User talk:Pirhayati/Archive 2

Archives

no archives yet (create)

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,

. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, talk) 06:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply ] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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)[reply]

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

No indication of passing

WP:PROF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

An article you recently created,

]

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)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

Deletion discussion about

Bill Wringe

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Pirhayati

Thank you for creating Donald Rutherford (philosopher).

, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add the information gradually. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please get on with it!! At least add the books. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) ��[reply]

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

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

.

Thank you for your attention.

]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

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)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi - I was taking a look at this new article, and I'm not seeing a stand-out claim to

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

.

You might like to note that such

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Pirhayati

Thank you for creating George Peter Klubertanz.

, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

An article you recently created,

]

Book reviews as significant criterion for GNG?

Hi Pirhayati, reading through your log, I've noticed that for philosophers/academics, having just one or two book reviews seem to count highly towards GNG (c.f., discussion over Paul Welsh). Is that one of the main reasons Nathan Cofnas is considered GNG to you? Since it's not difficult to get coverage through book reviews (just need one friend to write one for any journal, often without peer review), plus academic recognition is usually marked by different types of metrics (see WP:NACADEMIC), I do not think this much weight should be given to book reviews for GNG considerations if the person is an academic. FlybellFly (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Every reliable independent source is a criterion for GNG and book reviews are one of the sources. The point about one's friend can be said about any source, but we cannot know who is the person's friend and who is not. WP:NACADEMIC is not enough to assess the notability of all academics and GNG has priority. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, especially with regards GNG vs NACADEMIC priority. In that case, I will propose to alter the part of Nathan Cofna's "known for" section to reflect the GNG justification (aka the controversies he's involved in). Currently, the wording is misleading (signalling Academic notability), especially since the book that has been reviewed/covered has been retracted/withdrawn by the author from publication and can no longer be read and further assessed. FlybellFly (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problem. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

Hello, Pirhayati! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book of the Year Award recipients has been nominated for 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. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Phenomenological Reviews, 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

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

.

Thank you for your attention.

]

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

An article you recently created,

]

John Davenport (orientalist)

moved to draftspace

An article you recently created,

]

An article you recently created,

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masoud Zoohori 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/Masoud Zoohori 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. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shii Studies Review 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:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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) 17:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shii Studies 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/Shii Studies 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) 10:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norman Link 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/Norman Link 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. Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article

because of the following concern:

Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to meet

WP:NSCHOLAR

.

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

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosopher's Annual Prize winners has been nominated for listification. 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) 00:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Fisher Award winners 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) 10:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hossein Mesbahian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from secondary reliable sources to pass

WP:NSCHOLAR

. Current sourcing is all interviews, which as primary sources do not go to notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Abbas Nouri. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Abbas Nouri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jmg38 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monograph Prize winners 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) 09:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to a create an article for the award and list the winners there, I copied the current category contents below so no work is lost:

• Paul Guyer
• Kathleen Higgins
• Peter Kivy
• Peter Lamarque
• Rachel Zuckert - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blithely assume that "work study" is the same as "cooperative education" and insert links into articles equating them. In many cases, "work study" specifically refers to the Federal Work-Study Program. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blithely assume that "work study" in those articles was linked to another entry. It was already redirected to "cooperative education"; I just piped (disambiguated) it when the disambiguation page was created. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khwarizmi International Award recipients has been nominated for listification. 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) 00:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theodore Cohen (chemist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet

WP:NPROF

. No sources except obituaries.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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. Paisarepa 22:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paisarepa 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

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

.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

]

Category:Works about Plato has been nominated for 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) 20:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for creating

]

Ways to improve Anthony Manser

Hello, Pirhayati,

Thank you for creating Anthony Manser.

and note that:

This page needs expanding, and more references.

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 begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

.

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

Whiteguru (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the wub "?!" 09:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

]

A tag has been placed on

.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

July 2021

Your edit to Mohammad Seddiq Zhakfar has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DanCherek The source has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia. See

WP:COMPLIC. It can be a bit confusing because the previous versions of BY-SA are, just not 4.0. Have you copied text licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 to any other articles besides this one and Mohammad Maimangi? DanCherek (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

DanCherek Yes, Mohiuddin Shabnam. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! I've dealt with those three articles. Feel free to rewrite in your own words. I find the

WP:COMPLIC link pretty handy when I'm trying to figure out whether a Creative Commons–licensed source can be copied. DanCherek (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

DanCherek I'm so desperately astonished :( Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Like I said, it's a really easy mistake to make because who'd expect that CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0 are allowed while CC BY-SA 4.0 isn't? Thanks for helping to fix it up DanCherek (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Kid (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

A tag has been placed on

.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

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

.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

]

Nomination of

Whitney Humanities Center

for deletion

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Kid (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (WP:Paid editing policy proposal) --MMA Kid (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Kid (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

September 2021

Please do not remove the deletion tag until the end of the decision. It is considered

]

I'm having a serious hard time understanding how in the world this 13-byte page could constitute "blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". Nardog (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user deserves to be removed for violating Wikipedia rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (

WP:DP He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

A user can never be "removed" from a wiki once the account is created. All deleting a user page does is that—it deletes the user page, period. If you think the user should be restricted from editing, report them at

WP:ANI. Nardog (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I already informed administrators. Thank you. MMA Kid (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MMA Kid (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pirhayati,

I just wanted to let you know that MMA Kid was blocked for sockpuppetry today. But, as far as I know, the AFD discussions will probably continue so you might want to participate in them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

@

WP:ADMIN, I can see that an article of the name World Veterans Judo Championships (or perhaps World Veterans Judo Championship) has never be been created in articlespace or as a draft. Perhaps it should be created? Under possibly a different article name? A Google search for that string (in its technical sense) yields very little outside the International Judo Federation website and corollaries like associated federations and Judo-ka message boards and so on. What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 11:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

]

Lorenz Puntel

Hey, could you help me turn this draft into a real article? There are so much worse articles about philosophers on the wiki... Thanks! 2804:431:CFD5:21F:A1CC:E31:102E:E1CF (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's obvious. If you wish, you can send me evidence of the relationship between the newest account and the other two by e-mail. Or you can file a report at

]

Bbb23 Thank you for the note. The user is editing exactly the topics those two users worked on. Particularly, the user is editing the page of a person on Persian Wikipedia for which the two users tried to establish notability. I'll send you further evidence. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Pirhayati

Thank you for creating

Daniel Kelly (philosopher)

.

page curation process

, had the following comments:

Hello Pirhayati. Since all the sources cited in the article deal with the book Yuck! The Nature and Moral Significance of Disgust, I would suggest you that you should create an article for book, and redirect

Daniel Kelly (philosopher)

page over there. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Gazal world}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Gazal world (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gazal world Hi. I created the page for the book, but I think Kelly's notability is not limited to that as this and this show. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pirhayati. It has been over six months since you last edited the

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

request its undeletion

. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 21:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ali Rahnema has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]