User talk:Salimfadhley/Archives/2021/December

Completely confused

Hello. I am completely confused by your move of my recent article, as every one of its sources were independent and reliable, and the article, as written, is totally in line with album stubs/short articles. Not only that, but I was still adding references from, among other reliable sources, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Toronto Sun, and Tulsa World. I think you've made a mistake. Please advise. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it is Junkfuel. Caro7200 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My advice would be to submit it via the normal AFC review process. That will give editors a chance to verify that all of the sources are as you say. Just put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the source. Salimfadhley (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but you are not addressing the reasons for your move. Again, every source was reliable and independent, and, cumulatively, addressed the subject in depth. Do you have much experience with album articles? I wish to remain respectful, but this does not seem like AGF. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I will attempt to move this back, and add my other sources. You moved this so quickly that you couldn't possibly have analyzed the many reliable sources I referenced, which is bizarre and unfortunate. If you still have issues with this later, let's talk about it, or involve the community or an admin. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it back (before seeing this discussion), there was no reason to draftify this (just like many other similar moves Salimfadhley has made). Thank you for you contribution and your patience, and please keep editing! Fram (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fram and @Caro7200, I moved the article because it seemed like a possibly notable subject that was insufficiently sourced, and was also seemed like a work in progress. The correct place for an incomplete article is draftspace. You are capable of moving the article yourself, and you have done so - so no harm done. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Two editors have disagreed with this move, Salimfadhley. Please consider the possibility that you made a mistake and do not be so hasty with moving referenced articles to Draft space. Five of your moves to Draft space today were reversed. Take the time to evaluate the sources yourself. Moving pages around can be disruptive for content creators so they should not be done without a valid reason you can explain to the article creator. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Liz Salimfadhley (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Article alerts

Thanks for bringing up the article to notice on Afd. You can watchlist the Article alerts if you are not already watching it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware, thank you. I'm rather disappointed that editors voted to keep Ketu, which seems like badly sourced nonsense to me,but I shall settle for the ones I did get right. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that the article is in terrible shape and WP:TNT would have been a good idea. But it is clear to me, that the AfD participants have voted on the notability of the topic, and not necessarily on the article status. In my opinion the topic manages to pass our notability criteria for Hindu deities (which is rather low). For centuries, Rahu and Ketu have been primarily used by astrologers to scare the bejesus out of people and extort them. I heard their names very early in childhood, even though I had no idea what they were. Every time solar or lunar eclipse happens they are all over the news. I have even seen their statues in some temples and I am sure some coverage in Hindu books exist. Venkat TL (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You have cultural knowledge of which I am wholly ignorant. Thank you for explaining the role of Ketu!

I totally agree with your diagnosis. Subjects related to Hinduism seem to have been edited by one person who was recently blocked (for excessive copyvivo), as such a vast quantity of very dubious content has been added to these articles. It greatly displeases me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to share my knowledge. Indeed, I was surprised to see, how much of fringe junk, a determined, conflict of interest user, can push on Wikipedia without checks and balances on his acts, (until now). He should have been blocked and shut down long ago. It is of some consolation that other wikipedians noticed the copyright violation problem and are now screening & cleaning up the mess. Many articles that do not have substantial copyright violations still need to go for AfD screening. PROD is not being allowed by a few users on this topic area. Venkat TL (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 25 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 39 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft for Aldo Arcangioli

Hello SalimFadhley, first of all many thanks for taking the time to review the page. Following your suggestions I have modified and corrected link for references format where needed. Then I have also modified some part of the bio in order to have more enciclopedic result. Please feel free to underline any other action which can imprese the page

Draft:Nakheel Properties

I added history information for Draft:Nakheel Properties with multiple references in major newspapers such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. Is this enough for acceptance now? If so, perhaps you could accept it. If not, what more is needed? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have two reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. In which case, could you identify them here? --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe all the references in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of this subject. Refs 5–10:

• Kerr, Simeon (11 May 2009). "Dubai's Nakheel receives bail-out cash". Financial Times.
• Thomas Jr., Landon (25 November 2009). "Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments". The New York Times.
• Alloway, Tracy (4 December 2009). "Nakheel and the sukuk legal spook". Financial Times.
• Bianchi, Stefania; Sleiman, Mirna (31 March 2010). "Dubai Replaces Nakheel Chairman". The Wall Street Journal.
• Bianchi, Stefania (30 June 2010). "Nakheel Starts Payments to Creditors". The Wall Street Journal.
• Hall, Camilla (24 August 2011). "Nakheel completes debt restructuring". Financial Times.

—Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Nakheel Properties notability

Under WP:SIRS for WP:CORP:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Kerr, Simeon (11 May 2009). "Dubai's Nakheel receives bail-out cash". Financial Times.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Thomas Jr., Landon (25 November 2009). "Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments". The New York Times.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article about Nakheel debt payments in The New York Times.
Alloway, Tracy (4 December 2009). "Nakheel and the sukuk legal spook". Financial Times.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Bianchi, Stefania; Sleiman, Mirna (31 March 2010). "Dubai Replaces Nakheel Chairman". The Wall Street Journal.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article specifically about Nakheel senior personnel change in The Wall Street Journal.
Bianchi, Stefania (30 June 2010). "Nakheel Starts Payments to Creditors". The Wall Street Journal.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article specifically about Nakheel in The Wall Street Journal.
Hall, Camilla (24 August 2011). "Nakheel completes debt restructuring". Financial Times.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article specifically about Nakheel in the Financial Times.
Total qualifying sources					6	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Does this not constitute notability in Wikipedia terms for Draft:Nakheel Properties? Please could you tell me where you disagree? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think the second item constitutes significant coverage? --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply on this. I've looked at the 2nd source on your table. It does not appear to be significant coverage for this subject. Can you explain why you think it is? Salimfadhley (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To make your argument, you need to argue for most or all of the entries, not just one. I see that Nakheel Properties is now an article with Wikipedia articles in many other languages too. I rest my case m'lud! Happy Christmas! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)