This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Pleaseindent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respondhere to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want towatch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
The articleWikipedia:Plain and simple is a summary that explains the basics of what you need to know to start editing quickly and avoid major stumbling blocks. Don't worry if you don't understand everything at first. As time goes on, you'll learn how to be a great contributor to Wikipedia!
If you do get stuck, there are volunteers available to answer your questions, seeasking for help for more information.
I'm not sure if it was fair to relist this AfD as "no consensus". If you read the AfD closely, the two major points are either delete or merge. However,Boo (character) already exists and was previously merged, this was a recreation of the article, so there's arguably nothing to merge, and the merge !votes seem to not be aware of this. I'm not confident an admin would have relisted the AfD knowing this. I'd ask you to reverse the relist and allow an admin to either relist or close.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zxcvbnm, Thanks for noting it and that's the fair point. I relisted it in good faith because the discussion seemed divided between redirect, delete and keep or merge where I wanted to give more editors a chance to weigh in. After looking closely again, I think I have misread the AfD. I will reverse my action and apologies for wasting your time. Cheers!Fade258 (talk)14:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I agree with Zx here (and we ideologically clash quite frequently at AFD.) Its quite clear that there's a consensus that the article should not exist, honestly the only question left is handling if/what content should remain, which can really be decided on talk page discussions. There's already further comments made since the relist (yet another person saying the article should not exist) but I don't think this was a very good judgment call on your part, and I think you're going to keep getting opposition if you keep making decisions like this. Just a thought. Thanks.Sergecross73msg me16:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73. Thank you for the feedback which is fair. My thought at the time was the majority of comments leaned towards delete but saw a few suggesting merge, keep or redirect which donot convinced me that the discussion had reached the consensus. I now realized that consensus had reached earlier, where I misjudge it. Agree with you that, I will be getting opposition for my judgement, but I will try to improve myself on judgemental side and many more. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)17:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article documents the career of OZAYBABY, a Houston-based hip-hop artist. The subject has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, including Rolling Hype, Lyric Select, and UPN6XT, which provide in-depth profiles and highlight his contributions to the Houston music scene.All statements in the article are verifiable and neutrally written, with citations provided for his early life, career milestones, and discography. This submission meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians.Forestrun404 (talk)17:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Forestrun404. Thanks for contributing in Wikipedia. Regarding your draft, The mentioned references in the draft doesn't appears to be reliable because I didn't see any editorial oversight there despite of having some coverage. If you have any other references then please disclose here, I will review it. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)02:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for including an ineligible article for the October GAN drive; I totally didn't realize. Just so I don't make the same mistake again, what was it that made the Kidush levana article ineligible? One of the key reasons I agreed to pick up the review (although I have some experience with the subject) was because it had been in the backlog for a while and it was also quite lengthy. Without that incentive, I'm not sure I have time for the review--am I good to drop it? I appreciate your guidance.MasterfulNerd (talk)02:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MasterfulNerd. I hope you're doing well. No worries at all as these things can happen. The article was ineligible for this drive because it was started for review before 1 October 2025. For eligible in this drive, you need to review an article for GA between 1 to 31 October 2025. Thanks a lot for that and for your willingness to help in reducing the backlog. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)13:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fade528,
I am confused, please help me understand—I started the review yesterday. Was this a mistake? Or maybe because the article had already failed a previous review? I thought as long as I started my review in October, it could count. I had never even seen it before yesterday.MasterfulNerd (talk)19:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all. Review started on 17 October 2025 is valid for this drive. ICYMI, please seethis diff. Only this review is invalid not the second one. You can ask me again if you donot get it clearly.Fade258 (talk)00:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
