User talk:Spartaz

Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

What again?

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GRBerry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the long battle to remove poorly sourced porn performer articles that was one of the first cases of SNGs being deprecated in favour of obvious stuff like meeting the GNG. This pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This affected me for a very long time and I'm only recently getting my manners back, and able to contribute more extensively. If I say something you think is rude. Please tell me!

A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

please stay in the top three tiers

i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved.

If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.

Closure

Hi @Spartaz! Looking at your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Buying Wikipedia, I read the consensus there as indicating that the main Help: Buying Wikipedia page (and its price subpage) would be more appropriate in projectspace, not userspace. There are also some issues with the moves of the other subpages, as I have never edited those and did not consent to having them put in my userspace and do not want them there. Would you be willing to adjust your close accordingly or object to me cleaning things up myself? Sdkb ^talk 14:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

They are your pages and in the absence of any clear consensus either way, it makes sense to give them back to you. Why would you not want to host them?

It's entirely down to you what you do with them next, but imo the entire ecosystem of linked pages is too complicated to go into project space for something that is barely humorous. If you want to move pages into project space, I strongly recommend that you streamline what you move and maximise the humour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

They are your pages I neither created them nor edited them; the only page I created was the original Help:Buying Wikipedia. I stated this in the discussion, which closers are generally expected to read before making the close. Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

let me have another look in the morning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To follow up, @Ringtail Raider has inquired about this as well. If there are not objections, I will plan to move the page (and the price subpage) to projectspace. For all the other not-very-funny subpages, I could technically delete them with my admin bit under U1 as pages in my userspace, but that would be poisoned fruit of the decision to move them into my userspace in the first place. The spirit of U1 is that it's not controversial for users to have deleted pages they created for themselves, but as these are not pages I created, that spirit does not apply. I would prefer to see them orphaned by removing the links to them and then have them deleted later under G8. Until then, they should be moved out of my userspace (with no lingering redirect) and into the userspaces of the editors who created them. Sdkb ^talk 19:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

yes that's probably best Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw this too a bit back. There's about a dozen or so articles related to that joke page Sdkb made but had zero involvement in. Most of them were created by me so I was surprised they were all shoved under Sdkb's userspace. For the sake of making it easy, I'm more than willing to have them all deleted so I don't have to see random edits from people flooding my watchlist. At this point I definitely don't want them and I think the quickest solution is just hitting that big fat "delete" button with my blessing. Sorry about that Sdkb, lol. Panini! • 🥪 21:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Your deletion of “Origin of the Palestinians” article

You forgot to transfer its contents to their relevant articles, for example, you forgot to move its genetics section to the article of Palestinians, if you (understandably) cant then at least draftify it so that i and other editors can move it to the relevant articles Stephan rostie (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

i didn't forget to transfer anything. I deleted it as that was the consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you actually read my close? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i know, but how about much of its RS contents that didn’t exist in any other article, e.g no other article have any similar coverage of genetic studies related to Palestinians, how do i access it to move it to another article ? Stephan rostie (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

what was the stipulation I put on my close about getting material restored? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There does seem to be elements that might be spun out but I would prefer given that this is a contentious topic to err towards TNT and make sources available to any editor who can make a case to me

a. Honestly i have no idea what TNT abbreviation should mean except perhaps for explosives

b. I am here making a case to you already about the genetics section, this section was praised by everyone in the discussion, both who voted delete and keep. I want to move it to the genetics section of palestinians article

c. I Wonder if wikipedia rules and / or privileges mandate that the process should be done through the closer moderator only ?, you wrote “to me” in particular not moderators in general or idk a noticeboard Stephan rostie (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

if you want to ask someone else feel free. Wikipedia:TNT is what you are looking for. Now given that this is a contentious topic why are you avoiding that conversation given that it was part of my stipulation ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Am sorry what conversation am i avoiding ? Stephan rostie (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The final part of my close. Making sources available to an editor who can reassure me that they can handle them sensitively given that this is a contentious topic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, the genetics section in particular was well praised by editors from both sides of the discussion you closed for exactly that Stephan rostie (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Huldra:@Tiamut:@Bearian: I'd appreciate your thoughts on this? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Nvm, i did it TNT already @Spartaz Stephan rostie (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for Un Deletion of Mun G

Dear User:Spartaz, Hope you're doing great. I wasn't satisfied the circumstances under which Mun G deletion discursion was close. I would therefore like to request for it's undeletion for either more perspectives from other editors or more work on it to be done because I am confident that that subject meets all notability criterion for a Wikipedia article inline with WP:NMG, WP:NMUSIC WP:NM MichealKal (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The only valid keep vote was yours and you did not persuade the other editors. They claimed the sources didn't meet our criteria and I have just looked at a couple of the ones raised in the AFD and I have to back their opinion. Can I ask on what basis you feel this should be kept? And for a BLP that really means multiple independent reliable sources that have sufficient information to base an article on. Reports of stunts and mentions do not meet the final test even if all the other criteria are met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Spartaz, You followed my responses well, you would see that I gave solid reasons and reliable source for the subject. If I may ask you which reliable sources to know that are available in Uganda??

Also, the nomination had two delete votes; one from the nominator and another from User:aesurias and it had two keep votes; one from me and another from User:Instant History. To me, according to available source and that vote, it isn't a reason enough for that deletion. MichealKal (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The key part of @Spartaz's reply (to me) was "valid keep vote". Instant History agreed that the article wasn't strictly notable but should be given an exemption because they are from Africa. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is formed from reading the discussion not counting bold words and non policy arguments are discarded. When someone who wants to keep argues for a policy optout then that is implicitly confirmation that policy is not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

To thought before closing that discussion you personally have check the sources in the article in consideration to the discussion made?

My question to you was simple, which notable, reliable and independent Ugandan sources do you know? MichealKal (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The worst thing closers can do is look at the article themselves and/or check sources personally. Their role is to assess the consensus not take a personal position on the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood! but to me that closing was rushed!MichealKal (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

If you were being honest, any close that wasn't a keep would fail to satisfy you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

No, my issue is that we needed more views from other contributors, why was the closing rushed? MichealKal (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

15 days is not a rushed AfD nomination. That's more than twice the usual length, so, if anything, it was rather slow. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for taking away the shovel so they wouldn't get any deeper to where they couldn't get out. I agree that too many DRVs are closed early, but this one needed closing early to protect the appellant from the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a big fan of the first rule of holes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They found a new shovel. Ugh. Very unfortunate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks as though you blocked them a few seconds after they commented on my talk page. Timestamps are only to the minute, so you appear to have blocked them at the same time as they replied. The best course of action for them when they come off block will be to edit some other article. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They didn't really give me much choice. I was debating a block and the inability to let go sealed the deal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. If you had been one minute earlier, I wouldn't have gotten their last message. An editor who says, rightly or wrongly, that other editors at Wikipedia are imperiling their mental health should consider whether it is normal back-and-forth, in which case their mental health is too fragile for an electronic community with robust discussion. There are cases where Wikipedia really has imperiled an editor's mental health, but that is sometimes because of extreme harassment or similar misconduct, in which case the victim should not primarily refer to their mental health, but to the severity of the misconduct. In this case, the only misconduct was that of the editor who was being tendentious until they were blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As you saw, I advised them not to request unblock before the 31 hours expire, or they might dig the hole deeper. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your AfD closure

Heya, I wanted to ask you if you could kindly reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan J. Sullivan (Petersburg, Alaska political candidate). There were 8 !votes in favour of merging and only 2 were in favour of deleting. Both parties' arguments were based on wikipedia's policies. Why didn't you close it as merge? The source article's prose is much longer than the proposed target's. FaviFake (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I explicitly said go merge what you want. So the difference between redirect and merge is on the nano level. Too often there are merge closes that take forever to implement and for content that is clearly going to be policy failing removing the actual page is also important. A redirect serves that nicely. Just merge what you think is right? Or were you waiting for someone else to do it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the process is irrelevant to your judgments of the community's consensus. And besides, merges don't take forever, they only take a few months at most if you actually look at the backlog. Just because I personally don't have time to perform a merge, doesn't mean the community's consensus should be discarded.

Would it be fine with you if I temporarily restored the article and applied the merge tags to it, so that it is correctly inserted in the backlog? FaviFake (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

take me to DRV if you don't like it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. FaviFake (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

and I'll point out that you could have done the merge on the time you gave spent chasing me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you asked me to send feedback directly to your talk page, I think closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious discrimination in Pakistan as WP:SOFTMERGE would've been more consistent with other merge closures, since there was basically no participation. Unless you ask for more feedback, this will be the last time i'll notify you about by WP:SOFTMERGE concerns. Have a good day! FaviFake (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dan J. Sullivan (Petersburg, Alaska political candidate)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dan J. Sullivan (Petersburg, Alaska political candidate). 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. FaviFake (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

AFD closure at Karishma Mehta (2nd nomination)

I will like to point out that admin Goldsztajn's concern that the AFD was disrupted by !vote stacking is not quite off the mark from what may have actually happened there. Many of the delete !voters have a history of collaborating in wide-ranging (often even otherwise obscure) discussions and AFDs to uncritically back each other up and support each other and vote exactly like each other. I have already raised the issue at ARE, this specific AFD in fact is part of the evidence presented there. As such, perhaps we can let the AFD remain open for longer, at least until admins at ARE have had time to look at (and evaluate) the evidence? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the canvassing argument gaining traction, so raise that if it closes with a conclusion addressing that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Spartaz - "I have discounted arguments that notability has already been established at the last afd because of course standards change over time." I'm a little perplexed by this comment in your close. With deep respect, that's got an air of a supervote to it. By what measure in your decision making can an affirmative "past notability" decision be discounted by assertion alone? Surely we'd agree not one from last year? Two decades ago, ok, no problem. Before and after a major change in an SNG (eg an NSPORTS discussion prior to March 2022), yes. But there's a huge amount of grey between a decade ago and five years ago (2021, the previous closure as keep) and no major changes I can think of that affect the main guidelines under discussion here (GNG, BASIC). Also this comment: "sourcing isn't quite there hasn't been effectively refuted" - again, appears to be a supervote; Beccaynr responded to every rebuttal with detailed analysis, none of the rebuttals contained any of Beccaynr's depth or offered counter-rebuttals different from repetition of earlier points. The pile on in the discussion no doubt muddied the waters and my own contribution could have been better, but this appears to me as far closer to no consensus than redirect. Courtesy ping @UnpetitproleX. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

because there is no precedent. Keep arguments that are basically this was kept last time offer no contemporary commentary on current notability standards so I'm obviously going to discount them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

in what way do I have a super vote here when I have absolutely no opinion on the article and have never even looked at it. I respect you greatly but it drives me mad when people throw super votes round when there clearly is a method of weighting votes that you may disagree with but is based on P&G and not personal opinion. If someone had said this was a delete last time, how much weight would you seriously expecte to give that contentless opinion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a supervote because the grounds by which you've discounted the !vote(s) are arbitrary; ie, your personal view, as against a view grounded in established approaches. Notability is enduring coupled with no local consensus mean precedent can be important. You're essenntially taking a position that unless someone explicitly mentions the details of a previous decision it has no bearing on the current discussion. The previous decision is linked in the discussion. It is not hidden away, unobtainable. A contributor mentioning it was kept incidicates they *are* referencing the discussion and decision. You ask how much weight would I give a "it was deleted last time" !vote? Exactly the amount based on the questions I asked you. I'd determine the context, time and reasons behind the last decision and see if any of that still applied.

Take this hypothetical: a previously deleted article about a long dead Yorkshire county cricketer who played a single season in 1932 was recently recreated, sent once to AfD in 2020 and left as keep (has Wisden stats), sent once in 2023 and deleted (only has Wisden stats) and then sent again last week. If there was a !delete vote today which only said "deleted in 2023" I would give that vote some weight because it was a decision made in line with present policy and guidelines, whereas the "keep" decision was not.

One of AfD's supposed proverbial weaknesses - "whoever turns up" - is largely mitigated by consistent application of Ps&Es. But in this case, we have the opposite, your personal view to not weight a decision of the past in line with contemportary Ps&Es makes it a supervote. In fact, it's even against your own stated reasoning "of course standards change over time" - but in this case, the standards haven't. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Goldsztajn. I came across the discussion in context of the ARE report, but my impression is that Beccaynr's source analysis, the only such detailed source analysis presented in that discussion, coupled with their later efforts at improving the article and finding new sources, including some academic sources related to Mehta freezing her eggs and the discourse that this freeze generated, does convincingly demonstrate notability. CANVASS issues notwithstanding, I don't see many 'keep' arguments that were solely in reference to the previous AfD except Randy Kryn's, but I do see several contentless 'delete' votes that are only handwaving towards guidelines like WP:NOPAGE or WP:NEWSORGINDIA without explaining why they believe such guideline applies. I simply fail to see how the latter were seen to be carrying more weight than the former. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Truthfully though, would you accept any close that wasn't keep? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a "no consensus" close would have been an accurate and fair summary of the discussion. If I had any strong opinions about the article, as you are suggesting, I would have participated in the AfD. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

that you have devoted so much time to this conversation does suggests strong views but if I'm wrong I'm sorry. I have explained my thinking as I am required too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to double check before doing anything else, but I am assuming you have no further points to make. I think this is actually an interesting case which covers issues related to closer's discretion, supervoting (or not), meatpuppetry and AfD precedent. I'd be interested in hearing others' views - somewhat akin to your recent request to DRV on practices around AtD/redirect closures. To the extent that I may disagree with your close, I'm far more interested in the broader issues and far less about amending (or not) the close. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Karishma Mehta

I have asked for a deletion review of Karishma Mehta. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping also to @Goldsztajn: whose comments above I found convincing enough to file the review. Cheers, UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

Disagreements are hard to avoid. But I most certainly do not believe you are acting (or have acted) in bad faith. Here is a cup of tea in appreciation of all the work you do here.

RfC

I'm sorry, but why would my behaviour be bludgeoning? I've asked for permission before replying for this exact reason, and the other comment was made only because I was asked to. As for the rest, it's not that I don't like, it's that nobody has expressed that view during the discussion. So I could say that nobody except the closer likes it (I think that it's quite telling that nobody is opening the discussion that the closer has asked to open and nobody is changing the article). It also blatantly ignores general policies and the sources brought up in the discussion without explaining why. --Friniate ✉ 15:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Because you absolutely have to respond to everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

When I did my request? Well, I'd say that demonstrating the need of a closure review is quite difficult and I preferred to give more reasons than less... WP:BLUDGEON is about another thing though, it's about answering to all the comments during a discussion... --Friniate ✉ 16:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

its about driving away the external input you were hoping for. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I reckon that the length of the request is far from ideal, but demostrating that is not just that I don't like the closure, but that the closer failed to determine consensus in an apropriate way is very difficult, you have to sum up the whole discussion and all the points made during it by different users. That's what I tried to do ( which I think it's the opposite from forcing my point of view since I gave space to point of views that contradicted mine). --Friniate ✉ 16:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is my whole point. I gave you some advice about creating space for external input and instead of acknowledging this, you are arguing with me. If you don't agree or accept my advice just move on Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Alex Bhathal

Hi - I just saw that you closed the deletion discussion for Alex Bhathal. I was just going to add some more coverage from the NY Times' sports division, The Athletic. Also, the delete votes confused the subject with his father, Raj Bhathal, suggesting their consideration and analysis wasn't very thorough. It's also strange to use an argument that the subject doesn't want an article, when that's never been a Wikipedia consideration, despite the fact that the voter was thinking of the wrong person. Any chance you can restore and relist, and wait for more feedback? If so, I'll add the new coverage I found, and disambiguate the family articles so future editors can understand the family relationship better. Thanks! STEMinfo (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I went to the afd to review my thinking and I saw that one of the deleted votes was since blocked as a sock. On that basis I no longer feel secure in the close so have voided it and relisted. You have another week to make whatever arguments you wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I also looked up their editing history and saw this odd diff, deleting some but not all the poorly written surrounding content. It looked like a sloppy way to build an edit history. And I saw they self-disclosed that they'd been editing before with another account. I was going to ask them on their talk page for their previous user name, since it could very well have been a block evasion. Not disclosing it would be the clincher. But someone else figured it out. STEMinfo (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad it got caught. It seems AFD is a magnet for socks so if you do suspect someone please let someone know. I'll always look into a suspected sock Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krupajal Engineering College, Bhubaneswar

With only 1 redirect !vote, consensus to me seems clear for deletion not redirection. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 13. This recent DRV sets out why I closed this as a redirect not delete. Also, there is a wider community consensus through frequent AFD outcomes that we redirect such articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Your AFD Closure

Hi Spartaz, I hope you're doing well.

I am writing regarding the closure of Pradeep Singh.

While I fully respect your judgment as the closing administrator, I would like to request that you reconsider the closure and, if appropriate, reopen the discussion for further community assessment.

Based on my review of the subject, there might be some policy-based arguments in favor of retaining the article, including references to significant coverage and the clarification that the previous deletion concerned a different individual. In particular, the subject's work in the marine sector, entrepreneurial activities, and recognition through multiple awards were cited as supporting notability. Given these points, I believe the discussion may benefit from additional community input before reaching a final outcome. RBC21 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This had far more than most AFDs. I'm curious what difference you think extra input will offer? The keep argument asserted a single book and didn't respond to the challenge, and one source isn't enough. The delete voter that withdrawn did on the basis of something other than sources, which they did not consider sufficient. So help me out, this is a BLP, what BLP compliant GNG meeting sources are there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If more time were given to evaluate the available sources, it might be helpful, as there are several significant, independent references that could be further discussed.

Regarding the book reference, I do not believe it should be dismissed simply on the assumption that it was commissioned or paid for. Not every book is written in exchange for payment from its subject. RBC21 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

even if it's accepted it's only one source and no one suggested there was a second. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the article is ultimately kept or deleted, I am simply requesting additional time so that the available sources and arguments can be discussed more thoroughly before a final decision is made. RBC21 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi @RBC21 Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, a more useful arguement for a request of more time would be to present to the closing admin two reliable sources with sigcov that were not discussed and not present in the article. An open request for more time only makes more work for other volunteers with no guaratee against the use of that extra time being wasted. Providing two reliable sources with sigcov for assessment means the closing admin can choose to assess and indiciate if they felt those sources would have changed the balance of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Opening an AFD

Hi, could you open an AFD for this player, Nathan Fitzgerald? I personally consider him notable. ~2026-39218-40 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the question Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You have done a great job with a number of AfD closures. For all that, I am hereby giving you this barnstar! Zalaraz (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)