Speedy deletion nomination of Uncle Jack's Fish & ChipsEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Uncle Jack's Fish & Chips requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Sekandar Amanolahi-BaharvandEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Sekandar Amanolahi-Baharvand should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sekandar Amanolahi-Baharvand .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 TT me 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve A Companion to Continental PhilosophyEdit

Thanks for creating A Companion to Continental Philosophy.

A New Page Patroller Domdeparis just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

please add more sources to show this mook meets the WP:NBOOK criteria. I Have removed a source that refers to another book on the same subject written by one of the authors in 2005

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dom from Paris (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


Re: Sociology of moralityEdit

Hello Pirhayati I have added projects Sociology, to your article. You may wish to join them, check their to-do, and meet new people with interest in these topics. ( To reply click "edit" next to this section, and add your reply at the end. ) Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, DahiyaEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dahiya. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dahiya Badshah. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dahiya Badshah. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. PRehse (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dahiya listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dahiya. Since you had some involvement with the Dahiya redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Nthep (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raphael WoolfEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Raphael Woolf, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, leave a comment here and ping me.

Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Raphael WoolfEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Raphael Woolf should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Woolf .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 TT me 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Verity Harte) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Verity Harte.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

If you could find more independent reliable sources that would be helpful.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lopifalko (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal GreetingsEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Pirhayati, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A page you started (Wolfe Mays) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Wolfe Mays.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Can use some more sources, independent too.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|JC7V7DC5768}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JC7V (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Should it not have stuff in it, instead of a single sentence. Where are his works, his biography?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

scope_creepTalk 11:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Most populated listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Most populated. Since you had some involvement with the Most populated redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve András Máté-TóthEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Thanks for creating András Máté-Tóth! I edit here too, under the username Britishfinance and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

A CV is never a great source for a BLP (i.e. very primary), would be great to find more third party English translated sources (e.g. newspapers). well done.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Lisa Shapiro) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Lisa Shapiro.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good stub article; would love to see a little more. well done

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Karam SolimanEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Thanks for creating Karam Soliman! I edit here too, under the username Britishfinance and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Very bare article (only one reference for a BLP is not sufficient); and am not convincenced that he meets WP:PROF notabilty? Just being a professor is not enough, would be good to see a specific sentance(s) on criteria that meet the WP notabililty guidelines for academics. thanks

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Miguel de BeisteguiEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Thanks for creating Miguel de Beistegui! I edit here too, under the username Britishfinance and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

One reference is too little for a BLP; whlle there are lots of references on Google, you also need to be specific (with reference) on the facts that meet the WP:PROf notability criteria for academics. thanks

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Book awards has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Book awards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fakhreddin JamaliEdit

 

The article Fakhreddin Jamali has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP is being written by the subject himself. Also is using his own publication to edit Aspirin.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zefr (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gillian Ruth BrownEdit

 

The article Gillian Ruth Brown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing here asserting anything which passes WP:NACADEMIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Michael LuntleyEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Michael Luntley should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Luntley .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: As I said before, "Professors" in the UK are equivalent to distinguished professors. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Hewitt HareEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Peter Hewitt Hare, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Distinguished Professors are notable according to wp:academic (Criterion 5).Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I was thrown a bit by the "Services", but was going to remove the tag. Phil Bridger has beaten me to it, however. Onel5969 TT me 18:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Leibniz scholars has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Leibniz scholars, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Qi YuanEdit

 

The article Qi Yuan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Thanks for the note. I am wondering how much citation is needed to satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as she has over 650 citations on ResearchGate. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Pirhayati, thanks for reaching out. A listing on this site is normally a good stating point if one is considered highly cited, as required by WP:PROF. I am not an expert her field, however, if she is mentioned elsewhere as having had a significant impact on her field (such as in a profile about her in a special edition of a peer reviewed academic journal), this may also suffice. Citations in the 100s usually indicate a lecturer with research interest. In the absence of special mentions, one would expect this level of citations for most clinical researchers.
I am one of the editors regularly reviewing academic bios, and I have taken a look. Notability through WP:PROF is normally shown by citations to the published peer-reviewed articles. Examinging Google Scholar, none of her less than a dozen articles have been cited more than 20 or 30 times. In the biomedical sciences, there is a very heavy density of citations, and therefore the number of citations for significant work that make a substantial impact is quite high. The normal expectations in her field for notability would be at least one paper with 100 or more citations. This is rarely met for people at her academic rank unlessthey have made a truly important discovery. Put simply, this is too early in her career. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Coup (game)Edit

 

The article Coup (game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of significance

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Soroush DabbaghEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Soroush Dabbagh should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroush Dabbagh .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Zipi IsraeliEdit

 

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zipi Israeli".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sofia Philosophical Review moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Sofia Philosophical Review, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Gungov moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Alexander Gungov, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Fariborz Pakseresht for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fariborz Pakseresht 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/Fariborz Pakseresht 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. GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Davoudi (cinematographer) moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Mohammad Davoudi (cinematographer), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Bill WringeEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username StudiesWorld and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bill Wringe should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Wringe .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|StudiesWorld}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

StudiesWorld (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Colin WringeEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username StudiesWorld and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Colin Wringe, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|StudiesWorld}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

StudiesWorld (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Colin WringeEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username StudiesWorld and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Colin Wringe should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Wringe .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|StudiesWorld}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

StudiesWorld (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Toranjestan Soroush for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toranjestan Soroush 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/Toranjestan Soroush 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. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Philosophical Review has been acceptedEdit

Sofia Philosophical Review, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about English Word-FormationEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheLongTone and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, English Word-Formation should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Word-Formation .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Morphological ProductivityEdit

 

The article Morphological Productivity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of being separately notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this thing called thinking listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What is this thing called thinking. Since you had some involvement with the What is this thing called thinking redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Little stubs that hardly say anythingEdit

You have a long list of deletion-related warnings above, and you have made a lot of stubs that don't inform. John Mathieson Anderson is just the latest example I've noticed of the latter. If your creations said more, you'd get fewer warnings.

Of course people have different preferences in editing, and there's no policy against creating stubs and then leaving them as stubs. Still, your editing patterns seem odd to me. And stubs raise hopes among users of Wikipedia, who hope that any article is going to be worth their attention.

Here's the very first version of what I think is my most recent creation. It's a bit rough, and within two days of its creation five other editors (and I) improved it. In the time I spent on it, I could instead have created half a dozen or more stubs about people who don't have articles but deserve them. However, I can't think who would have benefitted from that. I'd rather have the one decent article on Harding, and let the other people get their own articles later (if ever) -- after all, if they're of encyclopedic significance, it's likely that in the absence of Wikipedia articles, people interested would still be able to find material on them via Google or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think creating stubs is better than nothing because at least the links with Wikidata and interwikis are done. For example John Mathieson Anderson has a complete authority control and its distinction with other John Andersons is established. Now it is (more) ready to be expanded. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This is how you left the WD entry for John M Anderson. Well, it was a start. This is how I left the WD entry for Harding. It's not great (I was and am unfamiliar with WD), but I think it's not bad. ¶ "Now it is (more) ready to be expanded": are you planning to do this? -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Well my point is creating stubs is better than nothing. I expand some of them and leave some for other users. I have created non-stub articles too. You can see that in my contributions. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kantian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A priori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Gungov (August 13)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CptViraj was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CptViraj (📧) 15:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:8 times per year journals has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:8 times per year journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Sofia Philosophical Review for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sofia Philosophical Review 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/Sofia Philosophical Review 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural ScienceEdit

 

The article Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Johann Friedrich Zöllner" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Johann Friedrich Zöllner. Since you had some involvement with the Johann Friedrich Zöllner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Fry moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Dennis Fry, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Cognitive problem" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cognitive problem. Since you had some involvement with the Cognitive problem redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 08:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammad Davoudi (cinematographer)Edit

 

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Mohammad Davoudi (cinematographer).

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CenterforStrategicStudies.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:CenterforStrategicStudies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 11:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Interdisciplinary websites has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Interdisciplinary websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Mohammad Ali Besharat for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammad Ali Besharat 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/Mohammad Ali Besharat 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. Lexy iris (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Human exceptionalityEdit

Hello, Pirhayati

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username ComplexRational and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Human exceptionality, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 9#Human exceptionality.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ComplexRational (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Works about Jacques Lacan has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Works about Jacques Lacan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Hello, Pirhayati

Thank you for creating Donald Rutherford (philosopher).

User:Britishfinance, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

View nice stubs you are doing here - very well created!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Britishfinance (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kantian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hume (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

advice on stubsEdit

some advice--the stubs you've just been submitting are too short. We ned at least the basic bio information on education and successive positions, and for their books, the publishers and ISBNs. I've reviewed a great many academic bios here, and I'm not sure President of the metaphysical society by itself is enough, because it is not the major national society in its overall field, but a specialist one for a particular orientation. That, plus the academic positions, plus the books probably is enough, but we hav eo knowwhere they've been published. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the information gradually. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
please get on with it!! At least add the books. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ��

Speedy deletion nomination of W. D. HartEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on W. D. Hart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://phil.uic.edu/profiles/hart-w-d. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majavah (t/c) 09:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Alexander Gungov concernEdit

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alexander Gungov, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Hwa Mui" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hwa Mui. Since you had some involvement with the Hwa Mui redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sociology of art has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Sociology of art, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Phenomenological Reviews moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Phenomenological Reviews, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Alexander GungovEdit

 

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alexander Gungov".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A philosophical note on stubsEdit

Hi there, I just reviewed (via Wikipedia:New pages patrol) the article you created this past December on Williams College professor Alan White. It's great to improve coverage of academics here on Wikipedia, but I'd encourage you to flesh out the articles you're writing more. When writing stubby articles, consider: who is served by this article? Does it serve a reader? If the article consists only of name, affiliation, subject-of-interest, and book list (as Alan White did), then a reader is probably no better off than if they just read the faculty website. Does it serve the encyclopedia by providing structure for someone to improve upon? Maybe, but if someone is interested in the topic, you're not really saving them any time by already having the name and affiliation filled in. I know academics are poorly covered in general, but even with the very few sources available you can usually expand the text to be just a bit more useful to a reader. As an example, I've expanded the text at Alan White (American philosopher) a bit. It would be great if you (or someone else interested in philosophy) could write up a short paragraph on his research topics, based on his website or the various blurbs about him elsewhere (e.g. here, many of these blurbs were probably submitted by him, so they're not really that independent. But it's probably the best we've got.). If you need a hand, I'm happy to help, or you could try asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. I hope you stick to it, and keep improving the encyclopedia. All the best. Ajpolino (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ajpolino, thanks for your note. Well I have worked on many articles and I have expanded them, but there are some articles which I think should be on Wikipedia but I don't have time for expanding them. For example Alan White may be confused with Alan R. White and the Wikipedia page (even without the details) can help people distinguish them. Or consider Donald Rutherford (philosopher) and Donald Rutherford (economist). They have been confused with each other for years, even on the databases like VIAF and ISNI. Then I think they are helpful enough on Wikipedia even with only name and affiliation. Therefore, I create these articles with two reasons: 1. disambiguation or some introduction otherwise hard to access. 2. When there is a stub on Wikipedia, other users see it and some of them (like you) are encouraged to expand it. Then I think the creation of such stub articles is better than their nonexistence. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Farshad FatemiEdit

Hello, Pirhayati,

Thank you for creating Farshad Fatemi.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi - more reliable independent sources about this subject are required, CV and interviews do not show notability. All the best

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Paul Welsh (philosopher)Edit

Hi - I was taking a look at this new article, and I'm not seeing a stand-out claim to notability per GNG or NPROF - have you considered this question, and if so can you explain your thinking on this? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. Well I think his works (the two books) are reviewed (covered) by independent reliable sources, then he is notable according to GNG. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Pirhayati, hi - I agree that might constitute a pass at WP:NAUTHOR, but there isn't any sourcing in the article to indicate that they were reviewed - any chance you could dig some out if you're familiar with the subject? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit I have already mentioned two reviews in the article. I did not find any other reviews in my second search. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Pirhayati, apologies, I hadn't realised that's what the Wiley source was - I can't access it, and assumed that it was his own writing, but I see now that it has a different author so I should have assumed it was a review. OK, concerns assuaged, I'll mark it reviewed - sorry for bothering you, cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Alam SalehEdit

Hello, Pirhayati

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mccapra and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Alam Saleh, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alam Saleh.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I just looked at this article, and noticed that the entire 'Career' section was a direct copy/paste from this page. I see you have been given links to our copyvio policy in the past - please take heed of this, you simply can't copy information from other websites - not just because it's a copyright violation, but also because the prose that a person or entity puts on their own website is highly unlikely to confirm with the neutral, encyclopedic tone we should be aiming for. Please don't do that in future. GirthSummit (blether) 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Hello, Pirhayati

Thank you for creating George Peter Klubertanz.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on George Peter Klubertanz. Other editors have noted that more evidence is needed of his notability, while the article would also benefit from more than a basic introduction to his existence. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the page.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of festschrifts for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of festschrifts 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/List of festschrifts 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. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard McKirahanEdit

 

The article Richard McKirahan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard J. Blackwell moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Richard J. Blackwell, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Newton Phelps StallknechtEdit

 

The article Newton Phelps Stallknecht has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lawrence Cahoone moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, Lawrence Cahoone, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)