User talk:Salimfadhley/Archives/2021/September

Draft for The Loud House Movie

Hi. I heard you were the one who did the latest reject on the draft for The Loud House Movie and didn't explain what is needed to further get it accepted. I was wondering if you would be able to elaborate more instead of proposing a merge so that anyone who edits it can understand what needs to be done. It can have potential like the other Nickelodeon movies that aired on Netflix. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

My reasons for rejecting it were given in the comments when I rejected it. As for why I proposed the merge, it seems that this is a not particularly notable movie that is part of a definitely notable TV series. It would be better to start this as a section in the existing article and if there's sufficient need for a new article just about the new movie, create it later. Based on a cursory view of the sources, there's nothing that meets our requirement - significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So you want main reliable sources outside of the press releases of the movie....especially in the reviews. Last I checked, there isn't any reviews on Rotten Tomatoes yet. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's move this conversation to the draft's talk-page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Sacha Stone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sacha Stone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacha Stone (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Shrikanthv (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Salimfadhley,

Before you tag any more pages for speedy deletion, please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you are aware of what the CSD criteria are and what name spaces they apply to. I am concerned that you are reviewing drafts for AfC when you mistagged Draft:Mahidul Islam Al Mahdi for speedy deletion based on your opinion that it was "content-free" which is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. It's a valid reason for declining to accept a draft but not for deleting the page.

Please be clear on what the Wikipedia policies are concerning work in Draft space before you continue your work on Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Liz, firstly thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I used the "custom criteria" option, on the basis that none of the normal criteria seemed to fit. In this case it was an draft with the same name as the user who created it. It appeared to be an attempt at self-promotion, but one that was very very inept. Absent of any content I did not feel that this constituted "blatant advertising". There were two links, one of which was a 404, the other was a wholly irrelevant page written in Arabic. As a submitted draft, it misses the mark by such a wide margin as to be obviously useless. Would you have preferred a regular decline? --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Help in getting Approved

I have sourced the news articles from print media attached in reference kindly help in getting it approved https://archive.org/details/@manoj20

Sorry, I have no idea which article you need help with. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Below is the draft Link lost login to 70 mm reels so this is my new account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maasthi_Upparahalli

Draft:Electronic voting machines in Bangladesh

Hi, how should I improve this article? Rsakib188 (talk)

You need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that this subject is notable. You should reformat the story so that it does not read like an essay. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Salimfadhley/Archives/2021,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:7 Party Alliance

Hello, what type of change[s] should I made to get approval? Rsakib188 (talk)

You need to show that this subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the sources include the NYTimes, I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your reviews

I remind you that the standard for researchers and academic faculty is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject. The usual way is by citations to their work. It can also be met by holding a named or similar professorship at a research university. It can additional be met by showing the person is a member or fellow of one of seveal extremely prestigeous organizations: Among these are being a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the American Physical Society or Americna Chemical Society or Americna Geophysical Union, IEEE, or a member of the National Academy of Science or Royal Society. Anyone meeting these qualifications is always notable . Biographic data is also necessary , and it cna be taken from ay reliable source, including-an official CV. This particular special notability guideline is an full alternative to the GNG. Meeting either one is sufficient.

As reviewing administrator, I have therefore accepted Susan Humphris, and William Boone Bonvillian; I plan to check any other academics whom you have reviewed. Please do not review further people in this field until you understand the guidelines.

I also remind you that there is no need for online sources, Prict sources are perfectly acceptable, and unless unusual claims aremade, we normally assume good faith with respectto them. If in doubt, we requestpage numberrs, to indicate that the contributor has actually seen the source. Your comment at Draft:The Pickett is therefore not to the point, and, as reviewing administrator, I have accepted the article.

Both of these have been thoughly accepted consensus standards fo many years, , and in reviewing articles one reviews according to the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for correcting any errors I may have made. I'm always grateful when people take the time to do this, and I will indeed review those guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It can be easy to miss if you're not looking for it, , because sometimes the key notability factor is hidden at the end--especially if there's coi involved and they don't know what counts here. I have the right background for recognizing it quickly and I try to scan every possible afc before it gets deleted. I imagine what sort of a mess I'd make if I tried to quickly judge articles on say, rap musicians or experimental artists or people who play cricket. I know the rules in theory, but I have no experience in how we apply them. I just skip over what I don't know anything about. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

One again, thank you for the extra eyes on my AFC decisions. Could you go into each of the decisions and identify what I missed? Was it membership of scientific organisations? --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding citation style, yea - I'm aware that rejecting AFC reviews because of imperfect citation styles is wrong. It's usually a nit that I will pick if there's a lot of other stuff wrong preventing a meaningful assessment of whether the subject is notable. In other words, it might not be a 100% honest review, but something I might say to mean "tidy this crap up before you make anybody look at it again". --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

my own view about refs is that it takes much longer to tell someone how to do it, than to do it myself. and tell them to follow my example in the future. (of course, this does depend on the number of refs also--sometimes I fix a few and tell them to fix the others) And I will sometimes give simpler directions than just a link to CITE, which I consider one of the most confusing instruction pages in the entire project: I typically say--make sure all the links contain the title of the item and the name of the publication and the date published. But yes, I agree sometimes refs are so confusing that it's impossible to figure out notability, and then I do decline. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Draft:Panhandle Milling. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Roya TV

WP:ATD-I clearly states that Draftify is for NEWLY created articles. This has been around almost seven years and does not qualify. It should be put back in mainspace. You can certainly try WP:AFD. MB 21:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the situation: As it is a real TV station, it is almost certainly a notable topic (hence AFC is too extreme), but the article reads like an advert as currently written and is obviously unsuitable for the encyclopaedia main-space.

Feel free to revert my changes if you feel very strongly, but I think the obvious problems with the article ought to be fixed before returning it to the mainspace. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That goes against policy. Unless you believe it is not notable and want to take it to WP:AFD, then moving an old article to Draft space will likely lead to its deletion after six months. That's why the policy says newly created articles may be moved to Draft (where the creator is likely to fix the problems). Old articles like this are unlikely to be improved that way. You can add more tags, remove unsourced content, and do any other cleanup. But it should say in mainspace. There are over 25,000 articles with the advert tag. We could use more editors improving them. MB 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I check all articles that have been draftified and just want to affirm that the policy is to only send newly created articles from main space to draft space. My own personal guide is articles less than six months old but this isn't policy, it's just my own judgment of what is considered "newly created". Articles that are deficient that are older should either be improved when you discover them or PROD'd or sent to AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion as per your suggestion. Can you clarify, please Liz (talk · contribs), are you saying that there is a policy against draftying articles older than six months old, or are you saying that the vast majority of articles that have been draftified are younger than six months? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I already linked to the policy above. WP:ATD-I says only "newly created" article can be moved to Draft. Liz is saying that in her opinion, six months or less is "newly created". MB 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to clarify. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• For an Arabic-language subject, you can sometimes find good references in the corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia, in this case https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A9_%D8%B1%D8%A4%D9%8A%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9 I added some English-languages references to Roya TV, and I think that notability is now shown. Arabic-language references are acceptable in an English article, but if you add an Arabic reference, please add a translation of the title into English using the |trans-title field in the citation reference. When you aren't sure about an article, you can tag it with {{notability}}, which is not a deletion process, but which will let other editors know that someone had doubts about the article's notability. You are never obliged to send a doubtful article to AfD. Often tagging it for problems and/or asking a WikiProject to take a look at it is sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for improving. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)