User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 2

How can a page of an influential figure in the field of money exchange in the Arab world be unwanted on Wikipedia on the pretext that it is not neutral Although it does not contain any glorification of the person, only the tasks and functions that are included in it throughout his career with some activities on the human and social level? I do not know where the error is. Will you allow me some time and tell me where the error lies? Is there a paragraph or a title that is not natural? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Sulaiman_Al_Rajhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedX8 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RedX8. Because I'm not an administrator, I cannot view what was in the drafts that were rejected by the Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewers (as I think you blanked them and they were subsequently deleted). However, I assume that they're around the same material as what's at the link you gave. The problem with Wikipedia is that the guideline that determines whether people should have articles, notability, doesn't really care about how "influential" someone is; it cares about whether they've been significantly covered by independent sources. There are exceptions for professors and creative people like journalists and artists, but your banker isn't covered by those criteria.

Looking through the sources in the page, I assume the reason the article has been declined so far is that the subject hasn't had much significant coverage. Quite a lot of the information in the sources are what you might find in a CV or résumé. I understand it's frustrating (especially since there is a page for him at Arabic Wikipedia), but it may be the case that the notability guideline isn't as strong there. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding a version of this page.

Just wanted to say thanks for calling out my rewrite of White House Historical Association as a positive example of COI editing in the current VPP discussion! I was really proud of that one. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mary, it's been a while; I hope you're doing well. It was a pleasure: your version was well-written and a strong improvement on the original, which didn't even have sections and was barely referenced. It's a great shame that there is a chronic shortage of editors willing to deal with the edit requests backlog: paid/COI editors are not bogey(wo)men and much of the work they do improve the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I blame organisations that get frustrated with the process and turn to the dark side instead. It's a shame that some of your former clients have done so, however. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're well too! I agree with everything you said. I know there's only so much I can do to help on Wikipedia as a declared paid editor, but I've been working to spread the word about Wikipedia best practices in the PR world. I so appreciate the efforts of you and the other volunteers who review edit requests. I know it can be tiresome work, but I really believe it makes Wikipedia better. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mary. By spreading news about the "proper" way to do things, I suspect that you're doing a great deal to stop these unsavoury practices and this is where a paid editor has more influence than a volunteer. Thank you for your kind words and encouragement and work. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this !vote at WP:VPPOL.

Hi, forgive me for the high number of edits but I have repeatedly specified in the subject field my reasons inviting the user User 84.65.250.137 to write to me, despite everything he continued to delete my changes to which I added notes and I was offended by this. Then I wrote to the user but he did not respond. I have therefore not had the opportunity to talk to him so since he is an anonymous user and every day changes IP. I wrote to him that collaboration is important. And I urged him to cooperate, but I received no response. The dispute between the Two Sicilies is complex and every time I restored my version I wrote in the Subject Field my reasons, adding links in which the dispute is clarified. The duchess of Calabria page will no longer modify it because it will always be deleted, even if I cite the sources and insert the right information. It is well known that Charles, Duke of Castro, claims the title of Duchess of Calabria for his daughter Carolina. And so it is wrong to write that Camilla Crociani is the Duchess of Calabria as Charles did not claim the title for himself but for his daughter. In 2017 she claimed the title of Duchess of Noto for her second daughter Chiara. The courts of are expressed in 1986, 2011 and 2012, confirming the title of Duke of Calabria to Don Pietro, Duke of Calabria (who already owned that title) and his son Don Giacomo, Duke of Noto (He already owned that title). In addition, these sentences established that the claims on the Duchy of Calabria and Castro, by the Dukes of Castro, are null and void as the result of SELF-PRODUCED documentation. A ruling held in Spain established that Don Carlo Maria (don Pietro's father) was the head of the House of the Two Sicilies and the Duke of Calabria, and when he died the title passed to his son Don Pietro. This was the only investigation carried out regarding the dynastic dispute. So assigning the titles of Duchess of Calabria to the Dukes of Castro is wrong, because there was a ruling that as I said established the truth. Today the Duchesses of Calabria are Alice of Bourbon-Parma (died 20117), Anne d'Orléans, and currently Peter's wife, Sofia. In the future the Duchess of Calabria will be the future wife of her son Giacomo, Lady Charlotte, when her husband takes the title. In addition, each state recognizes the titles of Duke of Calabria and Duke of Noto to the Italo-Spanish line, namely Pietro and his son Giacomo. Even the Italian Republic. I hope I have clarified this. Thank you for listening.

~MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (write) 09:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC).

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: Thank you for your thorough explanation and for stopping this revert cycle. To be honest, I am not familiar with this area of the encyclopaedia: all I could see was that the both of you were reverting each other back-and-forth. Thank you also for opening a dialogue at the talk page; trying to communicate through edit summaries is quite difficult and isn't a very good substitute for a talk-page discussion. Given that you have posted a message there and have had no response, you could reinstate your edits with the summary "see talk page" or similar, and if this dispute continues, you could request semi-protection at requests for page protection because the IP editor is removing sourced content, or start a request for comment so other editors can give their input. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Duchess of Calabria and these edits at Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro.

“The statistic you introduced was unsourced and at odds with the existing Washington Post source. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)”

Many news articles cited by Wikipedia include attempts to cite US Census Bureau data without understanding US Census Bureau definitions or methodology. This results in confusion for readers and makes correlating census data over time or census data from different Wikipedia articles difficult as most get Wikipedia articles get it right but the ones I corrected got it wrong.

The corrections I made were to align the demographics section of Wikipedia articles with the US Census Bureaus distinctions between race and ethnicity as exemplified by how they collect and report data, namely that a people can report both race and ethnicity so they are not exclusive. As a result reporting this information is easiest when broken into two separate sentences or sections: one on race and one on ethnicity. When newspaper articles cited by Wikipedia mix the two (perhaps out of laziness or confusion, that makes wiki articles a mess). Information on the US Census Bureaus approach to asking about race and separately ethnicity can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/newsletters/volume3/volume3_issue6.pdf

I love maps, statistics and demographics and welcome the opportunity to get better at contributing so please continue to coach and advise.

What would you like me to do next?

Craig Nehrkorn (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Craig, thank you for your explanation. I had come across your edit at Houston because the page was under pending changes protection and I reverted it because of a couple of reasons: the reasons you've quoted above from my warning, and because I thought it may have been subtle vandalism. Your edit summary was "Fixed grammar: fixed capitalization inconsistencies across nouns." while altering the percentage of illegal immigrants in Houston's metropolitan area (which wasn't mentioned in the summary). After reading the Washington Post article, it seemed to support that "nearly 9%" statistic while I couldn't find information there to back up your "nearly 25%" statistic.

As for what you can do next, you can replace that source (since you believe it misrepresents the statistic "out of laziness or confusion"; I wouldn't really know because I'm not a subject-matter expert, but can imagine the "popular press" being sloppy any day) with the one you used to come to your 25% conclusion. Perhaps a line about how the Census Bureau distinguishes between ethnicity and race would be a good idea too, with a link to their explanation.

Finally, I would like to apologise to you for accusing you of vandalism. I had gone through your contributions and found that you had added many statistics where the total percentage was over 100%, and so the alarm bells in my head went off: I've combatted vandals that have added or subtracted one year from multiple people's dates of birth and so I thought that this was a similar situation, where the figures were being made-up. I assume that people can identify as being simultaneously Hispanic and white and so the percentages will be above 100%? I hope you understand and forgive me, and I will be more careful and more ready to assume good faith. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct and I will make the source changes when I am free to do more editing soon. The more than 100% explanation you asked about is correct. The 9% vs 25% you asked about came from the fact that the source said the illegal population is X and the total population is Y and the X divided by the Y equaled 25% on my calculator, not 9% but I will look for another source for you. Thanks again! Craig Nehrkorn (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Craig, thanks for the positivity – I know that if I were in the same position as you, having been (wrongly) accused of vandalism, I would not be so cheerful. A word of warning: your calculations may face a bit of pushback due to possible original research. While there are exceptions under that policy for routine calculations, that line is a little murky and there may be concerns from other editors. Hopefully you won't face those problems if you cite your source clearly, but I thought it would be fair to give you a bit of a heads-up. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was initially regarding this edit at Houston.

hello sdrqaz, kindly explain in details about errors , hope to get your kind help in this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

hello sdrqaz kindly share errors in details regarding page - Ashfaque Nabi. hope to get your kind help in restoring it. thanks, looking forward to learn from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ashfaque, the page is currently at Draft:Ashfaque Nabi and you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. However, the draft is written in a very promotional tone: phrases like "they fought with full zeal & enthusiasm", "He worked again tirelessly & passionately", and "This was the start of his most astounding political journey" sound more like they belong in a press release than in a Wikipedia article. Subjects of articles need to be notable: that usually means having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You need to make sure that you fulfil those requirements. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Ashfaque Nabi to Draft:Ashfaque Nabi. Part of the message was titled "regarding deletion of page Ashfaque Nabi"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous message.

Hello Sdrqaz, I am new to writing on Wikipedia and my editings got rejected don't know why. Can you help with information about how should I write in future.

Thank you Prem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rprem7684 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prem. I reverted your edits at Indian Institute of Information Technology, Bhagalpur for a few reasons: your information about the new campus's construction beginning in August was unsourced; the faculty and alumni you added weren't notable; your information about the start-ups didn't seem notable either. I'll explain a little further: please feel free to add back the news about the new campus with a source (you can use <ref>...</ref>, with the URL of the news source in the "..."). As for the faculty, it seemed a little too detailed: we don't usually add a full staff list to Wikipedia articles, with so much information. It's generally fine when the staff member has been in the news or is notable in some way (maybe they invented something or is known to be an expert in their field), but when they haven't, it's a little too much detail. The LinkedIn links aren't usually added too: the alumni list is also usually for people that are notable, such as perhaps when they get their own Wikipedia articles or become well-known (maybe a graduate became a member of the Parliament of India, maybe they became the CEO of a big company etc). As for the start-ups, we're (again) looking for things that became notable: maybe a newspaper reported on one of these projects, maybe it received funding from the government, that sort of thing. I hope this helps, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Indian Institute of Information Technology, Bhagalpur.

Hi @Sdrqaz,

Thanks for the help with the above redirect as well as the information that I could have done this move myself. I've been reluctant to do this when there already exists a redirect from the current correct species name (in this case Ichneutica averilla) to the synonymised species name (again, in this case Graphania averilla). I'm confident enough to undertaken a simple "move" where no redirect already exists but am unsure how to go about it when a redirect already exists. I have reached out to other editors who suggested I use the uncontroversial technical move process in this situation. But if you have any guidance you can give on how I can go about this correctly myself I'd be very grateful. I'm attempting to update multiple English Wikipedia species articles and despite being reluctant to bother administrators with this issue, I also don't want to continue to let my lack of knowledge about redirects put me off from keeping Wikipedia current (as has previously been the case). Any help would be gratefully received. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ambrosia. Moves over a redirect (thus "overwriting" it) can be done by autoconfirmed editors when two criteria are met: the redirect is pointing at the title right now, and has only one entry in its page history. So for example, if you're trying to move A to B and there is a redirect already at B, you can perform it (as an autoconfirmed editor) if the content at B is #REDIRECT [[A]] and the only entry in the page history is that. However, if a criterion isn't met (maybe there is some old history at the target, like if someone had altered the redirect or someone had added some categories to it; maybe the target is pointing elsewhere), you cannot (as a non-page mover) perform it. That's when I'd advise listing it at technical requests.

If you think the move will be controversial, I'd advise starting a requested move about it so other editors can chip in, but I don't think any of the moves you're planning will be. An easier way of performing all these moves without checking the page histories and whether the target is a redirect to the page right now would be to try it out like you would normally; if you cannot perform the move, the software will tell you and you can write the ones you cannot perform down and make a request at technical requests like you did previously. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, thanks for that extremely helpful reply! I will definitely do this from now on but will run to technical requests if need. I very much appreciate all your help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this request at WP:RMTR.

Hi @Sdrqaz,

Sorry, I didn't understand this process well enough, I guess. My take is that pages like this don't get created unless you do it yourself or your company hits some sort of critical mass to warrant a 3rd party objective or more likely, non-objective source to create it. Maybe Wikipedia just doesn't want that type of content on here? WOuld love some insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyeargin (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pyeargin: Thank you for not moving it back. Your take is right, in a way: "pages like this don't get created unless you do it yourself or your company hits some sort of critical mass". However, you cannot force an article's subject to be notable: you need to wait for that "critical mass". Wikipedia's criteria for companies is when it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That's quite a high bar. Plenty of innovative companies and organisations do great work, but don't get recognised by independent sources and so don't get an article here. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Most Wikipedia editors would tell you that your third sentence is correct: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. The advantages of putting it through the Articles for Creation process is that it saves you pain further down the line: AfC reviewers have quite a good nose on notability and are well-equipped to determine whether an article will be deleted later on. If a subject is not notable, it will eventually be spotted and deleted. If you truly feel that the company meets the criteria above, add {{subst:submit}} to Draft:Sage Board. I hope my advice helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Sage Board to Draft:Sage Board. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

Thank you so much for discovering this, I am genuinely amazed that you pinged me half an hour after the creation of the page... How did you even find it... Anyways, you have a really unique user page, and you make an absolute ton of pending changes reviews. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia :D

Justiyaya 23:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kitten, Justiyaya! I stumbled across the page they created (Ayan Nayak) when looking at new pages by new users and got confused when they claimed to have so many user rights despite having made a handful of edits. Somehow, I didn't see that they claimed to be you in the first sentence of their userpage and had to go to your adoptee before making the link to you ... Unfortunately, it seems like that is what some sockpuppeteers do, and they got blocked. My userpage has changed quite a bit: I didn't have one for years, and when I finally created one it was pretty minimalist. As for pending changes, looks like you're not too shabby either! Thank you for your work too, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Umm I know I probably don't have to ask for permission, but can I be your (talk page stalker)? Justiyaya 21:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Err sure! A word of warning: I'm not a terribly interesting Wikipedian to stalk, so you might get bored after a while ... Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this question at SILVAJASON's talk page. Pertinent information can be found at Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz.

June 2021

I QUOTE FROM YOU: Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Harry Davis (1930s first baseman). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am Harry A. Davis IV, the grandson of Harry Davis. The information I changed WAS NOT incorrect. I KNOW who my grandmother is. Why did you revert my edit?

It appears you used a newspaper article that is full of inconsistencies with regard to my Grandfather's history. For example, it states he played until 1954... Here is a link to his baseball career and you can see that the article is incorrect. I don't know who initiated this Wiki page, but they did not research my grandfather very well. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=davis-005har

If you need proof of marriage, I can email you a copy of the Marriage Certificate. I do not wish to play with the convoluted UPLOAD process of Wiki. It is hard enough just getting a message to you.

Please change my edit back.

Thank you,

HAD 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubincontechnologies (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry, the problem with Wikipedia is that one of its central tenets is verifiability: readers of Wikipedia must be able to check the information in its articles. The marriage certificate that you have is a primary source, which are rarely used in Wikipedia and may not be considered a reliable source (we've had problems before of people forging such documents and uploading them and claiming falsehoods). As I don't really work in the area, I'm not really familiar with the reliability of Baseball Reference and what that says about the Times's reliability, but I will open a section at the talk page and ask others from the Baseball WikiProject to weigh in. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response? What is the solution to correct this error? Do I need to re-edit the article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubincontechnologies (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest watching the discussion at Talk:Harry Davis (1930s first baseman) unfold and seeing what others say. There seems to be some disagreement on whether the Times source really was inconsistent with Baseball Reference and whether the Times's obituary is a reliable source. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding my reversion of this edit at Harry Davis (1930s first baseman). Pertinent information can be found at the talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! hotaru2k3 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hotaru2k3, I strongly agree that we need to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. However, it is, perhaps, slightly difficult to do so when someone creates a redirect that calls a person a "homophobe". That behaviour is completely out of order, and a flagrant violation of policy. I did not "harass" you. I notified you in accordance to policy. As I am not an administrator, I cannot restore any pages, nor can I delete any. The deleting administrator was Liz, and I highly doubt that she (or any of our other 1,087 administrators) would be willing to restore that page. If you can find one that would be, please let me know. Good day, Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

the redirect was not calling a person a homophobe. it was just redirecting what a lot of people are calling that particular space telescope to the more obscure name that Wikipedia calls it. and even if you do believe that the redirect is inappropriate, it was deleted without going through the normal process for deletion, with no opportunity for anyone to object to the deletion. additionally, your condescending wall of text on my user talk page is not appreciated. hotaru2k3 (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to agree with you that "the redirect was not calling a person a homophobe" when it replaced the name of a person with "homophobe". The "more obscure name that Wikipedia calls it"? Are you referring to the telescope's official name, as chosen by NASA? Also, I've Googled the name of that redirect in quotation marks and have received zero results. Are you sure it's "what a lot of people are calling that"?

The speedy deletion policy allows for the expedited deletion of pages that fit its criteria (in this case G10 and R3); I nominated it as such, and the deleting administrator agreed with me. She did not have to wait for your objection, though if it was deleted any more slowly you could have. The speed at which it was deleted speaks volumes of how inappropriate that redirect was and I couldn't restore it for you even if I wanted to. You need to contact the deleting administrator (I said who it was above) and if she doesn't agree you can go to deletion review and request it there. The "wall of text" on your talk page is due to the use of the {{first article}} and {{db-notice-multiple}} templates to notify you of its impending deletion (standard practice), and it wasn't harassment or vandalism (which is what you called it here, here, and here). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Sdrqaz here. A casual glance at the situation also indicates it to have been a case of righting great wrongs, and this is not the place to enact some sort of retribution for perceived wrongs and evils, to say nothing of the actual ones in question - nor would doing so here be actually effective to that end in any manner. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the creation of this redirect.

Hi. I didn't want to nominate the article for deletion, but it was recently draftified, due to lack of source. So, please merge them. 2021 Durand Cup and Draft:2021 Durand Cup.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, the {{db-reason}} template is used for requesting speedy deletion. While they're both pages on the same topic, they were started by two different editors. I'm not sure how you want me to merge it – if you want to merge the text, you can do that yourself by adding the information that is missing at 2021 Durand Cup from Draft:2021 Durand Cup. If you want to merge the history, I don't think it's applicable because that's for copy-and-paste moves. You could redirect one to the other, but I wouldn't advise it. If you redirect the draft to the article, you still have the "problem" of it being in the mainspace (I assume that's not acceptable for you). If you redirect the article to the draft, that's generally not acceptable because such cross-namespace redirects are usually speedily deleted and you would be in effect deleting that article if the reviewing administrator wasn't careful enough. Please PROD it or take it to AfD or better still, discuss with the two editors with whom you have a disagreement. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any disagreement with any of the users. When the article was created first time, it was based on rumours. I couldn't find any citation too. So, I moved it to draft. Later, another user created the article, based on those similar rumours and reports. Even, as of now, there are no proper report claiming that the tournament will be played this year, and I feel, until we have proper sources, the article should be in draft condition. That's why, I requested for CSD or whatever is appropriate. Since, you (or anyone who goes through the CSD nominations) are much more experienced, I asked if it could be merged, or any other action could be taken. Before CSD, I went to merge them, but due to lack of source, I backed off.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: From what I understand, you intend to delete the article. There are three deletion methods on Wikipedia:

1. Speedy deletion (CSD)
   1. Very strict guidelines
   2. Probably doesn't apply in this context
2. Proposed deletion (PROD)
   1. Uncontested only
   2. For basically every context
3. Articles for Deletion (AfD)
   1. Community !Vote
   2. Consensis

You CSDed the article that you linked, none of the CSD guidelines applied in that situation, hence the removal of the CSD, a proposed deletion would be better in this situation. Making a PROD would be quite straightforward with twinkle, but if you do not wish to use twinkle, add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the top of the page. Note that a PROD can be removed by anyone, if it is removed, AFD it by following the instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO, or discuss with the editor that removed the tag. That being said, I didn't look through the citations on the page carefully, so I cannot support the deletion.

Lastly, the deletion methods on Wikipedia are quite confusing, hopefully this helped :D (talk page stalker) Justiyaya 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya gives a good overview on the possible avenues for deletion (thanks!). Hmm. I suppose you could move the article to Draft:2021 Durand Cup (2) or something similar, although draftification when editors don't have a conflict of interest is supposed to be when nobody is actively working on it and improving it. I'd advise prodding it and seeing if there are any objections. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I will merge both the article, as I found some sources. Thanks for the help.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. Good luck! Sdrqaz (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this speedy deletion nomination of 2021 Durand Cup.

Hey Sdrqaz, Thanks for dealing with my article, 'Obhyesh' is an upcoming Bengali film. I wrote about that but there was no undisclosed payment deal with anyone. Please tell me what should I do to get my article back in livespace again. Please guide me. Thank you. Bsrthereal (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Bsrthereal. Do you have a conflict of interest with this movie? Your username suggests you may be the director or someone associated with them. If you do, please click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the draft. If you don't have a conflict of interest, you could move the page back into the mainspace, but I wouldn't advise it: although the movie looks good, it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Do you have any other independent sources that are covering this movie? Right now in the draft, I only see the movie's official website and IMDb, which isn't considered a reliable source because its content is mainly added by users (like Wikipedia). As a reviewer told you, unreleased movies need to meet the guidelines set out here. If it doesn't have any other coverage from independent, reliable sources, we can't accept it, sorry. That may happen when the movie is released or a few years later, but from what I can see in the draft now, it doesn't currently meet the criteria. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, Thank you so much Sdrqaz for the help. Can you please reply to me with the chart containing all the sources like IMDb and others stating reliable or not on Wikipedia? Thanks again Bsrthereal (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. The ones the community have had discussions about are in this table, but it doesn't cover everything. If your source doesn't show up there, you can ask at either the Teahouse or the reliable sources noticeboard, though I would recommend the Teahouse as the first place to ask (people there tend to be a bit more friendly). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, It surely helps, Thanks a lot. Bsrthereal (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for keep helping a new contributor. It helps. Bsrthereal (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Bsrthereal! Thank you for the barnstar. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Most welcome Sdrqaz. Bsrthereal (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added. Part of the message was titled "A barnstar for you!"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous message.

Thanks for responding to the deletion request on the GXO Logistics page. Much appreciated. Gannymetis (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Gannymetis. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G11 speedy deletion nomination of GXO Logistics.

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your contribution to Nishant S Mehta Article, I would love to hear from your side the correction and Suggestions on the same. help us to Improve Kimran999 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kimran999. I'm not sure what contribution I made to Nishant S Mehta, given I nominated it for deletion. As for my issues with the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishant S Mehta gives quite a good overview, but in essence it is that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources. If we look through the sources currently present in the article, we have a list of speakers at an event, a national record for India (which may be independent but doesn't really go into much detail about the subject), and a promotional press release. Searches elsewhere don't uncover anything beyond profiles from the company itself and LinkedIn, which aren't independent either. Of course, if you feel that the subject is notable, please join the debate at AfD. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hie, @Sdrqaz. you Nominated Nishant S Mehta for deletion, I agree with you.

I'm collecting the significant coverage with independent sources, Once links will cover I will update immediately.

Mean while can you please remove AfD message.

Thanks

Kimran999 Kimran999 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kimran999, I'm afraid I cannot remove the AfD message from the article, though you are free to remove the notice from your talk page. Because someone else has !voted for deletion, I couldn't close the nomination as "speedy keep" even if I wanted to. While I could withdraw my nomination, the debate would continue and the notice could not be removed from the page. Your best course of action is to find the independent sources within the next six days (AfDs go on for seven) and argue for keeping the page at the debate. Those independent sources do not need to be in the article, but as long as you've found them, you can point to them there. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hie,

I added few independent source, I request you to please review.

Thanks Kimran999 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kimran999: Looking through the sources you added since I nominated the page for deletion, I'm still not convinced. The Nation Wide Awards source is full of promotional phrasing, such as "globally recognized identity famous for his dedication and manifold abilities", "set a new milestone of his success", "Beyond a doubt, all these extraordinary and multitude of qualities really makes Nishant a person of eminence." These quotes (and there are more) make me suspect that the source is more built on promoting its recipients than being a serious awards organisation. Its website does not fill me with confidence either, since it talks about "Individually Tailored Advertising and Promotion Campaigns ... Press Release Activities etc" being part of winning an award from them. As for the "Indian Achiever's Award" source, I cannot access it so cannot comment on it, but to meet the general notability guideline, multiple sources are expected.

I would also like to note my dissatisfaction that you removed the AfD tag from the page, saying that the nomination had been withdrawn and the discussion was closed as speedy keep. That was untrue. This was despite the fact I specifically told you that it could not be removed before the debate was over, given the circumstances. I also do not understand why you moved the page to userspace, though to your credit you moved it back, after several attempts (1, 2). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the nomination of Nishant S Mehta for deletion. The initial message was titled "A barnstar for you!"; this heading was renamed to "Nishant S Mehta".

Thanks for your message, but being new to this and just trying to help my wife set up a wiki page for her business here in Libya I don't understand why you have somehow been able to or wanted to change my wiki page to draft? Everything on the page is accurate and up to date, and if I can get it to stay up for a bit I'll add to it and improve... Can you specifically advise what I need to do to keep this page live?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcham Libya (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Going off "help my wife set up a wiki page for her business", it sounds like you have a conflict of interest regarding that organisation. As I told you on your talk page, Wikipedia has guidelines for such editors: you should submit pages you write regarding that subject through the Articles for Creation process to allow an impartial reviewer to assess it. That's why I moved the page to the draftspace. I would normally tell you that you can continue working on the page while it is in draftspace, but it appears to have been deleted for being purely promotional and a copyright infringement. Moreover, the page you were editing seems to be a duplicate of American Chamber of Commerce in Libya, which you know because you have edited that page before. Is there a reason why you decided to create another article on the same subject? Sdrqaz (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of American Chamber of Commerce Libya to Draft:American Chamber of Commerce Libya.