| Revision as of 11:20, 2 May 2015 editSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,777 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive19← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:20, 2 May 2015 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,777 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive19Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |counter = 19 | |counter = 19 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Pawn deletion == | |||
| Hello. You closed the pawn deletion discussion with delete citing lack of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pawn_%28scripting_language%29 | |||
| But I listed at least two ] sources, and updated the article with them. And an editor previous voting for delete changed it's vote to keep after seeing that. All the delete votes were cast before I edited the original article with the new sources. There was no lack of sources (IMHO) nor consensus for deletion. Please review your decision. ] (]) 19:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Are these the same sources you gave in the AFD where two very experienced editors still voted to delete afterwards? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** That was in 2 April. After Neutrality voted delete I went again to search for more sources and posted them in 5 April. Piotrus aparently didn't even read any of that, as it said "Self-published (creator's website) references only". Then I went to update the article itself. After that Be..anyone changed his vote. The other two didn't apear again to say if they changed their opinion or not after that. ] (]) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***I didn't pick up on that - probably because your comment included '' I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion''. What were the additional sources you referred to? I will review them and see if that should have changed the outcome. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **** I think you can see the history of the article. The main ones were the Dr. Dobbs article and the page in that book (that is a real mainstream printed book where it costs to them to add one extra page). And also the notable software/games that use/used it. In the deletion page I also listed lots of evidence that it is widely used by many groups unrelated to the language authors, as an informal pledge for notability, to show it is not a pet project or commercial spam. ] (]) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **** Any update? ] (]) 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I wouldn;t accept DrDobbs as a reliable source - from their 'about' page ''the articles in DDJ are often written by the readers of DDJ'' and the author of that article is not on their staff. I found a copy of the 1st edition of the book online and couldn't find a reference to the subject. Obviously its not the second edition, but if all you have is that it won't be enough. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *** Even if not written by their staff, it is revised and published by them, and they have proven themselves as a reliable source over the years. As for the book, you can find searching for Pawn on google books | |||
| *** And now a little rant: It is a programming language, not a politician. The pawn manual is probably the most reliable and extensive source on the language, being extended and revised for over a decade. And right behind are the wiki pages I linked on the forks, that were likely written by the fork developers itself and maybe with little corrections from the users. Of course they fail the general[REDACTED] guidelines for reliability as primary/self published/user generated, but common sense indicates that they are probably reliable for technical matters. Misplaced Pages kinda recognizes that in ]. The reason for disallowing self published content is that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field". But someone who created a game engine using this language and supported it and it's relatively large user and developer base for years is not simply "anyone" anymore, even if he isn't a distinguished academic. | |||
| *** The problem here was mainly notability. Is it self promotional cruft that was never adopted by anyone besides their creators and thus would not merit a encyclopedic article? Or is it a language with maybe thousands of developers, recognized by github, that sparked not one, but two children, used by gamming modding comunities and ] games alike? A mainstream programming book could afford pay a page to feature it, but an article in[REDACTED] would make it an worse online encyclopedia? Yeah, the strictly ] references are on the low side, but I think it is reasonable to argue that the existence of this article wouldn't make[REDACTED] worse, but better, especially after my edits to it. And I wasn't the only one thinking that way in the deletion discussion you closed by mistake. ] (]) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****Thank you for recapping your understanding of our notability rules. Unfortunately, I do not recognise the actual way we assess notability in your version. You clearly flagged you had added sources in your vote. Despite this experienced users still voted to delete. It is not a mistake to close that discussion as delete. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==A barnstar for you!== | ==A barnstar for you!== | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 2 May 2015
 Archives |
|
Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27 |
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.
I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?
Useful Links:
- Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 20 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive19 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| for your cool consideration of and decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/African american men in computer science. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Spartaz 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Andreas Lubitz
No doubt you'll see it eventully, but a DRV has been raised on this subject. It appears a merge discussion and the deletion were running concurrently which makes this a bit messy. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Allied Wallet AfD
Just to let you know, I didn't receive any ping or canvassing of the new nomination (I just learned that I could have pings on in notifications); I learned about the re-nom through my daliy check of the AfD log, and that alone. Just wanted to let you know that only my familiarity with the previous AfD, not any notice from the nominator was why I even learned of it. I do accept the no-con determination, but usually I don't even enjoy receiving canvassing notices as it screams 'please delete/keep this article please!' and just is desperate. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hadith of Virtues of Persia People
I saw that this article is deleted by you. I could not participate the discussion because of being busy and I really believe that the subject is notable and is covered by reliable secondary sources. Could I have a copy of the article and how can I ask to undelete it? Mhhossein (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you could explain why you think the subject is notable I can see whether I think its worth reopening the discussion. Spartaz 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- As you see, few editors participated the discussion and their arguments are really defendable. To let you know the details, please provide me with a copy of the article. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, what is the argument you want to add to the discussion? Its it isn't going to refute the delete votes (which appeared to be policy based around sources) then there is no point looking at this again. Spartaz 20:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The userfied article is at User:Mhhossein/Hadith of Virtues of Persia People Spartaz 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've used a secondary source here. It is published in an academic journal. As for the primary sources, please consider that the article is not based on them and I have not analyzed the article using those sources. They are only added to represent the hadiths texts. We'd better improve the article instead of deleting it. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- The userfied article is at User:Mhhossein/Hadith of Virtues of Persia People Spartaz 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, what is the argument you want to add to the discussion? Its it isn't going to refute the delete votes (which appeared to be policy based around sources) then there is no point looking at this again. Spartaz 20:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- As you see, few editors participated the discussion and their arguments are really defendable. To let you know the details, please provide me with a copy of the article. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not qualified to assess that source but if you can find more of the same or better quality I'm willing to delist the discussion.Spartaz 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your valuable attention, I'll let you know as soon as I find reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)