Spartaz

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

What again?

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GRBerry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the long battle to remove poorly sourced porn performer articles that was one of the first cases of SNGs being deprecated in favour of obvious stuff like meeting the GNG. This pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This affected me for a very long time and I'm only recently getting my manners back, and able to contribute more extensively. If I say something you think is rude. Please tell me!

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

While I do take my responsibility to be accountable to the community seriously, that doesn't extend to my accepting unfounded allegations of bias or super voting. I don't close discussions I have a personal opinion on and generally I don't look at articles when I'm closing, so when you start a conversation with immediate assumptions of bad faith I'm honestly not going to be very interested in your questions. I regularly make mistakes and I'm quick to fix them but start with assuming that I'm wrong or mistaken rather then intentionally evil. One thing I absolutely won't do is discuss any close under the threat of being taken to DRV or a noticeboard. If you are only ticking boxes before the inevitable listing then just go straight there.

please stay in the top three tiers

i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved.

If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

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

Your AfD closure

Heya, I wanted to ask you if you could kindly reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan J. Sullivan (Petersburg, Alaska political candidate). There were 8 !votes in favour of merging and only 2 were in favour of deleting. Both parties' arguments were based on wikipedia's policies. Why didn't you close it as merge? The source article's prose is much longer than the proposed target's. FaviFake (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I explicitly said go merge what you want. So the difference between redirect and merge is on the nano level. Too often there are merge closes that take forever to implement and for content that is clearly going to be policy failing removing the actual page is also important. A redirect serves that nicely. Just merge what you think is right? Or were you waiting for someone else to do it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the process is irrelevant to your judgments of the community's consensus. And besides, merges don't take forever, they only take a few months at most if you actually look at the backlog. Just because I personally don't have time to perform a merge, doesn't mean the community's consensus should be discarded.

Would it be fine with you if I temporarily restored the article and applied the merge tags to it, so that it is correctly inserted in the backlog? FaviFake (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

take me to DRV if you don't like it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. FaviFake (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

and I'll point out that you could have done the merge on the time you gave spent chasing me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you asked me to send feedback directly to your talk page, I think closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious discrimination in Pakistan as WP:SOFTMERGE would've been more consistent with other merge closures, since there was basically no participation. Unless you ask for more feedback, this will be the last time i'll notify you about by WP:SOFTMERGE concerns. Have a good day! FaviFake (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

AFD closure at Karishma Mehta (2nd nomination)

I will like to point out that admin Goldsztajn's concern that the AFD was disrupted by !vote stacking is not quite off the mark from what may have actually happened there. Many of the delete !voters have a history of collaborating in wide-ranging (often even otherwise obscure) discussions and AFDs to uncritically back each other up and support each other and vote exactly like each other. I have already raised the issue at ARE, this specific AFD in fact is part of the evidence presented there. As such, perhaps we can let the AFD remain open for longer, at least until admins at ARE have had time to look at (and evaluate) the evidence? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the canvassing argument gaining traction, so raise that if it closes with a conclusion addressing that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Spartaz - "I have discounted arguments that notability has already been established at the last afd because of course standards change over time." I'm a little perplexed by this comment in your close. With deep respect, that's got an air of a supervote to it. By what measure in your decision making can an affirmative "past notability" decision be discounted by assertion alone? Surely we'd agree not one from last year? Two decades ago, ok, no problem. Before and after a major change in an SNG (eg an NSPORTS discussion prior to March 2022), yes. But there's a huge amount of grey between a decade ago and five years ago (2021, the previous closure as keep) and no major changes I can think of that affect the main guidelines under discussion here (GNG, BASIC). Also this comment: "sourcing isn't quite there hasn't been effectively refuted" - again, appears to be a supervote; Beccaynr responded to every rebuttal with detailed analysis, none of the rebuttals contained any of Beccaynr's depth or offered counter-rebuttals different from repetition of earlier points. The pile on in the discussion no doubt muddied the waters and my own contribution could have been better, but this appears to me as far closer to no consensus than redirect. Courtesy ping @UnpetitproleX. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

because there is no precedent. Keep arguments that are basically this was kept last time offer no contemporary commentary on current notability standards so I'm obviously going to discount them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

in what way do I have a super vote here when I have absolutely no opinion on the article and have never even looked at it. I respect you greatly but it drives me mad when people throw super votes round when there clearly is a method of weighting votes that you may disagree with but is based on P&G and not personal opinion. If someone had said this was a delete last time, how much weight would you seriously expecte to give that contentless opinion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a supervote because the grounds by which you've discounted the !vote(s) are arbitrary; ie, your personal view, as against a view grounded in established approaches. Notability is enduring coupled with no local consensus mean precedent can be important. You're essenntially taking a position that unless someone explicitly mentions the details of a previous decision it has no bearing on the current discussion. The previous decision is linked in the discussion. It is not hidden away, unobtainable. A contributor mentioning it was kept incidicates they *are* referencing the discussion and decision. You ask how much weight would I give a "it was deleted last time" !vote? Exactly the amount based on the questions I asked you. I'd determine the context, time and reasons behind the last decision and see if any of that still applied.

Take this hypothetical: a previously deleted article about a long dead Yorkshire county cricketer who played a single season in 1932 was recently recreated, sent once to AfD in 2020 and left as keep (has Wisden stats), sent once in 2023 and deleted (only has Wisden stats) and then sent again last week. If there was a !delete vote today which only said "deleted in 2023" I would give that vote some weight because it was a decision made in line with present policy and guidelines, whereas the "keep" decision was not.

One of AfD's supposed proverbial weaknesses - "whoever turns up" - is largely mitigated by consistent application of Ps&Es. But in this case, we have the opposite, your personal view to not weight a decision of the past in line with contemportary Ps&Es makes it a supervote. In fact, it's even against your own stated reasoning "of course standards change over time" - but in this case, the standards haven't. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Goldsztajn. I came across the discussion in context of the ARE report, but my impression is that Beccaynr's source analysis, the only such detailed source analysis presented in that discussion, coupled with their later efforts at improving the article and finding new sources, including some academic sources related to Mehta freezing her eggs and the discourse that this freeze generated, does convincingly demonstrate notability. CANVASS issues notwithstanding, I don't see many 'keep' arguments that were solely in reference to the previous AfD except Randy Kryn's, but I do see several contentless 'delete' votes that are only handwaving towards guidelines like WP:NOPAGE or WP:NEWSORGINDIA without explaining why they believe such guideline applies. I simply fail to see how the latter were seen to be carrying more weight than the former. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Truthfully though, would you accept any close that wasn't keep? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a "no consensus" close would have been an accurate and fair summary of the discussion. If I had any strong opinions about the article, as you are suggesting, I would have participated in the AfD. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

that you have devoted so much time to this conversation does suggests strong views but if I'm wrong I'm sorry. I have explained my thinking as I am required too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to double check before doing anything else, but I am assuming you have no further points to make. I think this is actually an interesting case which covers issues related to closer's discretion, supervoting (or not), meatpuppetry and AfD precedent. I'd be interested in hearing others' views - somewhat akin to your recent request to DRV on practices around AtD/redirect closures. To the extent that I may disagree with your close, I'm far more interested in the broader issues and far less about amending (or not) the close. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Karishma Mehta

I have asked for a deletion review of Karishma Mehta. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping also to @Goldsztajn: whose comments above I found convincing enough to file the review. Cheers, UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

Disagreements are hard to avoid. But I most certainly do not believe you are acting (or have acted) in bad faith. Here is a cup of tea in appreciation of all the work you do here.

Your AFD Closure

Hi Spartaz, I hope you're doing well.

I am writing regarding the closure of Pradeep Singh.

While I fully respect your judgment as the closing administrator, I would like to request that you reconsider the closure and, if appropriate, reopen the discussion for further community assessment.

Based on my review of the subject, there might be some policy-based arguments in favor of retaining the article, including references to significant coverage and the clarification that the previous deletion concerned a different individual. In particular, the subject's work in the marine sector, entrepreneurial activities, and recognition through multiple awards were cited as supporting notability. Given these points, I believe the discussion may benefit from additional community input before reaching a final outcome. RBC21 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This had far more than most AFDs. I'm curious what difference you think extra input will offer? The keep argument asserted a single book and didn't respond to the challenge, and one source isn't enough. The delete voter that withdrawn did on the basis of something other than sources, which they did not consider sufficient. So help me out, this is a BLP, what BLP compliant GNG meeting sources are there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If more time were given to evaluate the available sources, it might be helpful, as there are several significant, independent references that could be further discussed.

Regarding the book reference, I do not believe it should be dismissed simply on the assumption that it was commissioned or paid for. Not every book is written in exchange for payment from its subject. RBC21 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

even if it's accepted it's only one source and no one suggested there was a second. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article is ultimately kept or deleted, I am simply requesting additional time so that the available sources and arguments can be discussed more thoroughly before a final decision is made. RBC21 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi @RBC21 Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, a more useful arguement for a request of more time would be to present to the closing admin two reliable sources with sigcov that were not discussed and not present in the article. An open request for more time only makes more work for other volunteers with no guaratee against the use of that extra time being wasted. Providing two reliable sources with sigcov for assessment means the closing admin can choose to assess and indiciate if they felt those sources would have changed the balance of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Opening an AFD

Hi, could you open an AFD for this player, Nathan Fitzgerald? I personally consider him notable. ~2026-39218-40 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the question Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You have done a great job with a number of AfD closures. For all that, I am hereby giving you this barnstar! Zalaraz (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abnash House (2nd nomination)

I have down weighted arguments of intrinsic notability... May I ask why you have done that, given WP:GEOFEAT is a Wikipedia guideline and clearly states that Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable? Given the subject clearly meets this criterion, I'm afraid this looks very much like you are ignoring anything you don't like and are supervoting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

good of you to jump to assumptions starting off with a massive allegation of bad faith on my part. Are you open to a conversation or just ticking a box because you don't care what I have to say and are counting the minutes until you can open a DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not jumping to assumptions or not AGF. I very clearly said that's what it looks like since you have stated that you "down weighted" perfectly legitimate arguments without explanation. When closers do that it's always going to look like they're imposing their own opinions, is it not? I notice you have not actually provided any explanation. Of course, if you don't reopen it without explanation I shall open a DRV. So I invite you to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Poppycock. I don't negotiate under the threat of a DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So you're refusing to provide an explanation as to why you "down weighted" perfectly legitimate arguments? It's hardly a threat, now, is it? Unless you genuinely feel threatened by your decision being challenged. I'm simply asking you to reopen the debate and not to effectively reject legitimate arguments. Because that debate was the definition of no consensus, although the keep voters clearly had guidelines on their side. So yes, I shall certainly open a DRV to challenge a close that goes against notability guidelines (and the false premise that Grade II listed buildings don't fall under them when they clearly do). As is my right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

you were very clear that unless I overturned my decision you were taking me to DRV regardless of what I said. If that's not trying to force me to negotiate under a threat I don't know what is. You do you. Just remember that a more emollient approach was always going to get a better response from me that assumptions of bad faith from the outset. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

you were very clear that unless I overturned my decision you were taking me to DRV regardless of what I said. No, I didn't do that at all. You were the first to mention a DRV. I asked for an explanation, as you can clearly see from my first post. I tell you what, why don't you just explain why you decided to "down weight" arguments that followed a notability guideline and we'll go from there. I'm not after an argument. I'm after an explanation as to your reasoning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

if you don't reopen it ... I shall open a drv. What am I missing in that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive order (United States)

Could you add a rationale for your close? Depending on how you count !votes, it is either 5-4 to merge or 5-5. Certainly not a situation where I am satisfied with a rationale-less keep. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I felt that arguments based on an aged RM were less compelling but on a second read I'm less confident of my close so I have relisted it and won't close it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge from template

Just a reminder not to forget the merge from templates on AfD-merge targets that should be removed when the AfD-merge closes with an outcome other than merge. For example, you missed the one at Crumble when closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple crisp. I know that this is related to changes in protocol, and the bots can't yet keep up :). Klbrain (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup, unfortunately the XFDcloser update that is supposed to automatically remove/update those templates is taking longer than originally expected. (I'm not sure if Novem Linguae or someone else is still working on it?) The manual instructions are at WP:AFD#Merge.

In the meantime I'm monitoring all merge proposals to fix the templates when the discussions are closed, for example in Special:Diff/1364946848 and Special:Diff/1364947038, as I know some closers don't like to perform additional steps manually. But it'd be nice if some of the closers who most commonly close AfD merge nominations would do this themselves. FaviFake (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

it would be nice if someone told me this was a problem from the outset. If not knowing this was an issue deserves such snark then No problem. I won't close any more discussions as merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

it would be nice if someone told me this was a problem from the outset.
I didn't tell you because I don't mind doing this mechanical work myself! It's just a matter of changing a line in the destination article. I thought that maybe you were already aware of my work when I pointed you to User talk:Novem Linguae § XFDcloser updates at the DRV.

such snark
I don't think anyone here was intentionally snarky, what are you referring to exactly?

No problem. I won't close any more discussions as merge
No, please do! As I said, most closers I've interacted with prefer letting other people do the work, and I suspected you would be one of those.

Besides, the templates need to be updated for all merge nominations, not just the ones that are closed as merge. (e.g., if a nominator recommends merge but the result is "keep", the tag still needs to be updated manually).

You can continue to close merge proposals as you've always done. FaviFake (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Kurdish conflicts case

This is just to trace what happened (what bots should do vs what the closer should do) in your (uncontroversial) close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Iran clashes (2026–present). I see:

• Western ... talk page, post-close template inserted manually by you (not a bot)
  • same talk page modified by me to indicate a merge instead of a deletion debate
• I added the template at the would-be target talk page Talk:2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis.

There is some discussion at Template talk:Old XfD multi#Change default wording following PAM–AFD merge, so the current template is probably more appropriate for merges than it was a month or so ago, but maybe some improvements are still possible by you or anyone else following this conversation:

• (tech skills needed) further changes to the code of the template itself; and/or
• (only wiki editing needed) add a merge example to Template:Old XfD multi/doc.

I guess that WP:AFD6 probably also needs updating by someone who has a clearer view of the new process than I do.

Anyone feel free to copy this to a less personal page. Boud (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Your comment is very confusing. Here are a few notes:
what bots should do vs what the closer should do
Bots generally don't do anything, except in one case which is unrelated to this discussion.

post-close template inserted manually by you (not a bot)
That's misleading, as it was actually inserted automatically by the XFDcloser script used by almost all AfD closers.

I added the template at the would-be target talk page Talk:2026 Kurdish–Iranian crisis.
I removed that. We only use this template on source pages, that's why it starts with "This page was nominated for..."

I guess that WP:AFD6 probably also needs updating by someone who has a clearer view of the new process than I do.
The entire AfD page is currently up-to-date. What do you think should be updated, exactly? FaviFake (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Bots: "should do" != "did do". I haven't tried to sort out what should or should not be done by bots or by tools that help in editing.

"actually inserted automatically by the XFDcloser script" - That does seem likely to be true. The edit is signed by Spartaz, but there is a parenthesis in the edit summary, which, if examined further, implies that it is likely that the XFDcloser javascript script was used. The javascript script failed to add anything as a |deletion=(something about the merge) parameter.

You (Favifake) did in fact remove the template on the target talk page a few minutes ago. I seem to remember that in the old merge system, both talk pages had notes added, but this is not the place to argue for or against that.

The Keep, no consensus, or withdrawn by nominator section of WP:AFD6 says nothing about what to do in this particular case, assuming that the convention to add a note to only one of the pages is the preferred convention. It does not say that a template should be added to the talk page of the would-have-been-merged-from page, either manually or via a javascript script that signs on behalf of the person invoking the script. It does not say that the |deletion=(something about the merge) parameter currently has to be added afterwards, to distinguish a deletion debate from a merge debate. Boud (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't tried to sort out what should or should not be done by bots or by tools that help in editing.
Since you're curious, I'll save you the trouble. The only bot involved in the merge process is AnomieBOT, which updates automatically the {{Afd-merge from}} template several hours after the merge is complete (example diff).

The javascript script failed to add anything as a |deletion=(something about the merge) parameter.
Yup, that's because we haven't updated the template yet.

I seem to remember that in the old merge system, both talk pages had notes added, but this is not the place to argue for or against that.
I don't think that's the case, but I haven't been here for a long time.

The Keep, no consensus, or withdrawn by nominator section of WP:AFD6 says nothing about what to do in this particular case
You're looking at the wrong section. That section is about the specific steps to perform for just those three closures. For all closures, the § Non-delete closures section says:

If the article was initially proposed for merging, open all articles that were considered as possible sources or destinations during the discussion and remove any {{Merge from}} notices from them; this removes them from the list of articles proposed for merging.

Do you have suggestions for making it clear that the § Keep, no consensus, or withdrawn by nominator section is a subsection of the § Non-delete closures section?

It does not say that a template should be added to the talk page of the would-have-been-merged-from page, either manually or via a javascript script that signs on behalf of the person invoking the script.
That's because it shouldn't be done, at least in the current process.

It does not say that the |deletion=(something about the merge) parameter currently has to be added afterwards, to distinguish a deletion debate from a merge debate.
That's because the template itself needs to be updated. FaviFake (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)