User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 10

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello SouthernNights - I'd like your assistance in evaluating whether Asim Ijaz Khwaja meets the WP:N for WP:NPROF and whether Akmal Lewane meets the WP:N for WP:NPOET. Your input on their WP:N based on the relevant criteria would be appreciated. — Saqib (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have only limited connectivity at the moment due to being on vacation in a rural area. When I get back in a few days I'll check the articles out. SouthernNights (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure - also please Rasul Bakhsh Rais. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears all three articles may not meet our notability standards. SouthernNights (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

OK Thanks for your input. I've draftified two recently created bios, instead of taking them to AfD. This will give anyone interested a chance to help establish their WP:N. The third BLP was created long ago so might not be suitable for draftification so will be taken to AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I did more digging and it's possible Akmal Lewane meets our notability guidelines. Part of the problem here is there are so few reliable citations in English. But it's likely there are more in other languages. SouthernNights (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maybe you would like to see this. @Fokket, the creator of Rasul Bakhsh Rais, said . SouthernNights assessment is totally wrong. I also agree with your assessment hence I draftified it, but they reverted my draftification. By the way, there is nothing significant or in-depth in local RS. I can vouch for this. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My apology for messing up the analysis on Asim Ijaz Khwaja. I'm better at analyzing the potential notability of poets and writers than doing the same with academics. SouthernNights (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No issue. I thought you might have expertise in academic-related bios as well, which I must confess I struggle with. Anyway, may I ask on what basis you believe Akmal Lewane meets NPOET? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The page has quite low levels of traffic to get ECP. Remedy 1 is now gone making it now longer a contentious topic according to the ArbCom (correct me if I'm wrong) and most other pages in the area don’t even have semi. I think protection should at least be reduced to PC but semi would be fine too and you could also remove protection if you'd like. ArbCom might get in the way a bit though. CharlieEdited (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. I ended most of the article's protection. SouthernNights (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Kellogg (reporter) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing a pretty thorough overhaul of this article to try to save the GA status; I hope I'm not stepping on your toes with this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The updates look really good. Thanks for doing them. SouthernNights (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts Seven years! ...

Precious

Seven years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! It's been more than a year since I was unblocked. I have mostly moved away from hot-headed editing of articles and would like to participate in the Russia-Ukraine topic again. Could the topic ban be lifted? Thanks! Summer ^talk 15:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. SouthernNights (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SouthernNights. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@SouthernNights Hello, I would like to briefly clarify that when I created the page “Mufti Shamail Nadwi”, I was not aware of the existing article “Shamail Nadwi”. The duplication was unintentional, and I understand that deletion under A10 was technically appropriate.

As the existing article is currently under deletion discussion, I would like to improve it in line with Wikipedia practice during AfD (WP:AFD) and through content merging (WP:MERGE). For that purpose, I request access to the deleted content via my sandbox or user sub page (WP:USERSPACE), so that verified material can be reused without having to reconstruct everything from scratch. Khaatir (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out. As you said, this was merely a technical deletion. If you create a userspace or sandbox page and respond here with a link to it, I'll drop in the content from the deleted article. Also, as an FYI my thought is the subject meets our notability guidelines and will be happy to say that on the current AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@SouthernNights Thank you for your help. I was able to recover a version very close to the deleted content and have already incorporated it into the current article to improve it.

That said, I would still be grateful if you could drop the deleted article’s content into my sandbox for reference and verification, in case anything useful remains to be merged. Here is the link:

User:Khaatir/sandbox#Shamail_Nadwi Khaatir (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Done! I'll also go comment on the AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Khaatir (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitely add in any citations and info that aren't in the current article. And glad to help out. SouthernNights (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

😊 Khaatir (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @SouthernNights for your feedback on Prentis Hemphill article. And I apologise for my oversight with the use of AI. I did not intend to mislead. This will not repeat itself as my intention is not to violate Wikipedia policies and standards. May I ask for what you suggest in redoing this article? Your guidance will be appreciated. Thank you. SyzygyRebel (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest research and writing the article yourself. See if you can find reliable sources that support the subject's notability. If you find enough of them, write out the article with them. Good luck! SouthernNights (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@SouthernNights, Sure. Thank you. SyzygyRebel (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Being honest I do not think an article should exist there. And probably if an AFD is not started within a week or so I will write one up myself. At the same time an article existed in the history, and so was not WP:R2 eligible here. Furthermore, it wasn't a good candidate for draftification because the author had already made clear a WP:DRAFTOBJECT by moving the article back to main, c&p moves not being an issue in singly authored cases.

If you could just restore it now that will help to ease things along, thanks. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I deleted a redirect to the draft article Draft:SS Empire Star (1919). Per the speedy delete R2 category, such redirects from main space articles to drafts are not allowed. That said, I could recreate the older article but it appears to be a match for the draft article. B/c of that I'm not going to recreate it. Everything else you mentioned can be handled at Draft:SS Empire Star (1919). SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There was an article in the page history. You cannot redirect a mainspace page to a draft page then tag it for R2 deletion, else that would be the gateway to all sorts of backdoor deletion. The specific revision where the page was redirected may remain deleted.

The matching is irrelevant. Because the page is singly authored no attribution issues arise. Under WP:DRAFTOBJECT the page cannot be redraftified once objected to which the c&p move back to main was. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As I said, address all of this at Draft:SS Empire Star (1919). If the article is approved, it'll move to main space. If not, it's done. I'm not going back and forth on this. SouthernNights (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Very well, please see WT:CSD#R2 on mainspace pages with article (i.e. non-redirect) revisions in the history. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As an FYI, I'm not undoing the deletion. If you get consensus from other admins that I made a mistake, one of them can recreate the article. But I'd be surprised if they did that. SouthernNights (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying you will not reverse the deletion regardless of the input to that discussion? If so can you make that explicit in a response please. That will allow the initiation of a WP:DRV more rapidly if one is needed as there would no longer be an obligation under protocol to repeat the request for undeletion a subsequent time, thank you. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for undeleting the page. If you could also go ahead and undelete the earlier revisions at Talk:SS Empire Star (1919) that would be helpful. There was a preexisting Template:Old prod on that page, but because it was deleted it is not easily evident to people that the page has been previously deprodded. I understand that someone could go through all the revisions and put it all back together, but it will be much faster to simply retrieve it from the page history of the old talk page revisions. No need to worry about merging the old content in to the live page, I will take care of that once they are back in the visible history, thanks for your help. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. SouthernNights (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of There's a Hole in the City at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. The article you deleted, John Roa, on G4 grounds: what was deleted as the result of a discussion was an article about the founder of a company, while this article was about an athlete by the same name, so G4 doesn't apply. Largoplazo (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You are correct. I checked the article history and saw that the 2019 article that was speedy deleted was about the singer, but it appears the AfD was a year earlier and about a different businessman. I've restored the article and made a note in the article's history about all this. My apology for this mistake. SouthernNights (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem! I caught it because titles coming up on my watchlist with N next to them always leads me to investigate. I would have requested G4 myself if I hadn't checked the details of the deletion discussion. Did you need to restore Talk:John Roa as well? Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. And for what it's worth, after going through the new article I don't believe it's a candidate for speedy delete under A7 either b/c it has enough reliable citations to indicate notability. I posted a comment on the article's talk page about all this so we don't have someone else attempt a speedy delete. And again, many thanks for catching this. SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! In the event you're not watching, flagging the AfD. I thought it was the best route to resolution. I agree with you that it wasn't a candidate for speedy. Star Mississippi 18:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. And I think the article has a good chance of being deleted through an AfD. It just wasn't eligible for speedy delete, plus I didn't like how the editor who tagged the article for speedy delete removed a lot of info from the article before adding the SD template. SouthernNights (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree all around. I went to re-remove some and then just realized we'd go in circles and no one has time for that. Star Mississippi 19:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate you saying this. It's sometimes frustrating dealing with speedy deletes b/c people either jump on you for deleting the article or wonder why the hell you didn't. I follow the speedy delete guidelines to the best of my ability, but there are always articles that don't neatly fit any of the criteria. And when an article has been around as long as this one, it's almost always better to do an AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep. I've recently-ish begun patrolling CSD again and seeing some of the same.

While there are times when we need quick action, I feel we as a community are best served by hearing all voices. If an article that isn't a copyright or BLP issue lingers seven days, the world will not end. Maybe it will be deleted, maybe someone will find sourcing. It's also far kinder to the feelings of the primary editor when there's a discussion we can point to vs. "I felt it met alphabet soup". My on wiki time is spotty, but happy to be second set of eyes if ever helpful. Star Mississippi 20:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi SouthernNights, I hope you’re doing well. I am writing regarding your recent G4 deletion. While I respect the effort to keep the encyclopedia free of improperly recreated content, I believe this specific version was not substantially identical to the version deleted in the previous AfD. This version was a significant rework and incorporated multiple new secondary sources providing significant coverage that were not part of the prior AfD discussion. These improvements were intended to directly address previous notability concerns.

I’m AGFing that the G4 tag may have been an oversight by the nominating user, who appears to be relatively new (10 edits) and may not have realized that G4 excludes pages that have been substantially improved with new sourcing. I had noted these improvements on the article’s talk page, but they do not appear to have been reviewed prior to the G4 tagging. Since the article now contains substantial new content and sources, I respectfully request that it be restored. I am happy to continue improving sourcing and neutrality as needed. HibaShaikh (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

When I speedy deleted the article for G4, I compared the previously deleted version with the new version. While you are correct that there are new citations and information, many of the most reliable citations also existed in the article version deleted per AfD. My sense was while the article had been improved, it hadn't been improved sufficiently to override the previous AfD.

Are you willing to bring this article up for a deletion review? If so, I'd be happy to undelete the article for that review. Honestly, this is the best route to take b/c even if I undeleted the article myself, odds are someone else would bring it up for another speedy delete. If you can get consensus at deletion review that the article should no longer be deleted, that will prevent this from happening again. SouthernNights (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi SouthernNights, it has come to my awareness that you deleted under section G4 my article. Now I fully understand why you did so (although I view this wrongly), but I want to just request if you could please restore the article as a draft for me to work on until the first flight of Air Karachi takes place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just MRT (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Since consensus was already reached at articles for deletion that Air Karachi should be deleted, the guide to deletion indicates it shouldn't be recreated even in draft space. Once the company has actual flights and reliable sources supporting notability, you can try bringing it back. SouthernNights (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, does this mean I need to redo everything? Can't I just have the draft back, and edit/redo it once the first flight happens? Just MRT (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you create a sandbox page in your userspace, I'll copy the article and paste it there. Will that work for you? If so, share the sandbox link. SouthernNights (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes please that would be perfect, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJust_MRT%2Fsandbox&action=edit Just MRT (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. And good luck with the article. Once the company launches its flights and there are more reliable sources proving notability, you should be able to move forward with the article. SouthernNights (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it thanks! Once the first flight is complete and I add more info, I can put it back correct? Just MRT (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see it based on what was said in the AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please restore. You deleted it with " Article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance". But the references clearly say that she was a multiple record holder. See also --Altenmann >talk 00:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, the subject didn't meet Wikipedia's sports guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken: she meets sports guideline. If you disagree, send it to AfD.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gohar Harutyunyan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Altenmann >talk 00:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Bringing the article to deletion review is the correct thing to do if you disagree with my speedy delete decision. I won't take part in the review but will, of course, abide by any consensus that arises from the discussion. SouthernNights (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with your deletion, I was more bothered that the person who slapped the A7 tag did not bother to notify me. I do not really care about Armenians, it is just I maintain list of articles I created, and was surpised by big bad red link in it. --Altenmann >talk 01:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not going to support keeping or deleting in the deletion review but I left my reasoning for why I believed it was indeed a candidate for speedy delete. That said, the person who put the SF tag on the article should have notified you. SouthernNights (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there - just wanted to send an FYI and let you know that I've entered in a TFD now that the AfD has passed (I think I did this process right - this is also my first TfD): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_11#Template:Lorin_Morgan-Richards netstars22 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I also created an AfD for the two related articles that were discovered too late to bundle in with the previous AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, please coukd you kindly help improve the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imtiaz_Development. It has credible sources but its been nominated for deletion. thank you (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhchen (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't do that. It appears the article doesn't meet our notability standards. Also, why don't you work to improve the article? SouthernNights (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still a relatively inexperienced editor and your input on the Melat Kiros AFD page plus the discussion you started has been very helpful for me to learn. I had no idea the rules were so restrictive around certain topics! Pretty surprising to me that it works that way around here. Edittttor (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help and sorry the process didn't go how I thought it would. I'm a very experienced editor and I also had no clue the restrictions on certain topics also applied to passing info in unrelated articles. Learn something new every day around here. But I also understand why they do this b/c the edit wars over certain topics are pretty bad. Anyway, keep editing and you'll soon won't be restricted on stuff like this. SouthernNights (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there again, SouthernNights. I came across an article about the Pakistani city of Chumb, and found someone to have vandalized the article and replace all "Pakistan" words with the country "India", his IP address is ~2026-99489-6

Would it be possible for you to block/ban this user?

Regards, Just MRT — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi SouthernNights, I hope you’re doing well. I am writing regarding your recent G4 deletion. While I respect the effort to keep the encyclopedia free of improperly recreated content, I believe this specific version was not substantially identical to the version deleted in the previous AfD. This version was a significant rework and incorporated multiple new secondary sources providing significant coverage that were not part of the prior AfD discussion. These improvements were intended to directly address previous notability concerns.

I’m AGFing that the G4 tag may have been an oversight by the nominating user, who appears to be relatively new (10 edits) and may not have realized that G4 excludes pages that have been substantially improved with new sourcing. I had noted these improvements on the article’s talk page, but they do not appear to have been reviewed prior to the G4 tagging. Since the article now contains substantial new content and sources, I respectfully request that it be restored. I am happy to continue improving sourcing and neutrality as needed. HibaShaikh (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

When I speedy deleted the article for G4, I compared the previously deleted version with the new version. While you are correct that there are new citations and information, many of the most reliable citations also existed in the article version deleted per AfD. My sense was while the article had been improved, it hadn't been improved sufficiently to override the previous AfD.

Are you willing to bring this article up for a deletion review? If so, I'd be happy to undelete the article for that review. Honestly, this is the best route to take b/c even if I undeleted the article myself, odds are someone else would bring it up for another speedy delete. If you can get consensus at deletion review that the article should no longer be deleted, that will prevent this from happening again. SouthernNights (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy and couldn’t respond. I am reopening this discussion and I hope you won’t mind. While I appreciate your willingness to undelete the page for Deletion Review, I respectfully ask for reconsideration because I do not think G4 applies here. According to WP:G4, speedy deletion is only for pages that are “substantially identical” to a version that was deleted before and is intended to prevent disruptive recreations of previously deleted content that are unchanged or minimally altered.. The recreated article was not substantially identical. It included significant new content, expanded coverage, and multiple new independent reliable sources that were not present in the earlier version as noted. This was a good-faith effort to meet notability standards, not a repost of deleted content.

The article stayed in mainspace for more than two months without anyone flagging it as a G4 candidate. It was also independently reviewed and passed by a New Page Patrol reviewer. This shows that the recreated version is different and meets basic notability and sourcing standards. Honestly, the assessment of a seasoned NPP reviewer, who evaluated the article’s current merits, should speak far louder than a single Twinkle click from an otherwise SPA who made exactly 10 edits to gain autoconfirmed rights solely to use Twinkle to tag this article for deletion, and has since been inactive

Just look at the timing of the editsSparturn’s contributions: within two minutes, they tagged this article with 35+ links HibaShaikh (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to bring the article up for deletion review. SouthernNights (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, SouthernNights. You have new messages at TheTechie's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 16:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

if you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this case -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SouthernNights (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Just had to say thank you for the comments on the talk page. Rather just just removing the tag with an edit summary, the comments were helpful and gave some good guidance. Even as someone that's been editing here a while, that was appreciated. A sincere "Thank you!" for that bit of extra time you took. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I really appreciate the kind words! Thanks! SouthernNights (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

hello SouthernNights. At 15 February 2026 i made a draft about Connie Rahakundini Bakrie. Previously at 7 February 2026 you deleted the draft about Connie Rahakundini Bakrie made by Aditya Rizaldy.

What i like to know is how my draft about Connie can be published? For your information, i am not associated with Aditya Rizaldy, but i saw page about Connie is not available in Wikipedia English. So, my curiosity made me made the page about Connie.

I made new draft at this link Draft:Connie Rahakundini Bakrie. Please let me know if this draft can be published or if it collide with Wikipedia guidelines, which part do i need to fix?

Thank you

Jalak.merak (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The previous draft article violated the WP:G11 guidelines as "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and was deleted. In my opinion, the same issues exist with the new draft you created, along with indications that the draft was created with a large language model, meaning it could also be violating WP:G15. I don't work in the draft articles space, so I suggest you contact editors there for assistance. SouthernNights (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

May i know what the indication that the draft i create use large language model, and how to avoid it? Also may you introduce me or share to me the contact of one Wikipedia editor that you recommend to guide me in making the draft? Jalak.merak (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Dan Gheesling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I see, the past revisions before the AFD result were replaced or deleted. I wonder whether you can undelete most of them (except ones deleted by Zzuzz). George Ho (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want those past revisions undeleted? Usually once an article is deleted per AfD the deleted edits aren't brought back even if, as in this case, a new article is created. SouthernNights (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

A user attempted the redirect based on that old (recent, actually) AFD result on the pre-AFD revisions. I was able to revert such attempt. Indeed, the newer revision passed an AFC review. As I've been hoping, a perhaps unilateral redirection citing that (probably inapplicable anymore) AFD discussion shouldn't happen again. Furthermore, those capable of clicking on links of old revisions should compare and contrast an old revision with a newer one. George Ho (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I see you deleted the page on 11:36, 10 March 2026, but the AfD was closed as withdrawn on 02:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC). Why was this deletion done? SenshiSun (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I've undone the deletion. I don't believe the article meets notability guidelines but there are indications of significance, so I shouldn't have deleted it. My apology for that. That said, the AfD absolutely shouldn't have been withdrawn b/c a deeper search isn't showing enough reliable citations to prove notability. I strongly suggest you add more reliable sources and info to the article before someone else brings it back up for AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I will add the sources on the talk page and hunt for a third, as well as editing page content to actually describe what the company is and why it's significant. My concern with the deletion was mainly procedural: is it normal to speedy a page like that after the nomination is withdrawn, seemingly hours later? Are the time stamps in the same time zone? SenshiSun (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello SouthernNights, pleasure to meet you. I'm the declared paid editor for Pretium Partners. I noted your previous editing on articles related to the financial industry and would be grateful for your review of the edit request I put on the Talk page of Pretium's article. My suggestions are designed to expand the Background section of the article. If it is easier, and you approve my request, I can handle the implementation. Looking forward to collaborating. Thank you, B for Pretium (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I will not be assisting with that. I don't involve myself in anything on Wikipedia related to paid editing. SouthernNights (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Eight years! ...

Precious

Eight years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ndunruh has asked for a deletion review of Leon V. Emirali. Because you speedily deleted the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 15:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello SouthernNights, Regarding Columbia+Machine; Could you plz undelete the article? Its a notable company with numerous standalone references, and it participated in exhibitions. I didn't create the article on advertising purpose.
--Gpkp (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. I did a more in-depth search on this company and there definitely is enough coverage to be called "significant" (meaning it shouldn't be speedy deleted). That said, I'm still not convinced the company meets notability guidelines. I highly recommend adding more info and more reliable citations to the article before someone brings it up for an WP:AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you SouthernNights. --Gpkp (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey SouthernNights. I'm sure you think you know what you're doing, but you really don't. I appreciate your efforts, but in the future, please be sure to leave my pages alone. I added credible sources to my page, yet you still (against the rules for speedy deletion) deleted it. You need to do better. You CLEARLY aren't ready to be a moderator here, and your investigations need to be more thorough. Thanks (not really). Konor20001 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I read your passage above concerning speedy deletion. You said that my article was deleted (from the draft space!) because of the deletion discussion, but this was not a supported idea at all – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April 16. In fact, several users, as I have now raised there, agreed with creating the draft. Perhaps you were, not to be rude, over-influenced by the user who nominated the deletion? The article was well researched and had many new sources and bits added. Is there any way my work could be restored at least – I spent a while on it. Hope you can help, please Scientelensia (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I came here to remind you that G4 is for mainspace not articles being rewritten in draft space so your deletion was wrong, However the draft seems to have been based on the now redirected page so it needed properly attributing which it didn't have. Probably MFD would have deleted the draft because of this and because it's controversial. That said I'm personally in favour of letting this be as we already spent too much time on this and the project is ready to move on Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Scientelensia, Spartaz: I've undeleted the draft per the request. That said, since the consensus of the AfD was redirect, I think the draft is going to have some major hurdles to climb before it is allowed back in mainspace. And as an FYI, the G4 absolutely applies here. Per WP:GCSD, general speedy delete criteria applies to "every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." --SouthernNights (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

so no one can ever work on a draft that is based on a deleted article? I seriously hope that not your argument ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely did not say that. All I said if it's a nearly identical recreated draft article that was subject to an AfD consensus, then yes, it can be considered for G4. This was in response to your incorrect comment that "G4 is for mainspace not articles being rewritten in draft space." Despite that, the draft article's authors can also request it not be deleted or seek consensus to change the previous AfD decision. As with everything on Wikipedia, judgement calls have to be made about each article's specific situation and how it fits with our policies. SouthernNights (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

Articles in Draft for improvement are not subject to G4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If the article was moved to draft to improve the article, then no, it is not permitted under G4. But if the article in draft appears to have been created to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, then it is eligible. When I deleted the article it appeared to have been created to circumvent the previous AfD. When the author of the article pointed out the draft was being used to improve the article, I undeleted it. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand what a previously deleted article in draftspace is being used for, which is why admins have to listen to feedback when someone disagrees with a speedy deletion. SouthernNights (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you look at the live DRV that was signposted on the AFD where the start of a draft was discussed? I'm guessing not because then you would never have g4 this. I'm going to be very frank with you as we have both been around a very long time and both been admins a very long time. I also have closed thousands of AFDs and probably been dragged to DRV more than anyone so I can recognise hubris and old time thinking when I see it. This is no longer Wikipedia as it was even 10 years ago and us old timers have to listen more. All through this you have argued that you were right when the reality is you went off to delete before doing your due diligence and now you are reduced to squirming about the definition of stuff because, firstly, I bothered to check the policy and, secondly, you can't admit you went off too quick. You need to get with the modern program mate. I have seen too many of us old timers driven off because of their hubris and reluctance to bend with the wind. I see the early signs so I'm flagging this now to hopefully avoid another. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not see the DRV before deleting the article. If I had, I wouldn't have deleted it. And yes, I'm an old-time admin. I also only returned to working heavily on deletions in the last six months. However, I've been working hard to familiarize myself with the new ways of doing things and for the most part am quite happy with how things go around here these days. If you look at my deletion history, you will see that I have a very low DRV rate. In addition, if I'm called out on something I work hard not to make that mistake again.

Anyway, I made a mistake on the speedy, but when this was pointed out I immediately undid it. Also, I didn't argue that I was right, I argued that your comment "I came here to remind you that G4 is for mainspace not articles being rewritten in draft space" wasn't correct. There are cases where draft articles can be speedy deleted per G4.

That said, I appreciate your feedback. If I make another mistake, I hope you or others will correct me. SouthernNights (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for listening. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this! Scientelensia (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help and good luck with the article. SouthernNights (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi; hopefully I found you well.

I'm writing to you in response to my article you deleted yesterday entitled: Gogo Chihoro. I'm humbly requesting for a copy of that article so I can edit & polish it accordingly for compliance with Wikipedia requirements.

I understand the weaknesses in that article now; that was my first article on Wikipedia. Your cooperation has been appreciated in advance. Gogo Chihoro Official (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi SouthernNights, I saw that you deleted my article. I am new to Wikipedia and had to create a biographical article for a class. I think there was an error, and another student and I were assigned the same person, and they must have published their article before mine. Is there a way you could restore the article to my sandbox so that my professor can see my article? Or do you know how I can get the sandbox draft back so I can have it as a reference? Jellyfish 114 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I totally understand and I have recreated the article for you in draft space at Draft:Stefania Gori. I hope this helps. SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @SouthernNights,

I am contacting you regarding my userpage User:JCTasa which you deleted under CSD G11 (Unambiguous advertising). I understand now that the tone was promotional. I promise to remove the youtube links. JCTasa (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

And please can you recreate a draft of my userpage? JCTasa (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Your user page can't be used for advertising yourself. Even removing the youtube links won't fix the problems with that deleted page. I won't be undeleting it. SouthernNights (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way you could put the old version into a draft for me? I believe there is an SPI edit to the current version that is a copy and paste. Want to make sure prior to making the SPI report though. CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. Here's the deleted article. Also, please note that while I didn't believe the article met the speedy delete guidelines per G4 b/c the new article is not essentially the same, that doesn't mean I'm saying anything about whether or not the new article meets notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello SouthernNights. You deleted Reform California today under WP:G7. "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." (WP:CSD, 2nd paragraph) Another editor had attempted to add a significant chunk of text to the article, which the page creator reverted. Those revisions were not eligible for G7, so I don't think the page as a whole was eligible either. Toadspike [Talk] 21:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks for catching it. I've now undeleted the article. SouthernNights (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think adding an infobox, citation cleanup and copyediting are substantial edits in this article. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I try to err on the side of caution with speedy deletes. In this case, I simply felt the edits from other editors made the article not eligible. SouthernNights (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey SouthernNights. Just saw your amazingly fast response to the IMMOunited article with a WP:G11. Seeking clarification on the specifics for the G11 as created this as a stub to start to pull in greater detail, keen to avoid promotional language and of course speedy deletion in my early work, this article is to help improve some other existing reference articles, thanks in advance for your reply.Lifesbigstories [Talk] 23:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Glad to share more info. The article was deleted for both speedy delete criteria G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (Article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). This means the article felt like both advertising and, more importantly, also didn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You can read more about the notability guidelines here. It's not hard to rework the article to not feel promotional but the notability issue is what's going to trip you up. I suggest reading the linked notability guidelines above b/c if you can't provide reliable citations proving notability, the article will keep getting deleted. SouthernNights (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, will take another look Lifesbigstories (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there @SouthernNights, I saw that you deleted Eldar Dzharakhov after I had turned it into a stub. You might feel the same way about Bond s knopkoy from the same user, which I have just stubified as well. --gurkubondinn 18:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: just to be clear, I'm not asking you to delete the page. Personally it feels a bit more rewarding to have found an RS and then stubified the pages, and I'd even put a little bit more work into the Eldar page than this one. --gurkubondinn 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All good. For what it's worth, I don't believe the article is eligible for speedy delete b/c there are indications of significance (unlike the Eldar Dzharakhov article, which didn't have this). SouthernNights (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, the Eldar one met the G15 criteria prior to stubification, but that was declined so I stubified it instead. But I saw that you had deleted it under A7 (not G15), which was why I brought up this other article. --gurkubondinn 12:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Davis_Group

Hi SouthernNights! Not sure if this is the right way to reach out to you. Apologies, I'm new-ish to this sandbox.

You previously marked this page for speedy deletion. It has been rewritten with less of a marketing bent, and more of an "historical importance to packaging in Canada," highlighting some of their contributions. One main one is the development of a guide to assist agencies in implementing the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act in Canada. I am trying to get a PDF of the guide for inclusion in Wikimedia Commons to add to the article.

I hope this is better ... and now worthy of inclusion. If not, try try again.

Thank you for your help and the work you do. Cjanisse (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the closer look at Shiva Murugan Temple Drew Stanley (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)