User talk:AKS.9955

Aslam Azad

My dear AKS, Recently you have tagged "deletion policy" on the page Aslam Azad. I am wonder to see that this person is well notable in Sindh and symbol of courage. I have also added references for the citation of the content, where you may look the top leading newspaper of Pakistan Daily Dawn is reporting about him as following: "Speakers paid tributes to writer and social activist Dr Aslam Azad Khwaja at a gathering held at Mumtaz Mirza Auditorium here on Saturday evening. A road accident in 1991 left Dr Azad disabled, but since then he lives courageously and continues his writing and other work on wheel chair. A large number of writers, poets and political and social welfare activists attended the programme. Renowned writer Inam Shaikh said that despite physical disability Dr Azad had a healthy mind and never allowed his impairment to discourage him. He said a number of writers, youths and activists visited and consulted him on different issues. Renowned poet Dr Akash Ansari said Dr Azad symbolised the courage and described him a role model for youth, especially in lower Sindh. He loves his land, which reflects from his poetry." Please read here the report. I am really thankful to you, if you may let this profile on wiki. regards Indusian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indusian1236 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Indusian1236 biography must adhear to the policies defined therein. You can discuss the deletion on the AfD discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Harambe

Noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe and was wondering if you knew how to put a notification about that on the talk to spur further discussion of the potential move. I've seen it before but can't remember where or what template to use. Ranze (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Ranze, there is an ongoing discussion (here) about moving the page. You can participate in that discussion or start a new discussion. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I started it :) I was looking for Template:Old MfD I think, will add. Ranze (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Ranze, sorry, did not understand your first question correctly. Good you got what you were looking for. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi,What kind of reliable sources are accepted by wikipedia in india and how can i write an article on a topic which as been deleted priviously.Akash Dahariya (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Akash Dahariya, please read WP:CS for details. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD closure

A question regarding your non-admin cloure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deewana (TV series)‎ as "keep" - why did you deem it necessary to do that, two hours after the discussion had been relisted to make it possible to reach a consensus? Non-admin closures are appropriate in cases where there is an uncontroversial closing rationale; that this discussion had only just been relisted a couple of hours previously indicates that there was no such unanimity. Regarding your closing outcome: there has been discussion with policy based arguments in both directions, and a simple "keep" with no motivation is odd for that reason as well - an AfD closure where there are actual arguments based on policy to keep as well as to delete is not an uncontroversial close. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure specifies that a non-admin can close an AfD as "keep" absent any contentious debate among participants, i.e. not the situation here. A "no consensus" closure might have been appropriate - but again, why do that when the discussion has just been relisted in order to reach consensus? There is no deadline here. --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your recent contributions, I see that you did much the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Woodward - it had been relisted a few hours previously, and I don't understand your comment "Merge / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage." - nobody had suggested that, and both "merge" and "redirect" are common and reasonable outcomes of AfD debates, which do not have to be further discussed on the talk page of the article under discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Woodward is to redirect ?, AFD closers can and do close as merge/redirect - If it wasn't physically allowed I (and thousands of others) would visit the TP, So could you either relist or close it as Redirect please ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Davey2010: This is mere speculation on my part, but I wonder if AKS.9955 may have misinterpreted the comment "whether to merge content is generally resolved via talkpage discussion rather than XfD" at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Speedy_.28musician.29_.28closed.29 to mean that XfDs are not supposed to have "redirect" as their outcome? Because (addressing AKS.9955 here) that is not how it is. Most redirect discussions are carried out on articles' talk pages, and an XfD shouldn't be opened when the nominator wants the article to be redirected, but that does not mean that XfD discussions cannot end in a consensus to redirect an article, if the participants in the discussion think that is a reasonable outcome. And where there is such a consensus, the AfD is not closed as "keep", as Davey2010 points out (and as I mentioned in the previous section). In any case, and as I also said before, it was a bit premature to close the discussion when it had literally just been relisted a few hours previously. --bonadea contributions talk 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonadea - Personally I think you're correct - I think they seem to believe Merge/Redirects should happen on the tp and that's it which as you point out is completely incorrect,

AKS - If the nom wants to actually redirect or merge something then 9 times out of 10 it'll either be Redirected/merged or Speedy Kept (depending on the person closing), However if participants in the AFD go with redirect/merge whilst the nom only states delete then you're meant to follow it through with that outcome (Redirect in this case), As an aside technically you shouldn't of closed the Wanye W AFD so early (It should've been relisted) however Redirect is always perferred over deletion, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Bonadea and Davey2010. I agree with you guys. Must admit, I am fairly new to non-admin closures and this is just a process of learning. Yes, I did miss noticing the relisting. As far as the merge / redirect is concerned and as Bonadea observed correctly, yes, I perhaps did not fully understand the spirit behind what was written here. I am combining two discussions (in my talkpage) since they are for same subject. Let me know how to proceed further and I will follow it precisely. Thanks for your time and observation. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi AKKS, No worries we all make mistakes :), Many many new closers make mistakes it's all apart of learning :), The best thing to do would be just to reopen and reclose the Wanye W AFD as Redirect, I admit I did probably get the Speedy one wrong however in this case this one is an obvious one :), Thanks for replying, –Davey2010^Talk 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up - I've reverted your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Woodward as in this case there wasn't any consensus to keep, AFDs can and should be closed as Redirect/Merge if that's the outcome, This isn't a threat but actions like today could see you at the WP:Great Dismal Swamp which is the last resort for anyone, Anyway thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Bonadea and Davey2010. Since you have already reverted the edit, I am taking no further action. Will watch out in the future. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• No worries, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron

Hello and thanks for contributing, I simply wanted to note you sincerely should reconsider closing this one because it could still use additional insight especially given the current BLP questionability and relist it instead. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hello SwisterTwister talk, not one person (apart from nominator) supported the AfD. Furthermore, the AfD discussion clearly demonstrated how the subject passed PORNBIO by winning XRCO Unsung Swordsman. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed but because of the BLP concerning particularly involving the subject, I believed at best it could've at least been relisted another week. To be honest, I intended to vote earlier and was going to until you closed it. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Then let it got for 2nd nomination. On a different note, check this. Can you give this a look and see if you have any clue what to do with this? I was tempted to perform a non-admin closure but held myself back. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for freewire

Hello, I did not mean for you to remove the deletion tag. I believe it should be deleted. I didn't know that clearing the page did this. I just thought my comment wasn't necessary. TheUSConservative (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• TheUSConservative, I left you a message on your talkpage because it was not clear as to what you were trying to do. That is not the correct way to nominate an article for deletion. If you believe that an article should be deleted, then you have to make sure that you explain the reason in AfD discussion. I have NOT removed any tag instead have started the discussion as you can see here. If you are not sure what the "page was doing" (as you said on your talkpage), then I strongly recommend you read WP:AfD before you nominate any more articles for deletion. Happy editing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Improper non-admin closure

This was an improper non-admin closure of an AFD discussion. There were only two opinions given: mine as nominator, and one other keep opinion based on the fact that "it's an old organization; there must be sources" but without any evidence that there were any sources. Given the split nature of the discussion, a relist was in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoroastrian Students' Association

Thank you for your contribution at WP:AFD. As an uninvolved administrator, I have reopened your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoroastrian Students' Association as in my view, there is insufficient discussion with which to decide on the consensus. I have relisted the page to generate a more thorough discussion. Do not be disheartened by this, take it as being a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)