User talk:Spartaz: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26

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

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2017. That makes me a bit stuck in my ways but I have the benefit of experience and working through many of the changes that have left us where we are. I am getting grumpy. Sorry but all the drama and grief has washed away a lot of my younger idealism...

A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

I mostly work on deletion discussions. 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? Also, don’t waste your time asking me to review a close or you are going to DRV because I’m not going to review a close with a sword hanging over my head. Just raise the DRV or ask someone else.

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.

Hey can I get Boy Howdy (idiom) restored to my userspace? thx Herostratus (talk) Herostratus (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any deleted content there. You sure that is the right place? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Alex Zhavoronkov, I am requesting restoration of this topic to draft, so that I can develop article in light of post-deletion sources. I note that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zhavoronkov based on the subject then being "marginally notable" and having requested deletion. I respect the close and believe this was correct at the time, but the subject's Google Scholar profile demonstrates (see the chart at the top left) that the subject has since increased in academic impact by orders of magnitude, going from fewer than 1,800 citations before 2018 to over 10,000 citations today. Commensurately, from 2018 to 2023, there have been dozens of news articles discussing the subject to some degree. I believe this combination of developments is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 04:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know where DRV is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to it. As a nearly 20-year admin, I do appreciate your frustration with the matter, and I regret that it has taken up an inordinate amount of time. BD2412 T 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't care whether you go to DRV or not beyond the fact that we shouldn't casually recreate deleted BLPs where the subject has requested deletion. I remind you that content deleted for genuine BLP related reasons should not come back without a discussion. That frankly is an obligation that all admins should comply with and as a 15+ year admin myself I do find it astonishing that I need to remind you of this long standing requirement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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