User talk:Spartaz/Archive23

There's a list of articles called List of Nostalgia Critic episodes, and there's always a new article of that every year since 2008. But in 2018, somebody had the baffling mind to delete that article in the middle of its editing and growth, when all other NC list articles were not deleted during their editing growths. I want that article List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2018) restored, and someone has restored it, but in a draft article instead of a published article. And I really want somebody to find a way to take that restored draft article and move it into the main namespace, thus making it a published article.

Thankyou for yourhelp in restoring Draft:Maximo (software). The DRV also fingered Djm-leighpark/sandbox360 for restore but that currently appears not actioned. That page contains (albeit small) additional and different information for merge. It I was not on the road, on non optimal device, and without current personal constraints I could likely recreate the info with more ease ... but I am not. I have attempted to avoid your talkpage as per your wishes by using a edit summary hint on the first mentioned article but think that may have been a little obscure. As an alternative I could go to the deleting admin for info but I believe protocol is to contact you first. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• There is nothing there to undelete. Or at your ordinary Sandbox. Any idea where the deleted page is? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Ah, it was at User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox360 Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Spartaz, was making some Camila Cabello related edits and saw this page had been created. I'm letting you know because you had moved it to the Draft, previously. Should the Draft just be deleted now then? Melodies1917 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted the recreation and put in a redirect until this has happened. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This came out of its AfD with a decision of draftify for reference improvement. Having improved zip, originator moved it back out in February. I can't move it back over the existing draft. Could you please shunt it back, and maybe leave a blunt notice re sourcing? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was cheeky. Draft was a courtesy and if that is being taken advantage of then its unsourced content that can be deleted. I will undelete for improvement but only when there is a credible possibility this will happen. Thanks for letting me know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. Just got accorded page mover rights, so I can see to this kind of thing myself in the future :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Greek Island Hopping still exists Spartaz. (Stating that as it appears from the deletion log of Greek Island Hopping and here, you appear to have intended the draft's deletion as well?) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had assumed it was a redirect but since what is there is not attributed the draft didnt meet our license. Thanks for the hewds up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! I'm glad to help. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You closed this AfD as "delete" yesterday but the article is still there. I tried deleting it now (purely as a procedural action based on your close, since I !voted "delete" in the AfD) and got a database error. I wonder what is screwed up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bizarre! Its gone now. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

Sorry to dredge up an stale topic, but I've been off a little while and only just got back to see this. Out of curiosity, when you made this deletion, did you see my comment re "stripping references"? It's clear that some of the folks who commented at that AfD (e.g. User:Agricolae) didn't see the stripped references and that affected their input. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Been too long to remember if I looked at them at the time or not. Looking at the deleted cites now, with the caveat that I can't view the original article any longer, I see no reason to alter my opinion or to think that my decision was affected by ignorance and carelessness as you appear to suggest. The CNBC is the only one that I view as rising above local-interest reporting, and I don't think it represents what I would view as 'substantial' (got to love those vague criteria) enough coverage to establish notability. There would be no end to the process were we to reopen AfDs because some of the !votes were made for the 'wrong' reasons. At some point one just has to accept that in a collaborative project some decisions won't go your way even when you are clearly right. Agricolae (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

After I posted those three "stripped" refs, the editors in question stripped more refs. I think there were more than the CNBC reference.

re "some of the !votes were made for the 'wrong' reasons" - What if all of them were made for the wrong reasons?

re "some decisions won't go your way even when you are clearly right" - Ah yes. Wise words. But not reason not to complain about it.... NickCT (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

A good reason not to complain about it here - if you want to vent use a mirror rather than taking the time of other editors. Agricolae (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand your comment. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Complaining that you don't think the world is fair can be cathartic for you, but complaining about it to other people is usually not cathartic for them. Did you really think the outcome would be overturned, a month after it was decided, by suggesting that many of the !voters who didn't share your opinion should have been discounted because you don't think they !voted for the right reasons? If not, what is the point in hinting that both them and the closing administrator are incompetent? It just wastes their time in reading, and perhaps responding. Just accept you didn't get your desired outcome on this one, and move on. (Note: I don't have time for this - I will not be reading or replying to further responses.) Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was just concerned that folks at the AfD didn't get a chance to see all the references b/c they were being pulled out of the article. I wanted to discuss it with the closer before thinking about pursuing a deletion review.

I'm not suggesting anyone is incompetent. When I review AfD's I often times skim to a subject's reference section to see how many cites it has. If references have been pulled out of the section, I might easily make the wrong call. Is it so extraordinary to think other might do the same? NickCT (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do read discussions before closing them. What I generally look for is the flow of a discussion, so a slew of early deletes get less value if someone has made an improvement and you can see opinion shifting keep as a result. In this case, you highlighted the removal of citations yet the view of editors commenting after were still of the opinion that the article should be deleted and gave policy based reasons for this. I do acknowledge that their comments are not clear whether they did their own independant source search. I'm not prepared to overturn the discussion as it stands but I would suggest you draw up a list of the citations you believe might not have been considered and ask the delete voting users on their talk pages if those sources were considered and whether they are swayed to change their opinion. If they are not then that should really be the end of it, but I'm happy to relist if you can show that the editors might have voted otherwise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Spartaz: - Thanks for weighing in. I don't think I'm really interested enough about the subject to lobby the "no" voters. Based on the conversation with Agricolae above, it's pretty clear folks who were misled by the reference stripping will be unlikely or unable to change their minds. Bottom line is that this company had an enormous amount of coverage. 7 articles in major outlets giving direct, national coverage ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]). 1 article in trade mag giving direct coverage ([8]). 3 articles in local sources giving direct coverage ([9], [10], [11]). 3 articles in local sources giving indirect coverage ([12], [13], [14]). These are before getting into a slew of scientific journals which give this company's tech coverage (e.g. [15],[16]) Having lurked around AfD for a while, I don't think I've ever seen a topic with this much coverage fail at AfD. Have you? If not, what went wrong? NickCT (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, a lot of this coverage reads like a warmed up press release and the sequence of the articles feels a bit like different phases of PR. Personally, I also feel that there is a lack of depth to the coverage that supports that conclusion. I believe that we have become a lot more sensitive to COI editing and use of wikipedia for advertising and that makes afd voters more critical of marginal articles. I personally don't feel strongly about the article but feel the AFD should be respected. I can relist should you wish to specifically cite these source s for comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Spartaz: - Nah, that's OK. Appreciate your feedback, offer and opinions, and I get what you're saying. One thing I do find a little frustrating is the "warmed up press release" sentiment though. You aren't the first person to express that idea, and I can see the POV; however, by making that statement you're effectively second guessing the sources. Obviously the folks at the Boston Globe, The Atlantic & CNBC thought these pieces represented real journalism rather than "warmed up" releases. Why do we (i.e. WP editors) know better than them? Aren't we meant to give deference to RS? NickCT (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spartaz,

This one might be a pain to sift through again, but I’d like to request Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) be restored to draft so I can address the concerns mentioned in the deletion discussion and resubmit through AFC. (I think it was nominated for deletion, then the nomination was withdrawn, and then reopened again, and closed before I had a chance to revise and address the 2nd nominator’s concerns.) I’d like the opportunity to draft, userfy, and resubmit a better version of the page.

To address the COI claim that this looks like a paid article: I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Utah writing an architecture-related diss and there is very little on wikipedia about quantity surveying firms (cf: the end of the Monty Python Graham Chapman bookshop sketch. Haha), and nothing about the Crane Index, which this firm generates. It is a major, oft-cited in the press, economic indicator and background on the firm who generates it is an incredibly important starting point for students and journalists wishing to investigate. Which is why I created the article. It is perhaps overly encyclopedic and needs to be pared down significantly, but I think it provides important info.

In retrospect, I think some of HighKing criticisms of too many sources were legitimate (though the claim that it was a paid article or that the amount of sources used was an attempt to obfuscate were frustrating claims.) Independent sources (Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune) were cited, but no response was given to the efficacy of those. Notability was established, but no response to lack of notability was adequately established.

Thank you for your consideration,

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rider_Levett_Bucknall_(RLB)

View AfD

Vincent Wedge (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Vincent WedgeReply

• Crane index is a red link yet doing your Phd around the subject you choose to write promotionally about the company instead of something you refer to as "It is a major, oft-cited in the press, economic indicator". Sorry but that doesn't sound quite right to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, The page is created for upcoming movie known as 'Nanu ki Janu'. People search for the movie related information like story characters etc... I've provided correct references for the same. If you feel the more information should be added then please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrugeshsingh (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spartaz, to avoid excessive repetition, you may want to see my comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jimfbleak. I have nothing add to what he has said. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahaf Zina, but you did not explain the reasoning behind your closure.

When some individuals think a topic merits a standalone article, but the closing administrator concludes the article doesn't measure up to our inclusion standards, or doesn't currently measure up to our inclusion standards, it is extremely useful for the closing administrator to explain the reasoning behind their closure. It is extremely useful for the closing administrator to explain the reasoning behind their closure, even if they think their reasoning is obvious.

1. Our policies are complicated -- and are in a constant state of flux. Even an experienced contributors can have wrinkles of policy they haven't understood. If there is a firm policy basis for the closure, specifying that policy basis, even if only with a brief link to a policy document, will help prevent good faith contributors, with a blind spot, from making the same mistake in future. In the long run this saves everyone time.
2. Sometimes an administrator concludes a topic doesn't merit a standalone article, and will never merit a standalone article. When this is the case it is best to explicitly say so.
3. When an administrator concludes a topic doesn't merit a standalone article, but could merit one in the future, if certain particular conditions change, it would be helpful if they said so. "Insufficient references to support notability," perhaps. Or "POLITICIAN doesn't apply to candidates for office, only office-holders."

   Fast forward N months, or N years, when a good faith contributor is puzzled as to why we don't have an article on a topic that seems notable to them. Then they notice that we once had an article on that topic, but it was deleted. They might guess that the criteria that lead the closing administrator to close as delete no longer applied, but the closing administrator who leave an informative closing statement help make sure the good faith contributor doesn't have to guess.

4. Finally, no offense, even administrators are fallible. When the closing administrator gives the explicit basis for their closure, if the closure is due to a misconception, or mistake, it can be corrected.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• You yourself stated that BLPs are held to a higher standard for sourcing and this is especially true for those where the coverage is predominately negative. The predominant view was that this individual was not independently notable and I did not see a consensus for a merge. That, and the higher standard for potentially negative BLPs left delete as the policy based outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Granic Allen

I do not think the discussion showed a consensus for deletion. The final vote was 8 keep vs. 11 delete or merge. Considering that her notability was recent, it is worth noting that the keep votes mostly came at the end of the AfD. Had the AfD been conducted one week later, it is possible that there would have been a majority for keep.

I have never seen an AfD succeed for any article that has this level of viewership for a subject that has received such a high level of media coverage. The day before the article was deleted it received 5,000 views,[17] and currently the re-direct page receives about 50+ hits on average every day.[18] She continues to receive regular news coverage and is was interviewed recently on CP24. For example, yesterday, CBC News ran an article, "Tanya Granic Allen to run for PC nomination in Mississauga Centre." It says, "She became known during the leadership campaign for her strong stance against the sex education curriculum in Ontario's schools." For better or worse, the leader, Doug Ford, has selected her as a high profile candidate.

I fully understand the argument that she should not be notable, that she has done nothing that warrants the coverage she receives, that she is famous for being famous. But that's not a valid argument since reliable secondary sources establish notability, not who deserves attention.

I wonder if you please review your decision.

TFD (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• This wasn't deleted it was redirected. WP:POLITICIAN is the relevant policy that dictated the outcome. POLITICIAN is widely accepted within the community and basically says that candidates for office inevitable garner reliable coverage but that if this coverage is in the context of the election than this is effectively an extension of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:FORK. This is because the coverage is in the context of the election not the individual and the coverage should be reported in the election page not split across pages for individual candidates. When it comes to judging rough consensus, this is not based on counting the votes but judging the opinions expressed against policy. In this case most of the keep votes were assertions and opinions and not expressed in the context of POLITICIAN. The delete side clearly demonstrated that the coverage cited as passing GNG was pretty much in the context of the election and this was not debunked during the discussion. Based on this, the opinions expressed that most closely matched wider project norms for bios of political candidates were the ones that suggested that the coverage should be reported in the context of the election, which is why I closed this as a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

[19]. Also when you relisted it you eliminated the merge discussion notice. [20] Since most said Keep or merge, not sure why you can't just close it properly, instead of stretching it out a week. Dream Focus 20:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

And then re-reverted because Valoem had no standing to undo an admin action and another editor called him out on it. My question to you Dream Focus is why we would have parallel discussions when AFD has precedence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I hate to say this, as I was arguing for keeping this article, but at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Start Desenhos Animados you seem to have missed the fact that I moved the page to Start Anima which, like the Alamo, is still holding out against you to the last man. SpinningSpark 10:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Abdul Basit (Salman Khan fan). Since you had some involvement with the Abdul Basit (Salman Khan fan) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Saqib (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Spartaz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spartaz. Did you mean to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snatch Game as keep? I was extremely surprised to see this result and would have welcomed a little explanation of how you came to this conclusion.

It is an AfD with a two keep !votes, two merge/redirect !votes and two deletes (if you count the nomination itself). The two keep !votes are not easy to take seriously. One gives no argument at all except one which is contrary to policy (the claim that it is WP:HARMLESS to have pointless articles) and the other seems to think that subgames in gameshows are somehow unusual and that this forms an element of notability in itself, which is patently ridiculous given that subgames are a standard element of very many gameshows and this reasoning could easily spawn several thousand pointless articles if generally accepted.

Please can I ask you to reconsider? I can see an argument for changing it to "no consensus", as there clearly is none, but I fear that only invites another AfD later. Maybe there is something to be said for relisting it again? I know it already got relisted twice but the AfD only really started attracting any credible !votes or discussion after the second relist, so maybe a couple more delsorts and a final relist would help? I think we do need to get a few more eyeballs on it.

So, why do I care? My concern is that it is becoming far too easy for people to build what is essentially a free walled garden fan wiki in an unlit corner of Wikipedia without other people noticing. I see that as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. I don't really have an answer to this problem though. The AfD did have a plausible delsort on it, so I can't complain about that, and we can't force people to take an interest if they don't want to.

Anyway, I'm about to slice the unreferenced fancruft out of the article. Ironically, that might actually increase its chances of staying in the longer term by making something closer to a valid stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Came here for the same reason. Weird to see an unqualified keep closure when four of the six participants opposed keeping the article, and the two keep !votes (assumed keep implied) weren't terribly strong. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was a script error. I must have flicked sk instead of sd. Delete was the intended outcome and has been enacted. Thanmk you for drawing my attention to the error. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Spartaz, sorry to trouble you. I wonder if you could find a moment to guide me on whether I've taken the correct action at this AfD which I nominated? Having reconsidered the matter, I initially withdrew and struck out my nomination because I now feel a better solution to deletion is a redirect from the page about a young non-notable actress to the film in which she once performed.) However, having then re-read WP:WDAFD, I realised that those instructions prevent me from withdrawing my nomination because there was already a !delete vote cast. So I've reverted my changes, recognising that an admin will now need to close the AfD and left a comment to indicate I'm happy to make a redirect. I know I certainly couldn't make a non-admin closure here, but could I ask you to advise me whether I've acted correctly on this? Or could I have done it better? As far as my interpretation goes, it would have been incorrect to have struck out my nomination because of the earlier !delete vote - but it would be good to be certain. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)  Reply

The keep vote is really poor. Let it run its course. The outcome is clearly going to be redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello , Spartaz, I was wondering if it’s possible to restore the page list of magicians in fantasy, it’s a source of inspiration for people who write fantasy novels to get to know different mage characters, and the deletion discussion was mainly because it was said that the page was indiscriminate, and incomplete, but there are hundreds of thousands of magicians and magic users in works of fiction, mythology and legends and impossible to contain all of them in a page, thank you. ApolloOfAffaron (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The fact that you cannot get everything on one page is kind of the point. Can you demonstrate that this page is a source of inspiration for fantasy writers. I'm sorry but you need a policy based argument to overcome a clearbconsensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

He's left a note on my talk page too. I don't mind emailing the text, but I would advise him not to re-post it on-wiki as it will just get deleted per WP:G4. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I know Wikipedia’s rules I’m not going to repost it, the text is enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApolloOfAffaron (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to keep you in the loop Spartaz, Ritchie emailed the text to ApolloOfAffaron. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

is there anyway I can fix whatever issues that were on the article to have it reinstated? Imdawl (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Have you looked at the deletion discussion? I would also advise you to read our inclusion standard. Simple question, how would you overcome the argument for deletion by providing what reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would delete all information that I can’t reference or put a reliable source to, a lot of the information I inserted into the article is irrelevant, I didn’t have time to fix it before it was deleted. I would add references from VH1, Genius, Billboard & BET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:180:5F6D:49A5:6CE0:130A:A866 (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Spartaz. Any chance you could help resolve at editing dispute over on the page Untitled Michelle Wolf late-night talk show? User:Cwiki1234 continues to move the page without a discussion on the show's talk page. I am unable to revert the page name back to Untitled Michelle Wolf talk show at this point. Care to provide some input and assistance here? – BoogerD (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Spartaz, thank you for taking care of the disussion on the Akilnathan Logeswaran discussion. Could you please ellaborate a little on your decision. The user that started this discussion on German and English Wikipedia has been blocked here. On the German one the article stayed because of relevancy. The next one stated too promotional without signing it. On the other side another user stated, that it would not be Too Soon through verified facts and achievements. The next call for deletion was because of the level of coverage. But there is plenty coverage from reliable, indpendent sources. Afterwards I couldn't spot any new arguements and another user explained why the subject is already notable enough as a political activist. The Sky Broadband IP comments are likely from one source and that there's no indepth profile of him is simply not true as this article is almost a biographie on him: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/-unter-weltbuerger-aus-leidenschaft-1.3839883 and one of the main sources of the article. Therefore I really would like to understand the reasoning behind your decision. Best Regards, --Wedderkop (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• EN has a different attitude to inclusion to DE. The existence of an article on DE therefore has no bearing on an EN article except insofar as it might provide more evidence of sourcing. The bottom line is that editors here felt that the sources provided did not deliver the required depth of cover to meet our inclusion coverage. The only way I could discard that would be to ignore the opinions of the consensus of editors. We don't do that as the admin assesses the consensus of the editors instead of making their own assessment. There are a couple of EN specific issues too. In the case of BLPs a harder line is taken on sourcing than most other articles. EN also has a specific problem with promotional editing and many editors take a harder view of sourcing in case of apparent promotion than elsewhere. Again, that's an editorial position affecting their assessment of the source and the only way I could change that would be to ignore the consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Spartaz, I don't typically participate in AfD cases, so I'm a bit unclear whether your Delete ruling precludes a Redirect being created. I believe this particular page existed as a redirect until rather recently. (Revision history now unavailable, but perhaps admins have access to such.) Thanks for clarifying. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 17:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you think a redirect would help, I have no objection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Spartaz:

You just closed the Billboarding AfD as delete - can I check whether that was a "delete, do redirect", "delete, don't redirect" or "delete, I leave it up to others to decide/discuss the redirect". Clearly there were numbers on one side and a detailed point on the other, so I wasn't sure which would apply.

Tah muchly, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see a consensus either way so just deleted. Whether or not to have it is an editorial decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Non Free Image of John Smith Labour Politician.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

HI Sir, you relisted an AFD of Talal Malik (entrepreneur) the requested reason for AFD was failed and turned out to be a false accusation. It is not stopping. They are taking it too personally. Please help, the initial result was clear to keep, please close that AFD as a keep. They are violating policies. I know I am not that old user as them but they are abusing there powers. Please help. Thank you Kevin055 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Spartaz, I have an inquiry about the article John Judd (actor). Why was this page deleted? It does not violate any community guidelines. I have restored the page for now, and would like a straight answer before it is deleted again.---Ducktech89, 4:16, 15 April 2018, (WAST)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Judd (actor) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, I strongly advise that you revert your deletion of the above - the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, there was no clear deletes on the page, 3 keeps and one rename, for this, it can be discussed at the appropriate project. I would also like you to explain your rationale for deleting the page, as none was given. Note I have opened a request up at deletion review, here. Thanks Nightfury 09:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are supposed to discuss it with me before going to DRV. That you have failed to do so means that I will simply leave the DRV to run its course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this was closed properly. Some delete !votes are simply, "Not notable!" and probably shouldn't be counted. Another claims only 168 academic references where 2000 are for some reason expected. Others clearly are basing their delete position based on current poor sourcing of the article. We need to focus on the merit of the subject in AfD, not so much the article. I see where references have been requested by the delete squad but those requests have been answered basically with WP:NOTCLEANUP which seems to be a valid position and should not used as an indication that coverage doesn't exist. ~Kvng (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The position I take is onus. If your assertion is that sources exist, it not a reasonable position to refuse to provide them and expect your position to be given as much weight as users asserting in detail that your claimed sources are inadequate. If you want to counter the close can I suggest you provide those sources here and I will relist to evaluate them if I think they would have changed the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here you go: ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• https://books.google.com/books?id=UHCIDH26--kC&pg=PA568&lpg=PA568&dq=%22Edon80%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=V887h5nyNT&sig=0fd5kQiXKaGSTIDILezoIsq0wcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikjYL-v7LaAhUCGKwKHdJSCIwQ6AEIggEwFA#v=onepage&q=%22Edon80%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-68351-3_12
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221540941_Period_of_Streamcipher_Edon80
• https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/iset-15/16682

I dunno about how to evaluate these sources. Lets start by asking the AFD participants if the sources would sway their opinion. Pinging Dannyniu / TH1980 / The_Gnome / PhilKnight / SportingFlyer / James500 / Rpclod Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Advances in Cryptology is a collection of conference papers. One 12-page technical paper discusses Edon80 as a potential eSTREAM candidate as a stream cipher. "The Stream Cipher Edon80" (Springer Link) are 17 pages of lecture notes in a larger series on stream cipher designs. It covers the same ground as Advances in Cryptology in that it discusses Edon80 as an eSTREAM stream cipher candidate. The ResearchGate reference is an 11-page conference paper. I don't have access to the paper so can't tell if it is the same focus as the first two papers. The Atlantis Press is another conference page. The abstract suggests that it too is within the context of Edon80 as an eSTREAM stream cipher candidate. While Edon80 was a candidate, it was not selected for the eSTREAM portfolio. Three conference papers and a set of lecture notes are not sufficient to support notability, especially for a proposed solution that was not accepted for actual implementation.--Rpclod (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why not? What is wrong with conference papers and lecture notes? James500 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I stand by my previous assessment of the sources: there's just not enough here to write a notable article on. I did a thorough before search on this and think the AfD was properly closed. SportingFlyer talk 14:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kvng sorry but I don't think this is clear cut enough to justify relisting. Keep an eye out for sources and when they improve its worth raising again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SportingFlyer, Rpclod and Spartaz. I now have a better understanding of why this was deleted and I don't intend to pursue this any further. ~Kvng (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of page was done too soon and done without adequate debate or evidence of claims for deletion.

The initial request for deletion was by Rayman60 who begins by admitting that the request they are making is not based on Wikipedia deletion policy but instead on personal opinion. The argument is a logical fallacy as the initial requester states they can not make an argument for closure but instead relies on feelings.

Second states the page should not be deleted but merged.

The third poster claims the article was trivia. Using the definition of Trivia being bits of information of little importance or value. The poster does not make a statement on why they think the information in the article has little importance or value. For an economist, architect, or researchers the information is important and has value. The article provided encyclopedic knowledge by stating statistical salaries and the sources. The salary information is dated and not indicative of current market trends thus the difference between the article and a site like glassdoor.

Can you un-delete the page so the material can be moved to a section in the main architecture article in the same way the Wikipedia Lawyer ^[1] has a section on compensation. Porchpop (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The policy based argument was NOT. I can't see how a laundry list of salaries can be encyclopaedic enough to overcome that argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this have been closed as no consensus? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not without a policy based reason to ignore the lack of GNG compliant sources. Can you offer such a reasonSpartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I want you to restore the B.Ginnings article. There are billions of people on Wikipedia and only 4 people asked for the article to be deleted. That's definitely not sufficient! Besides it does not hurt anyone or anything to keep the article. Evangp (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:CONSENSUS Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's way too long, I'm not reading all that. Just restore the article, be fair. Evangp (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll consider it if you give me a policy based reason. If you can't be bothered to understand how we do things it is hard to make progress here so the reading is somewhat important. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not 100% certain that there is enough justification for the creation of Template:Jim Carrey. It popped up on a couple of pages in my watchlist today. Hoping to have an administrator look at it. BoogerD (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This isn’t my field. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

To start with, I missed the progress on this AFD, for some peculiar reasons (it somehow got de-watchlisted) which explains the lack of rebuttles. Anyways, the Afd's a clear-cut case of relisting., given that the IP is a SPA who has been long-spamming keep!votes at multiple AFDs and another participant is the article-creator.FWIW, the sources need to be rigorously evaluated.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:SILENCE describes this perfectly. AFD -> sources mentioned. -> sources linked -> a number of editors discuss the finding of the sources -> no one challenges the sources -> outcome can only be keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Barring the SPA IP and the article-creator, it was just a general effort to link the sources and all....Anyways, are you willing to relist, or shall I start a new AFD, rebutting the sources?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to relist. Process was followed and there was time to rebut the sources in the time allowed. You might find it better to give it some time before restarting the AFD though. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please explain your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koimoi (2nd nomination).Harsh Rathor's !voting and his activities, which has now seemed to penetrate into my AFDs, have been well-described by Spiffy at this t/p thread.Anyways, that wasn't a !vote and I've no idea how does a weak-keep vote based on a self-admitted PR source manages to generate a keep outcome.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

On some retrospection, since it appears that convincing you to undo your closures is an exercise in futility, I will cut the chase short and ask you about whether you are (a) willing to relist it or (b) amend the closure as a NC with NPASR? Otherwise, we are looking at a DRV.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Someday you will learn that you catch more flies with honey. Please be so kind as to explain why this isn't a keep when noone agreed with your nomination and this had a relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I will rather expend the honey for more competent folks.Anyways, meeting at DRV. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Spartaz:,

I'm bringing this to your attention because you are an active editor in articles regarding television-related topics. I have noticed that one user User:FerenComm might have a conflict of interest in regards to the edits they have made on the Sony Crackle page. The edits they have made to the page have seen it rewritten in a manner that appears to be more promotional rather than encyclopedic, as it was before. A Google search of that username has turned up Feren Communications, a television publicity company (see their website: [21]). I'm not sure how to go about notifying the proper people to report such a possible violation of Wikipedia policy (at least as far as I understand it after reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on what ought to be done. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Try raising this at the COI noticeboard. I'm basically an AFD/DRV knowledgeable admin with a sprinkling of blocking obvious socks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Using an iPad so sorry about formatting. Just wondering how you got to no consensus. Basically we had one delete and two neutral. One neutral argued the procedure with redirecting a good article and the other wasn’t happy with the sourcing, but was reluctant due to other deletion processes it passes in the past. Article fails SNG and no one demonstrated GNG. If any thing this is less notable than good hit above. I didn’t post each source individually as I did with that one for that reason, but that was possibly a mistake in hindsight. From a practical point of view we now have a good article with orange tags. I have a few options, but just wanted some clarification on the no consensus close before deciding wether to delist, remove the tags, drv, open a redirect discussion or something else. Thanks for closing these anyway, it is appreciated.AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nobody supported your delete argument so delete is no option. There was no clear keep argument either so nc was the correct close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

There were no keep arguments though. Anyway it should be on policy so numbers don't matter. I presented policy reasons for deletion, no one presented any reasons for keeping. The lack of numbers commentating is just an unfortunate part of contemporary deletion discussions, which is why we have WP:NOQUORUM. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which is why NC is the right close. If noone supports deletion but there is no clear idea on what to do with the article then that is the definition of NC. If you disagree you are welcome to ask drv to review the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had to come here first anyway and was interested in the rational behind the close. Anyway its now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 2 if you are interested in commenting. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Admin! I just noticed that you closed this_Afd as delete. I don't know why you disregarded the keep votes when there are so many notable sources(WP:GNG, WP:BIO) about the subject like this_Dawn_Reference and this, Brecorder_source and this, TheNews_source, Jang_Source, PakObserver,etc. Kindly revisit your closure. Thank you!  M A A Z   T A L K  05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• If these are the sources from the AFD then Saqib challenged them effectively and you accepted that by not replying.After several back and forth about sources the later voters went delete meaning that your argument about the sources was not accepted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Actually, I would've liked to share my comments, but the AfD got closed soon. Also, there were many notable sources, that I wanted to mention, but couldn't. Anyways, no problem.  M A A Z   T A L K  08:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could reopen that close for another week? It's sad to see 24 sources go down the drain.104.163.159.237 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid the consensus was pretty clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Spartaz:,

I was curious to find out why my post on the Yeshiva University Student Medical Ethics Society was deleted. If the issue is reliable sources, the society is entirely student-run, and the page is written and managed by its presidents, as primary source as we can get. If you'd like related links to substantiate the validity of the society, I'd be more than happy to add those. Alternatively, I understand that the tone of the article is somewhat promotional, which may contradict Wikipedia's ethos of objective fact-reporting. If this is the issue, I'd be happy to edit the article to reflect Wikipedia's informational goals. Please let me know how I can proceed in remedying this issue to get our page back up in a timely manner.

Deletion Log: 21:12, 28 April 2018 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted page Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society (XFDcloser))

Thank you! 66.65.33.255 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

it wasn't your edit but we decided not to keep the article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Spartaz:,

Hey, I understand the reason for the deletion of the University of Alberta Outdoors Club - is it possible to get a screen-shot of the page or undelete it just for a moment so that I may take down the information? It was a lot of work to source every line of the clubs history, and I'd love to submit it to the University and/or the club for their archival purposes.

I'm also interested, even though it was primarily sourced does a ski hill that was verifiably used by 100-200 people in the 50's of Edmonton not count as notable? Not trying to be exceptionally salty, just curious about how to establish notability? Thanks for your time. Don't take life Sieriously, no one ever gets out alive anyway. 00:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)N64kidg

Notability comes from the notability standard and organisational guideline. You don't have email enabled, but, if you turn it on, I'll happily send you a copy of the deleted text. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Admin! Sorry for disturbing but just wanted to make another request to you on the deletion of [this article]. I just wanted to tell you, that apart from WP:GNG, other arguments were also being made about the subject in regards to WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5 in AfD and criteria 6 in another forum [here]. I honestly think, if article is re-listed, it might have a chance. Thank you!  M A A Z   T A L K  17:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The consensus of the discussion was that acting =! Notable and a random question =! A realistic possibility they pass prof. Sorry but I'm afraid you are reading it the wrong way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But the discussion was whether the subject was in an acting position or not as illustrated in talk-page of article(deleted at the moment) and by @Tryptofish:'s comment here. And, there were also other things to consider like criteria 5, GNG,etc. Anyways, I think, we can leave the discussion on WP:ACADEMIC here at the moment as I'm seeing that there's also a draft being prepared about these particular issues. But even if ignoring WP:ACADEMIC criteria at the moment, please do consider reviewing the article on the basis of WP:GNG.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apart from English sources, there also exist Urdu sources about the subject that shouldn't be ignored.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the ping. I commented on the guideline in a general sense, but I have no opinion about the AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tryptofish Fair enough. I just pinged so that these issues may help for the new draft. Regarding the AfD, I just think that it passes GNG, as it has reliable sources of DAWN, Brecorder,etc. and also Urdu sources.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

but your sources were not accepted by experienced editors commenting on the discussion after you raised them. That's what swung the close and unless I ignore them (which would be a super vote) there was no way I could close otherwise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, keep voters were also experienced. And, I had content dispute with these delete voters at few other articles and all the delete votes, which came one after another, IMO, did not merit funneling the discussion to delete. I added reliable sources like Dawn,Brecorder,etc and if some people out of their ignorance do not consider them reliable then that's their problem.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seriously?? That's yor argument, everyone who voted delete did it to spite you!! I think we are done here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No Sir! My actual argument was related to WP:GNG and WP:RS. I believe Dawn, Brecorder, etc. are reliable sources. Anyways, can you allow me to userify/draftify the article. I will try to add more reliable sources.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Before I initiate a DRV, I think it may be prudential to know about any reservations/objections from your end, shall I choose to renominate Koimoi immediately.....Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Take it to DRV please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Muhammad Arif Butt. 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.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Koimoi. 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. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete this instead of merge it?- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Out_of_Print_(Youth_Brigade_album)Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

merge what? The discussion said this was unsourced that wasn't challenged. What sourced content was there to merge?Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The discussion was incorrect, I know for a fact this one was included- https://www.allmusic.com/album/out-of-print-mw0000050123 Did you not look at the article?

It is fairly common to redirect to albums with almost identical track-listings but different names, which is why I proposed that.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You must have misread the discussion, as the proposed deleter admitted to that source in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Print (Youth Brigade album).Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Be the Same Tour (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Be The Same Tour. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• sigh. Again! Thanks for the heads up. It is taken care of until the next time.Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You didn't list a reason for your close of the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lizette_Parker_(2nd_nomination) and was wondering why you thought it was a keep and not a no consensus, purely out of my own curiosity. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• A lot of the delete arguments were based on the argument that the sources were WP:LOCAL. That essay is essentially about places, not people. The overarching guideline is N and that says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There were more than enough sources presented in the discussion to meet that requirement but the primary argument against them was that the reach of the news provider was only local. I do close towards this is there is a clear preponderance of editors to support that argument, but in this discussion, that wasn't the case. To be honest, its fairly marginal between keep and NC but there were a lot of very experienced and sensible people on the keep side who disagreed with the LOCAL argument and that just about swayed it for me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for your response and explanation. I had to go back and re-read the discussion since I didn't pick up on the local take at all. It was a very clear delete to me since all of the sources were run-of-the-mill obituaries, but I guess the run-of-the-mill argument turned into a local argument since all of the run-of-the-mill eight sentence obits got only local coverage, and you're right that's not actually a proper argument. Had hoped for a NC so it could be reviewed later. Thanks again. SportingFlyer talk 05:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I took the arguments about the reach of the sources to be a LOCAL argument. As far as renomination goes, I don't really see a difference between NC and KEEP for that. FWIW it was only just keep and I have no objection to your relisting earlier than you might otherwise because of that! Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, if I come across it again in 6 months or so I'll definitely go ahead and nominate it. Thank you again for your response! SportingFlyer talk 16:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind userfying Tyler Cook? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I wanted to ask something, since you earlier relisted the deletion discussion 2016 Indian Line of Control strike. An editor, one of the few who voted for a merger of the article, has listed the article's deletion discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan. Considering the really hot topic of the article's subject and taking into account Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, shouldn't the article be then listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India as well? Since the article deals with both countries. And also especially since, from my 3rd party POV of the subject, Pakistanis generally deny a strike occurred, while Indians say it did. EkoGraf (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, list it there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You deleted a page in 2009 titled "Sisters of Carmel." Do you remember why? – Conservatrix (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I often forget why I'm going from one room to another so remembering what I did 8 years ago is a stretch. Did I leave an explanation in the deletion log? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No absolutely no memory. I'm no longer on OTRS so I can't check the ticket to see why I might have done that. Please raise a query at the OTRS noticeboard if you wish to request a review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Spartaz, I see you recently closed the Dean Lomax page I created. I read your reasons for deleting the page but I don't quite understand them and wondered if you could help. Why do you consider the article promotion or coi? How do I make it so this isn't the case? I assumed that all of the research, media and awards were of particular note and interest to others and so included them on this page. You mentioned that much of the sourcing was about the subjects discoveries and not him, but how does this differ from many other palaeontologists on wikipedia? I looked at several such as those mentioned, e.g. Matt J. Wedel. It was a shame to see all my hard work undone. As mentioned in one of my posts, I'm new to this editing and I met Dean at a meeting a year or so ago and thought it would be worth creating a wikipedia page for his contributions and to provide other paleontologists or dinosaur fans the opportunity to see his, as a contribution to wikipedia. What do I need to do to ensure that this page will be accepted and not deleted in the future? As for the prof test, I don't also understand this. From what I have seen on his personal website and followed his research it seems he has published over 30 academic papers, which have led to him becoming an internationally recognised scientist in the study of ichthyosaurs. Should I provide references of his peer-reviewed studies? Please let me know what you need from me and I hope you will reconsider deleting the page if I can provide the information you need. Thank you, Dino. Dino710 11:38, 19 May 2018 (BST)

What I'm doing when I close a discussion is sum up the arguments against policy and establish what side made the most policy relevant arguments. So, when I'm discussing COI and the like, I'm reflecting the consensus of the discussion not a personal opinion. The editors presenting evidence clearly looked at Lomax's significance as a scientist and found that he fell short of the standards we expect. Sorry, but that was the consensus of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I would like to read the page for CJDNS. Could you please send me the original text? Or possibly undelete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmash27 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Edit: Honestly, I'm kind of panicking right now. I believe CJDNS is extremely important for the future of communication, or at least something similar. I really wanted to view the page to see if any other similar networks existed, actually. I don't really know how I could dispute this deletion however, since I don't know much about the article. If I wrote an article about it in a secondary source could it be undeleted? This is really important to me! — Happysmash27 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cjdns. The consensus is that this is too soon for us to host an article. How many reliable sources do you have. Please let me have your best 2 or 3 and I can review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Spartaz, I agree with the user above me. CJDNS is used by many people in the Hyperboria network. Just take a look at the amount of stars it has on github.com: https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns (3672 stars at the time of writing). This is not a new project, and definitely not in alpha stage. It is used in production to create mesh networks.

Much of the documentation can be found on the github page, and other resources can be found inside of the cjdns network. They are not accessible to you because you did not join the network. What we had on Wikipedia was very useful information for outsiders, but it is now deleted.

Hi Spartaz, I intend to take an editor back to ARBCOM but am not sure if it is appropriate to re-open the case you closed or start a new case as the editor involved has not only failed to abide by the promise to follow consensus but has also edited in a similar manner, or on the same basis, to that which has seen other editors topic banned from longevity or blocked. Apologies if it is not appropriate to contact you in regard to this. Cheers, 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• If the problems have resumed then bringing this back to AE seems the right solution. I'm no longer active at AE but there are plenty of eyes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and sorry for the incomplete sig! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it seems there is a problem with the links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne) --Xuo Tran (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Now fixed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spartaz, Although you closed out the ANI for FloridaArmy with a prohibition of creating new articles, I see that the user created a new article from a redirect here. I am concerned about the user's behavior since being sanctioned and am starting a draft for a new ANI for an indefinite block, but perhaps the user should be warned about creating articles from redirects?

In the meantime, this article has been nominated for an AfD discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

In this case the article already existed and FA added no content in reverting the redirect. I don't see that as an obvious vio. The close allowed articles to be moved to draft and that's possibly what would have been better than a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Having had a discussion on the AfC board, have resolved in favour of creating the Vason Engineers article - could you unsalt it so I can create it, please - Draft:Vascon Engineers if you want to have a look.

Cheers

Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this could be undeleted without another DRV. The COI editing and PROMO issued appear to still be valid concerns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spartaz, thanks for your quick response - the COI creator was an issue (enough that I strongly considered just walking away from the article, a brief discussion led to a split view on the AfC talk board). I will submit it to DRV, probably this evening. I'm happy to accept that I could well be wrong in this one, but (at the risk of sounding cringey) feel it warrants the chance. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

As advised, I've referred this to DRV with regards to Draft:Vascon Engineers. Since it's an unsalt request rather than a review of a deletion discussion the process seems a little odd (hence this rather than the template notification), so pre-emptive apologies on my behalf Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No consensus? Really? with 7 Keep votes and 3 delete votes? Govvy (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Govvy: I think Spartaz said no consensus to delete. Hhkohh (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hhkohh: He wrote "The result was no consensus." When technically the result is keep with a 70% score! Govvy (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you will find there is no practical difference but since the delete votes has some policy credibility, NC was the correct close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I ran across this deletion in a search using some related terms, where I found a few sources on it; they look 3rd-party etc., but I could be wrong. I've listed them at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gobby (2nd nomination). HLHJ (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have asked the delete voters to assess these sources and will relist if appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is now relisted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please explain why you deleted the page on Dollshot? The last comment in the AfD discussion was not replied to and should be adequately refuted before this article is deleted. As I mentioned in that comment, the majority of editor's votes in this discussion are problematic according to WP:AADD, because they rely only solely on google searches or basically say "delete" without providing any evidence. Several of these editors made it clear that they lack knowledge of the field, so their vote is just opinion (often seemingly biased opinion against new contributors). Since you chose to "delete" can you please explain how the band does not have notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6? Artaria195 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added a header for you. The fact you didnt know to do that demonstrated that with less than 100 edits you still have a way to go to understand how we judge consensus. After a certain point of bludgeoning a discussion to death having the last word tends not to count. As it was, you socked in the debate and the established editor consensus was clearly to delete. In these circumstances your vote wasn't ever going to be the decider. Casting aspersions against your opponents because you lost is deeply uncool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting that, you are right, I am a new contributor, but that shouldn’t affect the article I contributed to. It’s not about having the last word, my last point is that the AfD discussion has not actually addressed the issues here. For example, TimTempleton claimed the band was not featured on “All Things Considered” when they clearly were according to the source listed. And I’ve responded on my talk page that I did not sock. The point is that there are serious issues with some of the other editors’ comments, namely that they provide no evidence against the sources they claim to dispute. And, a new detail came to light at the very end of the discussion— that the band is notable based on #6 of WP:NMUSIC. That last point is a perfectly valid reason to disregard the preceding discussion (which is all based on guideline #1) and keep the article. That last point— regarding the band being notable because it has has 2 or more “notable” members — has not received any discussion other than SportingFlyer’s one comment that his mind is made up.

I respect that other editors have weighed in, but it is concerning that many are not doing enough research to adequately defend their votes. This is an encyclopedia entry that was researched to begin with and if Wikipedia is going to meet serious standards of scholarship, editors need to at least thoroughly research the topic they are arguing. Otherwise it feels like there is a major power imbalance between editors who have contributed a lot and new contributors (who I’d imagine are often people with in-depth knowledge in a particular area with an interest in becoming involved more in Wikipedia), which is not very democratic. Artaria195 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Go find another area to contribute in and get to know how it works. When you have done that you might better understand how to influence a discussion. A little clue, brevity and not insisting on the last word at least mean that if you loose an argument you haven't butchered 10,000 words doing it. Once you have that better understanding you will better understand if your pet subjects are going to pass muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This isn’t about “influencing the discussion”, it’s about an article that was put in AfD on incorrect grounds and then deleted when a separate point was raised that would solve the whole issue. Im curious why you are refusing to engage with the Wikipedia guidelines and tell me why you deleted this article before the WP:NMUSIC #6 issue was resolved. This feels a lot like bullying— you continue to attack my behavior rather than engage with the issue of the article itself. I have not bludgeoned, but have painstakingly offered reasoning and facts when sources were misrepresented. Not allowing a contributor to defend an article against misrepresentation is failing to uphold the stated aims of Wikipedia. In sum, I am willing to accept that there is disagreement about guideline #1, but guideline #6 needs to be addressed. Can you either address this or relist it so that someone else can? This was a point raised at the end of the discussion that before others could weigh in. And this point negates the need for the rest of the AfD discussion. This is not a win/lose game, nor is calling this a “pet subject” an argument that delegitimizes the content of the article. Please engage with the facts or let others do so. As I’ve said earlier it would really be a shame for Wikipedia to simply be a forum solely for the opinions of those who contribute the most. That is not an encyclopedia.

My job is to assess the consensus of the discussion not to decide on a personal basis. You raised a lot of points in the discussion but didn't persuade a single voter to change their vote. The keep side was basically you, a your sock and another inexperienced editor, and writing the most text doesn't win if the delete side are experienced users who have a policy grounding for their votes. I'm not going to debate why they didn't support your arguments. You tell me why you think you didn't win them round? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The difficulty here was that the original comment was that "References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt." Unfortunately this is not accurate, which the contributors have in good faith tried over and over to demonstrate, citing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The point here is that the AfD discussion became about defending sources ( which is just in reference to WP:NMUSIC guideline #1). As I'm sure you can imagine, once the sources are characterized as non-reliable, defending them becomes an uphill battle, especially for new contributors. It's hard to imagine how NPR, WNYC, Lucid Culture and Rhapsody Jazz Critics poll are "non-reliable". But editors were quick to discount the sources, especially the ones from the more niche experimental scene without taking the time to properly research them. But, I am willing to concede this point about guideline #1, since enough editors weighed in to make continually defending the sources an exercise in futility and since this form of debate is the established procedure at Wikiepdia. What I am asking here, is that you relist the discussion on the grounds of WP:NMUSIC #6 which states that notability is achieved if a band "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." This point was introduced late into the AfD discussion and the discussion was closed before anyone but SportingFlyer could weigh in. Would you be willing to relist the article in AfD or reopen the previous discussion for enough time to let other editors weigh in on this point? It is an important enough point to save the article. Drummer Mike Pride and Cellist Kevin McFarland are both indisputably independently notable musicians. As is Noah K[aplan]. So, even without resorting to the more controversial guideline #1, Dollshot achieves notability through #6. I am willing to step back from the conversation, and let the process take its due course, but request that editors have a chance to weigh in on the notability of the band based on WP:NMUSIC guideline #6. Artaria195 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

SNGs are all indicators of notability and the preamble to all guidelines is clear that articles must still meet N and GNG. In a case where this is clearly shown to be the case a technical SNG pass isn't enough. With respect and having reviewed the discussion again, there is no way that could have closed as anything other than delete. I'm not going to change my conclusion so you are just wasting your time here. Sorry, but it doesn't always go your way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I still disagree about sources but understand your reasoning as the discussion closer. Can you please return the article to my userspace so that I can continue to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaria195 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above email relates to the above discussion. Everyone commenting felt the article was a COI promotional effort not suitable to be retained. Enonex I'm not going to restore or share the deleted text for those reasons. If an established editor with no COI wants to have a go creating an article in draft space they are welcome to. No more emails please. If you want to discuss, do it openly. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, It looks like you were the closing editor of the page 'Mangrove Capital Partners'. It was deleted because it apparently failed to demonstrate notability (and especially source independence) but the references included stories written specifically about the firm by some of the most respected and influential media including: Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/mangrove-capital-raises-170-million-for-startups-not-sell-outs TechCrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/19/mangrove-raises-170m-for-its-new-fund-to-invest-in-europe-and-israeli-startups/ These articles clearly explain that the firm is not run of the mill but 'one of Europe’s most successful VCs'. I would be very grateful if you could review the decision to delete this page given the above articles do illustrate notability and are considered to be independent sources. I can share more articles if necessary. It looks like someone has been going around deleting the wikipedia pages of VC firms which seems peculiar. Many thanks! Allthingsrosy (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is your connection to this company please? You have registered your account purely to advance the interests of this page so there must be some connection somewhere. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I work for an organisation that seeks to attract investment in UK technology. Wikipedia is an invaluable source of information for entrepreneurs seeking investment. I have a list of VC firms which have recently been deleted from Wikipedia (they include Notion Capital, Episode 1 Ventures and Scottish Equity Partners). I do not work for any of these companies. I would be very grateful if you could review the decision to delete the page. Allthingsrosy (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which organisation? I'm a volunteer and before I answer I want to know who will be profiting from my volunteer effort? Before you answer please read WP:PROMO Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is not about profit, we are a public sector organisation. And I commend you for the time and effort you put into protecting Wikipedia from misuse. It is a great resource thanks to you and other volunteers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsrosy (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which organisation please. Did you read the section of policy I linked to? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I read the page. It seems like a sensible policy. Did it read like an advert? I just thought someone malicious was trying to remove numerous notable and respected businesses. Allthingsrosy (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's obvious you have a coi and i'm not going to respond to you again until you disclose on whose behalf you are editing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 June 19. —Cryptic 09:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Editor,

As you work especially on deletion discussions, I am here to keep my point. Please don't misunderstand this as a method of canvassing. The mentioned article once sustained for improvement has been recently put on deletion discussion. Consensus seems to be undermining even the minimum criteria of notability and every next comment is just about finding new loophole but WP:Basic and WP:Author as having published in third party sources independently verify the notability.

I think, time has come for making a decision, I don't even trust that page would be retained if the consensus is taken as vote count. Still I believe in good faith. Article deserves a chance for the improvement rather than an abrupt deletion. I rest my case. Your Independent review may help for the better.

Truly AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC) AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that delete was your only option (although I recognize that your statement "The keep arguments reflect a case of hope over actual sourcing" is correct). A couple possible options would be to tag the article with the template "BLP sources", or send out for clean-up. The only reason I write is the precedent this close may set is a preference for English-language sources (or at least Indo-European languages, where online searches are easier [or at least familiar]). The close after 7 days did not allow much time to search through Urdu-language sources or perhaps to find a native Urdu speaker to assist with searching for an additional source (since a mayor of a regionally-prominent city is usually kept [and there was not a doubt that the subject holds the elected position {so the usual BLP issues are mitigated, to a degree}]). --Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)  Reply

This was an AFD and an unsourced BLP at AFD generally gets deleted. As you have agreed the keep side bought no sources to evaluate. If you find sources I can get them evaluated and if they are ok we undelete and relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I disagree it was an unsourced BLP, since the original article did have sources (and a Google news search does find some information in English, just not much more than "he exists" as seen here (and I believe was in the original article). The policy question was, in part about the adequacy of the English-language sources but also to what extent (and how) we should evaluate (and search for) foreign language sources in an AfD. While it would be inappropriate to keep an article that would not meet our notability guidelines, how should we identify articles (or AfDs) that need additional references from foreign-language sources (which may not be a quick google-news search away)? --Enos733 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Editor,

Would it be possible to userfy the previously deleted article on Mike Levin so I can rewrite it? During the discussions on the deletion of this article, it was mentioned that if Levin finishes in the top two, the page can be fixed. I am ready to fix it, as he has finished in the top two of the primary and will continue to the general election. - User:Narayansg

No-one said that. If he wins the seat he will become notable. Going into the general election is not the same as winning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for closing the SUPERKOMBAT AfD. Were you going to also delete the other listed articles? Would you like me to?

• 2018 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2017 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2016 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2015 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2014 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2013 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2012 in SUPERKOMBAT
• 2011 in SUPERKOMBAT

Thank you - Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

These were not tagged with the AFD so deleting them would be out of process. I suggest you nominate them directly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only seconds after this AFD was closed as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors of the World was closed as keep without any explanation of how or why the two non-policy based "keep" !votes, one of them from a disruptive SPA IP, were given weight to conclude such a consensus. Please explain the closure. Sam Sailor 12:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

actually, I ignored the ips. BMK put forward a decent argument for notability through awards. BLPs are held to a much higher standard for retention so the delete argument was evident there. There clearly was no consensus to delete and I felt Ken's argument was compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the IP (singular) was ignored, then there was only 1 keep !vote left, which does not amount to a consensus to keep. Unfortunately, the keep !voter is wrong: the company did not win two awards. So I would not call that a decent argument. And I have never before heard "awards" used as an argument for presumed notability in any discussion where WP:NORG is the main SNG that applies, so I question if that can be a compelling argument. Please point me to where you see awards should have any bearing on the outcome in this case. Sam Sailor 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Beyond_My_Ken can you comment on Sam's comments on the award please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sam Sailor is correct, and I was wrong. The company was nominated for two Latino ACE Awards, and won one of them. That I made that mistake is regrettable, but it doesn't essentially change the argument, since the one award won, plus the one nomination, are indicators of their notability. I'm a bit confounded that Sam Sailor didn't completely correct the record, as opposed to leaving the distinct impression that my statement was totally incorrect, which it was not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll relist this and let this play out some more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi - first of all thank you for your time. I was away for a couple of days and found that you have closed off the deletion of Bit8 without allowing me to reply to HighKing properly as I now have done. The company in question has won an award in one of the online gaming indsutry's top awards, the EGR awards - which are notable (if you Google EGR awards you get results mentioning the awards from over 400 different companies). Additionally, I have tried to make a logical and objective evaluation of the notability requirements - some of the statements I saw - like no independence from the Times of Malta - just show a lack of understanding of the local context in Malta - the Times of Malta is Malta's leading newspaper - this can be very easily verified independently - there are more than 200 references in Wikipedia itself to different articles from there. The fact that a company gets noted by its country's prime minister and the industry regulator (the MGA is the industry regulator in Malta - regulating thousands of companies) is also a strong indicator of notability.

I would thus like the deletion to be undone and if necessary any further discussion to take place. If the consensus is to merge the article rather than leaving it as an independent entity (which I think is wrong, as this does NOT reflect reality) I will delete the article myself and replace it with a redirect. I hope that I will be allowed this basic courtesy. I have not contributed to Wikipedia for a long time and am treating this as a learning process, so do bear with me a bit, thanks. Maltalinks (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your argument might have more weight if views had been split in the discussion but you were the only editor who argued to keep. Noone found the sources you put firward compelling so the only possible outcome was to delete. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was just one editor, HighKing who objected to my evaluation of notability - and indicated that they may change their mind if the EGR awards are notable. I think that the deletion was premature and it would be appropriate to see what the only other editor who thought it should be deleted thinks. I will delete the page myself if everyone seems to think that it should not be part of Wikipedia. From my industry knowledge I do know that then a lot of existing articles on Wikipedia related to the online gaming industry should also be deleted. Maltalinks (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pretty much everyone rejected the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with this. The reasons given for rejection of sources such as the Times of Malta and Calvin Ayre do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines that I have read so far. I am only trying to do the right thing so will have to do a Deletion Review as I do not think that enough time was given for the discussion.Maltalinks (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's entirely down to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm an old user/reader of Wikipedia but contribute fairly passively (mostly related to open-source technology projects or tech conferences), so I apologize in advance if this is not the right way to discuss article deletions. I recently saw that the Blockstack project inspired the latest season of the HBO Silicon Valley show (link to Fortune article) and wanted to add that info on the Wikipedia page for Blockstack. I was a bit surprised to see that the page has been deleted.

I saw the statement "A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry."

This statement is almost entirely factually incorrect. Let me explain why:

1. Blockstack is not a directory-like listing. It's a platform for building decentralized apps, similar to how Ethereum is a platform. There are apps already built on the platform (that I use!) e.g., Graphite. Here is a Wired story on Graphite.

2. Blockstack is not a private company that raised $4M. Blockstack Public Benefit Corp is that company. Blockstack is an open-source project and the genesis block of the project has so far raised $50M (and my understanding is it might raise another $50M) - source. This is again similar to how Ethereum launched with people buying tokens in the genesis block.

3. I noticed some discussion about significant coverage not found but participants in that discussion were linking to irrelevant articles. The Wired article above is a good example. That article is about Graphite being built on Blockstack the technology (the article is not about Blockstack Public Benefit Corp, the private company, at all). There are many other examples of significant press coverage and I'm surprised no one brought them up in discussions. There is an entire list on the open-source project of press coverage of the platform. Take this this Economist article for example, I noticed a discussion about intellectually independent press mention, the Economist is a top publication and they pretty much list Blockstack as one of the top 3 projects in the industry that they should cover. I don't think this article relies on any information from officers of a company.

4. I cannot emphasize enough that this is an open source project that is clearly significant and not some insignificant private New York company. Take this South China Morning Post article for example. The article is about an open-source developer who lives in Hong Kong and is building a browser for the Blockstack-based internet. South China Morning Post is a credible newspaper and that article went out in print to hundreds of thousands of Chinese people. In my view, the NY private company is not relevant here. The wikipedia page should be about the open-source platform and judged by the relevance and importance of the platform.

5. I noticed some discussion about Google scholar but it also had incomplete information. One of the peer-reviewed published research papers about the Blockstack technology has close to 100 independent research citations. I might be mistaken but I believe there are other research papers produced by the developers as well.

Again, my apologies if this is not the right medium to discuss this. I haven't really had discussions about page deletions. I'm a big fan of the HBO Silicon Valley show and when I came across the article about the Season 5 being based on Blockstack, I remembered that I made some contributions to that page and got excited about being the first person to add the information that the HBO show is linked to Blockstack! Only to see that the page was deleted :-( .. thanks for listening to my rambling, really appreciate your work.

P.S: I think the wrong/stale content on that article is what led to the deletion and someone should spend 20-30 minutes updating the content.

Freedaemon (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Im not sure if this is how I contact you ? louisetalesilove@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise E Robertson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is the right place. Please read guidelines for conflicts of interest before following up as that might well save you some time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm I looked at that and it looks like if you were paying someone to write about you .I wasn't to update about the Role in the Scottish Society of Authors .... Can I not update about myself .... Would they update?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise E Robertson (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply 

I re read and I had edited twice myself .... I gather that I should submit any of my recent accomplishments. Who created the page about me in the first place ?

It was really useful as children and Schools could read about me before I visit.

This is moot because you can see from the discussion that our consensus is clearly that you unfortunately are not notable enough yet to meet our inclusion standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you moved the Blockstack deletion discussion to archive without any comments. I was really curious about hearing your input and would appreciate your thoughts. No worries if you're busy. Thanks!

Freedaemon (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I archived everything because I'm on vacation. I'll look on my return Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, got it. Hope you're having a great vacation! Freedaemon (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I looked at this now. Although the votes were roughly equal, the issue was a lack of reliable sourcing and none of the keep votes were able to address this. Much of the argument was assumption but Per our inclusion guideline its sources that determine notability, nopt wishful thinking. From a policy perspective the delete votes were based on guidelines and therefore won the debate. If you have better sourcing I can review whether we should relist this to discuss them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Happy to provide additional sources. Here is an initial list:

1) George Gilder's latest book Life After Google has Blockstack as a major subject. There is an entire chapter dedicated to it and Blockstack is mentioned throughout the book. Here are two screenshots of the book: source 1 and source 2. George Gilder is not affiliated with the Blockstack project.

2) The HBO Silicon Valley Show season 5 is inspired by the Blockstack project (source) and the co-founders of Blockstack Muneeb Ali and Ryan Shea served as technical advisors to the show and got screen credit (source). The first source is based on an interview so might not qualify but the second source is independent (screen credits are public information anyway). Journalists have independently linked Blockstack to the HBO show even before their involvement with the show became public (source from 2017 before the season 5 came out).

3) An independent study on internet freedom and new internet architectures by MIT that covered Blockstack (source).

4) South China Morning Post published an article on Blockstack and the browser. The article features an open-source developer living in Hong Kong that contributes to the project (and not any officers of Blockstack Public Benefit Corp, the NY entity) (source).

5) There are many other independent sources e.g., the Economist 1, the Economist 2, Techcrunch, VentureBeat (these don't include comments by Blockstack Public Benefit Corp officers).

There are many other sources but the above should be enough to relist and discuss (none of these were discussed in the earlier discussion). Thanks,

Freedaemon (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will relist the discussion and invite comment on the sourcing· Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have only seen that my page “Brendan Cusack” is going to be deleted based on ill-informed voting in the past 24 hours. The information used as a basis for deletion was incorrect. I believe that the deletion process started on August 3rd while I was away and have read that the page will be deleted in 7 days which would be August 10th. I would appreciate if you could extend this time period as I am contesting the deletion and will send you an extensive email explaining how and why the subject of my page (myself) meets the general notability guidelines by providing accurate performance results and external links to reliable international secondary sources.

Thank you, Derul92 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, as I wrote to you on August 10th, I had seen that the Wikipedia page about me entitled “Brendan Cusack” was to be deleted based on ill-informed voting. The information used as a basis for deletion was incorrect. I believe that the deletion process started on August 3rd, while I was away, and I have read that the page would be deleted in 7 days which would have been August 10th.

To further clarify, the title of this page is my name and the content within consists of my information and a partial amount of my performance results. I did not create nor edit this page at any time. I was once close to the creator but never was updated nor informed that the page would be deleted. I can prove that I am notable as a person in Irish Fencing and in Fencing in general. I also can prove my print and online media is not just local but National and International. These were the issues that were of concern in the Talk page.

As I requested, I would appreciate if you could extend this time period as I am contesting the deletion and have provided documentation below (including accurate performance results and external links to reliable international secondary sources) which supports my position that the subject of the page "Brendan Cusack" (myself) meets the general notability guidelines. Please see below for the evidence and documentation supporting the continued online publication through Wikipedia of this page. Derul92 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Brendan CusackReply

General notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

I have received significant coverage from reliable sources local, state, international(Ireland and UK) print and online media. Please review the links below.

Profile on IFF(Irish Fencing Federation): https://irishfencing.net/squad/athlete-profiles/brendan-cusack/

UK Olympic qualifier: https://metro.co.uk/2012/04/20/irish-fencer-brendan-cusack-ready-for-olympic-qualifier-396860/

2010 Irish Open: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/12/prweb4886504.htm

Bronze Medal in France: https://irishsport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/5.Review_2011.pdf

International Press: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/irelands-brendan-cusack-celebrates-his-victory-against-news-photo/809390024#/irelands-brendan-cusack-celebrates-his-victory-against-hungarys-in-picture-id809390024

https://www.gettyimages.at/detail/nachrichtenfoto/irelands-brendan-cusack-in-action-against-hungarys-nachrichtenfoto/809390006#/irelands-brendan-cusack-in-action-against-hungarys-lorenzo-mazza-in-picture-id809390006

Irish Media: https://www.sportsnewsireland.com/uncategorized/87233/

2014 Irish Herald Euros: https://www.herald.ie/sport/irish-trio-to-attempt-cold-channel-swim-30352785.html

IFF Facebook Congratulatory Media: https://www.facebook.com/FencingIreland/photos/congratulations-to-brendan-cusack-on/1035836279802836/

IFF Articles: December, 13, 2010 https://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/12/prweb4886504.htm

April, 20, 2012 https://metro.co.uk/2012/04/20/irish-fencer-brendan-cusack-ready-for-olympic-qualifier-396860/

June, 9, 2014 https://irishfencing.net/day-1-for-irish-team-in-strasbourg-european-championships/

October, 18, 2015 https://irishfencing.net/l128-in-san-jose-for-cusack/

June, 20, 2016 https://irishfencing.net/europeans-day-1-l32-for-brendan-cusack/

September, 24, 2016 https://irishfencing.net/mens-foilists-start-season-at-amsterdam-satellite/

October, 24, 2016 https://irishfencing.net/cancun-foil-satellite-cusack-places-9th/

February, 10, 2017 https://irishfencing.net/fie-world-cup-foil-cusack-reaches-top-half-at-bonn/

March, 17, 2017 https://irishfencing.net/fie-grand-prix-foil-cusack-qualifies-for-euros-and-worlds-in-long-beach/

July, 20, 2017 https://irishfencing.net/world-championships-2017-day-2-results/

November, 11,2017 https://irishfencing.net/fie-world-cup-foil-tokyo-cusack-makes-the-cut-at-prince-takamodo-trophy/

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

In order to compete at International Events such as World Cups, Grand Prix, and especially Championship events you must qualify per country. In Ireland the qualification requirements change annually but are consistently based upon the fencer's proven performance otherwise the Irish Fencing Federation will deny the fencer the opportunity to compete. Stating that I have only won one match in all of Senior World Championships is completely untrue. As documented in the list of results posted below, I had 12 Wins in 4 World Championships. Also European Championships is known to be the harder of the 2 events as Europe has the best fencers as a continent (as evident through the FIE International Rankings on fie.org). In European Championships I have come 16th, 26th, and 48th place in this event. I also was ranked 17th under 20 (among fencers under the age of 20) in the world beating some of the best fencers and coming 3rd in France as a Junior. I am the most accomplished Men’s Foil fencer in the history of Ireland (as evident through my posted overall international results -- see below). I have done limited competitions in the past year due to several reasons, including family obligations and financial constraint. As my results below clearly illustrate, I have been the best, most active, and publicized fencer representing Ireland. Below are a list of my results with links to the individual sources.

INTERNATIONAL RESULTS

INTERNATIONAL JUNIOR RESULTS FOR MEN’S FOIL “Fie.org” Junior International: 2009/2010 End of Year Ranking: 58th

Competition: Montreal, Canada, World Cup Result: 6th/48 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2010/53/results/rank

Competition: Viana Do Castelo, Portugal, World Cup Result: 26th/91 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2010/59/results/rank

Competition: Baku, Azerbaijan, World Championship Result: 39th/106 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2010/226/results/rank

Junior International: 2010/2011 End of Year Ranking: 33rd

Competition: Luxembourg, World Cup Result: 17th/60 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/47/results/rank

Competition: London, Great Britain, World Cup Result: 55th/133 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/382/results/rank

Competition: Aix-En-Provence, France, World Cup Result: 3rd/89 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/49/results/rank

Competition: Mer Morte, Jordan, World Championship Result: 30th/114 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/226/results/rank

Competition: Modling, Austria Result: 55th/137 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/55/results/rank

Junior International: 2011/2012 End of Year Ranking: 58th

Competition: Luxembourg, World Cup Result: 28th/131 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/47/results/rank

Competition: Bratislava, Slovakia, World Cup Result: 39th/148 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/45/results/rank

Competition: London, Great Britain, World Cup Result: 47th/144 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/382/results/rank

Competition: Porec, Croatia, European Championships Result: 18/64 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/352/results/rank

Competition: Moscow, Russia, World Championships Result: 22nd/122 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/226/results/rank

INTERNATIONAL SENIOR RESULTS FOR MEN’S FOIL “Fie.org” Senior International: 2009/2010 End of Year Ranking:280

Competition: Montreal, Canada, World Cup Result: 37th/75 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2010/463/results/rank

Senior International: 2010/2011 End of Year Ranking:105

Competition: Sheffield, London, European Championships Result: 16th/70 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/741/results/rank

Competition: Catania, Italy, World Championships Result: 103/156 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2011/244/results/rank

Senior International: 2011/2012 End of Year Ranking:181

Competition: Amsterdam, Netherlands, Satellite Result: 18th/77 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/392/results/rank

Competition: London, Great Britain, Satellite Result: 34th/142 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/391/results/rank

Competition: Venice, Italy, Grand Prix Result: 85th/156 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/140/results/rank

Competition: Legnano, Italy, European Championships Result: 48th/71 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2012/741/results/rank

Senior International: 2012/2013 End of Year Ranking:247

Competition: Paris, France, World Cup Result: 105th/180 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2013/135/results/rank

Senior International: 2013/2014 End of Year Ranking:11

Competition: Strasbourg, France, European Championships Result: 56th/76 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2014/741/results/rank

Competition: Kazan, Russia, World Championships Result: 60th/133 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2014/244/results/rank

Senior International: 2014/2015 End of Year Ranking:406

Competition: Moscow, Russia, World Championships Result: 98th/157 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2015/244/results/rank

Senior International: 2015/2016 End of Year Ranking:124

Competition: San Jose, USA, World Cup Result: 125th/191 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2016/135/results/rank

Competition: Cancun, Mexico, Satellite Result: 16th/68 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2016/1219/results/rank

Competition: Havana, Cuba, Grand Prix Result: 89th/141 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2016/140/results/rank

Competition: Torun, Poland, European Championships Result: 26th/66 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2016/741/results/rank

Senior International: 2016/2017 End of Year Ranking:260 Competition: Amsterdam, Netherlands, Satellite Result: 24th/107 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2017/392/results/rank

Competition: Cancun, Mexico, Satellite Result: 9th/32 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2017/391/results/rank

Competition: London, Great Britain, Satellite Result: 85th/202 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2017/1219/results/rank

Competition: Long Beach California Result: 77th/142 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2017/140/results/rank

Senior International: 2017/2018 End of Year Ranking:647

Competition: Tokyo, Japan, World Cup Result: 112th/177 Link: http://fie.org/competitions/2018/137/resuBEST lts/rank

IRISH FENCING RESULTS

IRISH SENIOR RESULTS FOR MEN’S FOIL “Irishfencing.net”

2007/2008 Unable to retrieve in archive my first competition where I came 2nd.

2008/2009 Competition: Irish National Championships Result: 3rd/26 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/results-archive-2008-9/#Nationals200809

2010/2011 Competition: South of Ireland Open Result: 1st/30 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/results-archive-2010-11/#IO201011

2012/2013 Competition: Irish Open Result:2nd/36 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/results-archive-2012-13/#IO201213

2015/2016 Competition: South of Ireland Open Result: 1st/24 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/south-of-ireland-2015/

Competition: West of Ireland Open Result: 1st/17 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/west-of-ireland-open-2015/

Competition: Irish Open Result: 2nd/23 Link: https://irishfencing.net/results/irish-open-2015/

For my results in the USA besides National Competitions please use this link Askfred.net.

https://askfred.net/Results/search.php?ops%5Bfirst_name%5D=first_name&vals%5Bfirst_name%5D=Brendan&ops%5Blast_name%5D=last_name&vals%5Blast_name%5D=Cusack&f%5Bweapon%5D=&ops%5Bdate_1%5D=date_1_eq&vals%5Bdate_1%5D=&ops%5Bdate_2%5D=date_2_eq&vals%5Bdate_2%5D=&f%5Bclub_id%5D=&f%5Bcompetitor_division_id%5D=&ops%5Bplace%5D=place_eq&vals%5Bplace%5D=&f%5Bevent_gender%5D=&f%5Bage_limit%5D=&f%5Bevent_rating_limit%5D=&ops%5Bevent_rating%5D=event_rating_eq&vals%5Bevent_rating%5D=&f%5Bis_team%5D=&ops%5Brating_earned%5D=eq&vals%5Brating_earned_letter%5D=&vals%5Brating_earned_year%5D=&f%5Btournament_name_contains%5D=&FREDSID=s857sioebkuablhu8anl0otd77&search_submit=Search

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

All my newspaper articles (Local, State, National, and International) are posted by reputable sources. Although some of these articles have been deleted I have most of the original copies of my newspaper articles. There are also accessible photos of me on the FIE as well as videos on their youtube channel showing my fencing.

[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

The newspaper and media coverage regarding my performance came from several different reliable secondary sources.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

Each of the sources documenting my results and overall performance are independent of the subject, were not produced by me or any known affiliate.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

It is clear from International performance results, prominence as an Irish Fencer, and the reputable online and print media coverage which I received, that the subject of the page "Brendan Cusack" merits its own article.

Excerpts from Articles for Deletion discussion for page "Brendan Cusack" and counter-arguments/evidence:

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Brendan Cusack[edit source] New to AfD? Read these primers! [Permanently hide this box] · Introduction to deletion process · Guide to deletion (glossary) · Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Brendan Cusack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats) (Find sources: "Brendan Cusack" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference) This person is not notable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.57.77 (talk) I disagree with this statement as I am the most active and best overall Irish Men's Foilist in the history of the sport in Ireland, as evidenced by my results and media coverage listed above which clearly document that I am notable in Irish fencing and in the sport as a whole.

Below is further additional information that has not been posted on Wikipedia which may help my results and accomplishments to be better understood during this appeal.

Reached 17th Under 20 in the World (at one point 2011)

Competed in 2 Olympic Qualifiers (only the best person from each country is able to attend)

Only Irish Junior to Medal at World Cup (3rd Aix-En-Provence, France in 2011)

First Irish Men’s Foilist to reach top 16 at Senior European Championships (Sheffield, England 2011)

Results comprise nearly half of the points in Senior International events for Ireland throughout all 3 weapons and both genders, all combined from 2010/2011 season to the 2017/2018 season (points determine world ranking). My total points amount to 32, whild other Irish Fencers combined points amount to 40.5. I would be happy to give you more information to elaborate if requested.

Won New Jersey State Individuals (as well as coming 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the years prior to that)

Achieved the highest rating in the USA, which is an "A," at only 15 Years old and renewed it every year that I competed in the USA.

Coached at 3 Different Clubs in the USA. Clinton Fencing Club, Manchen Fencing, and Kids Can Fence.

Certified by the USFCA (United States Fencing Coaches Association)

NOTABLE PEOPLE I HAVE FENCED AGAINST PEOPLE I HAVE HAD WINS AGAINST IN THE TOP 50 OVERALL IN THE WORLD CURRENTLY

1. 6 Safin, Timur(Junior World Champion, Senior World Champion, was ranked #1 Overall in World, Currently ranked #6 in World, 11 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 20 Alexander, Choupenitch (8 Time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 21 Pauty, Maxime (Gold Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 23 Van Haaster, Maximilien (3 Time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 24 Huang, Menkai (Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 25 Cheung, Siu Lin (Current Asian Champion and Gold Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 34 Matsuyama, Kyosuke (Previously Asian Champion in Seniors Internationally)

1. 35 Tofalides, Alex(2 Time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

1. 44 Ferjani, Mohamed Ayoub(Previously African Champion, 11 Time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

PEOPLE I HAVE FENCED AGAINST IN THE TOP 10 OVERALL IN THE WORLD CURRENTLY

1. 1 Only lost 3-5 against Alessio Foconi, (Current World Champion,Currently Ranked World #1, and 13 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally )

1. 5 Only lost 9-15 against Alexey Cheremisinov (World Champion, was Ranked #1 Overall in World for a whole year, Currently Ranked #5 Overall in World, and 16 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally .

1. 6 Won against Timur Safin, 5-3(Junior World Champion, Senior World Champion, was ranked #1 Overall in World, Currently ranked #6 in World, 11 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally )

1. 7 Only lost 11-15 against Daniele Garozzo(Olympic Gold Medalist in Seniors Internationally , was Ranked #1 Overall in World, Currently Ranked #7 Overall in World, and 13 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally )

1. 8 Only lost 9-15 against Alexander Massialas(Olympic Silver Medalist in Seniors Internationally at World Championship, was Ranked #1 Overall in World, Currently Ranked #8 in World, and 27 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally )

1. 9 Only lost 8-15 against Erwan Le Pechoux(Was Ranked #2 in the World, Currently Ranked #9 Overall in World, and 32 time Medalist in Seniors Internationally)

Keep. Participated in more than one World Championships, I think. See also "Fencer - CUSACK Brendan Francis - IRELAND - FIE - International Fencing Federation". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC) He competed at 4 adult world championships, but only won 1 match so he never advanced past the round of 64. His highest world ranking ever was 105th. I added this information to the article. As for his notability, the coverage appears to be local and/or routine sports reporting. I don't think his performances rise to the level of meeting WP:NSPORTS, but others may disagree. I'm refraining from voting at this moment. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems like Papaursa is trying to sway the person in the other direction with misguided information as my results show I have won 12 matches in World Championships. Saying I only won one match is completely untrue.

I was told by Wikipedia in chat that you would check into the issue more closely before making any decisions and would appreciate your objective analysis of the information I have given.

delete The FIE Senior World Championships are an annual event with nearly 1000 competitors. Don't believe just being there is sufficient to give automatic notability and he hasn't had much success there. Coverage does not meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This comment is inaccurate. 1000 competitors over 3 weapons and 2 genders compose the participants in 6 separate events. Only 4 people from each country are allowed to attend. Saying that I have not had much success at these events is untrue. A top 64, which I reached at the 2014 World Championships in Kazan, Russia is a significant accomplishment for any fencer. The round of 64 is very difficult to reach in the second hardest event next to European Championships, at which I have been highly successful overall. Assuming my results would not improve when, in 2016, I came 26th in European Championships as well as earning the 16th and 9th positions in the Cancun Satellite event in 2016 and 2017, show my results have not been tracked properly.

§ Delete The sources are routine sports coverage, primarily of high school and FIE junior events, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for meeting WP:NSPORT, Sandals1 makes a good point about the size of the FIE world championships. This level of performance as a karateka, judoka, or taekwondo practitioner would never qualify as meeting the notability criteria of WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORTS. Many people with more successful international careers have been eliminated at Afd discussions (yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF). I don't think mere participation at annual events this large shows notability without either better coverage or better results. A current world ranking of 647th indicates he's trending in the wrong direction and is unlikely to become more notable as a fencer. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My results are significant, as my results demonstrate that I have been the best Irish Fencer for nearly a decade, which can be referenced with my statistics and sources above. Sandals1 is wrong about the way in which fencing works and how many people are allowed to compete per event; those 1000 people are not all going to the same event (please refer to my results regarding World Championships). That is 6 different weapons/genders only the top 4 from each country are even allowed to compete if they make their country's qualifications. Comparing fencing to other sports is completely unfair unless you take this into account. My notability is not merely based upon simply participating in an event, it is based on my results INTERNATIONALLY not just in Ireland. “Unlikely to become more notable as a fencer:” This comment is inaccurate and uninformed; I have already achieved the results necessary to be considered a notable fencer. Below is a search I did on other Irish Fencers that are considered notable on Wikipedia. If you use the FIE search page for those dates and people you would see that there are little to no listings which are comparable to mine, aside from one female fencer in Sabre.

FIE Search Page (http://fie.org/results-statistic/result)

Irish Male Fencers considered notable on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_male_fencers)

Irish Woman Fencers considered noteable on WIkipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_female_fencers)

Any Male Irish Fencers listed on Wikipedia competed in the Olympics when you were able to send a pre-determined number of fencers per country, regardless of their results and individual qualification. The rules were changed to a limited amount of people per continent instead of country. Europe is the hardest continent to qualify for fencing, due to the number of high-ranking international fencers. The Irish fencers listed as notable only participated in the Olympic Games up until around the 1950s, when each country was allowed to send fencers regardless of results. Going to the Olympics when every Country was allowed to send competitors should not be justification alone to be notable. I have been the most recognized Irish fencer with results never achieved by other Irish fencers in the history of the sport in Ireland.

Derul92 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Thank youReply

• [[u|Sandals1}} and Papaursa does any of the above sway your vote? Eastmain do you still believe this should have been kept? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not swayed. Almost everything mentioned is about results which makes it routine sports reporting in my book. Notability is not inherited from competing against notable fencers. Sandals1's comment about 1000 competitors annually is factually correct and I take his point to be that claiming anyone competing at a fencing world championship is notable would grant automatic notability to 1000 people annually and is excessive compared to the notability requirements of other sports. For example, people have voted to delete articles on judoka who made the world quarterfinals and are ranked in the top 10. I still don't see the necessary significant independent coverage from sources he's not connected to. Papaursa (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. 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. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Look (company) was closed as "delete", talk page was deleted, but article remains in main space. Sam Sailor 09:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply