User talk:Shylove78
Notability of Arjunn Matthew
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Arjunn Matthew requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaiju Mathew, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 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) 02:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaiju Mathew
[edit]
Hello Shylove78. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Shaiju Mathew".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaiju Mathew}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Furlenco
[edit]
The article Furlenco has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Fails corp notability requirements per WP:CORP. Routine fundraising announcements do not demonstrate notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Brianhe (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Furlenco. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Furlenco 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/Furlenco until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it's a coincidence that your username Shylove is homophonous with the name "Shai", but this edit where you describe Shaiju Mathew, who runs the blog "Chai with Shai" as an "eminent critic", reeks of promotion. We would rarely, if ever, describe someone as an "eminent critic", because it's peacockery that only serves to elevate this one critic's opinion. Why would we, after all, care what someone who isn't "eminent" has to say? But this brings me to my main point: If you have a conflict of interest, i.e. if you are related to Shaiju Mathew in any way, (and I believe you are considering the bulk of your contributions have been to promote this person) you shouldn't be adding his thoughts and opinions to articles. It's just shady and it's academically dishonest, not to mention it also looks spammy. If he is "eminent", then he would already be widely cited by reliable sources, and his critical opinions would likely be in the form of paid articles at reputable media websites. We wouldn't need to drive traffic to his blog ourselves.
As related matters, see our guidelines on user-generated content, which discourages the use of blogs. I will be removing the review and plan to take the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where you are invited to participate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)