User talk:Vasishta infowatch
Hello and Welcome!
[edit]This is the talk page of User:Vasishta Infowatch (VasishtaUWatcho)
Hi Vashista infowatch, I have declined your deletion request for Saffron terror becuase it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you think it should be deleted then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. That page will give you instructions on how to do that. If you have any questions let me know. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. It looks like you tried to nominate saffron terror for deletion. Since it was previously nominated, you'll have to create a new discussion page. I can help you with that if you want, but it looks like the only rationale you provided was "Innuendos,hearsay,highly_opinionated,proof-less". Please see WP:DEL-REASON for appropriate deletion reasons. If you provide me with a rationale I can nominate it on your behalf. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Saffron terror qualifies for 3,6 of WP:DEL-REASON. Moreover unjustified title, malicious content. Multiple use of 'alleged' in the opening para indicates unconfirmed gossip brought in as Wiki page. There are more number of users currently as were when AfD nomination failed to gather consensus. VasishtaUWatcho 08:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, while it could be nominated for perhaps #6 (certainly not #3 -- see WP:VD for a better explanation of what's considered to be vandalism), without a really great, thorough argument it would have no chance at all of being deleted. There are 85 sources listed. I'd recommend explaining why those sources do not verify the significance of the subject. I'd also recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron terror and addressing the concerns there (you could also draw from the arguments people presented there). Just saying "it's vandalism" or "it's malicious", or talking about specific content rather than the whole article isn't effective, and looks like someone pushing a point of view without careful consideration of Wikipedia's policies concerning deletion. Another way to go would be to use the talk page, Talk:Saffron terror, to bring up problems with the article and attempt to improve it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.