User talk:GB fan/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, I used "Proposed deletion" template instead of blp prod but it got mistakenly removed. Please see the edit history before removing again.

The revision in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_Sada&type=revision&diff=982016886&oldid=982016070

Please see this policy regarding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion Specifically: "A special case is BLPPROD: an article which has had the BLPPROD-tag removed still can be PRODed via the process described here."

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I made a mistake. I reacted to your revert of my edit removing the BLPPROD, saying I was incorrect and didn't look at the template I actually removed. ~ GB fan 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the confusion. There's different templates for different situations and it's a little confusing for me. Please delete this section on your talk page as you see fit. I didn't mean to spam.Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you please look into that page? A user is removing the template for no given reason. Policy states: "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" but this wasn't done. Thanks! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROD does not say that a reason must be given. In the section on Objecting it says that anyone who removes the PROD is strongly encouraged but not required to explain why they object. Once a normal PROD is removed it can never be restored. Now that the PROD has been removed there is one deletion option left, WP:AFD. Also a reason was given, that it is a controversial deletion. It becomes controversial when the first person objects to the deletion for any or no stated reason. In this case, I see two people objecting to the deletion of the article. ~ GB fan 09:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Lyallpur Young Historians Club

Hello

I note that you have deleted the above article. Can you please reinstate the article which is important as it describes the group's activities to promote the Punjabi language and history online thereby engaging people from Punjab Pakistan and Punjab India. The club organises lectures by people from around the world. Given the difficulty in people being able to be physically present in either Punjab, the club provides a platform for people to engage and promote the language and history.

Thank you.

(Malikhpur) 18:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no indication that the club is notable. I will not restore the article. If you still think the article should be restore, the next step is deletion review. ~ GB fan 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOTHERE blocks and deletions

Hello,

Recently you deleted the draft 'Sahunil Bhatnagar' per G7, which I tagged. Unfortunately, the draft has been part of a wider case. Originally it was created, then deleted per G11 by Stwalkerster. The draft was then recreated, but you deleted per G7. Soon after that, it was recreated by another user at the location Draft:Sahnil Bhatnagar, but also at Draft:Sahnil bhatnagar (Actor). I am not an admin, but because of various edits I made to other pages before the drafts were deleted, I recorded that there were many socks editing, possibly to avoid a WP:NOTHERE block. The users are:

They have made few edits outside of the draft, and all follow the same username pattern. Also, I think the pages should be deleted, and salting might be in order to prevent them from being recreated. If you don't want to/can't do this, I can take this to WP:AN instead. Thanks! Giraffer ^munch 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And this user: Heylove4343 - contribs

has just unsuccessfully tried to replace the Sahil disamb page with the text of that same draft. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Pinging AngusWOOF, who rejected one of the drafts at AfC, for comment. Giraffer ^munch 22:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncle Milty, Giraffer, is there an SPI case for it? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, there is now. Giraffer ^munch 07:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yahballaha V

Why have you declined the speedy deletion, with an explanation that "redirects from moves are eligible for speedy deletion"? Yahballaha V doesn't exist. Someone mistakenly numbered him as the fifth, when actually he is the fourth. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Yahballaha V existed or not has absolutely nothing to do with the speedy deletion policy on the English Wikipedia. Your explanation of why it should be deleted, "Wrongly numbered" would be closest to the R3 criterion in the policy. That says that redirects from implausible titles that were recently created are speedy deletable. The policy though does include redirects that are the result of a move it the moved article was also recently created. You recently created the redirect by moving an article that was created in 2011. An article created 9 years ago is not recently created so that criterion does not apply. If you feel the redirect must be deleted because it in some way harms the encyclopedia then you will need to explain that using WP:RFD. I can predict with almost absolute certainty that the result of any discussion at RFD will result in the redirect being kept. ~ GB fan 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a very detailed explanation. It's nothing too important, but I will make a request at WP:RFD. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, Just want to point out one specific section of the WP:RFD policy before you nominate it for deletion, please read WP:RFD#KEEP #4. ~ GB fan 17:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Monte Carlo (solitaire) - request to undelete this page

Regarding this page: Monte Carlo (solitaire)

You deleted this on 26 February 2020 on these grounds: Expired PROD, concern was: Non notable card game that has been unsourced since 2009.

I can appreciate the reasons for you making this decision at that time. Unfortunately there are not many contributors about solitaire games who are active editors; I'm working hard to correct that. So in this instance the issue isn't that this solitaire game isn't notable, the issue is rather that people in a position to verify notability aren't active on Wikipedia.

I can confirm that Monte Carlo is included in the following book The Little Book of Solitaire, Running Press, 2002, ISBN 0-7624-1381-6 on page 60. I have the book (and others like it) and will include this reference when the page can be restored, and will also do a general review and clean-up of the article. Monte Carlo is a fairly common solitaire game and is also included in numerous software packages.

I'm currently working on adding references to other solitaire games as well, and it would be good if this one could be restored, since it is covered in the above mentioned book and other similar works. Gregorytopov (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is restored. ~ GB fan 08:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! Source has been added, and article has been further polished. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Farshid Asadian

hi. who declined the tag A7 for above article? user:Adam9007 first tag was true and he made a mistake for changing that. the article must be deleted in 1st day of creation because didn't cover wp:N and wp:SNG.the medals are not seniors and must be deleted by WP:SPEEDY. i'm sure for that and no need for wp:AFD.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mojtaba2361, Adam9007 in the edit at 14:52, 11 August 2020‎ stated in the edit summary of the edit; "Speedy deletion contested. Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7". Failing wp:N and wp:SNG have absolutely nothing to do with WP:A7. Those are reasons at WP:PROD or WP:AFD. The only things that makes a difference with A7 is if the article makes a credible claim to significance and that claim does not have to be referenced. The article says he won a national championship and that is a credible claim to significance. ~ GB fan 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mojtaba2361 his medals wasn't seniors medals and it is against the WP:NSPORT and didn't cover wp:N and wp:SNG both sound to me like 'non-notable', which isn't a valid speedy deletion criterion (and no, that is not what A7 is about, contrary to popular belief). Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Kwakye-Maafo article

Last I checked AfDs aren't the only way to have articles deleted. Plus, I was pretty clear that it should be deleted due to being promotional. Which last I checked, isn't what AfD is for. Therefore, AfDing it isn't an option IMO. At least not one that was relevant to why the speedy delete was put on the article in the first place. Anyone who disagreed with the speedy deletion, including you, could have said why on the talk page though. Since it's a perfectly policy based way to go about things and there's zero legitimate reason not to do it that way. Especially since, again, AfDs aren't generally for getting of promotional articles. So, do you have an actual reason that you think it shouldn't be deleted and is there a good reason why you didn't just post about it on the talk page like the template guidelines say to do? Or was your removal of the speedy delete more of a JUSTDONTLIKEIT type of thing? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Once a speedy deletion is objected to, it is controversial and should be discussed. WP:G11 is the Unambiguous advertising or promotion speedy criterion. That says it "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles, rather than advertisements." This article does not meet that criterion. No one ever said that AFD was the only way to have articles deleted. There is never a time when AFD is not an option. If you think it should be deleted take it to WP:AFD. My removal had nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. It had to do with the speedy deletion was declined. ~ GB fan 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know. What's the point in speedy deletes then if everything should just go to AfD? I didn't actually know you declined as an admin move per say. I figured it was just a personal thing that was continuing the disagreement I was having with the other users. Since you didn't really say why it was declined. So, my bad. If you don't mind me asking, also what is the point in the talk page discussion part of it if the speedy delete can be declined before anyone comments? Also, while I have you, a few other users seem to think that I was edited warring because I added a different speedy delete banner to the article then the one that they reverted. Whereas, I figured because it was different enough and allowed for a talk page discussion, when the other one didn't, that it wouldn't be considered "override each other's contributions." Just like I wouldn't have considered adding an AfD to be either. Although, it still has to do with deleting the article. Was that the wrong way to look at it? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Anytime a deletion request needs a discussion, the place to do that is at an WP:AFD. Everything doesn't need to go to WP:AFD. If you look at the last 500 deletions you will see very few if any that were deleted at WP:AFD. The comment on the template about the talk page is directed at the page creator not any one else that removes the tag. You were edit warring. You didn't change anything on the speedy deletion tags. The first three times you added the speedy deletion tag you used the exact same reason "promo". The 4th time or your 3rd revert you had nothing in the tag itself but added to the edit summary talking about the promotional nature of the article. All four of the tags you added were for promotional nature. You need to read and understand about speedy deletion before tag any more articles for speedy deletion. You obviously don't understand how the system works. ~ GB fan 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That's clearly wrong. The last time I just did the normal speedy delete without "promo" in it. Which says, that the article can be deleted "if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient" and I added a "Contest deletion" section to the talk page with "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here)." In no way is that the same as my other edits. And last I checked it's perfectly fine to discuss if an article should be speedy deleted on the talk page. Otherwise, the template wouldn't have a sentence about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The template only has a sentence about the article creator using the talk page to contest the speedy deletion. It is NOT talking about editors that are not the creator of the article. You do not understand how the speedy deletion process works. ~ GB fan 23:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand it because the sentence I cited is after the part that talks about the options article creators have, after the blue "Contest this speedy deletion", and is clearly a separate thing from it. Or are you telling me that the only person who can contest or discuss a speedy deletion is the article creator? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the whole template instructions.

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. (BIG Blue Button) Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

The first sentence tells editors to remove the tag if it doesn't meet the criteria or they intend to fix the article except for the article creator. The second sentence is directed specifically at the article creator. The third sentence also is talking directly to the article creator. Then comes the big blue button for the creator to click to contest the deletion. The sentence after the big blue button is a note that tells the creator that the article can be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the criteria or if the explanation they may have placed on the talk page is insufficient. The only editor that is ever told to comment on the article talk page is the creator. At no time does it tell anyone other than the creator to post to the talk page. You are wrong and do not understand how the speedy deletion process works. ~ GB fan 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed I 100% understood how it works. That's why I'm asking. So, I can understand it better. There's no need to repeat yourself about how ignorant I am about things. It doesn't help that the guidelines aren't exactly crystal about any of this shit or that a good majority of it is personal preferences. I could likely message a different admin and get a completely different answer about it. Without all the extra, uncalled for "Your wrong!! you just don't understand this!!" crap. BTW, plenty of articles that I've requested speedy deletions on have been deleted. So, your assertion that I just understand things is utterly false. Obviously, there's instances where some articles aren't as cut and dry where people will have problems. Your clearly cherry picking the ones where people have. That doesn't mean I don't know anything though. Especially when it to the speedy deletions and other things that were removed by SuperFlyer since he is specifically targeting my edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I keep it repoeating because you can not accept the fact that the only editor that needs to use the talk page to contest a speedy deletion is the creator. Anyone else can contest by just removin the speedy deletion tag. ~ GB fan 09:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

C. Lee Tocci

GB fan, I'm a bit confused as to the reversion of the BLPPROD with the reasoning that sources were present when the PROD was added, and thus it was ineligible. There are no sources in the article, but only external links. I removed nothing from the article, save for an outdated tag that was no longer relevant, or accurate. IMDB is a user-generated website that has been deprecated for use as a source for any claim; all it can do it show that something (or someone) exists. Regardless, it's still an external link that's essentially no different from a link to a commercial website or social media profile. The remainder of the links all fall under that category as well. I know not all sources have to be in-line, but I'm not sure how any of those qualify as prima facie "sources". Most people have social media, or personal or commercial websites. That doesn't mean they're notable. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, when you dig into WP:BLPPROD there are two standards for sources. One for when you can add a BLPPROD and one for when you can remove a properly added BLPPROD. The one we need to worry about on this is the one for addition of the BLPPROD. The second paragraph of the policy sums up the difference. The way the policy is written, any source in any form that verifies any piece of information in the article makes it ineligible for BLPPROD. That means if the article has a personal external website, an imdb page or any other link then it is ineligible for BLPPROD. Since there were sources on the article, it is ineligible for BLPPROD. The second standard for removal of a properly added BLPPROD id that the source must be reliable. If there were no sources and a BLPPROD was added then the sources that were on the article would not be enough to remove the BLPPROD. Does that make sense? ~ GB fan 22:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request for User talk:37.29.181.13

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.29.181.13&oldid=986716276. --37.29.181.13 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Categoy:Female characters in animated series

Hello. Please note the typo in Categoy:Female characters in animated series: it's not actually a category. It may have been created as an attempted fork of the actual category with that name, currently in a deletion discussion. Thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Care to do the honors?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scintilla Iceland (2nd nomination) needs an official close. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:May I Come In Madam?

@GB fan:, what is the recommended action in these kinds of scenarios where an editor keeps submitting the article for review while it already exists? - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You can nominate it using WP:MFD. There is no speedy deletion criterion for that scenario. ~ GB fan 11:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, understood. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Christensen badminton

Hey, what's up with this -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992081548?diffmode=source edit? Can't you see the edit summary i provided when i blanked the page? Zoglophie (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense since Peter Gade's birthname is Peter Gade Christensen. If you disagree take it to WP:RFD. ~ GB fan 13:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Recreating a page for the subject "MusiCure"

Hello GB fan.

I'm interested in creating a new page describing a concept for composing music for a medical environment: MusiCure. The original page was deleted for lack of notability. I have collected a number of external references, mostly academic journals, and would very much like to have another go at writing a better piece that complies with the requirements.

I have a draft in my sandbox and would be grateful for your guidance. I'm no expert here.

Thanks for your assistance!

Jonathan Cookerid (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cookerid, I looked to try to figure out why you were asking me about this and saw that I was the deleting Admin for the original article in July 2020. Since this was deleted usinf the proposed deletion process, all you have to do is ask and I will restore the article. You can then work on it and if anyone thinks it should be deleted they will need to start a discussion usinf the articles for deletion process. If you don't want to do that you can work on the draft you have in your sandbox and when you think it is ready you can click the blue Submit your draft for review! button in the template at the top of the page. ~ GB fan 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GB fan, thanks for this, that's very helpful. I would recommend starting afresh so I will follow your recommendation and submit my sandbox draft for review. Thanks! Cookerid (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Paper Excellence Article

Hello GB fan,

When Paper Excellence was deleted I responded on my talk page to the user I thought had deleted the page. As it turns out, that user only nominated the page and you were the one who deleted it. When I did not receive a response I began building a more robust version of the article in my sandbox. I then went to create a new page and read the message stating that I should first contact you.

I created a page for Paper Excellence after viewing the companies listed on Pulp and paper industry in Canada and Canada paper mills. Paper Excellence is bigger / more significant than a number of these companies. Perhaps my first attempt didn't credibly indicate the company's significance but I thought I was creating a stub that other editors would build out. I have since created a better version at User:MaggieBC/sandbox. Will you please take a look and advise on how to proceed? Thank you in advance. MaggieBC (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks much better than the deleted version. I do not believe it would be speedy deleted again. ~ GB fan 10:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. MaggieBC (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

B major (person)

Please don't blame this article on me. It was originally created by someone who changed the subject of the B major article; I reverted and copy-pasted the text into the new B major (person) article. (The user is now blocked; if you want to know who the user is, please study recent history of the B major article.) Georgia guy (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, You are responsible for the edits you make. You created the article, you are responsible for the article. The article you created is about a living person with no sources and no credible claim to significance. None of this is about blame. ~ GB fan 19:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I only created it with the rightful title it would have to have in order for it to be a valid article. I didn't create it using the WP:ILIKEIT argument. I created it with a "please re-create other people's articles with better titles" argument. Georgia guy (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, You are still responsible for your edits. If you didn't think it deserved an article, you shouldn't have created it, you should have let the person who added it to the other article know how to do it correctly. You make the edit, you are responsible. ~ GB fan 10:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

But I merely didn't know whether it deserved an article. Georgia guy (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, You can try to justify this in your mind all you want, you are solely responsible for the edits you make. What you should never have done is create an article about a living person without any sources at all. You didn't know if he deserved an article and you didn't bother to check. You didn't check to see if you could find sources, you just copied and pasted content from a place it didn't belong and walked away. Now all you want to do is distance yourself from the article you created. ~ GB fan 12:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Valid Speedy deletion criterion

Aren't such small articles deleted? --Алёна Синичкина (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Алёна Синичкина, no they are not. Lacking context to understand what the article is about is a speedy deletion criterion. All an article needs to exist is enough content to understand what the article is about. I understand what both those articles are about, so they are not speedy deletable. If you want to know what the speedy deletion criterion are you can read WP:CSD. ~ GB fan 10:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"XXXX" in sports pages

Sorry, misread the A3 criteria, missing the "external" in front of links. I thought it read simply links. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi. The talk page is a duplicate of this. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. ~ GB fan 10:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Paula White

Hello GB fan. Thank you for your message.

It is absolutely necessary that Wikipedia has a very strict policy about living people. Thanks.

But I only added proven facts about a person of public interest.

It is fact, that prosperity theology is a controversial religious belief which claims that material prosperity is a sign of God's grace. This is sourced. See Wikipedia "prosperity theology". And it is not negative about Paula White to say that prosperity theology is "controversial". A controversy is a prolonged public dispute or debate, with people having different opinions ans not negative.

And I think that this should be mentioned in the first sentences and not far down, because it is a major content. For example: You would not write about Charlie Parker that he was a musician and mention far down, that he was a jazz musician, saxophonist and composer. You would write in the first sentence that he was American jazz saxophonist and composer.

Best Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypodamos (talk • contribs) 12:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Copied your message to Talk:Paula White as that is the proper place to discuss content in the article. ~ GB fan 12:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

List of P-Pop Artist

Hi GB Fan, List of P-Pop Artist is not only grammatically odd, but was literally created by a company account to promote their bands. CMD (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Wood & Wire" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wood & Wire. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Wood & Wire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

CSD

Hello, you declined my G5 CSD at Draft:Monk Steppenwolf, but the user was in fact a sock (the second one listed): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken. They were glocked and hidden, which is why the username has been redacted. Their talk page shows that the draft they created was nominated for deletion. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I knew who the creator was when I declined the CSD. There is no indication in their account that they are blocked or globally locked. Their username is suppressed from all their contributions but I could not find who did it or why. Now along with the SPI you linked, I think I have figured out who did it. ~ GB fan 11:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 13:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of The Saga of Tanya the Evil: The Movie

Greetings.

So a while back you decline my request for speedy delete of a redirect. As I understand a redirect works like this:

A link from another article > The redirect (created by the move I did to rename the article) > The main article created.

But I already changed the link from the other articles (which is just edit "The Saga of Tanya the Evil: The Movie" to just "Saga of Tanya the Evil: The Movie", which makes the redirect like this:

No link from any other article that uses the redirect (makes the redirect useless thats why I want to delete it) > The Main Article (created by my move).

What can be done? GoalkeeperCIWS (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

GoalkeeperCIWS, speedy deletion is only used in specific situations that have been authorized by the community. All of them are listed in the policy, see WP:CSD. Your assertion that the redirect is useless, is not one of the speedy deletion criterion. If you think the redirect should be deleted you will need to explain why it should be deleted at WP:RFD. You should look at the Reasons for not deleting section of that policy, #4 relates to the redirect from moves and #5 relates to your claim that it is useless. If after reading that section, you still think the redirect should be deleted, read the Reasons for deleting section of the policy and base your explanation on something in that section. ~ GB fan 10:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Brings" article

Hi GB fan, I just stumbled upon a red link to an article about the German band "Brings" you speedy deleted a year ago. I haven't seen the article, therefore I can only speculate on its status, but as a German I can tell you that Brings is a band known across the country, and over the decades they have issued many studio and live albums, so they are clearly notable and they have press coverage probably in the hundreds of articles, including a few books, therefore we are not doing our audience a service having no article about them. For a start, see the articles in other language entities, including the German ones: de:Brings and de:Brings/Diskografie. Given the notability of the topic, the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion per A7 obviously didn't do the necessary homework before the nomination, because even if the article actually lacked a credible claim of significance, this would have been trivially easy to bring by even for someone not familiar with the band. So, unless the article is total junk, please restore it so that possible issues can be remedied by possibly adding a suitable lede (assuming it is missing from the A7 criteria being used) and/or more references. I guess, contents from the German article and the discography could be translated as well. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restored what was there and put it in Draft space, you can fing it at Draft:Brings. ~ GB fan 13:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am creating a article

Hi GB fan, I am making my articles ready this will be my first articles, can u pls advised me how many references should I insert for the standard of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayakg (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Zayakg, There is no minimum number of sources needed for an article to meet Wikipedia standards. You should read Wikipedia:Notability. That is how we determine if a subject deserves an article. ~ GB fan 16:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot User:GB fan your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayakg (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Buffering agent

This article contains nothing of significance that is not in buffer solution. However, when I replace the content by "{{redirect|buffer solution}}" it redirects to itself, not to the article on buffer solutions! It appears therefore that this article was created first, hence the redirect to it.

I am an expert in this field (formerly chemistry lecturer, Leeds University). There is no value in having a separate article on buffering agents; the content is effectively a repeat of some of the content of the more general article cited above.

I placed a request for comments before deletion on the article's talk page a year ago; there have been no responses. Please let me know how to deal with this situation, or, better still, remove the article from WP. Petergans (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected it to buffer solution, no redirect loop there. ~ GB fan 14:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Petergans (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ali pour Dara

If the article had not been moved to draftspace, it would have been eligible as A10. It is still just a copy made to try to circumvent an AFD discussion. There does not seem to be any reason other than that for it to exist. noq (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

But it was moved from the article space to the draft space, so it is not eligible for A10. If you think it needs to be deleted you can take the draft to WP:MFD. ~ GB fan 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Low Cab Forward trucks

Hi ~ GB fan, I disagree with your revert and feel sad because you wrote "decline speedy delete, not reason given, I don't see any valid reasons" while reasons are given in the talk page. So, what is wrong? --Wolle1303 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wolle1303, I missed the explanation given on the talk page. That does not change the outcome. The reason you gave on the talk page is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Please click on this link to see the valid speedy deletion reasons. You will need to use WP:AFD if you want still believe the list should be deleted. ~ GB fan 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

~ GB fan, I do not advocate for a speedy delete, my intension was just some type of deletion. Sorry for my fault and my lacking knowledges. Perhaps you can assist me how to proceed? Thanks in advance. One more question if you like (since I saw your nick name): Is the nome "curb" weight instead of "kerb" weight a problem for you? --Wolle1303 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The directions to nominate an article for deletion using AFD can be found at WP:AFDHOWTO. ~ GB fan 07:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I need help for a merge

Hi! I would like to merge the 2006 Russian march article with Russian march, but I don't know the procedure. I should remove the "Russian march" redirect first? Please, could you help me? Thank you very much.--Mhorg (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is also this article, but I don't understand how it works: Russian_March.--Mhorg (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you are getting help with this on Onel5969's talk page. ~ GB fan 21:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:KFBG-TV

Draft:KFBG-TV, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:KFBG-TV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think my ping failed, so I'm notifying you this way in re: the declined speedy.

Your ping worked. Just have nothing to say at the MFD. ~ GB fan 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Love of My Life (Queen) page

Hello,

I’m learning how the process works here on Wikipedia. If I’m doing something wrong here I apologize in advance.

I have tried to add content to the page with additional sourcing not used before and it was deleted by sock puppets.

I’ve been advised by the admin @gorillawarfare to try to find consensus on the talk page.

Can you assist me in this, or give me advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My interests have changed since I last edited that page. I am not interested in engaging in any discussion there. ~ GB fan 21:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

revdel

kindly ask for revdel starting with [1] to [2] for blasphemy and insulting. thanks for the help --5.90.187.92 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not see anything that meets the requirements of WP:REVDEL. Please show the exact Help:Diff that shows where the content you think should be removed is added into the article. ~ GB fan 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

hi, thanks for the reply. as of now the page is clean, but i want those edits to be obfuscated from the revision history so that no one can read them anymore,because they contain blasphemies and insults. these are the diffs i'm talking about:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i don't know if i used correctly the diff template, but these are the edits. i'd be very thankful if you can do it. --5.90.182.64 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Blalblubbs

Please revoke everything on that account. It is an LTA impersonating User:Blablubbs. Thanks, Java Hurricane 12:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both :). Blablubbs|talk 12:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Mike O'Brien (Michigan Politician)

Hi. I'm not sure what the correct deletion request is, but this redirect seems redundant due to this redirect that is already present: Mike O'Brien (Michigan politician) with a lower case. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think it must be deleted then the only valid way to do it is by using WP:RFD. I do not see any reason to WP:RFD#DELETE this redirect. A deletion discussion could go either way on this. ~ GB fan 14:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks. That's helpful. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting favor to trim my talk page

Hi, I am Sean Ethan James D. Querubin, a retired Wikipedian editor since February 22, 2021. I will just ask a favor to trim my contributions at my talk page to protect the contributions of the page since you declined my request to delete the page. Thank You!. Sean Ethan James D. Querubin (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sean Ethan James D. Querubin, I do not understand what you are asking for me to do. Your talk page is blanked other than a retired template. There is nothing else that can be removed off of it. The history of what was once on your talk page is going to remain. If you are never going to return to Wikipedia you can request a Courtesy vanishing. ~ GB fan 15:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of OpenHuddle

Good morning GB fan,

I am new to contributing to wikipedia and would love to have your expert advice. Following the deletion of OpenHuddle, could you provide a few tips and some directions to get it approved?

Your help would be much appreciated.

Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philyleb (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing Prod

Hi, I am curious why you removed the Prod at [3] - I restored the PROD because it was previously not correctly DEPRODed - as stated in the edit comments per WP:DEPROD a DEPROD needs *mandatory* to be explained and the PRODer needs to be informed which both did not happen. Would you please so kind to re-establish the PROD tagging, thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, WP:DEPROD does not require any explanation. It says "You are encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion" The next step in the deletion process is WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 11:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I missed "but not required", ok, thank you for the info. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Help: Deletion process for Accra Technical University article to ensure the initial article is kept

Hello, I would like to know more on how to ensure that the article is deleted. The article for the university has been on Wikipedia since 2011 that is Accra Polytechnic prior to its upgrade from a Polytechnic into a Technical University. The creator of the new article that is Accra Technical University created it when it was upgraded instead of rather renaming the initial file into Accra Technical University to reflect the change. I proposed a merger and worked on it, but I guess my proposal for speedy deletion wasn't a good one per the rules and the statements provided after the removal of those tags. Since the merger has been done now, what's the best deletion process that can be used to ensure the initial article is renamed into Accra Technical University. sorry for the long message. Thanks. Ampimd (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ampimd, since content was merged it should not be deleted. The name that was merged from should be redirected to the name it was merged to. ~ GB fan 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ohk I understand it clearly now. Thanks. Ampimd (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hurst Lodge School

Please can you tell me why you denied a speedy deletion of this page?

Thanks,

Amanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcdhlsch (talk • contribs) 09:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Butting in as another admin who declined the same speedy tag. As I said in my edit summary, G1 is for incoherent text or gibberish. That page is neither incoherent or gibberish. Reading it, it is clearly about a school. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That is basically what I was going to say. if you read WP:G1 you will see that it says:

This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism or hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. Nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply.

The last sentence is an important one here, In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply.. ~ GB fan 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A Classic Horror Story

Hi GB fan, can you please move A Classic Horror Story to a draftspace? Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Undeleted and moved to Draft:A Classic Horror Story ~ GB fan 18:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Azimi

Hi, Mohammad Farhad Azimi is notable according to WP:POLITICIAN; He is Governatores and he was member of Afqan parliament. I added ref. to the artical in draft:Mohammad Farhad Azimi would you accept it?--Reza Amper (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is submitted for review. Someone who reviews draft will come along and review it. ~ GB fan 10:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Purwakarta railway station

What would be the correct speedy then? I couldn't move it to draft space which is what I tried to do first time around! Govvy (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Govvy, I do not believe there are any speedy deletion criterion that would apply to that article. You could use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to give the article a chance, just felt it we don't need the same content in two different places. But when I had a quick read last time, I wondered if it was copyvio from somewhere. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to delete Human Face (mathematical artwork)

Dear GB fan, a user has emptied Human Face (mathematical artwork) without creating a discussion. Can it be considered as a violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy? As I see a number of users are in a hurry to delete that page. The Big Cowboy (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The article was redirected. That is not a violation of any policy. You could revert of you feel it is not a good action but be prepared to explain why. ~ GB fan 21:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Hudhaifah Goga

This draft contains information taken from Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and its citations are all taken from this, also the user which created this draft has committed vandalism on Islamic State of Iraq and Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi. Thanks Kiro Bassem (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. And you are telling me this because? ~ GB fan 22:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing, I just don't want wrong information on Wikipedia, I really care about this. Kiro Bassem (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I didn't create that draft or add anything to it. ~ GB fan 22:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

ASC Emulation G7

Sorry about the G7 template on that article. I forgot I had uploaded that with my non-personal computer account (I use it for devices that are not my own). Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bergkvara, Växjö

GB fan, can you please restore the article Bergkvara, Växjö, which was deleted by you? The article contained some important information about the manor house Bergkvara. Just 'cause it was a "copy" of Bergkvara Castle, it was not reasonable to just delete it. My intention was to replace the article Bergkvara Castle with Bergkvara, Växjö, 'cause Bergkvara is a manor house and not only a ruined castle. BHB95 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I will not. If your intention is to take the content from Bergkvara Castle, expand on it and make it into an article about Bergkvara, Växjö, then you can move the article to the new name and expand the article to the new content. ~ GB fan 12:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

When you deleted the article Bergkvara, Växjö, you also deleted much information. I think all that information should be included in the article about Bergkvara. Besides that, Bergkvara is also a mansion and not only a ruined castle. Therefore, I think the deleted article Bergkvara, Växjö should be restored, please. You just have to restore it, move all its information to the article Bergkvara Castle and then redirect it to the article Bergkvara Castle, and eventually change name of the article Bergkvara Castle by moving it. BHB95 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You can find the content of the article you copied and paasted at Draft:Bergkvara, Växjö. Use it to expand the castle article. ~ GB fan 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed tags

Can you please explain your removal of the tags ive left behind on the Preshaw page? SharkiePaws96 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Its clearly has been vandalised and your just aiding in it being up SharkiePaws96 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has been vandalized in the past. That isn't a reason to delete it. That is a reason to fix it. Every article can be vandalized that doesn't mean they should be deleted. If you think the article must be deleted take it to WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have done and you have removed it too SharkiePaws96 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If your so inclined to get people to fix it isnt the a way to say it needs foxed? SharkiePaws96 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not inclined to get it fixed. I have no interest into the article. I only got involved because you had marked it for speedy deletion and I reviewed it as an admin to see if it met the deletion criterion. It didn't so I removed the tags. I also reverted some obvious vandalism. ~ GB fan 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

deleted db tag

the draft is a duplicate dont delete the db tag some body copied all the text to main name space and it stuck there Baratiiman (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Look at WP:CSD. Any speedy deletion tag you add must comply with one of the criterion there. ~ GB fan 13:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Valeria Altobelli - Propose to delete

Oh sorry me for afd error. I just want propose delete page for Valeria Altobelli

Recently deleted with 'deleting process' for Wikipedia Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Valeria_Altobelli)

TY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.203.241 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point this would have to go to AFD. Since you are editing from an IP address, you will not be able to nominate it for deletion. If you would like it nominated, I can do it for you. ~ GB fan 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nominate it. I^m newbie in Wikipedia code :s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.203.241 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have created the AFD page for you. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Altobelli. ~ GB fan 18:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Got milk?

So an article about an act of parliament that never existed is not a hoax or vandalism? I'd like to see you explain that. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article on the National Library of Medicine talks about a Free School Milk Act of 1946. ~ GB fan 17:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

An obvious error in a source should not be relied on. You will not find any mention of the purported act anywhere in Hansard, or in newspaper reports of the time, or any index of acts of parliament. I have nominated it for deletion but someone has screwed up the log. Sometimes I think Wikipedia is designed to help vandals and hoaxers, there's clearly very little willingness to deal with obvious rubbish. DuncanHill (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

All I am saying is that having a reliable source makes it not an obvious hoax and therefore WP:G3 does not apply. ~ GB fan 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A source that is obviously in error is not reliable, at least in so far as it concerns that error. It's a shame that very few people on Wikipedia have any idea how to judge sources. An Act will have a chapter number, it will have mentions in other acts, it will be cited in official sources. None of these exist for this. An obituary may be reliable for material about the subject, I do not think it (any obituary) could be seen as reliable for the existence of an Act of Parliament. But there you go, the act obviously did not exist, but the entry has to jump through hoops to be removed. Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia where any old bollocks can hang around for decades. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A hoax is where the creator of the article is intentionally trying to deceive people. I do not see how we can say the creator was trying to deceive people into thinking there was an act that never existed. They took what they believed to be reliable and presented it. It isn't a hoax. ~ GB fan 18:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed this didn’t turn out well which greatly vexed me but I moved it out of mainspace and have insisted that if at all it may be published it must pass through the AFC route due to the overt undisclosed COI. Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Hi GB fan, NitroPowerbank here. I noticed that my request for speedy deletion of the Lego art article was reverted/declined. May I know what are the necessary steps I will have to take in order for the article to be deleted as I have not done this before? The reason why I would like to delete the article is because it is a redirect to an article of the same name and therefore serves no purpose in being a redirect. The article it redirects to is the Lego Art article which was moved from the proposed-to-be-deleted Lego art redirect earlier. Do let me know what I can do in order to remove this unnecessary redirect. NitroPowerbank (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you really think it is necessary to delete the redirect you will need to use WP:RFD. In my experience it will not be deleted. Being a different capitalization is not a reason to delete a redirect. ~ GB fan 14:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

GB fan I see. Therefore, you would think it is best to leave it as it is even though they bear the same name? NitroPowerbank (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That woould be my recommendation. I think it would be a waste of time to nominate it for deletion. ~ GB fan 14:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your help. NitroPowerbank (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ted Bassett (executive)

This was done within minutes of launching the article, while still under construction. Perhaps it would be better to wait a few hours, maybe even 24 before tagging it. Just a suggestion - no need to respond. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

BLPs should be sourced from the very first edit. ~ GB fan 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I was just making a suggestion. Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand you were just making a suggestion, I was just telling you why I added the BLPPROD. The only time I ever tag something that quick is if it is an unsourced BLP or an attack page. ~ GB fan 14:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note about Roderick Peeples AfD

You contested the BLPPROD template here a few days ago, so I figured you might be interested in the AfD discussion I've started for this article. jp×g 00:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

PROD deluge

Hello, GB fan,

Since I've seen you working in the PROD area, I thought I'd give you a head's up that there are over 300 PROD'd articles for next Saturday (Category:Proposed deletion as of 24 April 2021). I posted a note on the nominator's talk page asking them to pace their nominations to maybe 20-30/day. But all hands on deck next weekend if you are available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleting of Colin Savage

Please can you explain your reasoning for deleting the page on Colin Savage, Executive Producer of BBC Television on 20th April 2020. This person is a significant Current Affairs Executive Producer with a biography of Current Affairs programming at the BBC and other broadcasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwright61 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Kwright61, A Proposed Deletion tag was added to the article on 13 April 2020 with a rationale of large amount of unverified information. Over the course of the next 7 days no ne objected to the deletion so I deleted it. If you think it should be restored, let me know and I will restore the article. ~ GB fan 16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion

Reg my page deletion. Kindly help me to regain it. not sure why you are deleting over and again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhya Ch1 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are asking about Meri Awaaz Suno. The last time this article was discussed the decision was to move it to Draft to allow further expansion. You can find it at Draft:Meri Awaaz Suno. Once draft is approved it can be moved back as a full article. ~ GB fan 12:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Chanuka Nadun

Hi, The draft has been moved to mainspace now. It is almost verbatim copy of deleted Chanuka Nadun Perera. Can WP:G4 apply now for the new artile?, because I don't see the point of a new AfD. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: thinking of filing a SPI for the two users.--Chanaka L (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that it is in article space the AFD does apply and a nomination under WP:G4 would be appropriate. ~ GB fan 13:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Super Heavy (rocket stage)

Draft:Super Heavy (rocket stage) was requested to be deleted by me under G7. You said that it could not be deleted because I'm not the author. I am the author, but I created it under my IP adress before I registered my account. Please delete it. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You can renominate it and another admin can review it and decide if it meets the criterion. ~ GB fan 16:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1024833702

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If there was "no indication this was not created in violation of block or ban" (your edit summary), that would mean G8 applies? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously my edit summary was a mistake. There is no indication the talk page was made in violation of a block or ban. ~ GB fan 10:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me indicate it then. Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ogik Francis Peter was created by Ogik Francis Peterson in July 2016 (and then further expanded anonymously quite obviously by the same person). Ogik Francis Peter, the user I mentioned in the {{db-banned}} template, was indefinitely blocked in October 2015. Given that they edited User talk:Ogik Francis Peter (Ugandan), which had very similar content to the category talk page, it is pretty clear that these three accounts are all the same person (deleted user contributions could probably provide some more direct evidence, as only two of the 184 edits by the suspected sockmaster are currently visible), and thus the nominated page was created in violation of the block. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Add the tag back if you like and another admin can decide if it meets the criterion. ~ GB fan 11:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M. Rezaul Hassan

What to do in such situations where the article was created via mainspace and later on it was moved to draftspace and again someone created the same article in mainspace? I just want to know to avoid future CSD's in such cases Owlf (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You can consider other Speedy Deletion Criterion, WP:A7 or WP:G11 are a couple that may apply in some cases. If there are none that apply you can use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 16:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and noted. As I was sure about WP:G11 but it was recreated therefore I went through another option. Owlf (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Administrators . Thank you for the kind corrections. I have edited the contents and tried hard to remove all the advertisement type keywords and sentences. I didn't do that attentionaly. I have researched on him for 3 weeks on news, references. Kindly Don't delete it as I have created both of the contents. Thanks MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Above comment was copied to article talk page as that is where this kind of comment belongs. ~ GB fan 17:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Miloud Mourad Benamara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. The person who removed the template told me I could put it back. They had removed it because of a misunderstanding. Is it ok if I put it back? Thank you. Pack My Box (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

no it can not be restored at this point. ~ GB fan 10:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it can't be restored? No one has objected to the deletion. Isn't that the point? Pack My Box (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A PROD must be on an article for 7 continuous days. It was off the article for a day before you restored it. Now it has been off for over 7 days since I removed it. This PROD would have expired 4 days ago. The circumstances say it is inappropriate to restore the PROD. ~ GB fan 07:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

May I put a new prod template on the article? Pack My Box (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No once a PROD has been used on an article, it can never be PRODDd again. ~ GB fan 09:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain the logic of that to me? I have read the page about prod templates and I understand if someone objects to the prod template it can't be returned. No one objected in this case. How would it be a problem for anyone if I added a new prod template? Pack My Box (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If you do not think it is a problem, go for it. I won't removed it, I will leave that up to someone else to decide if it is a valid PROD. I am done with this conversation. ~ GB fan 14:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I am new to Wikipedia. I am trying to understand the process of prod templates. Pack My Box (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

delete it Draft

Hello dear colleague GB fan. I recently created Ariana Nabaey article, but after checking the sources, I realized I was wrong and asked to delete it, which was deleted. Now the person has created an account with his real name and wants to publish his draft. Please delete the draft like the article itself. It should be noted that the user insulted me on my talk page in this regard.--Parizad (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And let me also say that the article was evaluated by a poll, which is the seal of approval for the deletion of the article.--Parizad (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no valid speedy deletion criterion that it can be deleted under. If you feel this draft should be deleted, you can request deletion using WP:MFD. ~ GB fan 16:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Molokai

I made mistakes—my intention was to rename Kapauanuakea to Kapau-a-Nuakea, but “a” was ommited, so the current title’s wrong (worse than before). I think the content should be put into Kapau-a-Nuakea, whilst Kapau-a-Nukea should be deleted. What’s your proposal? V. K. (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lord Valensus, I have reviewed again all your actions on this article. First, don't ever copy and paste content from one article name to another article name as you have done twice. There is a move function within Wikipedia and that is the only way that an article ever gets a new name. If you can not move an article because the title you want to move it to already exists then you need to request a move as it will take an admin to move the article. I moved the article back to its original name, deleted the name you created in error and fixed all the redirects so that they point to the correct title. Then I used the name that is in the article, Kapau-a-Nuʻakea and moved the article to that name. ~ GB fan 10:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Umiray-Angat Transbasin Project

Hello GB fan! I am deleting the Umiray-Angat Transbasin Project in my sandbox and uploading this in the Draft once more. Anything else I need to know before I upload it? --Bootkinero (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Both the draft and your sandbox were only deleted because you asked for them to be deleted. You can have them restored anytime you want. ~ GB fan 17:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

circa - deletion

hello, happy to discuss the deletion for circa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhill90 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The place to discuss the deletion is at WP:AFD. The instructions on how to create the discussion are on the linked page. ~ GB fan 09:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

G5 nomination

Hi, GB fan. I saw that you declined my G5 nomination of User talk:ZekiAlasyaMetinAkpinarr. Was it because it was a user talk page? Or because it was edited by TNT after my nomination? I think it was my first G5 nomination, so would like to know for future reference. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it was edited after the nomination. ~ GB fan 18:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for letting me know. Happy editing, Sdrqaz (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Poetry in Ghana

Hi GB fan, I realized an article I created "Poetry in Ghana" was nominated for speedy deletion and you performed the action. I would like to plead with you to give me more time to improve that article Robertjamal12 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The article had no real content. All the article did was was restate the title of the article. What I can do is restore it to Draft:Poetry in Ghana. You can work on it there to make it into an article. Then when it is ready it can be moved back to Poetry in Ghana. ~ GB fan 09:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robertjamal12 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see this

Hi, @GB fan: Please See User talk:2A02:C7F:A0D6:3D00:5D7:BFBD:A865:9836 . Best Regards ❣MXX8❣^@Talk 15:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, not sure why you want me to see that. ~ GB fan 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,@GB fan: Yesterday an IP wrote a section on your talk called Js thrings that I have been commissioned to do paid editing on this article, I gave you this information earlier But you probably got busy with work then I informed this User:anachronist, they blocked that IP for 1 week and removed the IP address talks and save that article for 6 months.Best Regards

❣MXX8❣^@Talk 03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Autopatrolled Rights

Hi , @GB fan: I've Created 23+ Article on English Wikipedia. i apologize to you How am I asking for this right from you,I'm not aware about that can this right be how to given member who has created so few articles, I only want this right for one month only for trial .Best Regards ❣MXX8❣^@Talk 03:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The proper place to ask for this is at WP:PERM#Autopatrolled. ~ GB fan 10:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi , @GB fan: I've Added a Request Please see[4]. Best Regards ❣MXX8❣^@Talk 10:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

An admin that reviews those will evaluate your request and make the decision. ~ GB fan 10:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Best Regards

❣MXX8❣^@Talk 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleve Haubold

Hi! I see that you deleted the "Cleve Haubold" page in July of 2020. By any chance did you save the text of the page somewhere? I would like to take a look at it for some research I am doing. Thank you for getting back to me. Taram (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Taram, The content is available to administrators only. Since it was deleted via PROD anyone can ask for the content to be restored. If you would like to see the content but do not want it restored as an article I can place the content in your userspace to access. If you think it should be an article then I can just restore the article. Let me know what you would like. ~ GB fan 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

List of schools in Kenya

Hi, I see what you mean, but that AFD was 15 years ago (!) and the article has since then unfortunately become a pile of spam. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DrVogel, It doesn't make any difference how long ago the AFD was. The AFD concluded that the list should be kept. The only option for deletion at this point is to go back to WP:AFD. Being a pile of spam is not a valid reason to delete the list at AFD. That is a reason to edit the list to remove the spam. ~ GB fan 19:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Raj Gupta

Thanks @GB fan:, I made a right mess of the Raj Gupta page, and absolutely withdraw any intention of PRODing it; I hadn't noticed that the vandal had removed the entire useful content before hijacking the page for his own use. Sorry about that. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hi — you just declined my G4 speedy request on Draft:Rejoice Chidinma Iwueze on the basis that it doesn't apply to drafts. Fair enough. I just wasn't sure, because the guidance that pops up on my Twinkle dialogue box only says it doesn't apply to "content that has been userfied", and I didn know if it also meant this. Now I know. :)

Incidentally, I only realised after tagging it that this one was created a few days before, not after, the one deleted at the AfD. I don't suppose you'd care to comment on whether that was technically okay or not; ie., whether G4 can apply (in main space) regardless of which order the articles were created in? Just curious. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

G4 can apply to drafts. If a draft is deleted via MFD, then a recreation of a recreated draft would be subject to G4. The reason I declined the G4 is that the deletion discussion that you quoted is an AFD. AFDs only apply to pages in the mainspace.

If an article is deleted via AFD, that AFD applies to any article in the mainspace about that subject. So if there is another article in the mainspace about the same subject it would be eligible for deletion also, no matter if it was created first or second. ~ GB fan 19:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Hi, regarding this: the user has already made another draft, and it's obvious that this one has a typo in its title and is therefore irrelevant. I should've stated it in the deletion request. Best, --Jan Myšák (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Blakey

Hi GB fan! I understand your decline of a G4 tag on this draft, since the prior discussion was an AFD, but my concern is that this creates an attribution issue because it now looks like Homer903 is the sole contributor of that draft's text. I don't intend to work on this draft, but I think that in order to comply with licensing requirements, either the deleted article should be restored to draftspace in its place, or a list of all contributors to the deleted article should be supplied. (I can't see the original contributros because I'm not an administrator.) Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Help me save Hip Hop Movement Page that you helped me with 5 years ago

- GB fan

I hope you remeber me, it's been 5 years, you help me when i created Hip Hop Movement page, thank you for all your help it eook a lot of research, I reall need your help, after 5 years this user is trying to remove it, for what i don't know, he going around taking all the things of Ronald Savage as if it's personal, please help me to save and keep the page i did, me and my friends did a lot of work, this user: Piotr Jr. is the one. I even took the notice down off the page like the wiki article said and put it on my talk page and try to send him a note to don't put it on the article and if he had an iisue to put it in the delestion page, sorry i still don't know the wiki talk lol.

I want to oppose it and also send it for approval to wiki like i did 5 years ago and they approval it, thats why i don't understand how can this user do this if hip hop movement as approved already 5 years ago. tommrrow will be 7 days please help me. Street Sting

--Street sting (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Katherine Kamhi

You removed the BLPprod claiming there was a source. There is an external link but there is no reference. WP:IMDB is not a valid reference anyway. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You did the same thing for Jonathan Tiersten. Neither have any references at all and your basis was that they do. What is up? Notfrompedro (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Notfrompedro, WP:BLPPROD requires no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.). If an article has an external link, it is not eligible for BLPPROD. Schazjmd (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Notfrompedro BLPPROD is not about References, it is about sources. The second sentence of the policy says:

"To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." (emphasis in original)

These pages both have a source, (imdb) in the External links section that supports information in the article. They are both ineligible for BLPPROD. ~ GB fan 17:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete page Draft:Ayman Kaddoura

I am the creator of this page. My account was globally blocked that's whi I am not able to login to my account. Kindly delete the page I have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.65.84 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the page, Digitalroblox is not blocked. I guess you are claiming to be Rixwarton. If you are Rixwarton, the page is still not eligible for speedy deletion. Also, you evading a block and should not be editing. ~ GB fan 18:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Prod at Wynter Chelsea

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I've sent it to AfD instead. Usually Twinkle warns me when a page was prodded before, but it seems it didn't catch it this time. I'll be more careful and do a manual check in the future. Thanks again, Isabelle ^🔔 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, Twinkle will only warn you if {{oldprod}} is added to the talk page. A lot of previously prod'd pages do not have it on the talk page. ~ GB fan 21:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Redir deletion request rv misunderstanding

Hi, I just want to explain seemingly false claim in the revert summary edit Haifa Сentral HaShmona Railway Station (rev. 1037751409). I thought that you mean that that the deletion request was old, while you meant the redir itself. Thanks for the handy RfD link that came afterwards. —Mykhal (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

ESSAR Steel India Limited page deletation

Trying to delete the ESSAR Steel India Limited page because AM/NS India has merged with ESSAR Steel India Limited. So now it's not standing alone anymore. I am wishing to take down all the ESSAR Steel pages linked with the above-mentioned page. For the same, I am facing the issue to delete it by using the Proposed deletion process as it's showing "This page must be substituted" even after following all the steps. I request you to delete the ESSAR Steel India Limited page and the other ESSAR Pages linked with it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNS INDIA (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I can not delete it. If you feel the pages must be deleted you can nominate them using WP:AFD. A better option and one I would recommend if they ever went to AFD would be to redirect the existing titles to the combined company. ~ GB fan 16:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ESSAR Group

Hi, I need guidance in the selection of speedy deletion category of a page (ESSAR Group) for which I had got a suggestion of redirection of this page to another new page when I had proposed it for deletion but the redirection option does not work for me because the ESSAR Group no longer exists (ESSAR is now AMNS India) so it's now misleading. I need to delete this page. Please guide me with a selection of the speedy deletion process and category. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There are no valid speedy deletion criterion for those two pages. If you want to nominate them for deletion then the only option that is available is WP:AFD. In my experience that will not lead to the pages being deleted but you can try if you want. ~ GB fan 09:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Polly Cannabis

Good afternoon! Polly Cannabis is a model from Belarus, who participated in 20 international beauty contests. Among them are such large ones as Miss Earth and Miss Grand. It is well-known and popular in Belarus, therefore it has the right to publish. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.127.198.16 (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There is one place to discuss this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polli Cannabis. ~ GB fan 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Mehsopuria

You will presumably see a notification that your edit has been reverted, but I thought I would do you the courtesy of telling you that I have reverted your de-PRODDing of Mehsopuria. BLPPROD and PROD, despite the confusing similarity of names, are quite separate, and the one being removed doesn't prevent the other from being applied. JBW (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

JBW, I absolutely agree with you, an old BLPPROD does not preclude a subsequent PROD. I didn't pay attention to what I was reading. I saw propose deletion and didn't see the BLPPROD. ~ GB fan 09:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)