User talk:Spartaz/Archive14

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

Hey sorry I put this comment on the Spartaz/Blah page on accident - I'm about to delete it there: - Regarding your deletion of Mark Prindle's page: It was said in the deletion comments that if sufficient evidence could be shown that Prindle is a notable critic the page would be restored instantly. Is the fact that Pitchfork, in 2003, felt Prindle noteworthy enough to casually cite his opinion on a band in the Pitchfork review evidence? Pitchfork is a respected source for music journalism and even they recognize Prindle as an authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStockman (talkcontribs) 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • No, being considered an expert isn't prima facie evidence of notability. You need detailed secondary sources as discussed in the WP:GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect a page you salted.

Hi Spartaz. You were the last to delete this page. I propose a redirection at its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, we have notability We thought we were helping people who ask who we are to answer the meaning on the sunshine environment. We have over 2,000 linkings and are a free all volunteer organization, education is not promotion. We were hurt by these actions.

Al Gore Interview: Climate bill has 50 percent chance // Current

Apr 24, 2010 ... The Sunshine Environment Link The TriCounty Watchdogs Tikkun-Network of Spiritual Progressives Tortoise Reserve Tri-Valley CAREs ... - Cached - The Search Engine for Malta, Gozo and Comino ...

The sunshine environment link is a multitopic search directory site about various environmental topics, and issues. http://www.thesunshineenvironmentlink. ...

Website Top List of Society : Issues : Environment : Directories

The Sunshine Environment Link. Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ethics and education. ... - Cached

The Sunshine Environment Link – Rank Directory

Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ethics and education.. Rank Directory is ... - Cached - Society: Issues: Environment: Directories

The Sunshine Environment Link - Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ethics and education ... - Cached

Directories |'s Human Edited Adventure Directory

The Sunshine Environment Link Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ethics and education. ... - Cached

GoDir - Society / Issues / Environment / Directories

The Sunshine Environment Link - Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ethics and education ... - Cached

The Super Bowl - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about The Super Bowl

The Sunshine Environment Link · The Sunshine State · The Sunshine State · The Sunshine State · The Super Affiliate Handbook The Super Bowl The Super Jesus ... - Cached

Open Directory - Society: Issues: Environment: Directories

Jan 2, 2007 ... The Sunshine Environment Link - Collection of links on a variety of environmental topics including news, innovations, research, policy, ... - Cached —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alihatraicer (talkcontribs) 07:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm not at all happy with your early closure of the DRV. Not all Arbs had commented, and there were unanswered questions to Arbs from more than one editor. Please reconsider and undo the closure. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • If you want a discussion about a privacy related arbitration approved action then the arbitration committee mailing list is the appropriate venue, not DRV. DRV is never going to reverse that deletion so the discussion is out of scope and for somewhere else - see sentence 1. Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have requested review of your early closure. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

300-300 club

You recently closed AfDs here on several blanket baseball statistical categories with no real policy reason (you listed "clear consensus"). I don't really think the consensus was clear enough for a non-policy based rationale, especially with respect to the 300-300 club, which myself and other users had singled out as something that should be treated differently than the other parts of the group nomination since it has in fact received more real world attention. I wanted to bring it up with you to see about your policy based reasons for deleting that component article in particular (as I think the consensus was generally clear on the other three) before I look at Deletion Review or anything. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • In closing an AFD I have to look at the discussion against the relevant policy which in this case is WP:N / WP:GNG and Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. The basic principle is that detailed sources are required to show that a subject is worth including. Sources have to be something like the sources mentioned in GNG or WP:RS. The delete side generally advance specific policy based arguments around the lack of sourcing and the application of NSTATS. The usual way to refute these arguments is to provide the sources but this was only done for 300-300 club so all the other articles fail. For 300-300 club I noted that the sources were provided early in the discussion but were refuted on the grounds that they were about specific players and did not discuss 300-300 as an independent subject but just in the context of an individual player. This seems a reasonable refutation to me - especially as later voters didn't endorse the added sources and continued to endorse deletion even after reviewing the sources. Essentially I would have to ignore the policy based delete votes to have kept this particular article. That seems the wrong way to go about this to me and would be a case of imposing my opinion for the opinion in the discussion. That's not what an AFD closer is supposed to do. If you think the close was not policy based please can you explain why so that I can understand your argument? Why do you think I should have kept all of these articles and what was the policy based reason for that conclusion? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • First, thank you for your very reasoned response. My thought process was that the fact that it was referred to in the context of it's members wasn't inherently negative: that is, though notability is not inherited, it (like any other "milestone group") exists solely in a sort of nebulous, theoretical world as a creation of those players and those who report on and analyze their work. So if such reporting is used to classify these individual players, I think it meets the GNG. There isn't a huge, independent literature on the 3,000 hit club, which is not only cited by many in AfDs on milestones as a sort of gold standard of notability indication, but is also a featured list here. So given that such sourcing on that topic is not only approved but has resulted in featured status, I think a similar treatment of sources should be allowed for the 300-300 club. matt91486 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since we agree N isn't inherited that means we need sourcing that discusses the subject itself in detail. This is what I need to look at. What are the sources that discuss the 3,000 hit club and 300-300 culb as entities themselves and not in the context of someone's career and were they discussed in the AFD? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll poke around some more and see what I can come up with; this appears to be a magazine article from 1996 that I did not see in the AfD that talks about the concept some on its own (though in the context of Barry Bonds' entrance): Baseball Digest. I've found quite a few sources on individual players that weren't in the AfD, but I know this wasn't really what you were looking for here. That said, this really isn't particularly different than the sourcing for the featured 3,000 hit club list. matt91486 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll wait for you to come back with your findings and then review. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Baseball Almanac is more of a book source that sort of gives an overview as a whole, but if you're looking for feature length articles, I don't have any. But again, if that sort of sourcing isn't expected for the featured list level 3,000 hit club, I would think the degree of references in individual player articles, both in mainstream and specialty press, should indicate that there is in fact some level of coverage of the concept to indicate that it is a significant one. matt91486 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Scholze

LOL at least you both agreed on the outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • We must have been closing at the same time lol. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Can you please place a copy of Videosmarts in my userspace at User:Silver seren/Videosmarts? SilverserenC 02:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution Purgatory

hi, I thought the result was also to delete the albums. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Fixed, Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ann Darrow

Seriously? One vote? Deleted after one vote? Relisting would have been far more appropriate. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • There is no quorum and the arguments advanced were well founded in policy. If you have sources and/or can refute them let me know because I can always overturn the close if a good policy based reason to restore exists. Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Wimbledon Championships - Girls' Singles Qualifying

Spartaz, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Wimbledon Championships - Girls' Singles Qualifying as delete (thanks!), but only deleted one of the four nominated articles. Could you delete the other three as well? Fram (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Fixed, thanks for the heads up Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Young Jonii

I'm trying to find the history of the page (The logs) So I can save it as a draft? Anyhelp I'm not in anyway asking, are talking about its post-deletion.. Bama standard (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Y.J._(Young_Jonii)

Shaikh Amin bin Abdul Rehman

You deleted my article about Shaikh Amin bin Abdul Rehman even though I had included an independent, even adverse, reference to him, in the sixth paragraph on page 10 of the following report: I hope you undo deletion of the said aticle.Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Firstly we need multiple sources and secondly, if the only available source is negative then we have real issues with our biograph of living persons policy as a that requires a rounded picture of the subject and not just the bad bits. If these sources don't exist then we don't carry the article. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

But I had also added this reference, and this where the Shaikh's followers post his teachings etc.Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Moreover, I had also added this indepoendent positive reference to the Shaikh, not by his followers (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Are these in accordance with WP:RS and WP:GNG? Sources don't count towards notability unless they do. Spartaz Humbug! 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the three sources mentioned by me yesterday, at least the first and the third appear to fulfill the required criteria with the previously mentioned negative reference rounding off the picture.Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how could I convey the ground reality that Idrisiyya has been the most happening thing on the Sufi scene over the last two decades in Pakistan, where a four-storey mosque adjacent to the Shaikh's residence in Multan is thronged by hundreds of people from all over the country on a daily basis, that being all the more incredible because the people here demand reference to one of the four recognised Sufi Silsilas in Pakistan- Qadiri, Suharwardi, Chishti, Naqshbandi- before accepting the Sufi credentials of a Shaikh-- a reference to Idrisiyya meaning no reference at all as far as knowledge of the general Pakistani public is concerned. This fact not only makes the spread of Idrisiyya in Pakistan nothing less than miraculous but also speaks volumes for the Shaikh's sincerity of purpose: this Shaikh is working for Idrisiyya in a country where it was practically unknown before his arrival. The dearth of published references is only due to the Shaikh's aversion to publicity, which again makes the spread of his silsila all the more amazing.Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that I'm unable to evaluate the sources you offered because one of them is blocked in the UAE where I live but you were the only voice arguing for retention and the sources were examined by the other participants. I'm sorry but I'm not minded to undelete the article but you are welcome to ask the good folks of DRV to reevaluate the new sources you provided. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The 1945

You deleted this article despite the number of votes to keep and delete being equal. Explain why the article was deleted on my talk page. Biggleswiki (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The way we assess a WP:CONSENSUS is to look at the strength of arguments against policy. Our inclusion criteria requires multiple reliable secondary sources which the sources you provided did not match. So, although there were only 4 votes, the two delete votes were grounded in policy and your defence of the sourcing was refuted by the detailed exposition of the sources against policy by the AFD niminator. The remaining vote was a assertion by a very new editor and per arguments to avoid and giving much less weight to new users' votes the vote was thrown out. That left two editors who had carefully considered the sourcing and found it wanting and another who said that they were OK but their argument had been refuted by a detailed analysis. Accordingly the delete arguments were found to be grounded in policy and won the discussion over the keep arguments which were either weak, invalid or refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close this

Spartaz, please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph L. Kennedy. Thanks. SOXROX (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Why me and why now? Is there a reason it can't wait until its closed naturally? The outcome seems obvious. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Elliman

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Elliman. It appears that the AfD closing script did not work properly with the AfD page. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

I would like to know does that cover modifying EXISTING pictures like File:ShakeitUp.png and File:NortonInternetSecurity2011.PNG ie updating existing screenshots & not adding new ones. That's all I'm asking. I think that's pretty resonable because since the pictures are already there, they must have passed NFCC. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The notification on your talkpage says "you are topic banned from uploading non-free images to Wikipedia". That's pretty clear. You May Not Upload ANY Non-Free Images to Wikipedia. So, that means you cannot update the images. Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
OK then. I want a list of checkmarks/tasks to prove myself to be competant enough. If you and the blocking admin be so kindly enough to do so as I want to be able to work with non-contriversal non-free images. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
What no? So there is no way to redeem myself? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That was more an invitation for you to stop posting on my talk page since you aren't getting it and I'm fed up with the orange bar. Go find something else to do. Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland 1RR

No-one seems to be monitoring Northern Ireland for WP:1RR with respect to The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. It is noted on the Talkpage that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.". I can't imagine anyone thinking Northern Ireland is unrelated to The Troubles. Is this something you still have an interest in? Daicaregos (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Best to post a request at WP:AE or ask an admin active there. I haven't touched Ireland related issued for a very long time. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Are you following my page? If not, here's a talkback:

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 02:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)