Skip to top
Skip to bottom




Proclamation Trust

edit

Hi Buster—perhaps it was an oversight, but A7 speedy deletion of Proclamation Trust was contested on the article’s talk page. (I was not the page creator.) There are adequate sources for an article and I believe the organisation’s significance was asserted. The best path forward is for the nominator to bring it to AfD. Would you mind reverting your A7 deletion since it was properly contested? Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I missed that; restored as requested. BusterD (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Oversight changes

readded
removed L235

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Proclamation Trust

edit

I think that if you remove a speedy delete tag from an article you should give a rationale in the edit summary. There is nothing either in the article or its sources almost all self published, a red light if ever I saw one) to suggest notability, neither does a search throw up anything substantial. I've AfD'd it, fyi.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

...Apologies; I missed the stuff contigent on the article's deletion & recreation. But I do not think that the list on the talk page is in any way convincing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

G11 speedy deletion: Readmio

edit

Hello BusterD,

I am writing regarding the speedy deletion of Readmio under CSD G11.

Before the deletion, I had cleaned up the article and posted a contest explanation. I believed, and still believe, that the cleaned version was not unambiguously promotional and did not require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. It was written in neutral, factual third-person prose and contained sourced, salvageable content about the company’s founding, launch history, product technology, funding history, expansion history, and awards. It did not contain calls to action, sales language, first-person or second-person marketing copy, pricing/contact solicitation, or brochure-style claims.

I understand that the article may still have had some issues, and I was willing to keep improving it. However, I did not receive any explanation or feedback identifying which specific parts were considered to meet CSD G11. The speedy deletion tag said that I could contest the nomination and provide an explanation, which I did, but the page was deleted without any response to that explanation as far as I can see.

Could you please clarify which parts of the cleaned version were considered problematic (unambiguously promotional), and why the issues were considered serious enough for speedy deletion rather than being handled through another process that would have allowed further cleanup, reworking, or discussion?

If possible, I would also appreciate restoration to draftspace or my userspace so that I can continue improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I would be grateful for guidance on what changes would be needed before the article could be considered suitable for mainspace again. My aim is not to create promotional content, but to prepare a neutral, proper encyclopedic article. Could you please help me with that?

Thank you. --Horasb (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the page and moved it to draftspace. I decline to help you further. Wikipedia does not exist merely to list all educational software applications. As an unpaid volunteer under the community's ever-watching eye, I don't feel obligated to assist a paid editor who has made no good faith preparation for their employment. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello BusterD,
I understand and respect your decision not to assist further with the draft. I am not asking you to review or improve it. I would only appreciate clarification about the original G11 deletion so that I can understand the issue.
After revising the article, I did not identify any promotional wording or content in it. Could you please clarify the specific problems that led to the speedy deletion under CSD G11?
Thank you. --Horasb (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Wishing to try again re: Bill Pollock page

edit

Hello, this was my first attempt at posting on Wikipedia.

I'd like to try again from scratch.

Is there anything special I should do to re-submit on the same topic? Writer654 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article's subject appears to be a successful business owner. Good for him. He has paid somebody to write about his life, providing the writer the sorts of clippings he'd like to see included in an en.wiki article about himself. This sample of chosen compliments looks great on Who's Who, Business Wire, or LinkedIn. I'm not seeing anything (or finding anything) which meets our standard of WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NCORP, or WP:Biographies of living persons. There are (and have been) billions of worthy human beings like your employer. Few of them qualify for an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll look into this and if I find anything else to add that meets your standards then I'll revisit the issue.
That's it for now, cheers. Writer654 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, thanks again for the speed and clarity of your response. It was very helpful to me. (I'm sure being editor can be a thankless job). Writer654 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request to restore Revelator Limited to draft space

edit

Hello BusterD,

I saw that “Revelator Limited” was deleted on 6 July 2026 under CSD G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I understand the concern and I do not intend to recreate the page directly in mainspace. Could you please restore the deleted content to Draft Limited or to my userspace so that it can be rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic style and submitted through Articles for Creation? There appears to be independent coverage that may support notability, including TechCrunch coverage of Revelator’s Series A funding, Music Business Worldwide coverage of its funding and Warner Music Group acquisition, Digital Music News coverage of the WMG/Revelator deal, and CTech/Calcalist coverage of the acquisition. I will remove promotional language, avoid product-catalogue wording, rely on independent secondary sources, and disclose any conflict of interest if applicable. Thank you Tecnoprima (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Buster, can you respond to this? Jay 09:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Now at DRV: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 10. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

edit

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

edit

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 06:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deletion review: Revelator Limited

edit

Deletion review for Revelator Limited

edit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Revelator Limited. 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. Tecnoprima (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Tecnoprima (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

edit
  • News and notes: An exclusive club
    Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.
  • In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
    Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

Request regarding Draft:BK8 protection

edit

Hello BusterD,

I hope you're doing well.

I'm reaching out regarding the creation protection on Draft:BK8.

I understand from the protection log that the draft was protected due to repeated recreation attempts, and I appreciate the need to prevent promotional or abandoned drafts.

Since the earlier drafts, we have prepared a substantially revised version written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone with independent secondary sources. Before attempting any submission, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to review the proposed draft, or alternatively advise on the appropriate route for requesting that the creation protection be reconsidered.

I would appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Thank you for your time. Nugsicorn (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Restored as requested. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Hand to hand tactics has been nominated for merging

edit

Category:Hand to hand tactics has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Articles for Creation backlog drive

edit

Hello BusterD:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello

edit

Deletion of Just setting up my twttr

edit

Hi! I was looking at the CSD database report, and noticed that this redirect was neither recently created (dating from 2021) nor implausible (being the text of the very first tweet, mentioned in the target article). Was the R3 deletion a mistake? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Didn't actually know this detail! Restored with apologies. I'm just totally not down with all you crazy young cats and your fancy swinging lingo. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 243, July 2026

edit
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request for restoration of Draft:Dotts Media House

edit

Hello BusterD, I realized recently that the Dotts Media House page was deleted recently under G11. Unfortunately, this happened before I could work on and improve the article or contest the speedy deletion. I understand the article might have issues or sounds promotional but I it can be fixed. I would greatly appreciate it if you can restore this page to the draft space so I can do a rewrite before submitting for review, as I'm willing to commit time to making it better. Thank you so much for your work on here. Olakunle Rufai (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply