User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 60

I'd like you to restore Draft:Rivulet Sigma Omega Beta Society. Presuming the status when deleted was similar to when I added the Draftcat, I don't think it met G11 or G13. While it is "unlikely" to meet ultimate ability to publish, the information listed for a Philippine Greek Letter Society is not unreasonable, the marks (normally tattoos) to indicate membership are different per Greek Letter Organization, and SEC is a normal thing to register. I'm a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities and have worked on several of the pages under Category:Fraternities and sororities in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Naraht: just for the record, I deleted it as G11 and G15 (not G13). It is clearly AI-generated, so qualifies for the latter. And given that it was entirely unreferenced ie. not based on any sources, it was inherently promotional because it was obviously someone from the organisation telling the world about it. But if you want, I can restore it for you, I just hope the next time I see it it'll be considerably better than what I deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanx, could you restore the talk page as well? Note, I *completely* agree with the AFC Decline.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't feel AI to me, the fact that the Infobox was created correctly is fine. The use of the SEC registration as proof of importance is in many ways more likely to be human than AI given the culture there... I've reached out to the editor (I was trying to use the talk page of the draft for that, but should go directly to user talk) and am checking Philstar, Rappler and the Manila Inquirer.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You've blocked M.i.n.o.r.a.x and Tegel, but they created five other accounts first which don't appear to be blocked. Does blocking a main account also automatically block accounts created by it? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: those are all globally locked now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I have resubmitted draft. Could you kindly check it for me? There are nearly four sources, and all of them provide evidence regarding the location of the regiment. Earslaner2001 (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I got slightly curious, googled a little, and made this edit: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: that's actually quite interesting. It's a pity the user blotted their copybook by making PAs and not disclosing their likely COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree and agree. I'd never heard of phytomining, but I certainly like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

• Ordeneaqui (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Canyon Heights Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a bit confused with the feedback, given that other schools in the same area show similar content and have been approved. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_Academy_(California)

Can you please clarify what is missing compared to that other listing? Thanks so much, and thanks for the patience since I'm new to this.

Ordeneaqui (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ordeneaqui: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there are all sorts of problematic articles among the 7m+ in the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we should create more such problems. Existing articles have come about in all sorts of ways, and may not have been 'approved' in any sense; some go back many years, to when our rules and policies were very different. All new articles must meet current standards. Specifically with regard to your draft, we need to see significant coverage of this school in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject, but this draft cites no such source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the very clear explanation. I am looking for and adding secondary sources to improve the draft. I've now submitted it again now for your review. Thanks so much for your patience! Ordeneaqui (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Don't mean to hassle you I'm just a bit confused about the process. I made several important changes and listed them but I haven't heard back. No rush, I just wanted to confirm its in the queue in case I did something wrong. Best, NB Noelboylan (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Noelboylan: I assume you're referring to Draft:Elaine Spatz‑Rabinowitz? In which case, nothing is currently happening to it, you need to resubmit it for another review; click on the blue 'resubmit' button when ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, thank you so much! Noelboylan (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

DoubleGrazing,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing,

I noticed that you deleted my submission Draft:Coffee production in Bhutan under G11.

I understand that my previous draft contained language that appeared promotional, specifically regarding individual profiles and certifications. However, I genuinely believe the topic itself (the emerging coffee agriculture sector in Bhutan) is notable, supported by sources like the FAO and national airline publications.

Could you please restore the content to my userspace (User:pokpongp/Sandbox) or allow me to recreate it? I intend to completely rewrite it to adhere to NPOV (Neutral Point of View), removing the promotional biographies and focusing strictly on the agricultural and economic facts.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Pokpongp (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pokpongp: I agree that the subject could be notable and encyclopaedically valuable. However, this was not the way to write about it. Firstly, don't insert yourself into the subject, that's where it gets promotional regardless of what sort of language you use. Secondly, avoid mentioning specific commercial enterprises without good reason, because again that makes the draft inevitably promotional.

To be honest, I don't think there was much in the deleted draft that is worth userfying. Specifically, the inflight magazine, which accounts for more than half of the citations, probably isn't particularly reliable, and in any case isn't independent since they serve on their flights the coffee they write about.

By all means, please do write about this subject, but follow the process outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE which tells you how to base your draft on summarising what reliable and independent sources have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you very much for your clear explanation and constructive feedback.

I fully agree with your assessment. I understand now why the previous draft was unsuitable, particularly regarding the reliance on the inflight magazine, which constitutes a conflict of interest and lacks independence.

I accept your advice to let the old draft go. However, I am still passionate about documenting this topic as I believe it has encyclopedic value. I will take this as a valuable learning opportunity to improve my research standards.

Moving forward, I will strictly follow WP:GOLDENRULE. I plan to take some time to research and locate higher-quality, independent sources—such as academic journals, books, or reputable news publications—before attempting to draft any new content. I will ensure that any future submission is built entirely from the ground up, based solely on what these independent sources state, with zero self-insertion.

Thank you again for your patience and for guiding me towards the correct way to contribute.

Best regards, Pokpongp (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reviewing page Mohini Mohan Dhar since you're an administrator, may I know your views on the sources I have provided on the page ? I have mentioned each page where its written about him. (The pages, don't just have mentions about him rather the whole page is written on him) Thanks for helping me out! TrikityTikki (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TrikityTikki: I didn't look at the sources, and don't have any opinion on them; that wouldn't be necessary, since the article is now at AfD which will determine whether it should be kept or not.

Have you edited Wikipedia previously with a different user account(s), by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Nope, but yes, my username was different. But my account was this one only. I changed my former username because of certain problems. This is the first time me editing wikipedia 😊 (Sorry, If I made any mistakes, I watched loads of YouTube tutorials though!) TrikityTikki (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DG! You are one of the people who make Wikipedia editing worthwhile. --bonadea contributions talk 17:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Awww, right back atcha, @Bonadea! May... er... <checks calendar> 2026 be happy and prosperous for you & yours!

Apropå of which, is... <checks again, dammit – my memory isn't what it used to be> 2026 going to be the year when you at long last pick up the mop and do your fair share of cleaning around here? I know I'm not the only one trying to talk you 'round to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

........maybe? --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful, I'll take that as 'yes'! :) The next election is coming up in May, or RfA is an option at any time. Either way, you'd be a shoo-in. And I'd be honoured to nominate you (or at least co-nominate, since you'll no doubt have better offers from the Big Name Admins). Looking forward to it already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I understand the slight misunderstanding. But now that I've gathered the academic references on the writer, author, and activist Crowley Baruc, as well as references from interviews, media mentions, and other quotes from renowned artists, I want to be able to edit and include all the references so that the draft can be accepted as an article! But I need you to remove the draft from the rejection list. That way, I can edit it and add the references. And please wait until I finish finalizing it! Antonio Menozzi (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Antonio Menozzi, what is this regarding? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This diff is by an editor you lifted a prior block on. I've sent it to ARV, but felt you might like to take a look. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I was confused for a moment there, because unblocking a UPE so does not sound like something I would do! Turns out, I didn't: Jimfbleak reverted the block he had placed, upon realising the user had actually disclosed PAID, and I merely closed the unblock request as redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, now that makes sense. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I am certain mosdef is not an editor here much less a paid one. S0091 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I bet ROFLMAO is, though! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my draft.

I have added reliable sources to the Biography section and resubmitted the article. I appreciate your time. Jovan.orthodoxy (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look at Dad-wikimasters2003, their contributions and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KostyaMasterpiece. Happy to open one if you think it will not waste SPI time. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

At least one other has turned up. New SPI open. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, much duck-likeness. Good think you opened the SPI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

i run a small community wiki and have recently been receiving routine vandalism from PawPatroler and various offshoot accounts. i did some googling and found that you seem to have initiated an SPI of this user. the user seems to have made accounts on wikis all over the place as part of some sort of tantrum and is also commenting on random fora asking to be unblocked here.

i am far from an expert on site integrity tooling available to mediawiki instances. could you share some best practices and recommendations for keeping this guy off my site? my main recourse is to block both user and IP but i think the guy is editing from multiple locations in the same region.

feel free to shoot me an email if you think that's a better venue for this discussion. thanks in advance for any help you can offer & happy new year! — mxawng (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mxawng: sorry to hear you're being hassled by this individual, however I don't think there's much I can offer in terms of advice on how to deal with it. I don't have the checkuser magic goggles that let one see technical evidence, so don't really know what such evidence consists of (beyond the obvious one, IP addresses) or what one could glean from it. I'm going mainly by behavioural clues, and those behaviours are likely quite different on different platforms, as are the various policies and practices which guide user behaviour, of both those vandalising as well as those fighting against them.

You might get something more useful (not a very high bar!) from a checkuser, assuming they're prepared and authorised to reveal what's in their box of tricks and how they use their tools; I have a feeling they might not do that, though.

Alternatively, have you tried contacting this team at MediaWiki, perhaps they can offer some guidance or at least signpost you further?

Sorry I couldn't help, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

are there any checkusers here that you work with on investigations such as these? i of course have total control over my own mediawiki instance, so i have access to as much information as mediawiki collects (although it's almost certain this user is using a VPN). but beyond blocking users and IPs, i am not familiar with mediawiki site integrity tooling. if you have any contacts here who might have some tips, that'd be great; but if not, i'll definitely try the public email that the PSI team publishes. thanks for the link!

(PawPatroler seems to have supplied a consistent name (Ivan Garcia) in his earlier blitz of community wikis, and is no longer doing so. his email shows up on stopforumspam.com, as you've probably already found.) mxawng (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

I did this article User:PlanetChatty/sandbox and you said not enough info. Yesterday she was in ABC news and CNN today in People magazine. Would these links be credible enough for this to be published on Wiki? Thank you. PlanetChatty (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I see you've resubmitted this, so at some point you will get another review. I won't review it myself again, it's better that someone else takes a look next. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks---Fingers and paws crossed! PlanetChatty (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]],

Following our previous discussion, I have significantly revised [[Draft:Samrat Kumar Gupta]]. I have addressed the "notability" concern by providing primary documentary evidence of the subject's career as an investigative journalist.

The draft now includes:

• Accreditation: Official Media Passes issued by the Government/District Public Relations Office.
• Investigative Reports: Citations of multi-page reports on the "Kanti Coal Scam" and "Flood Relief Mismanagement" published in Prabhat Khabar.
• Legal Verification: A verifiable Patna High Court PIL (CWJC 19522/2024) regarding civic reforms.

I have added a gallery of these newspaper archives to the draft for your verification. Please let me know if this meets the requirements for significant coverage. Thank you! ~~~~ Kumari Supriya (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

You can resubmit the draft whenever you wish, I won't review it again myself.

Please don't use AI to communicate on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing,

"I have added multiple verifiable secondary links from Hindustan and Dainik Jagran along with the Patna High Court record."

Thank you!Kumari Supriya (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I see we had the same idea. Every other references is primary. This is a blatant advert. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent: yes, pure advert – if it's actually legit. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be illegit, similar eg. to Stefano Černetić (although I guess it could still be advert, albeit for more nefarious purposes). An odd one, either way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

that source which alleges criminality is interesting. Reputational whitewashing? I think the AFD should run its course to make it harder to re-create. Look also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Log&diff=1276968240&oldid=1274381731 which leaves me scratching my head 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That is strange.

And turns out Arcemar1981 created an earlier version of this draft a year ago, which got G11'd. And then 2-3 weeks after that they posted this blurb on the Log page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing ! Please let me know if administrative expertise can be requested to AFD discussions on topics belonging to a specific niche - such as music/health/commerce/politics, etc. or for similar topics that require expert opinion. Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Retro music11: admins aren't necessarily 'experts' in anything other than using admin tools. They are typically experienced users, but then so are many non-admin ones, so experience is by no means exclusively an admin domain. Admins also don't have AfD 'supervotes' (not that they are votes, but still), their views carry the exact same weight as anyone else's with comparable arguments. So there is no particular advantage to be gained by inviting admins to take part in AfD discussion. There is, however, a potential risk if such invites are construed as canvassing, which is a big no-no. Does that answer your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response User:DoubleGrazing. Very well explains that administrative intervention is not necessary while seeking expert opinion. But, that leaves my question unanswered on 'who should be reached out to for an expert opinion'?

In addition, in a case of suspected sock puppetry during an AFD discussions - where can vandalism be reported?

Thank you. Retro music11 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd say on the whole it's best not to reach out too much during an AfD, to avoid the risk of canvassing. AfD discussions are sorted into subject areas anyway, so there's a good chance that users interested in the topic will be notified via relevant WikiProjects.

Vandalism can just be reported to WP:AIV, and if it's more substantial sockpuppetry you want investigating, then to WP:SPI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @DoubleGrazing for clarifying this further along with the vandalism query.

That answers all my questions. Retro music11 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing , I created a new ticket for sockpuppetry investigation via the above tool. Am I required to report the ticket ID here? Retro music11 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Retro music11: you're not required to report SPI investigations anywhere or to anyone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, thank you for confirming. Retro music11 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing

Kindly request you to remove our draft article from the archive page. Please help us to publish the article.

Thank you. Anandhu96 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anandhu96: I don't know what you mean by 'archive page', Draft:Khalifa Economic Zones Abu Dhabi - KEZAD Group is not archived in any sense of the word. I declined it last month because there is no evidence that the subject is notable. The onus is now on you to add sources which would satisfy the WP:NCORP guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing

I am not a paid editor. I have a personal connection with the subject of this article. I will adhere to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and conflict of interest guidelines. I will avoid adding promotional language and will rely only on independent, reliable sources. So kindly guide us to publish this article.

Thank you

Anandhu96 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anandhu96: I'll say again, you need to add sources which satisfy the WP:NCORP notability guideline, that is the only way to get this draft accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Please note that I have published the entire article with the relevant references. Please take a look at the entire information with the references, as the references added is all from strong UAE-based news channels. Kindly request you to approve the article.

Thank you Anandhu96 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey mate, I was on-site at this school today. Just asking for advice on what specifically needs to be improved? All data was taken directly from the school website (currently both Asquith Boys HS & Asquith Girls HS have two websites each as they are both going through the same conversion from single-sex to co-educational). An example of this (albeit not exactly the same change) is Randwick Boys HS & Randwick Girls HS.

As I mentioned, there is a COI however my intention is to take a neutral stance.

Cheers,

Jackson Jacksonattwood (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonattwood: as explained in the notability guideline for organisations like schools, WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage of this school in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft only cites primary sources.

Note also that the vast majority of schools are not notable, so it is perfectly possible, likely even, that this school simply wouldn't satisfy the ORG requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah ok I think I understand, all I've done for this article is copy+paste (at the school's advice) the existing Article content from Asquith Boys High School without any extra detail, so the new school's article can start from a blank slate. If there's any extra content you want (I'm not sure of any secondary sources of information other than maybe some news articles) that mention this change. I will add some references, if there's specific Australian news outlets that are known to be reliable please let me know and I'll grab some known accurate information from there.

I'm not sure that this school can meet the ORG requirement, but I'll try my best.

Thanks,

Jacksonattwood (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this should be a seperate article. It would probably be better served by simply moving the article to the new name ,and updating the school's history to show the name change and new coed status. The result of such a change is not normally considered to be a new school, despite the language that this particular school may prefer. There are many examples of Wikipedia articles for schools that have changed names after merging with another school or having gone coed without needing a seperate article. Meters (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Meters, I was just going to say the same. I also admit that I didn't realise this relates to an existing article, although I now see that was referred to in the draft. Without commenting on whether the existing article demonstrates notability either, I agree that it should just be moved to the new title, leaving a redirect behind from its current one. Or if there is more to it than that, then discussing first on the existing article's talk page would probably be prudent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Meters I have just left a similar comment on the Draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonattwood courtesy ping. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Meters @DoubleGrazing @Timtrent, I'll take this to the Exec team at the school and see what path they want to take (this may take some time, apologies). I sincerely appreciate your help with this. Cheers! Jacksonattwood (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It does not really matter to Wikipedia what the school's exec wants. This isn't the school's article. It is Wikipedia's article about the school. And if you are speaking with the school's exec you should read WP:COI and see if you need to declare a conflict of interest. Meters (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonattwood I am afraid it is not too to the exec team at the school, though they may think it is. The reason is that this is Wikipedia's article, and Wikipedia's needs have primacy. WP:OWN is a worthwhile read.

As a separate thing. WP:COI applies, too, or, depending upon your relationship, [{[WP:PAID]] 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonattwood, @Meters: I have made the move, and started, with a citation, to document the name change.

Setting aside the desires or otherwise of the school, I suggest merging relevant cited information in.

I have no particular interest in the school, so this is as far as I will go except flagging the need for a merge on the article and draft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks du... br... pal. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

~giggles helplessly~ There need to be a 'send a giggle' button as well as a 'send thanks' button 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That was more than I expected to be doing. The Girls High School is also included in the merger and new name. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes it's a big change for both schools. Important to note that neither the Girls nor Boys school have any relation to each other. After the merger, Asquith Boys will be Hornsby High School. Asquith Girls will be Asquith High School. Both will be independent 7-12 co-ed. I'll tidy the articles up later (GMT+11 for me) if it takes a load off of you Jacksonattwood (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I will undo what I just did. Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)