User talk:Spartaz

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.

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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

Alright. So, here's the three sources:

1. Unian ^[1]

2. TSN ^[2]

3. Gordon.ua ^[3]

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.^[4]
• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]