifying "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (emphasis mine). Per applicable guideline, the author might himself be considered THE reliable source. Of course, the credentials of these three authors was expanded on far above, and guideline does not mandate that their expertise have world acclaim as long as it does within their respective fields.
• What you attribute to me was the attribute repeatedly and specifically promoted by ThemFromSpace as THE mandated requirement, and it was I was the one who repeatedly explained to him that it was an ancillary condition, which if existed, was set to encourage a search for sources.
• May I thus conclude from your summation, that you believe closing admins should ignore the guideline encouraged consideration of any review offered by a qualified expert if that opinion is itself not offered in a Wikipedia-termed reliable source? That the expertise of a qualified expert is of no consequence? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You can conclude what ever you like but I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth or try to twist my meanings. I relied on NFILMS since that is the guideline for films. This was a film - no? Why on earth should I apply a different guideline then that one?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am speaking about application of WP:RS to WP:NF. Nothing else. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states that other than "only" publications, the creator of the work... the writer or journalist himself... may through his expertise be determined as a reliable source in context to what is being sourced by its clarifying "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Being a reliable source is not a criteria limited only to publications. Per guideline, an RS is either a publcation, an author, or both. And in applying the guideline of WP:NF's requiring reliable sources, and since guideline clarifies that a reliable source can be the author himself, and since your response dealt only with the publications, and as you did not adress the expertise of the author, I asked the question that might be worth either a "yes" or a "no" in order to seek clarity.... and not to "put words in your mouth". As we are speaking about reviews (opinion pieces), I believe it is an error for an admin to not address the guideline-encouraged consideration that a qualified expert may be considered a reliable source for an informed and educated opinion when offered in context, specially if not adressing the author's expertise is based upon that opinion itself not being offered in a publication Wikipedia-termed reliable source.... as guideline itself explains how an author may BE a reliable source, as well as might the publication itself. The requirement for reliable sources is per WP:NF. A requirement for such sources to "only" be publications, is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • No these are not RSs - DGG agrees to. I'm afraid that you are flogging a dead horse on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Manar Group

For what it's worth, which is presumably nil - http://www.maps.bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=8528&cmd=sp&c=1&x=148%2E84325&y=%2D20%2E35478&w=40000&mpsec=0 http://www.exploroz.com/Places/8158/QLD/Somerset.aspx

Where there are a limited number of search engine references it sometimes takes quite a bit of effort to wade through mirror site hits. It looks as though too much mirror site citation is now providing a basis for assuming an absence of original references. Opbeith (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• At first blush neither page looks like a reliable source but I'm no expert on this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I didn't do any real searching before, these two came up fairly quickly, among the mirror sites, and it seems unlikely that anyone would work from a Wikipedia article to implant an obscure island group on a map. I've e-mailed the Torres Strait Regional Authority to see if they can provide a reference, though I guess that counts as canvassing or original research, and I've also e-mailed CSIRO contact Tom Trovato, responsible for the Torres Strait Atlas (bounced but CSIRO are clearly still in existence even if TT is not, so I will ask again).

Common sense also indicates that the group of islands south of the Adolphus Channel would have a group name, which would be more appropriate to find than consigning to an article about a piece of water (admittedly better than deleting). The description of the location and the islands configuring the Manar Group in the Wikipedia article, including Albany Island, strongly implies that these are the islands referred to as the Albany Islands in eg http://www.fullbooks.com/Discoveries-in-Australia-Volume-1-6.html / http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discoveries_in_Australia/Volume_1/Chapter_10 and http://www.artuccino.com/Allan_Cunningham/Ida_Lee/Early_Explorers_Ida_Lee_12.html. There is no Wikipedia article for the Albany Islands group. Albany is unlikely to be the Torres Strait vernacular name. Reference exists, even not 100% reliable reference, to the Group as the Manar Group at sites with no obvious interest in or reputation for presenting inaccurate information. It seems perverse to redirect an article that might be temporarily renamed Albany Islands and it seems not unreasonable to speculate might eventually resurface as Manar Group to an article about a neighbouring stretch of water (though of course better than deleting it). Opbeith (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what we expect to use. If these are not available then I can't see that the discussion was wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion started from the basis that the original article creator was considered someone reliable and the strong likelihood that the information had been derived from non-digitised form. It seems to me that there's a strong case to suggest renaming to Albany Islands pending the emergence of more evidence about Manar Group but life is to short to spend it having to eat more dirt at WP. Be that as it may I haven't heard back yet from TSRA or CSIRO, see whether anything comes of that. Opbeith (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora article

Hey there. You were apparently involved somehow in the proposed deletion of the this article. I need your you to have a look at the recent edits -- I have been removing info from the article specifically per WP:VG/EL's section on remakes/clones. Well, check the talk page and edit summaries for the rest -- I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Eik Corell (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reverted back as the material was clearly OR and unsourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for response on removal of Ron Beres

Hi,

I posted the requested information to have Ron Beres page reinstated and have not received any response. Can you please review and advise if anything else is needed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_24#Ron_Beres

Birdwire123 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.109.146 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please see WP:GNG for an idea of the kind of sourcing we need for an article. None of the sources you suggested are about Ron Beres and tangential and passing quotes don't count. You need things like newspaper profile, long articles specifically about Ron and his works and/or stuff from books. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are two more articles about Ron Beres: http://www.greennest.com/pdf/944mag_april07.pdf - 944 Magazine Article http://www.greennest.com/images/Sept2006_CoastMagazine.jpg - Coast Magazine Article Birdwire123 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Move of Template:Delrevafd

Spartaz, you are an experienced DRV closer who knows more about the DRV process than I. Would you provide some input at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Move of Template:Delrevafd? The first issue at contention is whether DRV should review for recreation articles deleted by AfD where a new draft has been presented. The second is whether the closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#MotionX (closed) is accurate. Since MotionX was later deleted at AfD, the validity of the DRV closure is moot. However, the principle of whether WP:AFC, rather than WP:DRV, should review previously deleted articles is at contention. This issue also came up here with Novak Druce + Quigg which had previously been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novak Druce + Quigg. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• commented. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for commenting there and providing clarification about DRV and AfC to Bsherr. Cunard (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of FastCode article

Those of us who worked on contributing to the FastCode article were a bit stunned to see it suddenly deleted by you.

"The result was delete. per policy the correct way to counter deletion arguments based on lack of sourcing is to provide some. This doesn't appear to have happened so the delete arguments while numerically less are actually the only policy based arguments put forward."

This is an extremely strange rationale to run across, especially considering that the sources we've added to the article were enough to satisfy the person who was actually complaining about a lack of notable sources in the first place. Would you mind giving this a second look? 69.46.35.146 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll happily review but you need to do some legwork first. The relevant guidelines on notability is WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. Please explain how this article met this standard? What sources did you add? They weren't discussed in the AFD and the analysis of sourced by experienced users was that they fell short. The close is in accordance with policy which expects admins to close by assessing the strength of arguments against policy rather then counting noses. This was closed after a week. That's not sudden its the standard length of an AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't true that "They weren't discussed..." and "...the analysis... by experienced users was that they fell short." See [[14]], for example. TDM is (was) a reliable, third-party, tertiary source; it was a printed magazine. FWIW FastCode is also documented in Marco Cantu's book Mastering Delphi 2005, though I don't have a copy for a full citation at the moment. But the explanation in the closing comments strikes me as somewhat at odds with the discussion itself. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll just note that I struck out my "redirect" !vote because of this argument, alluding to those Delphi Magazine(TDM) articles. Sorry to clutter the afd up with endless pedantic policy discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Specifically what sources are you relying on? If you want me to spend my volunteer time reviewing this then please help me by linking the sources directly. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  They are in print, the text is not available online without a subscription. I think people are mostly referring to these two:

  • Long, Brian & Swart, Bob, "Borland Developer Studio 2006 Reviewed", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 124, December 2005
  • Gabrijelcic, Primoz, "To Manage Memory", The Delphi Magazine, Issue 126, February 2006

  I'm not sure what you mean by "if you want me to spend my volunteer time". Nobody is asking you to go read the sources or anything, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  When I review AFD closes I review the sourcing as well since - as with this one - the sourcing is generally the main issue around whether an article is notable. When I do the first close I generally don't look at the sourcing or read the article as its the consensus of the discussion I'm looking at and I want to avoid taking a personal position that might translate into a sub-concious super-vote. When the close is challenged its only fair to everyone to review everything. Hmmm I'm going to struggle to find these sources where I live so I'm kinda stymied by that. Can you tell me how much of the books were devoted to specifically discussing Fastcode or do you have access to the source to scan and email it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough! I've emailed you some quotes/descriptions. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 11:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Hi Erik. I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I have reviewed this and it all comes down to sourcing. To my mind the sources you provided are not sufficiently detailed for an article but if you take it to DRV the current crowd there are bound to reverse me so you are welcome to consider your options. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling albums worldwide

Given that the concluding proposal was unopposed, “The result was keep” seems perhaps a tad over succinct. I'd be very grateful if could spare a few moments to explain a little. Cheers, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• You were the only editor advocating deletion. Keep seems a reasonable conclusion in the circumstances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, was it deletion? Reorganisation might be a fairer description, and, as I say, the proposal was unopposed. Maybe reorganisation is not a possible outcome of an AFD debate? If not, is there somewhere better to take the proposal? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD = Articles for deletion not requested moves or Talk:List of best-selling albums worldwide. The latter is probably the best place to discuss this at first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal was "unopposed" only because no one bothered to respond; a better way to describe it was "unsupported". It in no way was a reasonable "summation" of anyone's view in the AFD but your own, given that everyone else wanted the article kept as is. No one was under any obligation to counter your every word, because you don't get your way just because you've said it. Any suggestions for further changing the article should be discussed on its talk page, as Spartaz noted. postdlf (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Macacawitz

How was that a redirect? I'm not sure I know. _{nonsense!this}WikiManOne^{speaking.drivel!} 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly I should have deleted it but there was a clear consensus that this did not deserve a standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Surfer Hair had ample sources found

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Surfer_hair All but two people said keep. There were sources found.

Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency, Volume 1985, Part 2 Herman Schwendinger, Julia Siegel Schwendinger Praeger, 1985 - Family & Relationships - 329 pages The authors present a theory of juvenile delinquency which explains the rise of delinquents from middle class backgrounds. Written by two eminent sociologists, Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency is the culmination of 20 years of research, and includes new methodological procedures in addition to new data.

• [15] It does talk about the surfer boy's hair style there, and what it represents to their culture. User:Dr. Blofeld linked to that and others and added dozens of reliable sources to the article. Dream Focus 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The analysis provided in the discussion was that none of the sources provided were substantial and noone challenged that finding. Therefore I have to conclude that the sourcing provided was inadequate. If yu are serious about saving articles you would be well advised to take a much more policy based approached to your arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Nominate said delete because no sources were found. Then sources were found and added, everyone agreeing with that, except one person, who said delete still. So its that one editor's analysis you are going by, and ignoring what the five editors who said keep said? Sources were found, it meets WP:GNG. Dream Focus 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• OK, lets review the voting shall we:-

Nominator - declares no reliable sourcing and indicates that a search was made. Nom is an experienced editor but does have occasional lapses with their due diligence. I was aware of that when I closed.

• Blofeld then counters with two sources :- [16] and [17] and then points to 14,000 WP:GOGGLEHITS. The validity of the argument depends on the quality of the sourcing provided.
• Col Warden then says Bravo! - that's not a policy based vote and gets discarded. At best its a me too since it add nothing to Blofeld's vote.
• Then an IP keeps with the comment good job, another worthless me to that adds no value to the discussion. Discarded
• Tony the Tiger says that it need encyclopedic content and that it now has it. That's not a policy based argument and carried very little weight although the opinion that the content is encyclopedic is noted.
• Snotty weighs in. He responds directly to the two sources provided by Blofeld. He challenges them both arguing that the sources are tangential and not substantially about surfer hair. He points out that the second source has a whole sentence about surfer hair but no more. The further comment was that they had reviewed every source in the article and found them equally lacking - with the exception of a how too article in a source he isn't sure is reliable. The detail of the examination is clear and the reasonable due diligence is also evident from acknowledging the one decentish source - although personally I accord online only sources much less value then published sources especially when they are articles with no byline.. That's a compelling policy based vote in my book.
• Your contribution is that the google summaries sound like something notable. Its quite clear that you haven't looked at the sources in detail and that you have not established that any of the articles are in detail about surfer hair by close examination. Youu link to goodgle but thats pretty much another WP:GOGGLEHITS and very low value. The only source you actually cite from the google search is meridian magazine and that doesn't come up in my google search - understandable since I'm geogrpahically searching from a different part of the world. I did not consider your vote significant in so far as you failed to link specific sources and the tenor of the comment was that the summaries suggested the sources were there. That's pretty close to assertion and not a powerful argument in my book.
  • Snotty then challenges the depth of the sources you provided and then DGG queries on what basis he is interpreting the GNG. I note that DGG did not vote, which is a shame since he is good at sources and generally I find his contributions telling.
• now in overall terms we have a weak nomination and a number of keep votes that are either me too or discarded for not having a policy background. I am not supposed to make my own mind up on the sources or the article because then I would be accused of supervoting so I'm only left with the valid arguments. I felt that Blofeld had a decent argument but that snotty's analysis more then outweighed it. Your challenge with sources did not produce anything detailed or specific and you did not sway snotty who reviewed the arguments. The clincher for me was the detailed analysis by snotty and the clarity in which he showed by policy grounded arguments why the article lacked adequate sourcing. This analysis was not challanged by any of the keep voters and per WP:SILENCE that means I should give it significant weight. Overall the delete votes were policy based and the few keep votes that were actually based on policy were either refuted or did not demonstrate any significant attention to detail and seems rather superficial to me. Overall I could have gone no consensus or delete and it was well within my discretion as the closing admin to go delete. What I do hope is that this analysis shows you that the close was carefully considered and the individual votes were weighed against policy. As I said source it or lose it. I'm always happy to review my closes and would be receptive to reviewing any specific new sources that you wished to bring forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• So you didn't check the sources and think for yourself, but instead just listened to Snottywong tell you it was nonsense, and ignored everyone else who felt those sources were valid? Great. See you at Deletion review. Dream Focus 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't be daft. The point of closing an AFD is to assess the consensus of the discussion not reach my own conclusion on the sourcing because then I would be bound to supervote no matter how careful I have been. The fact is that this discussion suffered from multiple poor value keep votes and the keep side declined to challenge snotty's assesment. If that's the case I am perfectly entitled to accept that you accepted his arguments - especially as you immediately went out to look for new sources instead of defending the ones he had reviewed... I bet you a fiver that had I said that I reviewed the sources myself you would have accused me of substituting my views of the sources for those of the discussion and accused me of a supervote.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The source I mentioned at the top of this discussion, is one of those that User:Dr. Blofeld linked to in the AFD as I did mention. And why should we all bother to argue with Snottywong who is almost always against everyone else's point of view, and insist that nothing is good enough for an article on Wikipedia? You are suppose to look at the sources, and determine if they are reliable or not, or trust the majority of people there who said they were. Dream Focus 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to substitute my opinion of the sources for the analysis of the discussion. Anyone of you could have challenged snotty's analysis of the sources and I would have given it less weight if the challenge was policy based but you chose not to. That's not my fault and meant that I reasonably concluded that the keep side accepted the argument since none of you specifically said you didn't. Also, don't cast ad hominoms on my talkpage about other editors. Keep your arguments focused on facts and policy not supposition or personal opinion. Play nice and I play nice.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
        • "reasonably concluded that the keep side accepted the argument since none of you specifically said you didn't" Why would we specifically say that? If you already said you felt the sources were fine, should you then post again saying the same thing every time someone said otherwise? That is not a reasonable conclusion. Dream Focus 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not discussing this in two locations. Its at DRV now, let the audience decide. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Perhaps then copy the entire discussion over instead of just your top part. Dream Focus 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I put the analysis of the sources in the DRV because I wanted to show the individual and careful assessment that I had done of the votes. You already linked this discussion and are welcome to reproduce any part of your comments elsewhere but I suggest that if you copy over the whole thread you will kill the DRV into TLDR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you mean in the AFD I went to look for new sources, instead of just accepting those he had found? I saw no reason not to, they easy enough to find, and the more the better. Dream Focus 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Frankly I need to stick to what you wrote. Your argument would have been much more compelling had you examined individual articles and specifically cited what they said about the article subject to demonstrate substantial coverage. You didn't do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
        • What I wrote was: The first result, Meriden Journal - Apr 9, 1963, talks about this fad saying "The symbol of the surfer - bleached hair swept over the forehead- has been adopted by both boys and girls." With another paragraph about it that follows. I said that along with mentioning all the other results. It is a notable hairstyle which got commented on and covered in many places. Dream Focus 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
          • DRV is thataway... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surfer hair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Surfer hair. 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. Dream Focus 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviathan (EP)

regarding this AfD, i did actually nominate Heavy Metal Pirates in the same AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfD close

Spartaz,

It is my impression, based on the archives of this talk page and the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_30, that you never even gave a cursory view of the Surfer hair article, which looked like this at the time, when you closed this AfD discussion as delete.

• If that is the case, then I believe your closure to have been grossly negligent. Your deletion call is objectively unreasonable in my view, since you relied solely on sources that were quoted in the AfD, rather than taking a look at how it had been changed in the interim. Even absent a specific obligation to check sourcing in the target article, there were multiple, independent clues that the article had been expanded and merited a look:
  • In this series of edits, Blofeld clearly says "I've added 25 odd solid sources from books".
  • Col Warden references Blofeld's additions--a !vote which you, per your commentary on your close, disregarded.
  • Tony the Tiger notes encyclopedic content... "which it now has".
  • And, to top it all off, if it hadn't already been obvious from the cast of characters chiming in, SnottyWong noted that the article had been tagged for rescue, informing all AfD viewers that new sourcing might have been added.
• If you did, in fact, read the article, yet intentionally misconstrued and limited the sourcing to only what had been explicitly mentioned in the AfD, your actions would have been inexcusable... But I don't believe that was the case.

It is OK to personally not like the ARS, or certain members thereof. It is absolutely and totally NOT OK to intentionally or negligently hamper legitimately encyclopedic improvement efforts through inappropriate use of administrator tools and prerogatives. Me AGFing this situation to the greatest extent I find credible is that you have had such negative interactions with various ARS members in the past that your objectivity was compromised, and you automatically assumed anything that they touched was irredeemably non-encyclopedic. Frankly, I can't say I blame you, given some of the vitriol that was lobbed my way when I blocked Col. Warden last year.

However, I don't expect to see you closing deletion debates in such a fashion in the future. I heartily commend you for taking this opportunity to take a Wikibreak, and sincerely hope you'll take this coaching to heart and continue to do good administrator work in areas which you are not WP:INVOLVED, once you have returned.

Feel free to engage me in dialogue or seek my advice on future situations. You are welcome to email me off-wiki, should you need a priority response to any issue that this might prompt. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't care anymore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

wikibreak

• Meh. This place has really gone to the dogs in recent times, and is haemorrhaging good users and admins at a huge rate. You've done well to get out when you did. Kudos on not reacting to that particularly vile bit of gloating you just archived with a flood of obscenities. Reyk _YO! 06:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have looked at your comments every once in a while, and you look like an OK admin. Take a long break so you can refill your batteries and discharge the stress. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Apologies if my complaints exacerbated the stress overload. You're game to put yourself in the firing line, please be assured I don't hold you personally responsible for all the frustration Wikipedia inspires. I trust you'll be feeling sufficiently robust to return to the fray before too long. Opbeith (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris Daniel

Kind Sir, I have read your essay and I still believe that Chris Daniel was unfairly deleted. This man is not only the youngest District Clerk ever for Harris County, the third largest county in the US, he also has held several offices of note before that. The office of District Clerk commands a budget of 26 million dollars and a staff of 500 employees. It controls nearly all the county-wide courts of the county, of which Houston sits almost entirely inside. The DA and the Sheriff both have wikis and yet neither can do their job without the District Clerk processing and managing all their records, filings, etc. No one gets into or out of jail without the DC clearing it through the system.--Harris DC (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was on-going and even as of today there are several new article to include as independent sources. The claim of self promotion is false, as 99% of the 17+ references listed are reliable independent sources, i.e. mainstream news articles or television stations. No personal websites or articles were cited or listed, other than the offices' main website.--Harris DC (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability is reached as this is the 2nd county-wide office this man has held in addition to local Party offices. Media coverage extends back to 2004, where the subject was the main topic and not merely mentioned.--Harris DC (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider un-deleting.--Harris DC (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Harris DC - Since Spartaz is on a break, I'll quickly respond: Spartaz deleted this article because the consensus of that deletion discussion was to delete the article. User DGG, for example, who is generally very much in favor of keeping content, supported deletion. Your description above subjectively sounds like Mr. Daniel is a fine public servant, but the standard is significant coverage in reliable sources. This type of public servant rarely has an article here. You can take the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want, though it seems unlikely to go anywhere there.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

untitled section

thanks for the tips. Fixed a few, let me know if I'm on the right track when you get a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnandmitchy (talk • contribs) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hope I wasn't one of the people who drove you away, but if I was, sorry about that. In all cases, glad to see you back! Hobit (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In all cases...

Sounds like a lot of stress off and on wikipedia. A) I understand (mostly the off part, I've mellowed out on the on-Wikipedia part quite a bit) B) I again wish you the best. Stress sucks. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your IP address is still showing

• You erased the name of the IP address, but not the part where the IP address was signed at the end of your post. [18] If you really want to hide it for whatever reason, you need to edit that part out as well. Also, if it changes regularly, no one can track you down. Unplug your router and plug it in again, and that usually works. Dream Focus 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Warden

I can understand your disgust with our deletion processes. I agree that the ANI report was swirling down the drain, although closing it sends a pretty bad message to the Colonel. So let me ask: at what point does chronic abuse of the deletion process become "actionable"? Do we have to go through another RFC/U for him to ignore? Five more? Arbcom?

My frustration is with the community's chronic failure to act against an editor that spends his editing career figuring out the absolute minimal compliance to rules in order to defeat any and all deletion processes. That's clearly bad faith editing, and anyone that spends time dealing with CW recognizes that that is what he is doing. How does it ever get taken care of if no one will act, and anyone that actually deals with him is prevented from acting?—Kww(talk) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not dispute resolution and following the letter of our rules is never going to lead to a block. DR is 3O/Mediation/RFC and then Arbitration. This clearly is a situation where the community is split, I can't see mediation having any effect so the only step left is Arbitration. The acid test is whether the behaviour you are concerned about has reached a level where the Arbitors are prepared to take a case and dish out an outcome that will make anyone better. I would say personally as an active watcher of the dramafest that is RFAR that it is highly questionable that the Col has done enough for them to be interested. Looking at the dynamics of the committee it's loaded with people sympathetic to his approach to inclusion so there is no chance of getting any kind of outcome that you would be happy with. The upshot is that the Col is one of those editors who polarise opinion to the point that they can get away with anything. To some he is a saint/hero who can do no wrong and to others he is the devil incarnate. The truth of course, sits in the middle but exactly which end of the scale he falls into is something there is no consensus on.

I haven't looked - because I'm busy in RL and don't care - but am I right its to do with articles on primary schools? If so the prodding was the wrong way to deal with them. Long standing practice is to redirect/merge the content into the LEA/school board articles and that is what should have happened here. If, of course, I'm talking out of my arse then feel free to ignore me.

The politics of deletion are complicated and swing back and forth. Last year the deletionists had the upper hand with A Nobody and OKIP forced from the project. This year the inclusionists have the upper hand and, if we want to avoid undue stress, we should just accept that consensus swings in the wind and that eventually it will go back the other way. Honestly, there are far worse pests then Col Warden out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okip/Ikip wasn't forced from the project, he just retired from Wikipedia. And you seem to have a battleground mentality here. Administrators should be above such things. Dream Focus 18:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what mentality I have. I'm not acting in an administrative capacity here and I'm advising KWW away from taking this further. You are not welcome on my talk page unless you find something I broke that I need to fix or have something constructive to offer. So go away. Ideally you can take my talk page off your watchlist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I had missed the AfD as I'd only looked at the history and didn't see the discussion shown there. She certainly seems notable, however the outcome of the AfD was clear... Hobit (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for userfying my article - The Potter's House, UK. Can you confirm - is there a way of me putting it back into public domain without creating a new article? Much appreciated (Pastorponixon (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

• Its probably best you read the essay linked to from my edit notice (The red box that comes up when you leave me a message. The article is lacking proper sourcing and doesn't demonstrate notability. You need to work on that before you have any chance of getting it back into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DR Ian Erix

So much for asking this editor to keep the flashmob off the page. [19], [20], [21]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Seen this?

It seems User:LiteralKa got another user to renominate GNAA on DRV[22] once more, after IRC discussions. henrik•talk 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't "get" anyone to do anything. I took a far more passive role in this. LiteralKa (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • *Sighs and shakes head sadly* Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 4

I have added the Delrev tag to the AfD. A request: When you relist an XfD in the future, would you include a link to the XfD so that editors can access it more easily? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

International Osteoporosis Foundation

The International Osteoporosis Foundation page was returned by you to the main space yesterday following my Deletion Review Request Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 30. The admin in the review agreed that the page was not spam and that it was notable. However, the same day you returned it to the main space, the admin Hu12 (he is the admin who deleted it in the first place) has again marked it for deletion. Could you please advise me what to do in this situation? Hu12 seems determined the page should not exist, despite all the other admin in the Deletion Review saying the page belongs on Wikipedia Inyon011 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing to prevent immediate relisting but I have linked to the DRV discussion and we just need to see where the discussion ends up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Maxinne Carr

Can you please take a look at the comments left on my talk page and can you give an opinion on what has been posted in relation to use of an image of Maxinne Carr.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• My view is that the image is adding no value to the article at all and that its always going to struggle to pass the NFCC as its purely decorative. Beyond that I have no opinion on the BLP issue raised. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 14

Hi Spartaz. Would you review the two non-admin closes by CycloneGU (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 14? Flatscan (talk · contribs) and I have discussed this with CycloneGU at User talk:CycloneGU#DRV closures. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll just pop in quickly, too, to comment. Both were cases where the page was currently visible and the outcome was a result endorsing either a no consensus or keep result with no votes to delete. The early close was an obvious WP:SNOW to me with no delete votes in the AfD, and the other went the full seven days. I think getting used to the terminology in DRV is my issue; even in other discussions I've so far been saying Keep or Delete. I think I'm picking it up now. If the result were to be different, I would not have closed them as a change in the status of the page would have been necessary.

If either close is in error, please let me know where Cunard links on my talk page. I'm eager to learn. Thanks. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing the discussions. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

NawlinWiki

You rubbed out my comment as well, but that's OK, it was just in reaction to the flood of IP comments. I figure the IP knows horses on some kind of intimate level. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)