Jump to content

User talk:MadeYourReadThis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kasuri929 (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 1 September 2010 (→‎Gohar Jageer: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am not an admin, I'm an editor like you. I did not delete your page and I cannot restore it. If you are here to comment on a page I marked with maintenance concerns or for deletion please read the following first and click on the link in the yellow box below to leave me a message if you have additional questions:

If you concerned about the speed that I and other New Page Patrollers tag newly created articles, consider how we are to know that you are not done with your contribution and then read for ideas on how let others know you plan to add more to the article very soon.

Click here to leave a message for me. Don't forget to sign your message with ~~~~ and include the page title you are talking about

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi Sir,kindly give my article a look and help me .Thanks.Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking better but I there are still some significant problems with this article.
  • Its too long, stay to the point of:
    • describing who this person is
    • what he does
    • how he is notable
  • It gets off track and begins covering people other than the subject of the article. All this information can be removed.
  • It's over referenced, Rather than reference the definition of a word, link to an appropriate article on that word.
  • The extensive quotations are making the article more difficult to read.

Can you condense this information down to 2-3 paragraphs focusing only on this person. Also, please take a look at WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE for information on how to cite references. This is far preferable over something like "(see P.114 of Zia Fatehabadi-Shakhs aur Shair by Malik Ram) "

Hello. There is a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4 concerning the restoration of an userfied version of an article you nominated for deletion. You may be better able to determine than I whether the concerns you voiced in your deletion nomination are met. Regards,  Sandstein  06:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=blp prod

You seem to have made a slip Malli Amman Durgham is a place, not a person. I think I;ve done this once or twice myself. Perhaps you had some other article in mind? DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

churches

Church of the Resurrection, Hurley, Baxterley Church and St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter are articles that are useful and don't need deleting and if you are saying that then you need to look at St Saviour's, Branston, St Mark's, Winshill and All Saints, Burton upon Trent MARK BEGG (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your Baxterley Church AfD et al. I am certain your prompt withdrawal of this AfD will help MarkBegg (talk · contribs) in creating useful wikipedia articles --Senra (Talk) 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Maor

Hi! You tagged Eli Maor as unsourced. However in the article a source from Princeton University was mentionned. Do you think it is not a reliable source ? Is the bibliography I provided not reliable ? French German and Esperanto Wikipedias had articles about Eli Maor before I created the article in English. Eli Maor is very often cited because of several books he wrote. In English Wikipedia there were dozens of red links to Eli Maor. I thought en:WP was lacking of an article about this man. I created a stub. I have no material to expand it but copying the bio in Princeton University website. I let other wikipedians expand it. But why do you want to delete an article which was lacking before I created it ? Arno Lagrange ✉ 06:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was added as a source after it was tagged for deletion. This was previously an external link and it was not clear that this was the source used to create the article. Thanks for clarifying that. But the article still has notability concerns. Simply being an author and professor is not sufficient. Actually the notability bar for academics is a bit higher. See WP:PROF for more information. --RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing my three-pence into the ring here. My understanding of WP:PROF is that the subject is notable if any one of nine criteria are met. A very brief look at the external link (Bio of Eli Maor) provided in the article when first seen will show that this person meets notability criteria #2 in the guideline:WP:PROF. I accept this fact has not been stated in the article, but it could easily be inserted (provided it is sourced). Having written more than 50 mathematical articles, he may also meet criteria #1, however, I do not have the relevant access to citation databases to check this. Additionally, I have recently tagged the article as a WP:BLP --Senra (Talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that award in there as well, but dont think that an award from the "National Council of Teachers of Mathematics" would meet WP:PROF's #2 critirea of a "prestigious" award. His involvement in Mathematical Association of America's Program of Visiting Lecturers and Consultants is interesting but this article is still not meeting WP:BIO much less WP:PROF. Was there another award you were looking at that I missed?--RadioFan (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did do a google scholar search but I am not qualified to comment on its results. It was the NCTM award I was thinking of incidentally. I am not an expert on BLP's, though I have done all I can on this one. If he is not WP:NOTE then fair enough --Senra (Talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You will have noticed that I became involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church. I think this is the first time I have contributed to a discussion on AfD. Maybe I don't understand the process, but I can't see what you are up to. It seems a bit foolish to offer four articles for deletion on a single AfD; does not each article have to be discussed and decided on its own merits, and come to an individual conclusion for each, rather than mush them all together?

I'm pleased to see that you have been sensible enough to withdraw the AfD. You declare your ignorance about the listing of buildings in UK and yet you offered the articles for deletion without looking more deeply into their subject matter. Rather taking a superficial glance at a short new article, perhaps you should spend some time looking more deeply into its notability, rather than responding with what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction. Nominating an article for AfD can do a lot of harm to an editor, particularly if he is a newbie; a glance at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers would be an idea. IMO for what it is worth we should be encouraging and helping less experienced editors, not exposing them to the threat of AfD for no justifiable reason. Maybe the first line of action should be a message on the talk page of the article, or better still, a message on the talk page of the editor, explaining your concerns, and giving an opportunity for the editor to explain why he thinks the topic is sufficiently notable for WP before nomination (he may even agree with you and support AfD, if your reasons are good). Nomination to AfD should not IMO be a first option. Discourage a new or inexperienced editor, and you may, by that very action, lose someone who could in the future become a valuable contributor to WP.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to explain why it is notable and to provide sufficient references to demonstrate this notability. This applies to veterans as well as newbies. The article was initially prod'd and the prod removed with a simple "I think it's notable". This is why it was brought to a larger discussion in the form of an AFD. Please remember that an AFD is just a discussion. It wasn't my intention to discourage this editor.
Also please keep in mind that a lot of articles are created for churches and many of them are removed because they just dont meet notability guidelines. A church being old doesn't make it notable. These churches are registered buildings so they will likely meet the guidelines which is why I withdrew the nomination and closed the AFD. Let's leave it at that.--RadioFan (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If a subject is notable, it is notable. Editors do not have to justify notability if the subject if an article is self-evidently notable. People who have nothing better to do than to try to delete articles without properly looking into their notability are harming the future of Wikipedia (IMO of course) and dissuading present and future contributors from building the project. How about being positive (and helpful) rather then destructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter I. Vardy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AfD nomination of Joel Chan (actor)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joel Chan (actor), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Chan (actor). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what do you mean for "notable"; I guess that someone wo contributed to decipher eblaitic language is surely notable and reknowed (unless by bias and envy of his colleagues...). If you are unaware of whom Pettinato is, it is just a problem of yours.

BCtl (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the welcoming information left on your talk page, it gives a good introduction to Wikipedia. A subject can have an article only if it meets notability requirements. Articles about living people are particularly well watched to ensure that they are referenced with verifiable sources. That's the problem with this article. The only source appears to be IMDB, it needs more to show that this person is notable.--RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gohar Jageer

I appreciate your effort of cleaning wikipedia but please make sure to do justice to every article not just to Gohar Jageer. I have seen many articles which are full of non-encyclopedaic material for example article 'kasur'. So please do not just stick to gohar jageer and also take notice of other articles. kindly tell me your location (country) if you do not mind. I shall try to repair this article according to the prescribed rules. Well i am happy to know that someone is there to clean wikipedia. keep it up. I am waiting for your reply very anxiously, its my first talk with any wikipedia editor/contributor. Thanks. Kasuri929 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MadeYourReadThis&oldid=382303520"