Talk:Harold Ramkissoon

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please reduce the articles to the 5 most up important, we do nmmo include all. Also there is ref bombing here, please clean them up.

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the basis for UPE?

@Gheus, can you please explain your rationale for adding the {{UPE}}. I do not see any indications that any of @Lesnail, David Eppstein, Klbrain, and Josepjgirll: have performed UPE. While draftification for UPE is reasonable, without evidence in the form of blocks etc the page should be returned to main. Several experienced editors (myself included) seem to be of the opinion that he passes notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Private evidence is involved (User:Josepjgirll created spam like Draft:Cavli Wireless). I will it send to WP:COIVRT. Gheus (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. I am interested to hear what the others I ping'd have to say. To me, the fact that 3 experienced (NPP/Admin) editors went over it prior to your tagging should have been enough to have cleared up any UPE/NPOV editing issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a violation of a policy (WP:PAID) which is not acceptable. The current submission is submitted by a datacenter IP () without any changes, so please do check it thoroughly before accepting. Gheus (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gheus: If you consider any version of this to be unacceptable for mainspace because of foundational UPE, you should have taken it to AfD, not draftified it. Using draftification as a backdoor way of permanently deleting content is a violation of the draftification guidelines. You should only draftify articles when you believe that additional editing could make them ready for mainspace. Your stated belief that being submitted by a UPE editor makes something "not acceptable", regardless of subsequent edits, suggests that you are using draftification inappropriately. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have manually reverted the draftification, including restoring the prior rating. Since the page was heavily edited by experienced editors, NPP reviewed and also rated there was an implicit WP:HEY already in place for any WP:NPOV related to a UPE editor, if there was in fact UPE involvement.

I am doing a curtesy ping of @Josepjgirll: since I noted that they were not informed on their talk page when they were tagged as a WP:UPE on both this page and at Draft:Cavli Wireless, they were only informed of a possible COI. I do not consider tagging as UPE without confirmation from admins to be in accord with WP:5P4. (I am debating in my mind removing the UPE tag from that page as well.) Ldm1954 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)