Draft talk:Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi: Difference between revisions

Since this requires administrator access to move to mainspace, (unlikely to happen) your only route forward is to submit for review. Theroadislong (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Guide me to the Policy please where it is mentioned that I am bound to go through AFC process. I have reverted your comments on my talk page as I don’t like uninvited strangers on my talk page. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot move this to mainspace as the article name is protected, so unless you can find a sympathetic admin to move it for you, the only other option is to submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Policy please. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with any policies, you cannot physically move the draft to main space as the title Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is protected. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong And I believe this is an abuse of an admin toolset because it has not been repeatedly created; he protected because I had hurted his Ego, earlier he wrongly deleted the article per A4; which no longer applies to a Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi anyways I will try to improve a bit per your suggestions, in case he will be adamant, I will elevate this issue to relevant noticeboard, once I am done with this. See WP:Beurocracy. I see that admin had not become admin through a proper RFA process; likely to be desysop per WP:Recall. Please allow me some more time to work on what you said. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment Deb? Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb#Contesting_Speedy_Deletion Relevant discussion. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks and be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong See WP:BMB. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why that is relevant? Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong; I have reverted comments in an attempt to make my move to main space; I hope you will not edit war unnecessarily. Because I still trust that I will be able to move this to mainspace without AFC review as I am not bounded to. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The anon claims to be a completely new user, yet he quotes “policy” ad nauseam in order to avoid submitting the draft for an independent review. His intransigent attitude is not helping him at all. The more he complains, the more convinced I am that he is either a sock of one of the users who previously created the article or someone personally connected to the subject. Otherwise, there’s a very easy solution open to him and he hasn’t given a single reason for not accepting that. Deb (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb Open the WP:SPI 121.46.87.246 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb Independent review can be taken place in main space. I just wanted to break your ego here. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what in English is known as “spite”. Deb (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb So why are you becoming a victim of spite unnecessarily, dear admin; spit your ego and allow the NPRs to do their job. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or allow the AfC reviewers to do their job. Why isn’t that an option? Ultraodan (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Also you should respect theinuse tag. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan Because Admin made a mistake here. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that’s connected at all. If there’s problems with the article (I don’t know if there is, I haven’t looked) then either it gets caught by AfC or NPRs. I think it’s better to catch problems earlier so you can know what to fix earlier. Ultraodan (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan I completely agree with you and long, that’s why I am still trying to improve the draft. To know the entire SAGA please check the talk page of the admin in question. Actually he made a mistake by wrongly deleting article as A4; where A4 no longer applies. So onus is upon him to rectify his past mistakes. But instead of doing this he is casting weird, baseless aspersions on me. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan I will appreciate your third opinion though; since you seems to be an uninvolved AFC reviewer here. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’m not an admin I can’t comment on if it was a valid A4 deletion or not. As for the article itself, I’ve taken a look at all the sources and I don’t think this passes the notability guideline. I’ll put the breakdown of each source below this discussion. I was confused by cite 16, which just links back to the draft. Ultraodan (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, then: do you think your attitude is winning you any support here? It takes considerable nerve to complain about purported “weird, baseless aspersions” at the same time you’re talking about “breaking egos” and casting aspersions upon Deb’s adminship, and that will absolutely be taken into consideration if you do something as ill-advised as take this to ANI. You would be much better off submitting this to AfC than to swing fists in a quixotic attempt to get your own way.

On a separate note, concerning your statement that you don’t like “uninvited strangers” onto your talk page? To put it bluntly, tough. The talk page is not your private property; it is a venue for Wikipedia editors to communicate with you about your edits. It is not merely appropriate for editors — whether you know them or not — to post to your talk page, in a number of cases they are required to do so. Ravenswing 13:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another editor has already started a discussion at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_by_121.46.87.246 Ultraodan (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessement by Ultraodan

Ultraodan (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan You didn’t includes the Journal by the assistant professor of a reputed University; where the subject was mentioned significantly by the independent research scholar cum assistant professor. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I included all 16 sources cited in the draft right now. Maybe I put it’s name in as different to what you’re expecting. Ultraodan (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan “Islamization in Bengal: A Sufi Perspective” Have you checked this source; the entire paragraph is discussing about the author and his views. Please see WP:Basic; which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;. Thanks for your constructive feedback though. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s the “Rabindra Bharti” row. I couldn’t find where in that source it talks about him. Ultraodan (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan So how can you give a source Assesment without reading the source? You should check the page number I have cited. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used a search function on the link and it gave nothing about him. Your citation isn’t the clearest about what page number, I looked at both 12-13 and 74, neither of which mention him at all. Also, the reliability of that source is unclear since it is hosted at WP:RGATE. Ultraodan (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan per your source assessment table I think we have WP:Basic here atleast. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For establishing notability we have one good source and one partial source. I like to try for three good sources. Ultraodan (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan The peer reviewed journal article by an independent assistant professor of the different university. 121.46.87.246 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan Shall I copy paste the content here? 121.46.87.246 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn’t help. We need to be able to find it in the source for it to count. There’s a chance I’m missing something but unless I can find it I can’t use it to support notability. Ultraodan (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]