User talk:Celestina007/Archives/2021/May

Stubs

Why? They meet notability guidelines. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@QatarStarsLeague, if they are is not my point & never was, re-read the message on your tp and you’d see that never did I ever mention notability. My point is they are unsuitable for mainspace, you cant binge create or churn out articles with one source and expect them to remain on mainspace. That’s why a Draftspace or sandbox exists. Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• • The point of bringing redlinks into the mainspace is to encourage further additions. This is why no one else has ever suggested these articles be moved to draftspace. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I understand what you are trying to imply but like I said, churning out cookie-cutter stubs and including just one source(an unreliable one I might add) is not suitable for mainspace/mainspace worthy, If you don’t understand this, I see no point of this dialogue. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS

Hi. I am updating an old article (Douglas Wright (murderer)), do you think it should be renamed to Douglas Wright (serial killer)? Or possibly Douglas Franklin Wright? Or leave as it is? Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inexpiable, sorry, for the late response. So basically when naming an article you want it to be a recognizable common name. I don’t know much about the article's history and neither did I really have the time to check but it seems to have been redirected from Douglas Franklin Wright which was its original title to this current one Douglas Wright (murderer), I did a brief google search on the name Douglas Franklin Wright and it is my opinion that, that was the most appropriate title as a search under the aforementioned name seems to be the most recognizable. I hope this helps. If you wish to contest the current title you may do so at the tp of the article or communicate directly to whoever did the renaming, if an understanding or compromise can’t be reached, an WP:RM may be evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Olufunke Adekoya

Hi Celestina007, thank you for your work in the community. I noticed that the article on Olufunke Adekoya is still in draft one month after the article was created and after your earlier concerns about the article was addressed. Please could you be so nice as to help review the article? I believe the article, in its current form, meets Wikipedia eligibility requirements. I would also welcome your contributions to the article if you think the article still need some improvements. Thanks for all times. Omorodion1 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, I’m just returning from work. Give me little time to take a look at the draft article and get back to you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, unfortunately I still do not see the problems as addressed the sources are a serious mess, I did a little MOS related work on the article but MOS is not even the problem. The sources are! Start by removing every unreliable source in that article and just include the best three or four you can find. Do not use sources which are dependent on her or have a COI with her, do not use user generated sources, that is, sources she conjured or created her self. I must confess also that I’m biased about this article because it appears she works for an organization that paid UPE editors severally for an article on them, so I’m leaving this to another AFC reviewer without this knowledge I possess to review the article based on its own merits, but that aside, just like I stated start with removing all unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Celestina007 for your time and recommendation. I will revisit the sources again at the earliest possible time and hope a reviewer finds time to review the page. regards. Omorodion1 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Omorodion1, a good choice. Hell! I may choose to overlook my prejudice insofar as You can get at least three good sources which aren’t sponsored posts, have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. You may use this for guidance but that doesn’t reflect community consensus but are my standards all the same. If you can fix the sources problem you may ping me to have a third look and I’d be willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions on WP:NMEDIA

I am here with more questions. You should have never explained WP:BASIC so well. So it's on you now. Ok. My question is, for newspapers, magazines and journals, criteria 4 says are frequently cited by other reliable sources.

• My mind that constantly wants to quantify everything, asks the same question - how many times they should be cited by other reliable sources? Like the introduction of this essay itself says, media doesn't report on itself...
• By this we mean outside wikipedia, right?
• What does it mean cite here? Means they should say as reported by or simply talk about the subject in question?
• What are the reliable sources here? Does same policy apply that there should be editorial oversight etc?

Another question, any news website that doesn't have a print version, it won't count in WP:NMEDIA?

Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, Thanks. I appreciate the compliment which I presume is related to the Teahouse question you asked and response I gave, Ha! I studied under Barkeep49 which imo is as tough as an RFA.

Okay, to answer your questions, NMEDIA basically tries to mirror GNG on a fundamental level but has additional criteria if when met may or may not be considered notable. As per your first question: When NMEDIA talks about cite it definitely means off wiki. As per your second question, Yes! some outlets report incidents and boldly indicate that part of the material they used came from another superior media outlet (usually a renowned very reliable one). Per your third question, a reliable source must possess both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking(there’s no circumnavigating that) Per you last question NMEDIA mainly refers to traditional media. In the back of your mind should be this: In summary, and all criterion aside, a media outlet is considered notable chiefly if they satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Celestina007, thank you for this explanation. This definitely helps. It helped me review Draft:Gaon Dastak that I was stuck at for long time. What I sort of understand (and also conclude on my own) is that by cite it can't be trivial mention. Either it should credit for some fact or reporting or should discuss it or talk about it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Message from Tosin Opaleke

Hello Celestina, I saw that you nominated for speedy deletion an article I created less than 24 hours ago. That was the first draft that was published and I was waiting for critiques on it so as to improve the article. Furthermore, I would like to categorically state that I am not being compensated to write the article.

How do I get the page draft back please so I can improve on it?

--Tosinopaleke (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tosinopaleke, hello, if you are unsure of your editing skills or knowledge of policy, moving forward, you may want to consider using the WP:AFC method to create articles. Furthermore you are allowed to test your editing skills and try out new stuff in your sandbox. I forgot to mention earlier, reading how to create my first article decently would also prove pivotal. Do not also forget to read WP:PAID and endeavor to tell us if or not you are accepting financial rewards for creating specific articles. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Drafts

Hello, Celestina007,

I noticed reviewing User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications/daily that several articles you moved into Draft space had just been recreated in main space. Does AFC have a policy about what to do when this happens? Although User:Abdul Tanko originally created the articles, User:Clarissagum recreated them. I posted a note on Clarissagum's user talk page but I don't know if this is a sign of coordination, sockpuppetry or just an active WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Liz, and thanks for stopping by. Both editors as well as most Nigerian editors are currently in a competition and the goal of that competition is to see who creates the most articles(pertaining to gubernatorial elections) I doubt this is off wiki coordination or anything of that nature. In my opinion it’s more of an opportunist sort of behavior. I feel User:Clarissagum saw that most of the articles created by User:Abdul Tanko were being draftified due to the fact that User:Abdul Tanko mass created several unsourced articles. In my opinion i feel like User:Clarissagum hijacked their draft articles via cut and paste, included sources to the article and then published the article thus making it their own article. This is not sock or meat puppetry as far as i am concerned. Hope I was able to be of help.Celestina007 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, this would also explain all of the red link categories that pertain to Nigerian gubernatorial elections that have been popping up on Special:WantedCategories for the past couple of weeks. I thought we just had a very active editor with a very particular interest in elections. Should the new version also be moved into Draft space? The only time I've seen this happen before is with competing editors creating multiple articles on upcoming movies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Liz, if the hijacked articles are better improved(that is they now have RS included in them) I see no justification for draftifying any longer. I’d just leave a template warning on hijacking of articles on the tp of the editor that hijacked the article. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gyidi

Hello I hope I can ask for an independent review of this article as always. I came across this Gyidi article. It seems promotional, and subject in the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability tag with regards to WP:GNG Or notable with singers, actors.....entertainers. Article seems to have stayed on for a while. Kindly have a look at it for me. Ampimd (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Believe (Gyidi EP) all references from here too are dead ends. Interesting one. Ampimd (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ampimd, it is definitely conflict of interest editing, possibly undisclosed paid I didn’t bother checking the identity of the article creator but whoever it is has moderate knowledge on how to make UPE look like legit work. I’m going ahead to strip it of all unreliable sources as well as the promotional content in the article after which I’m sending it to AFD. Thanks for bringing this to me. Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ampimd, it may interest you to know that I have nominated the article for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyidi. If you find anymore articles pertaining to Africans which you think are dubious, you may as usual bring it to my notice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ani Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot, Thanks, I’m going to make my contribution there right away! Celestina007 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s heartbreaking seeing a fine editor go from being a productive editor to a banned editor in less than 72 hours. More perplexing is what initiated his ban, all he had to do was acknowledge his shortcomings. Nothing more. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007:

Thanks Celestina! God bless! Antonio Cool Breeze Lime Guy Martin (wassup?) 00:30, May 23, 2021 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin, I appreciate the kind words but it’s no big deal, no one tells the minimum wage earning pizza delivery boy a “thank you” for doing their job because it is expected of them to do their job, same applies here. So no it’s no biggie! Thanks all the same.Celestina007 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Aminu Baka shouldn't be in AfD

Hi, Celestina007. The above-mentioned article is not mere a page about a mere non-notable governorship aspirant as you thought. It is about a notable philantropist whose life and bio is newsworthy to this great encyclopedia. After the article got nominated for deletion, I have restructured it with more worthy informations backed with reliable sources. With this, I hereby request, most humbly, that you remove Mohammed Aminu Baka from AfD. Brainbox (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox The AfD process runs to completion once started. You may make policy based contributions to the discussion if you have not done so already Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the advert for the political candidate, this article will fail (0.9 probability). Wikipedia may not be used for political campaigning. Do you have a relationshio of some sort with Baka, Zakari Brainbox? If so you must declare it on your user page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Zakari Brainbox, I understand your frustration, as I have been in your position during my early days of editing. Timtrent has done justice to your query by explaining to you what Wikipedia is not. If you have specific questions I’m willing to listen and reply to them, even better, you may go to the WP:TEAHOUSE and ask questions there and you would get instantaneous replies. Celestina007 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, Thanks for your understanding. I'll gladly welcome your ideas. @Fiddle Faddle^Timtrent, I'll put your kind words and suggestions under advisement. Yours in Wikipedia,Brainbox (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox Your argument at the deletion discussion is likey to fail because you have not demonstarted by use of policy how ity complies wiyth WP:GNG. You may wonder why those suggesting it be deleted have not been more specific, but they do not have to be, It is incumbent on thise wishing an article to remain to demonstrate beyond doubt and with precision that it complies and how it complies. These are both done by excellence of referencing.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this article a clear "keep" (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Note that we need excellence, by which I mean quality. I do not mean quantity. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zakari Brainbox, thank you. but you need to listen to what Timtrent has been telling you so far. Celestina007 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding an AFD

Hello, on may 22nd, I opened an AFD for a Malayalam film Vellinakshatram (2004 film). Today, on 27th may, TheWikiholic closed the afd as Keep, without even a single Keep vote. Have a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vellinakshatram (2004 film). I think at least 7 days is mandatory for a closure unless it doesn't have an up vote, right? Regards, Powerful Karma (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Vellinkashathram is one of the highest-grossing movies of the 2000s. I have closed the AFD per WP:Speedy Keep by considering his action as vandalism. This user has been nominating similar types of articles daily stating he has done WP: BEFORE. I'm highly suspicious about the editing behavior of this editor. This user only started to edit Wikipedia 20 days ago. Within that period, he has nominated more than 26 pages for deletion as you can see on his AFD log. I'm highly suspicious that this user is an experienced user who has been blocked indefinitely for similar behavior in the past.— TheWikiholic (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiholic, I just nominated unsourced articles. And here what I've mentioned is the action you performed. With out even a single Keepvote, how can you close an afd as Speedy Keep? And what is the matter of experience here? What vandalism I did? You can have a look at the same afd log, the nominations I made... Any admins can check those nominations and my identity. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed your nomination based on 2 & 3 per this. I've found your argument of you having done WP:BEFORE is false and that's why I've managed to find sources for those articles. You also nominated the articles like this, which won awards, for deletion. It clearly shows that you have not even read the article properly before nominating a page for deletion.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion is here, but, TheWikiholic, you cannot close an AfD improperly based on your opinion of the nomination and of the nominator. If you have problems with either of those, you can take the matter to WP:ANI - or WP:SPI if you have evidence of socking, including at least one other account. As for the AfD itself, you should have !voted instead of closing it. At this point, it should be relisted to get more !votes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no references at all when I nominated the film. And the award was not to the film but to the Director and singer. I think it fails WP:NFOE. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Powerful Karma: That's not true. There were three references in the article when you nominated it. Additionally, lack of sources does not necessarily make a subject unnotable; that is the reason for WP:BEFORE. Please learn to WP:INDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm not talking about Vellinakshathram film, I'm talking about Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram. The wikiholic just mentioned about that too. That's why I replied. Powerful Karma (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Powerful Karma The claim seems to be wrong. When I checked the article Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram now it has a reference before you have nominated it for AFD. Currently the webpage is not available, but InternetArchiveBot has already achieved it and added that link in 2020.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This does not meet NFILM. Nothing other than the award. Powerful Karma (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I’m going to recuse myself from participating in the AFD because I admit I do have a bias as to this situation or any situation baring a semblance to this, on one hand I have a new editor who I expressly told to come to me whenever they were confused, on the other hand I have an editor trying to prove the new editor isn’t “new”, a situation I have been in severally whilst fighting undisclosed paid editing. whilst my 'hands are tied' I can however speak on editor conduct and how to handle this correctly. Firstly, @TheWikiholic, I don’t doubt your experience here, I don’t doubt that you believe your motives are genuine , and of course I don’t doubt your expertise either. I haven’t looked into anything pedantically but from what has been said here, I can say this; speedy closing an AFD as Keep without a single keep !vote generally falls under WP:BADNAC, even if there were more than 1 keep !vote, Futhermore, criterion #2 of WP:CSK has to be glaring, that is, very obvious, such as (WP:GAME) or Revenge nominations, If not, isn’t a valid rationale to speedy close an AFD. If you think there is something off with Powerful Karma, as correctly suggested by Bbb23, you can, with cogent evidence take that to WP:AN/I or open an WP:SPI, If not, just allow it, several good faith editors and even administrators have been burned because of this, even when it was crystal clear they had good motives and the integrity of the collaborative project at heart. Now, @Powerful Karma, nominating or mass nominating articles due to lack of sources isn’t the right approach, lack of sources, except for WP:BLP’s (which fall under WP:BLPPROD) isn’t a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion, rather, you perform a WP:BEFORE look for sources and add it to the article, in the absence an AFD is valid. Finally, these comments should be made to the appropriate AFD venues and not here. Consensus is determined by the community in the appropriate venues. Celestina007 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

UNFAIR REJECTION

Please state how does it qualify in WP_NOT Sequel5 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, WP:NOT references using Wikipedia for purposes not compatible with our terms of use. In this case that would using Wikipedia as a means for promoting a non notable organization. Have you read WP:GNG yet? if not, reading it now would prove helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is "promoting a non notable organization just because I do not know of an independent reference. Cause the company seems to be very popular in the surroundings. But now I know the reason. Thanks. Will request again once other independent sources cover about the company Sequel5 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, a popular company doesn’t necessarily mean a notable company. Popularity may not be used interchangeably with notability as they aren’t one and the same. For the article to be accepted, WP:NCORP has to be met and for NCORP to be met reliable sources must be used in the article. I’m willing to assist you so if you have more questions let me know. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I understood. Can anyone else other than me in the future edit and approve the same? I wish I want to be the first to publish this. Please let me know Sequel5 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, yes insofar as the organization satisfies NCORP anyone may in the future add more sources to the article or re-write the article and submit it for approval at AFC. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You were very informative. Thank you! Sequel5 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sequel5, glad I could be of help. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - hope all is well with you. Thanks for your recent pings and your work in patrolling new pages I've started. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, you are welcome mate. Celestina007 (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Regrets

Was working on an artiste who is culturally significant important to our part of the world, and within minutes, it gets shifted to draft space. In my past experience, an article can remain there in limbo for months, and this is the best way to kill any initiative for contributing to the Wikipedia. My thoughts on this: [1] Fredericknoronha (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha, hello, sorry to hear that but unfortunately it did not meet the requirements to remain on mainspace. The article comprised of three sources, a user generated sources and two other sources which were music download websites. However, I did see potential, hence I drafitified the article and did not nominate it for deletion, the article in draftspace allows you ample time to look for better sources to add to the article. I should however mention that the article does indeed have an encyclopedic tone, but a WP:BEFORE search i conducted didn’t turn up much, perhaps you would have better luck than I did. I should also correct a misconception here, which is, observing other articles on Wikipedia having average or bad sources shouldn’t be a reason to equally do the same. I do not mean to be offensive if it comes off to you as such. I’m happy to answer more questions from you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that I intend to keep getting caught in such issues, but I do feel there is an underlying systemic bias against (i) smaller communities (ii) those which are less digitised, especially in a global context which hardly reports on 95% of the planet (iii) those on the "periphery" of the larger cities and seemingly far away from the "centre of the world" when it comes to creating and retaining articles on the Wikipedia, particularly the English Wikipedia. We are often told/hinted that we should be working on smaller, regional Wikipedias (suggested as an alternative to English). My only point is that I can't really help if English has become my first language, due to circumstances of history beyond my control. It is unfair if not illogical to assume that the "ownership" of the language should be situated somewhere in Western Europe or Northern America. Have faced this problem many times, and I only wish more editors would appreciate such issues or how it affects the attempts to build "the sum total of the knowledge of the world". The one-size-fits-all approach cannot really take care of global diversity... Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, had mentioned that I was in the process of getting the citations. A little time could have been given. Once in Draft, it takes months together (see the link above, to one specific case, involving a prominent institution in our region) to get it out of draft. Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha, The draftspace was designed for editors to perfect their work(which includes sourcing) as a prerequisite for publishing to mainspace. Furthermore, it isn’t necessary hard to get a draft article out of draftspace to mainspace. You could resubmit the draft and ping me to have a second look at the draft article and if it looks okay(all problems addressed) I could always accept and publish it to mainspace immediately. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)