User talk:Yogiwallah

Welcome!

Hello, Yogiwallah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nund Rishi

Hi, thanks for message. First, the easy bit. The article should be at Nund Rishi because the alternative includes honorifics which are not allowed in article titles (so it's Barack Obama, without "president"

I deleted the article because

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he claims. Most of the text was either unsourced or sourced to references of unknown authorship and obvious partiality.
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: Both the parents were well known for their piety... his stepbrothers began to trouble him. They were rogues, while he was saintly...—and similar hagiography.

He is clearly notable, and it's not the worse I've seen, but it does need proper references and more neutral text. If you want to try to improve it, I'll post the deleted text to a user subpage for you to work on, just let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I am sorry but you misconstrued G11 here. G11 allows to speedy delete pages that exclusively serve promotional purposes, and not those that overuse WP:PEACOCK words. A promotional tone alone is not sufficient to speedy delete when the subject's notability has been established. A better choice would have been to PROD and then for instance userfy. Often artciles get substantially improved while deletion discussion is going on.

As to honorifics, there are cases where they have to go to the page title, sorry. It happens with Muslim sheikhs as it happens with Christian popes (saw Pope Francis?). This is a subject to discuss on the Talk page and can never serve as an excuse for deletion, so it's irrelevant to mention here anyway. Whether he should be called Nund Rishi (Rishi is a honorific as well) or Sheikh Noor ud-Din Wali also needs discussion on the article's Talk page, not here.

Also, you cannot just post the text of deleted article for reworking - because that would violate copyright and attribution to other editors who had contributed to the text earlier.

Finally, the WP:UNDELETE process cannot be used by the community where page was deleted under G11, so I will expect you, an admin, to restore the page. And move any ensuing deletion discussion to a proper place.

Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 11:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted this as tagging and delete were clearly against policy. If anyone wants to seriously delete this, use WP:AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for undeleting this page. commonsense prevails. If I get time in the next few weeks I'll try to improve the page. Yogiwallah (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion of the contested name is now on the article's talk page. Yogiwallah (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]