User talk:Spartaz
Archives
Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 10 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III .
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · pagemoves · 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 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.
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.
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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- Poppycock. I don't negotiate under the threat of a DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
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) Reply- 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) Reply
- Please reread. That was after you said:
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.
Before you did, I hadn't even mentoned a DRV. You also conveniently inserted an ellipsis to cover my actual words:Of course, if you don't reopen it without explanation I shall open a DRV.
We don't seem to be getting anywhere here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply- oh I see. Well maybe yes I have misunderstood from the outset. My view is that PAGE DECIDE applies as much as anything else and that in the case of a location with limited actual sourcing, hosting that material at a clearly notable page that can hold that limited sourced content makes a lot of sense. Also, I did find the argument that sourcing was deficient and that intrinsic notability for 100,000s of grade 2 listed building was questionable was entirely consistent with our wider approach of merging and consolidating material. This closing approach was recently looked at by DRV in the Wikipedia:Deletion review#Karishma Mehta discussion and was endorsed as a valid close. Over general approach has always been that arguments of intrinsic notability have had less weight when a failure to meet notability standards has been demonstrated. I have for decades tended to close to consolidate such material into wider articles or lists as an alternative to deletion and this approach is especially encouraged by DRV these days. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 12:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I think the issue here is that there is a specific notability guideline for listed buildings which clearly states that all heritage listed buildings for which information is available should be presumed to be notable. My concern is that closes like this, which appear (rightly or wrongly) to give lesser weight to those who cite the guideline and greater weight to those who incorrectly argue (with absolutely no evidence) that it doesn't apply to all situations, will weaken that guideline and strengthen the hand (as it will inevitably subsequently be cited by them at the next AfD) of deletionists who want to pick and choose which listed buildings they think are notable enough for articles, which will render the guideline ultimately just pointless words. As I have already pointed out in the discussion, different countries heritage list differing numbers of buildings and in different ways by different criteria; the existing guideline establishes a presumption of notability for all of them, without going into unnecessary complexity about differing standards and the inevitable "everything should be judged by my country's standards rather than your country's standards" bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Honestly, that's not the only argument in play. GNG is always relevent and arguing that an article should be kept in the face of a suitable merge target when the notability is challenged isn't going to wash. This from the notability guideline is very specific Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.
- When there are competing criteria the gng takes precedence and PAGEDECIDE sits on top of SNGs as it's part of N. On this basis, arguments virulently arguing for inherent notability and rejecting all other views are not going to be the controlling arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I think the issue here is that there is a specific notability guideline for listed buildings which clearly states that all heritage listed buildings for which information is available should be presumed to be notable. My concern is that closes like this, which appear (rightly or wrongly) to give lesser weight to those who cite the guideline and greater weight to those who incorrectly argue (with absolutely no evidence) that it doesn't apply to all situations, will weaken that guideline and strengthen the hand (as it will inevitably subsequently be cited by them at the next AfD) of deletionists who want to pick and choose which listed buildings they think are notable enough for articles, which will render the guideline ultimately just pointless words. As I have already pointed out in the discussion, different countries heritage list differing numbers of buildings and in different ways by different criteria; the existing guideline establishes a presumption of notability for all of them, without going into unnecessary complexity about differing standards and the inevitable "everything should be judged by my country's standards rather than your country's standards" bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- oh I see. Well maybe yes I have misunderstood from the outset. My view is that PAGE DECIDE applies as much as anything else and that in the case of a location with limited actual sourcing, hosting that material at a clearly notable page that can hold that limited sourced content makes a lot of sense. Also, I did find the argument that sourcing was deficient and that intrinsic notability for 100,000s of grade 2 listed building was questionable was entirely consistent with our wider approach of merging and consolidating material. This closing approach was recently looked at by DRV in the Wikipedia:Deletion review#Karishma Mehta discussion and was endorsed as a valid close. Over general approach has always been that arguments of intrinsic notability have had less weight when a failure to meet notability standards has been demonstrated. I have for decades tended to close to consolidate such material into wider articles or lists as an alternative to deletion and this approach is especially encouraged by DRV these days. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 12:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Please reread. That was after you said:
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- Poppycock. I don't negotiate under the threat of a DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- 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) Reply
Hi Spartaz. Hope you're doing well! I'm writing regarding the closure of Abdul Hafeez Mirza.
I am requesting undeletion for two reasons :
1. There was not enough conversation in the ARD discussion. One user argued in favour of keep and two argued in favour of deletion. The users in favour of deletion simply stated the individual in question does not pass WP:NACADEMIC guidelines for notability without explaining their reasoning. The user in favour of keeping argued the individual in question meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 2 (recieving a national award from a nation) and criteria 7 (significant contributions outside academia in their academic capacity). The Individual in question recieved the Ordre des Palmes Academiques from the French Government which fulfills Criteria 2 and ( one of the users in favour of deletion mentioned this award is not an "automatic pass". I would be compelled to agree with their statement if not for user also fullfulling) Criteria 7, which the Individual does fulfill. They did extensive work with the Government of Pakistan for the tourism sector in Pakistan. And these aside, I believe the individual still fulfills the basic criteria of notability as they have recieved coverage from multiple independent published sources.
2. I have new significant information from neutral sources and articles that would give credibility to the individual in question. I would request you to please undelete the article so I can add the relevant sources.
All in All, I believe the individual meets criteria for notability as an academic, and I would like to add more significant sources that came up recently. These are reliable and intellectually independent published sources. Once I've added these sources, I believe the indiviual in question will meet the basic critiera for notability without question.
Let me know what you think. Thank you for your time! Crabboi45 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- At the time I closed this there was a 3:1 ratio in favour of delete and the nominator had not been blocked as a sock puppet at that time. Please share the three best sources you have for this individual and I'll have a look. Before you do that, can you advise what other accounts you have used and what your connection is to this individual? Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thank you for reaching out. Correct me if im wrong, but aren't there only 3 voters in the AFD? One User in favour of keep and two users in favour of delete? That makes it two to one right?
- I have one other account that I've used on wikipedia, KleinMoretti1. That was my only account, and I am currently unable to access that account as I'm in the process of recovering it. I recovered this account (this was an older account who's password I had forgotten and I had to reset the password to use it again) so I'm using only this account for now.
- I was the user who originally published the Individual's article under KleinMoretti1. I am not directly related to the Individual, he was a Professor while I was a student at The University of Punjab. I published the article on wikipedia after he passed away.
- Below are some of the credible, independent secondary sources I have (Please forgive me if I used the citation templates incorrectly, I haven't edited on wikipedia for a long time)
- [1]
- This article was published was published on the individual when they recieved the Ordre des Palmes Academique.
- [2]
- This article also corroborates the first article and reports on the individual being awarded with Palmes Academiques. (Please check towards the end).
- [3]
- This article talks about the Individuals book/publication, the biography of a notable Pakistani-French fashion designer.
- There are numerous news articles written on the individual and their work as an academic and their work in tourism but they are offline sources. These were reputable publications and these articles are publicly verifiable.
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
- These articles were published by independant newspapers on the individual.
- Please let me know what you think. Thank you Crabboi45 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- If you were just a student, how is it that this image File:Abdul Hafeez Mirza.jpg is your work? Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hello? I'm ready to review this when you have responded. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi Spartaz! Im so sorry for the late response.
- The image is indeed not my work, I gained permission from his family to use it at the time of publishing this article. I was not aware of the strict copyright laws back then as I was new to commons and editing on wikipedia in general. Is this an issue? If so, I can remove it and reupload the image, while properly declaring explicitly that the image is not my work and that I have permission to use it from the owner. Please let me know what I should do.
- Once again I am very sorry to have kept you waiting. Thank you so much for your patience, and I appreciate your readiness on reviewing my request! Crabboi45 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You having permission to use the image means absolutely nothing as you are not the one hosting it. Wikipedia would need that permission and will emphatically NOT seek it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 18:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Understood,thank you for the guidance. So what should I do next? Crabboi45 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I'll nominate the image for deletion. With regard to your request, we are no further forward with your declaration of conflict. You claimed earlier to have relatively clean hands as just being a student in his class but just revealed you know the family well enough for them to release an image of him to upload to Wikipedia. Have one last go at properly declaring your actual relationship to this person. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Understood,thank you for the guidance. So what should I do next? Crabboi45 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You having permission to use the image means absolutely nothing as you are not the one hosting it. Wikipedia would need that permission and will emphatically NOT seek it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 18:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hello? I'm ready to review this when you have responded. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- If you were just a student, how is it that this image File:Abdul Hafeez Mirza.jpg is your work? Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
References
- ↑ {{cite news
- | last = The Newspaper's Staff Reporter
- | first =
- | title = Writer gets French Award
- | newspaper = Dawn
- | location = Pakistan
- | pages =
- | language = English
- | date = July 29th 2015
- | url = https://www.dawn.com/news/1197075
- | access-date = July 22rd 2026 }}
- ↑ {{cite news
- | last = Staff
- | first =
- | title = Corporate Corner
- | newspaper = The Nation
- | location = Pakistan
- | pages =
- | language = English
- | date = November 11th 2014
- | url = https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Nov-2014/corporate-corner
- | access-date = July 22rd 2026 }}
- ↑ {{cite news
- | last = Magazine
- | first = Inpaper
- | title = Books in Brief
- | newspaper = Dawn
- | location = Pakistan
- | pages =
- | language = English
- | date = March 8th 2020
- | url = https://www.dawn.com/news/1539296
- | access-date = July 22rd 2026 }}
- ↑ K.A (31 May 1985). "A Tourist Guide". The Pakistan Times. p. 4.
- ↑ "پی ڈی سی پی کے جنرل منیجر عبدالحفیظ مرزا کی وطن واپسی۔". روزنامہ پاکستان. 5 January 1993. p. 4.
- ↑ "عبدالحفیظ مرزا کی وطن واپسی". Nawa-e-Waqt. 1 January 1993. p. 7.
Thilsebatti has asked for a deletion review of Abhijeet Dipke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
You closed this this AFD but it was 4 for keep and 4 for merging. Could you reopen it so it can be debated some more? Thanks HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You have to look at the quality of the arguments as well as the numbers and the keep arguments were basically basically arguing notability and not addressing the issue of CFORK. There is no doubt on the discussion that these are two sides of the same coin so a merge to a single topic addresses the CFORK Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Requesting for either Undeletion or draftification of Mun G a discussion you closed before it actually got responses from several other editors. Kindly undelete so more work can be done on it. MichealKal (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- How is this request different to User talk:Spartaz/Archive27#Request for Un Deletion of Mun G Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Salimiss09 has asked for a deletion review of BookMyShow. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi Spartaz,
Regarding the deletion of Dina Patel, I understand the consensus was to delete due to promotional language and sockpuppetry concerns in the AfD.
Could you please restore (userfy) the deleted text to my user sandbox (User:AatiBuu/sandbox) so I can properly rewrite it in a strictly neutral tone using reliable independent sources, without any promotional language or AI tools?
Thank you! ~~~~ Habib.Balti (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi, since we know that there has been coordinated sockpuppetry to promote this article, I think we need to start with a declaration of what COI you have regarding the subject and which other accounts you have used as it's clear that this isn't your first account. Spartaz Humbug! 12:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi Spartaz,
- 1. COI: I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dina Patel whatsoever. I am editing strictly as an independent volunteer and have zero Conflict of Interest.
- 2. Accounts: My username is AatiBuu. This is my primary account, and I have no connection to any sockpuppet accounts, AI tools, or voting in the AfD discussion.
- I completely respect Wikipedia's policies. Could you please restore the draft text to my sandbox (
User:AatiBuu/sandbox) so I can rewrite it in a strictly neutral tone using reliable independent sources? Thank you! Habib.Balti (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply- Forgive my skepticism but this does suggest that some paid editing or COI editing has gone on in your history and, as far as I can see, you didn't take any opportunity to refute this. You have a very sparse editing history and have previous for recreating articles after deletion, so you can understand why I'm uncertain about your motives. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi Spartaz, I completely understand why you're skeptical, and I appreciate you taking the time to review this. When I first created the article about Dina Patel, I wrote it with a neutral point of view and based it on independent, reliable sources. The promotional tone that eventually appeared wasn't part of my original draft. Over time, other editors made changes that introduced promotional language, which I believe ultimately led to the deletion. As for my previous Golootlo article, I want to clarify that it wasn't a paid edit. However, I later realized it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and I accepted the deletion without appealing it. I understood the mistake and chose to move on rather than contest it. For the Dina Patel article, I genuinely spent a lot of time researching reliable, independent sources to ensure it was properly supported. I have no financial or personal conflict of interest regarding the subject. If given the opportunity, I'm more than happy to rebuild the article in my sandbox (User/sandbox), remove any promotional wording, and keep only well-sourced, neutral, and verifiable information that complies with Wikipedia's policies. I'd really appreciate the chance to demonstrate that and improve the article in line with Wikipedia's standards. Habib.Balti (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You are very careful to avoid giving a straight answer to your coi with that other article. You know, the one you created when the name of the company was in your user name. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thank you for pointing that out. I want to be completely transparent.
- Regarding Golootlo, yes, I was part of the Golootlo team when I created that article. At the time, I didn't fully understand Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest (COI) and promotional content policies. Looking back, I realize the article didn't meet Wikipedia's standards. That's why, when it was deleted, I accepted the decision and didn't appeal it.
- With Dina Patel, the situation is completely different. I have no personal, professional, or financial connection to her. I'm not part of her team, a PR agency, or any paid arrangement. I created the article purely as an independent editor after spending time researching reliable, independent sources.
- I understand that my previous editing history gives you reason to be cautious, and I don't expect you to simply take my word for it. I'm happy to rebuild the article in my sandbox (User/sandbox), remove anything that could be seen as promotional, and work toward a version that fully complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and sourcing guidelines.
- I would really appreciate the opportunity to do that. Habib.Balti (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- I'm sorry I'm not persuaded that you have clean hands to be editing this and given your lack of experience and the socking to promote her article I decline to restore it at this stage. Spartaz Humbug! 15:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You are very careful to avoid giving a straight answer to your coi with that other article. You know, the one you created when the name of the company was in your user name. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi Spartaz, I completely understand why you're skeptical, and I appreciate you taking the time to review this. When I first created the article about Dina Patel, I wrote it with a neutral point of view and based it on independent, reliable sources. The promotional tone that eventually appeared wasn't part of my original draft. Over time, other editors made changes that introduced promotional language, which I believe ultimately led to the deletion. As for my previous Golootlo article, I want to clarify that it wasn't a paid edit. However, I later realized it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and I accepted the deletion without appealing it. I understood the mistake and chose to move on rather than contest it. For the Dina Patel article, I genuinely spent a lot of time researching reliable, independent sources to ensure it was properly supported. I have no financial or personal conflict of interest regarding the subject. If given the opportunity, I'm more than happy to rebuild the article in my sandbox (User/sandbox), remove any promotional wording, and keep only well-sourced, neutral, and verifiable information that complies with Wikipedia's policies. I'd really appreciate the chance to demonstrate that and improve the article in line with Wikipedia's standards. Habib.Balti (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Forgive my skepticism but this does suggest that some paid editing or COI editing has gone on in your history and, as far as I can see, you didn't take any opportunity to refute this. You have a very sparse editing history and have previous for recreating articles after deletion, so you can understand why I'm uncertain about your motives. Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
|
I would ask this user/admin to reconsider the deletion of the page, due to the following reasons: 1. The family is notable as a family, not merely as a collection of notable individuals.[edit ]According to its policy and guidelines, Wikipedia recognizes family articles when the family itself has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Kevichüsa family has been the subject of independent discussion in books, newspapers, historical works, and public discourse concerning the political, social, educational, and cultural development of Nagaland over multiple generations. The family's significance extends beyond individual biographies and has been examined as a collective historical entity. 2. The family's historical significance spans several generations.[edit ]Unlike many family articles that focus on genealogy, the Kevichüsa family's historical importance is intergenerational. The family even has a Foundation that supports humanitarian efforts in Naga Society and award writers, essayists and good citizens, this institution is called the Kevichüsa Foundation which itself has been well documented and its very guidelines state the history and genealogy of the Kevichüsa Family. Furthermore, members of the family have independently occupied prominent roles in areas such as:
This demonstrates a sustained historical presence rather than isolated individual achievements. 3. The family has played a documented role in the history of Nagaland.[edit ]If supported by reliable sources, the article can show that the family's history intersects with major developments including:
The article is therefore about a historically documented family's role within broader regional history. 4. Reliable independent sources exist.[edit ]Wikipedia's requirement is not importance but coverage. Independent sources such as
have discussed the Kevichüsa family as a family, therefore the subject satisfies the General Notability Guideline. 5. The article provides encyclopedic value.[edit ]Readers researching
benefit from understanding the family's collective role. A family article avoids duplicating shared historical context across numerous individual biographies. 6. Similar family articles exist on Wikipedia.[edit ]You have been subscribed You will receive a notification when someone posts a new comment in this discussion. You can adjust your notifications settings in preferences. Wikipedia already contains articles on historically significant families whose collective influence has been documented over generations. Examples include:
The existence of these articles does not automatically justify another family page, but it demonstrates that Wikipedia recognizes family articles when the family itself is independently notable. |
Kindly do let me know what you think, I am open to further discussion. (There may be minor errors and issues in the page for which I can definitely help modify/edit). Burmacho (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Seriously, write you own appeals. use actual policy and sources Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi. I just finished reviewing Draft:Fly91 and I believe it's ready for the mainspace, it appears to meet WP:NCORP. I would appreciate if you could also look over and determine if it meets NCORP as well, if so I request you unprotect Fly91 so I can move the draft. Thank you for your time. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- In what way does this meet NCORP Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Spartaz The sources seemed borderline in establishing notability and at AfC I normally accept borderline cases. Looking closer I do some of the sources I thought were independent do involve interviews. I'll remove the review notice from the draft for another reviewer but thank you. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Good thinking. I would be more cautious of accepting articles that have been deleted or draftified Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Spartaz The sources seemed borderline in establishing notability and at AfC I normally accept borderline cases. Looking closer I do some of the sources I thought were independent do involve interviews. I'll remove the review notice from the draft for another reviewer but thank you. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
May I know why you decided to keep the article after several delete !votes were added? Do you have any conflict of interest (COI) related to the subject?? ~2026-42461-90 (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Obviously I don't or I wouldn't hage closed it Spartaz Humbug! 11:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi Spartaz,
I just wanted to send a quick note to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my message and for making the decision to delete the article under the G10 policy. I can’t tell you how much of a relief this is for me and my current work. I know that in my line of work, it’s always possible that inquisitive journalists might still bring up or write about my past down the line. But having this page removed gives me the breathing room and the fair chance I needed to move forward. My real hope now is that as time goes on, my future positive deeds, hard work, and the impact of the projects I’m building will speak louder than anything behind me. Thank you again for your fairness, your time, and your understanding of the situation. I truly appreciate your help! Best regards 🙏🏽🙏🏽🫡 and once again thank you @Vanderwaalforces ~2026-42551-16 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Can I ask why it was deleted? 7865gg (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Genuinely no idea what article you are asking about as there is nothing at the title you identified. also, can't see anything in your history since you created an account to post here. Can you declare your previous account before we go any further ?Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Are you 65sugg? Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yeah I’m 65sugg. The Goulsse Alphabet page you recently deleted is what I’m asking about (this isn’t a sock puppet attempt lol I’ve made no attempts to edit Wikipedia from this account) 7865gg (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yeah, you don't have standing. Bye Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply