User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Speedy deletion declined: Marianna Russell

Hello Yashovardhan Dhanania, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marianna Russell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being the wife of a notable artist indicates significance/importance. If she is not notable, there is a valid target for merge/redirect as well per WP:ATD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SoWhy 09:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for notifying me! I had went through the policies and it stated that "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A". I agree that it could be well argued that she is significant. So should the article be converted into a redirect? What's your opinion? Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note

@SoWhy: I have started a merger discussion here. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVALIDBIO is a part of the notability guideline, while WP:ATD is a deletion policy, so it takes precedence. To put it another way: Speedy deletion, especially A7, is a policy that covers only pages that should be deleted and cannot be handled another way. That's why the guideline you mention continues with "However, person A may be included in the related article on B", i. e. either the content merged per WP:ATD-M or just redirected per WP:ATD-R. I cannot access the sources in the article (them being books and in French) so I cannot assess her notability. Good idea with the merge but usually you don't need to start a discussion if there is no controversy to be expected; just be bold and do it yourself. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for pointing this out! I know I could have boldly merged it myself but here I am expecting some kind of a possible controversy (possible from the author of the article as he/she is pretty new here). So I thought it best to start a discussion. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Marianna Russell (new page)

Hi

In contest a speedy deletion. Three books reference are given. The first one's author, Daniel Wildenstein, was internationally known and was a specialist of impressinost painting. Several busts of Marianna Russell are ewhibited in permanence in Musée Rodin in Paris, and in others museums in USA, in Australia, in Japan, in Poland. A wikipedia page about this personage is existing in French for many years and a another one in Italian. It would be a lack if this page would not exist in English. Axifrages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axifrages (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Axifrages: Hey, Firstly, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You should be happy knowing that the speedy deletion was denied and now I have started a proposal for a merger of this article to John Peter Russell. You can discuss the merger at Talk:John Peter Russell#Proposed merge with Marianna Russell. Meanwhile, feel free to improve your article as well. By the by, even if it was still meant to be speedy deleted, you would have had to contest this deletion at the article's talk page and not here. Feel free to contact me here if you need any help! Yashovardhan (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Message by MisterMcHugh

Hi, thanks for your feedback, but having done a LOT of rewriting, I'm at a loss as to what you now need from me. Having moderator after moderator reply with 'rewrite' is really not very much use to me, it requires very little from you, and provides me with no direction whatsoever. You say "I just went through the lead and it still reads like an essay." I've been through this with a teacher of English who is as much at a loss as I am. Can you please direct me to an example of exactly/specifically where you feel this is so desperately in need of revision? Thanks. MisterMcHugh (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@MisterMcHugh: Can you please specify what exactly are you referring here as you posted this under Marianna Russell for which I have never made such comments. The notice while editing here clearly states that if you are here for an afc decline, please provide the link to your draft. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Move: Borough (New York City)

I am a little surprise on how you determine no concensus to move the page. Exactly what Wikipedia policy are you basing this off?LakeKayak (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Hey, there is no particular set rule that I can recall which is used to determine consensus except as laid down in WP:Consensus. In your case, the consensus was clear as the oppose side had shown with proper examples and policies why a move would not be beneficial. Specifically, I use the guidelines at WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus while closing move discussions. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this may be one where I should see if I can overturn. The argument against did not seem very clear.LakeKayak (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

LakeKayak, for what it's worth, I probably would have relisted the discussion, but I find no fault with Yashovardhan's close. Both sides make reasonable arguments and thus there is no consensus. You're of course welcome to request it be overturned, but it's unlikely.Primefac (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I completely misread that close. No consensus is the least that should have been done. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac,seeing you after quite some time here. Thanks for the support!

@LakeKayak: I would be looking forward for the review. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review has been filed here. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Commented on the move review, but as a piece of advice if you want to start closing RMs: you are going to get some queries on your user talk for controversial moves. Sometimes sticking to your guns is justified, but I've found that if someone queries you on a not moved close that had varying opinions and hasn't been relisted in the past, it is normally best to relist as a courtesy. It saves the drama of a move review and allows a second set of eyes to review the discussion after more people have commented. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting RMs

Just as an FYI, when you relist an RM, you should put Template:Relisting immediately behind the nomination statement so that the bot will move it out of the backlog. You'll need to fix it at Talk:Fall of Fallujah (2014). I'd fix it, but I've commented on the RM, so I don't want it to look like I'm relisting an RM that I've commented on. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. - Station1 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni and Station1. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Juliancolton! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Message header

Hi Yashovardhan: I've added secondary sources and pointed to NCPSB experts in news articles as you suggested. Looking forward to your next review.

Hi Yashovardhan: I've added secondary sources and pointed to NCPSB experts in news articles as you suggested. Looking forward to your next review.

Hi Yashovardhan: I've added secondary sources and pointed to NCPSB experts in news articles as you suggested. Looking forward to your next review.Ron Kremer (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Ron Kremer

pictures

Hi Yashowardhan: I need a small help from you! do you know how to insert pictures in an article? rupa$$$ (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rupalavanyan: yeah, that's easy! If it's a picture on the commons, they've clear instructions for this but a picture on your computer can be uploaded by using the insert picture button on the editor itself. Let me know where you wanna put it and how and I'll help you. By the way, when posting a new message for the first time, create a new section. Later, add new messages to the section itself. I did it for you now. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

About Abou elfoutouh

The reason the page does not seem to have enough information is because any more information will have 0 sources to backup, other than that, alot of zamalek sc's players have wiki pages which just say that they play in zamalek sc, without mentioning anything else.

And to answer your question, Abou el foutouh plays in the main squad, you can look for yourself in the wiki zamalek sc page. He plays as a left back and has played numerous times.

About the name, I would change it, just that the name in english has diffrent spelling Teky500 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teky500: If you're referring to Draft:Ahmed Abou-Elfotouh, I think the questions were asked by Primefac. Anyway, i suggest you correct the name. Also, the fact that similar articles exist is not a reason to create another article. At afc, we generally have a stricter criteria as to what is accepted. This is to avoid the article getting deleted in the process. Try finding more sources though. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Pavement Entertainment

Hello Yashovardhan,

Could you please be more specific as to why you rejected my article for Pavement Entertainment? I did resolve the pervious reviewers' concerns, and the draft I have now is very different than the older versions. For my sources, I have two Chicago Tribune articles, an encyclopedia for metal music, and two news articles/press releases from when the company re-established itself in 2012-13.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hiku64 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hiku64: Thanks for your message. Could you specifically provide major news articles from big publications (like the Chicago tribune ones). I know that these sources seem good enough but more sources would help. Anyway, resubmit the article and a fresh look will help. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ag Qoyunlu

The past nominations are completely unrelated to the topic of the issue; The first two are from 2006 and 2010, and are completely unrelated to the change of the page name (which happened in late 2015). While the third one is actually against the 'Ag Qoyunlu' spelling as well. Thus I am not the only one that supports the title being changed. Not to mention that 'Ag Qoyunlu' is barely used compared to 'Aq Qoyunlu'. So I honestly don't get what the problem is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: ok, my bad. I'll be relisting the RM. please notify related wikiprojects to get participation. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting Gay concentration camps in Chechnya

No consensus is valid result, so I think your relisting was inappropriate. El_C 18:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To say there has not been enough discussion is a misreading of the RM. El_C 19:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry but I didn't mean there was a lack of discussion. There have been proposals of other names as well and I relisted it to make sure that all editors get sufficient chance to !vote on the most apt name. If you think we should close it as no consensus though, I'll be happy to that as well. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's just that I think we've had ample time and ample discussion—so, yes, I think it should be closed as no consensus. El_C 19:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Ok, I'll close it as no consensus then. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you reconsidering, thanks. El_C 04:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RM closure for 2+2

I'm rather mystified by your RM closure for Talk:Clare Fischer & Salsa Picante Present "2 + 2". There was no opposition expressed, so how can there be a lack of consensus? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: The only other comment was an opposition. As it's a no consensus close, you can open a new RM as well. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

BarrelProof, for what it's worth, the close rationale is pretty much in line with why I relisted it the first time. Four options bandied about with no clear "let's do this". I can see where the argument of "no opposition" comes from, but with receiving no response to your final suggestion it's unclear whether anyone actually saw that response. As Yashovardhan says, you're welcome to immediately relist (no consensus closures allow for that). Personally I think your final suggestion of 2+2 (album) is a good one. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I don't see how Andrewa's remark can be interpreted as opposition. They expressed the opinion that the situation was unusual (and I agree about that) and said they thought it doesn't matter much what we do with it (which might be somewhat true, but doesn't mean we shouldn't take action – e.g., since the quote marks and spaces seem contrary to conventional Wikipedia formatting), but they did not oppose the move. The closing summary said "the comments seem to ... propose a new name", but I see no such proposal in those comments. And after my final suggestion sat unopposed for another 18 days, it's hard to see how a mood of "no consensus" can be read from that. My impression is that if a suggestion is made in a formal RM (especially with a citation to multiple high-quality reliable sources) and no one opposes it (especially after it has been relisted twice), the interpretation should be that there is a consensus to accept the suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

BarrelProof, fair enough. Consider it moved. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that my comment should not be seen as opposition. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I guess that clears it. Sorry BarrelProof, another silly closure by me. Thanks Primefac for moving it already! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We are a team. The bottom line is our reader experience. I value your commitment to that more than words can say. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yashovardhan or Primefac, could one of you please change the closure summary or add a postscript note, since what it currently says is not consistent with the current outcome? I would prefer not to do that myself, since I was the advocate of the RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@BarrelProof:  Done. Thanks for noticing it! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Arigatō! —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)