Talk:Hafiz Suip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singles[edit]

Usually for artists the Singles that are notable are the ones that ranked in the music industry standard record chart per country or region. Anyone else agree? --AhmedFaizP (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD tag[edit]

@Alexander Iskandar: I am removing the PROD tag from this article as it is not "largely unsourced". There are a large number of sources, so there is no reason to delete it. In future, you must read what an article requires to be eligible for WP:PROD; that is, and I quote, "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." Remember that you are here to build an encyclopedia, not stir up trouble. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 08:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxipedia, the piece you quote above is from WP:BLPPROD not WP:PROD. BLPPROD has the restriction that it can only be used on biographies of living persons that contain no sources in any form. The more generic PROD can be used on any article and can have any reasoning on it that the editor adding the PROD believes is applicable. Another difference is that BLPPROD once added (correctly) can only be removed if a reliable source is added to the article, a PROD can be removed for any or no reason at all. What Alexander Iskandar did was correct and what you did is correct. You just need to make sure you understand the differences between the two deletion methods. ~ GB fan 10:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. You're quite right there. In which case, I retract the latter part of what I said and apologise to Alexander Iskandar. However, the sole reason for the PROD, being "largely unsourced", is still incorrect. Ultimately, what I'm trying to say, unsuccessfully as you've pointed out, is that a PROD tag should only be added to an article that will not be controversial. Given the length of this article, the number of sources used, the C-class rating and the large number of editors, I ask that Alex does not rush to propose deletion without taking a look at the article to verify his claims. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 10:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you that this article should not be deleted via PROD, it is a very bad candidate for PROD. There is nothing that says he can't try though and it was rightfully declined. There are other concerns here that I have been trying to work through with him. ~ GB fan 10:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody! First of all, based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, let me quote, "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Alexander Iskandar (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." - Quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that has to do with what to do with this conversation? No one reinserted anything that was controversial. A PROD was removed that said it was largely unsourced. ~ GB fan 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafiz (Malaysian singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hafiz_Suip&oldid=1210580255"