User talk:Spartaz

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

What again?

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.

I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.

please stay in the top three tiers

Pärnu City Orchestra

I noticed you recently closed the AfC for this article as "merge". At the time of the AfD nomination, the article was in a state that it could've been merged or deleted. However, the AfD nominator's rationale for deletion was flawed. On top of that, I was able to expand the article by about six times its original length using several sources which I cited in the article. All citations were from reputable sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. I get that there was a second "merge" vote recently in the AfD, but I'm wondering whether anyone read the article before moving to wipe it? Any clarification would be helpful. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me have a look at it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, there were 6 citations at the time of deletion but having reviewed the sources myself I think the other commentators were right in their assessment.

1 EMIC article, this is a website with no author on this page and its structured a bit like a press release. Not clear independent, fact checked or reliable source, not counting imo

2 muusikaplant, another website but the article is not about the orchestra in any meaningful way. Its an account of a forthcoming concert and tells us little about the orchestra, this lacks necessary detail imo

3 ajakirimuusika no byline, reads like a press release more about the conductor then the orchestra. Unclear on independence and reliability some wouldn’t count for me

4 klaasikaradio namecheck in an article about an person. This in no way is GNG coverage

5 schott-music - namecheck so inadequate

6 sirp - no byline, no indication this is a reliable source.

so overall, I’m not seeing anything here allowing me to disregard the views of the other editors. Have you looked at WP:GNG to understand how to evidence a reliable source.? Happy to review if you get more information. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I have to refresh my memory on nos. 2, 3, and 4, but Muusikka is the leading Estonian classical music magazine, comparable to Gramophone in English. Their article is not about the conductor, but about the PCO's announcement of a new music director and why it chose Mänd. As for EMIC and Sirp, they are respectively the national musical directory of Estonia and a major arts weekly that goes back to the Soviet period: both are published by the Estonian Ministry of Culture. All meet WP:RELIABLE and also meet WP:GNG (especially "reliable", "sources", and "independent of the subject"). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Been thinking about this with the extra context I'm not as comfortable with the close as I was originally. The problem is I can't just set aside the views of the other contributors and if I relist I suspect we won't get much interest in further reviews.

I suggest you contact the other contributors, point them in the direction of this discussion and ask them if they would be prepared to reconsider their views on the light of the sources you introduced. If they agree that gives me a basis to reclose based on updated views. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! In the event that they don't, since the decision had been to merge, would it be OK to restore some of this material within the merged article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Article delition

Why did you delete the page Masha Danilova, when significant media coverage has been proven by myself in the deletion discussion? --Oleh325 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your sources were all impeached in the discussion and literally no other editor supported retention of the article. Please see WP:THREE and I will review if you provide the three best sources and explain how they meet WP:GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. So, here's the three sources:

1. Unian

2. TSN

3. Gordon.ua

Although it was hard to choose, because there were other articles in popular Ukrainian media websites. So according to GNG, the sources must be:

• "Presumed" — well from this three sources I can definitely say, that the person mentioned there should have their own article. It would be a mess if you add all of it to, for example, the page of Oleksiy Danilov. She already received significant popularity and was present in Ukrainian YouTube Music TOP-100 charts.
• "Significant coverage" — the sources' articles are directly about the singer or an event, that is directly linked to the singer.
• "Reliable" — the three sources mentioned are one of the most read media in Ukraine, and are considered strongly reliable in Ukrainian Wikipedia, and by English standarts these ones should also easily pass.
• "Sources" — the page has a lot of sources, most of them are secondary (this three I mentioned are secondary as well). Primary ones were only used to support the release dates, used in the Wikipedia article, as YouTube shows the most accurate date of release.
• "Independent of the subject" — this three sources have no relation either with the show business industry, music industry, or the singer herself. Most of the ones (but not all) mentioned on the page are also not related to the music industry whatsoever.

Oleh325 (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The first source is an interview so isn't independent and the others are too short and look very tabloidy, which we wouldn't use for sources. This feels short to me and as I said every other contributor to the discussion felt the article should be deleted. This may be a case of WP:TOO SOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm, alright, I guess it might be WP:TOO SOON. Can you restore it in my playground space (or how's called, I forgot..), so I could update it ocasionally? I have it backed up, but not the updated and fixed version. Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) This close was an straightforward correct evaluation of consensus. BD2412 T 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. That people base their arguments on an essay rather than "official" policy is reflective of the fact that "official" policy is out of whack with what is best for Wikipedia. This is exactly why we have WP:IAR. Please undo this closure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Spartaz! I second what Headbomb says. This journal is included in three of the most selective databases around (Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, Index Medicus). If this is not a "keep", then >95% of journal articles can be deleted, too. As for NJournals, sure, it's an essai and not a guideline, but it clearly describes why I think this is notable enough for inclusion. Please have another look, IMHO at worst this should have been a "no consensus". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  What is the guiding policy you think I should apply? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion, although I participated, but that close is a Wikipedia:Supervote if I ever saw one. It has no basis in consensus of the discussants. Please reconsider your bad close. Your close rationale should be listed as a "delete" opinion instead, which would at least bring the discussion closer to no-consensus instead of consensus-keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  What policy compliant votes did I ignore. Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are supposed to assess the consensus of the discussion, and close according to that consensus, rather than interjecting your own opinion on what the result should be and closing based on that opinion. Your close rationale obviously did not do that. All comments there were legitimate discussions of whether the sourcing was adequate for the article, most of them agreeing that it was, with only one dissenting delete opinion. That is clearly not a consensus that sourcing is inadequate. Even if you threw out all comments but the delete, for reasons, one delete comment is not enough to establish a consensus. As for your assumption that I am arguing with you here only because I disagree with the result: This is a gross violation of WP:AGF, and is contradicted by my initial sentence, which I'll quote again for you as you seem to have missed it the first time: I didn't express a keep/delete opinion in that discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since we're not making headways here, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 21 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, User:David Eppstein, I don't think "Please explain the supervote in a way that doesn't mean you disagree with the close." was intended as an assumption that you are arguing because you disagree with the result. My good faith interpretation is that User:Spartaz was asking you to identify specific policy-compliant votes that were ignored in determining consensus i.e. to provide more detail than was given in your initial comment. Suriname0 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is unlikely. "Disagree with the close" can be interpreted either as meaning that I disagree with the evaluation of consensus, or that I am partisan in this and desire a different outcome. If it means the first, then Spartaz is asking for an oxymoron: an argument that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated without taking the position that the consensus was incorrectly evaluated. If it means the second, then it is a bad faith assumption that my comments here were dishonestly framed, omitting my real motivation. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) I would suggest, as an alternative to reversing to a different outcome, that this discussion be relisted with a relisting note requesting a more specific basis in policy for keeping the article. BD2412 T 21:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone raise a matter of policy (sic) at any stage? Thincat (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Kowasek deletion

Can you please send the deleted page to user ksherin? Ty. Ksherin (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)