Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:25, 25 November 2011

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:

• 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.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_decision_reversed_by_fiat..._three_months_later.

I've asked for this to be reviewed. It seems odd, at the very least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Spartaz! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

important

List of important publications in sociology – recreation of a new article from scratch permitted There is a clear consensus that we can have such an article but no real refutation of the deletion reason - removing original research. – Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't original research. The closing administrator for that AFD stated he felt that the word "important" made it original research, while most everyone else said otherwise. So saying that it should stay deleted because the word "important" equals original research, then saying you can recreate it with the word "important" still in the title, seems impossible. The article clearly defined its requirements for inclusion. This same argument was done in a dozen or so other articles that listed important publications for various things, and had the word important in the title, consensus being an overwhelming keep for almost all of them. You could rename the article to be List of publications in sociology seen as notable enough by the media to be commented on and which also have their own articles in Misplaced Pages, since that is the inclusion criteria, but its rather long. So the word important was determined to be fine instead. Dream Focus 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course its original research if you haven't got a clear scope to define important. That's been a long standing given as long as I have been closing AFDs. Just recreate the article and sort your scope out. Spartaz 05:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It had a scope clearly defined at the top of the article, it the same one all the other articles had.

This is a list of important publications in sociology, organized by field.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:

Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic

Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly

Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic

Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world

Latest and greatest – The current most advanced result in a topic

Isn't that clear enough? Dream Focus 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is "says who?" Who says they created a new topic, who says they changed scientific knowledge significantly, who says the publication is a good introduction or survey to a topic, who says the publication has significantly influenced the world, who says the current most advanced result on a topic. Clue is the answer if you and some random guy then its OR. Also, who decided that these are definitional of important topics in the field? Scopes in important topics need to come from an independent evaluation not made up on the talk page. Spartaz 05:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources such as media coverage and especially university level textbooks says who. Dream Focus 10:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So write yourself a scope that references the standard for media coverage or the university level textbook and knock yourself out recreating the topic with this as your reference. Have fun :-) Spartaz 10:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:REFUND

Please place Romsey Town Rollerbillies in my userspace or the article incubator. I have added several sources to it and I intend to continue to improve it until others think it deserves inclusion. Dualus (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Only if you undertake not to restore it to mainspace unless the draft has been approved by DRV. Spartaz 06:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where on WP:GRADUATION is DRV mentioned? Dualus (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not. No reason why it should be. DRV has precedence and as closing admin to the DRV I'm telling you that the page can't be restored until after DRV has endorsed the draft, If you accept that I'll be happy to userfy the page... Spartaz 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my plan is to move it to the WP:INCUBATOR, mark it for pending assessment, take it off my watch list, and never look at it again. Dualus (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent plan. I'm going to move it back to the incubator myself shortly with a header note about DRV but first I'm looking into the dispute between you and amadscientist. Spartaz 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue

If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please keep discussion to the article talk page and try being specific as to how this violates BLP. Spartaz 08:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Romsey Town Rollerbillies

To recap, here's a potential scenario where slavish adherence to policy could result in a bad outcome:

1. Confused newbie posts an inappropriate promotional article on an (apparently) non-notable roller derby club
2. The article is nominated at AFD, where it is deleted
3. Confused newbie complains to a bunch of people about it
4. Experienced editors explain the relevant policies and suggest that the article could be improved at the WP:INCUBATOR
5. Newbie takes their advice and works on the article to bring it into line with the policies. After some effort he feels the concerns raised at the AFD have been addressed.
6. DRV however endorses the original close since the closing administrator correctly interpreted the discussion.
7. The newbie moves the improved article into mainspace, where it is deleted due to the previous AFD. But that AFD and the subsequent DRV were both about the original version, not the substantially improved new version.

See where I'm going with this? I imagine it would all look very Kafkaesque to a new user. causa sui (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's because our policies and practices are kafkaesque. I looked over the sources presented at the end of the DRV before closing it. The best source was in the AFD and wasn't accepted as good enough and most of the rest of the sourcing wasn't anywhere close to detailed or meeting RS. If I had thought the sourcing was good enough then I wouldn't have closed it. As far as I can see, the incubated article was available for consideration throughout the DRV and many of thise commenting were regulars who are not frightened to overturn a valid AFD close based on new sourcing. I can't see that I could have closed the DRV differently and moving a draft into mainspace immediately afterwards is .. well .. going to lead to trouble. There is nothing to stop the user from asking the draft to be considered at DRV for restoration. If the consensus is that its good enough then it will be restored. Its entirely possible that the agressive and bludgening responses to DRV comments lost the nominator any possible sympathies from those wavering over the close but truthfully, we can only close by what we have. Spartaz 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I see that your understanding of policy leads you to believe that your hands are tied here. As it happens, I don't think policy actually obligates you to this view; I would think that if an AFD closes to delete it should not preclude re-creation if the new revision addressed the concerns raised at AFD. But aside from that, even if policy does seem to prescribe salting, you have an ace up your sleeve that allows you to do the right thing here, whatever you think that is in this particular situation. For my part, I'm not judging that the revised article is improved enough to be re-instated over the AFD: but I do think that "the AFD (on the old revision) closed as delete, the DRV (on the old revision) closed as delete, so you can't recreate this article no matter how much you improve it, even though we told you that you could" is a very bad reason to salt an article, and it is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that WP:IAR is there to help us avoid. With that said I'll leave it to your judgment. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you. I would say that IAR in deletion discussions has never worked and always leads to more drama than light. I do feel that the article as it stands has been rejected and letting another AFD and possibly a DRV run for 7-14 days would be much more disheartening for a new user then a clean break and a clear outcome. If it gets further improved nothing to stop a new DRV allowing recreation. Spartaz 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the recap. I'd say it goes something like this:

1. Editor on Misplaced Pages since June joins a mailing list dedicated to addressing Misplaced Pages's gendergap problem. They see a request for participation on a roller derby article deletion because of a fear of setting precedent. They see another post suggesting people work on local articles.
2. After the deletion request was posted and never having participated, after having not participated in the subsequent discussion about what a notable roller derby is, the editor who has been participating since June and who was currently involved in a highly contenious editing situation on Occupy Wall Street ask causa sui to restore the deleted article to his user space.
3. User does minor fixes that fail to address the substantive points of the WP:AFD in a way that would make it clear that the article is NOW notable, having adequately addressed the problem. These fixes are either on Incubator or on Userspace.
4. User seeks support from regular roller derby contributors, but ends up alienating them instead because of rambling, off message comments that may or may not have linked roller derby to female on male domestic violence, and to pornography. In any case, the roller derby editors active on Roller derby, getting roller derby articles to WP:DYK, participating in the notability discussion for the sport aren't supporting him.
5. User moves article to main space or is user sets a redirect from main space to article incubator. Not entirely certain. (Am certain something in main space was deleted.)
6. User goes to deletion review. User is repeatedly told no, the incubator article has not been improved enough but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is pointed out the European inclusion does not count as international because skaters from the league, NOT THE LEAGUE OR AN ALL STAR LEAGUE, competed, and the league has not competed in any notable bouts at the highest levels. User is told the sources used in the incubator version have not been substantially improved and do not help it meet WP:GNG. User is told this in two different rooms on IRC when seeking help.
7. User causes disruption on other articles by inserting non-free images on unrelated articles. User is told this is not appropriate and on IRC, where he is told this is a blockable offense. On IRC, user encourages another user to take similar action to get her non-free images on Misplaced Pages.
8. User adds red links to the article on articles to help bolster the article. (These are removed and conspiracies are alleged that this was only done in regards to the article he was working on.)
9. User nominates article for a peer review citing "I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been through a contentious deletion, deletion review, incubation, further editing by an uninvolved editor, and nomination for speedy deletion. I would like other perspectives on whether the sources provide enough depth."
10. User goes to IRC, complains about users with such gems as "Why isn't she supporting the article? It is feminist!" (in regards to another topic) and finds a sympathetic editor. User apparently fails to tell sympathetic editor the article had been denied recreation on Deletion Review.
11. Sympathetic editor moves article over. User SHOULD at this point know the article will be nominated for deletion. They failed to garner support from existing roller derby editors. There was consensus on the Deletion review the article should be kept deleted.
12. Article is subsequently nominated for a procedural AfD. It gets three delete votes based on the same criteria that the article was voted for deletion. The two keep votes are from user and sympathetic editor who moved it to main space.
13. Concurrently, user is before at least one ANI for disruptive editing for violating WP:3RR related to other activities on wiki.

The important parts: He should have known he lacked consensus and the votes that did not support recreation were based on the incubator version, NOT the original, deleted version. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed narrative. But if the DRV was considering the 'improved' (depending on whom you ask, apparently) version, then that's all we need to consider and the issue is settled. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Zia McCabe no consensus

Zia McCabe

Zia McCabe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

how is it possible you see a no consensus in this discussion? I see a "Delete" nomination by Lachlanusername ("no notable articles about her independent of The Dandy Warhols"), three "Merge and Redirect" (with Dandy Warhols) votes (for the lack of significant coverage of her independently from Dandy Warhols) and just ONE "Keep" vote with a poor argument... "she might be only famous as a member of a band but she's received fairly substantial independent coverage", not indicating at least one reliable source of this "fairly substantial independent coverage" that concerns her and not the Dandy Warhols ... Cavarrone (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• The trouble is that the discussion was relisted twice before, which means that the reviewer didn't see a consensus and there has been no comment whatsoever in the last two weeks. A further relist is clearly pointless and how can I possibly find a consensus there if two other reviewers have failed to do so? Potentially an issue with a NAC relist but once Sandstein relisted I'm stuck to find any other outcome then NC without any addition to the discussion. Spartaz 12:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification... bizarre, bureaucratic but absolutely correct and however not your fault--Cavarrone (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing like a boss

Stuff like this makes my heart swell. I guess that AFD's super-closed now? :P m.o.p 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

cameron dollar

hello, can you please explain why you deleted the cameron dollar (fighter) page. i am unsure why it got deleted and am just curious. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenPGold (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• see here. Spartaz 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Stdlib.h close rationale

Thanks for closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stdlib.h. I support the outcome but question your rationale. I understand the issue like this: there is nothing encyclopedic to say about Stdlib.h, so an article isn't justified. Stdlib.h is a subtopic of C standard library, so the article would be a WP:SPINOFF, not a fork.

I think we're likely to refer to this Afd when discussing some of the other problematic articles in this area, so I'd like to ask you to take another look and consider modifying the rationale. --Pnm (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is a great precedent for a series of XFDs. I chose CFORK because of Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. SPINOFF is to the same guideline so I don't see the point of the change. Spartaz 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bubble Babble - could a copy be made available to me for merging with other pages?

Hi. I had proposed merging Bubble Babble with other pages, and had thought we'd have a bit more time to do so - I hadn't gotten any responses back either way from the cryptography people (possibly aside from the one guy who didn't even fully read the article before deciding it was "snake oil"). BTW, what are "spa" votes? And my vote was for keeping it, if that wasn't clear. (Incidentally, it isn't "my" page - nobody owns a page on Misplaced Pages, as I recall. I simply found the thing interesting.) BTW, yes, I've checked the Wayback machine - its last copy is from 2008. Allens (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a request at the "undeletion" page also, specifying that it was not for a full undeletion but for a copy of the page moved into my userspace or alternatively emailed to me for working on merging it. Allens (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, there are no reliable sources for this material so you may not merge it into any other article without a) breaking our attributation policy and b) it would be original research and therefore not verifiable to a RS. Sorry. WP:SPA explains the term. In the context I'm referring to inexperienced editors, IPs and non-policy based arguments. Its a short of AFD shorthand but I'll clarify my meaning in the rational. Spartaz 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is its usage in a well-known piece of software not a reliable source? (And if I were to follow the above policy, I'd start deleting things wholescale in various articles instead of being polite and tagging them with "citation needed".) And I'm certainly not a single-purpose account, nor an IP-based account; inexperienced, yes, but that's neither of those. (BTW, you're succeeding at discouraging me from making contributions to Misplaced Pages - ones that are certainly backed up with reliable sources, even by your standards. I suggest doing a bit better job of WP:BITE.) Allens (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not ignoring this but RL has claimed me for the moment. Spartaz 04:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Allens, I'm sorry you feel that way but enforcing community agreed standards on article inclusion is not biting. The issue was finding reliable sources that discussed the subject in detail. Well known is subjective and isn't what we judge inclusion on. Look at WP:GNG for the best explanation of our basic standard. I'm sorry but the discussion rejected the merge option in favour of deletion so you can't just go ahead and merge it anyway because that isn't how it works on a collaborative project. Spartaz 06:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WrestleSlam Magazine

Hi Spartaz

Wondering if you'd intended to comment on or take any action on the other article nominated for deletion at the above-captioned AfD discussion.

Thank you, _matic 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Missed it and fixed it! Spartaz 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep

• - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SoDak Con - Hi, could you please expand on you Keep close rationale for this AFD please. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to expand do you have an objection to my sending the AFD for Deletion reviewing the close? Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been busy with real life and haven't had time to do this. I never object to anyone going to DRV but it might be more constructive if you told me what your beef with the close is. Spartaz 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• I looked at the AFD again. After Ron Ritzman relisted the discussion the commentary was all keep and mentioned references that were not rebutted. I this case, Ron clearly couldn't find a consensus otherwise they wouldn't have relisted and after that there was only one way traffic. I can't see that I had any choice to close other then keep. Spartaz 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

questioning why you deleted an article about elections in an area

You closed the AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2001_United_Kingdom_general_election_result_in_Essex with delete. I was wondering why. There are hordes of other articles just like it, as I mention in the group AFD for many identical articles. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall. You didn't provide any reason for your closure. Is this election less notable than others for any reason? Dream Focus 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up on this. I think we need an overarching discussion to reach a meta consensus rather than doing this a county at a time. The issue is whether a county is a sensible region around which to build election results articles. To do that we need reliable sources that discuss the subject of election results by county X. Without this the articles fail the GNG and are OR and SYNTH with a dash of INDISCRIMINATE thrown in... I have expressed that view in the AFD. Spartaz 05:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. He jumped the gun.

post made at the time of the DRV close and related issues

An administrator has issued me a warning on my talk page because of an edit at which you closed.  As you may recall, administrator Bushranger participated in WP:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay, I identified his !vote as WP:JUSTAVOTE during the DRV, and his !vote was not defended by any of the participants at the DRV.  Please consider removing the template part of the edit on my talk page.  Are you willing to help in dispute resolution with administrator Bushranger and User:Ahunt?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly? I can't avoid the conclusion that Bushranger's actions were reasonable. You can't say you didn't know about the policy about not commenting on closed AFDs when you were recently hauled over the coals for just that. Sorry, but if I intervene its not going to be on your side. Spartaz 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PRESS PLAY ON TAPE deletion

I just tried to look up more information on the band PRESS PLAY ON TAPE and found that you deleted this page. I've read the deletion discussion and cannot figure out why the page was deleted. This question needs to be revisited. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE is a well known band that's been active for many years. I came to learn about the band from mainstream press here in Sweden and cannot understand why there wouldn't be a Misplaced Pages article. The band frequently does public appearances and have released several albums. Removing articles like this in the interest of the public is Misplaced Pages administrators at their worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.255.8 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion which led to the deletion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Press_Play_on_Tape. You need to demonstrate decent reliable sourcing such as described at WP:GNG to show that this band meets our inclusion standard. If you can do that, I would be happy to restore the article. Spartaz 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter)

I would like to start off by saying that I do not intend to be rude to you, if I do say something that does offend you, then I apologise in advance as I want your help on this.

Now I don't want all the pages to be reinstated, but just Alan Omer. There are several reasons to why Alan should not have been deleted, one reason being that he was the very first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, which is already very significant, and there are many sources out there which will talk about this.

In case you don't know them, BAMMA is the biggest MMA Promotion in Europe and is getting more and more recognised by the United States with each event. They have signed talent such as Tom Watson (fighter), Nate Marquardt and Jimi Manuwa. If you look at the criteria supporting notability on WP:MMANOT, BAMMA meets all of them, which means they are a notable organisation, which means Omer was the first to win a major title for a notable promotion in that particular division, which should mean that he is also notable. He has fought with this promotion twice, but because he was their first featherweight champion, he meets at least one criteria for notability.

I have looked up information on this guy, and there is some interesting information on him. The 'Bloody Elbow' website has an article on him, which has him ranked as the forth biggest prospect in his division in the world. There is also a 'Prospect Watch' on him by Sherdog, which despite being a few years old, it is still a major article on him.

There are also articles on him that are in German and Polish which talks about his wrestling training and fights in Poland, but I think there is a policy in Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) that says different languages doesn't matter, as long as they translatable, which can obviously been done through Google Translate, and notable articles. Because of this paragraph and the one above, I'd say that these articles (which can all be found on Google news search as '"Alan Omer"') meets WP:GNG, in which he meets the very first criteria for fighters in WP:MMANOT.

Because of all this I say that Omer is notable, and I would him reinstated with you help please. Thank You for your time to read this. BigzMMA 10:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

• I'm sorry but I wasn't seeing a consensus for that article at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Shamrock_(fighter) but it wasn't clear cut either. I'm happy to review but we need sources. Please read WP:GNG and let me know the best 2 - 3 sources you have and I will look. Foreign language sources are permitted. Spartaz 11:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much, I will add in the links just below this and say what it is exactly -

1. http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Sherdog-Prospect-Watch-Alan-Omer-17130 - Sherdog article, headlined as 'Sherdog Prospect Watch: Alan Omer.'

This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage" as it address the subject directly in detail, "Reliable" as it is a verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline, and "Sources" as the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources and multiple sources are generally expected. See below's link for evidence of this.

1. http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/2/12/1989095/world-mma-featherweight-scouting-report-4-alan-omer - Bloody Elbows article, headlined as 'World MMA Featherweight Scouting Report: #4 - Alan Omer'

This article meets the same WP:GNG guidelines as the link above, however, they are both different as where the top link talks about Omer's background, this article breaks down Omer's whole fighting style, and ranks him amongst the other prospects in Europe.

1. http://www.mmauniverse.com/events/reports/bamma-2-event-report-by-julian-radbourne - Article, goes into full detail about each fight result on the BAMMA 2 card.

This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage", as it is shows all of the BAMMA 2 fight results, which has other sources covering the event as well, "Reliable" as the website covering the results is independent from BAMMA and again it is widely available in other sites covering the event, "Sources" as it is a secondary source (not produced by BAMMA or their parent company), "Independent of the subject" as I already mentioned it wasn't produced by BAMMA or their parent company.

• Your last edit removed a comment by me referencing the GNG and RS and asking you to explain how the sources met RS. Please cut this down to the best 2-3 sources you have and explain how the source meets GNG & RS. If you can't be bothered to properly evaluate the sources, why should I? Also please bear in mind that blogs, fan sites and websites that do not have robust fact checking and peer review are not reliable sources and that detailed coverage means precisely that and that mentions aren't going to help. Thank you Spartaz 01:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I do apologise, I have now just left the best 3 on here and I have given a short paragraph to each to say which GNG guidelines they should meet, so now it should be made easier to go through. BigzMMA 09:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your opinion of this now Spartaz? Does it meet WP:GNG? BigzMMA (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier

I take your closing summary as a huge compliment, and thank you. Exploring the fr.Misplaced Pages was an education as, like many, I had previously asssumed that other Wikipedias were pretty much just like us. Wow, what an eye-opener. From now on, whenever I see a nomination based upon "deleted by (non-English) xx.Misplaced Pages", I'll be sure to visit that non-English one and educate myself on the differences between them and us. This is an inspration for a new essay... WP:We are not them, to explain that we do here is not to be based upon what others do elsewhere by different sets of rules. Off-hand, might you be able to advise if there is another Misplaced Pages that more organized in defining inclusion critera than are we? As it seems to me that the others seem far less organized. Schmidt, 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Question + Request

I already asked Master of Puppets about this (as the original deleting admin), but he's been gone since the 12th, so I though I'd ask you instead.

I see you recently deleted Air Hawke's Bay

a. Can I create a redirect to Hastings Aerodrome, where it is mentioned?

b. Can you let me see a copy of the article, preferably by userfying it to my userspace or, less ideally, by e-mailing me a copy?

Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)