User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2021/May

As Ref by Kashmorwiki: Profile of Sreedhar Bevara/Author
Dear Sir, below was the message I’ve just posted as response to Mr Kichu and Your kind guidance there.

Thank you sir once again for the kind suggestions and connect with Mr Beccaynr for further guidance. Will take the opportunity to communicate with him about anything needed. 1. As explained above, cleaning up all dead links and links of lesser notability. 2. Adding few more notable sourced links that include Telugu & Arabic (from Dubai/Middle East). 3. Yahoo & Zee5 News are the result of the HarperCollins’ press-release on the latest bestselling book ‘The Roaring Lambs’. If you suggest we should remove these both sources, I will. 4. As suggested, will keep one link only (published by PTI) 5. As suggested, moving the article to Author section. Kindly suggest if the above is fine to go ahead for your kind review. Should you wish to know/ask anything more - happy to share219.91.202.175 (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thank you for following up - I will plan to reply at Kichu's Talk page so the discussion stays organized and in one place, and I will ping you when I have further comments. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind time and guidance Mr Beccaynr. Await your kind response there.123.201.174.202 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr Beccaynr, there seems an issue with contacting you (my previous message which was published a while ago isn’t found now on this talk page) and hope this message reaches you. Kindly respond.219.91.202.174 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,, as noted above, I said the discussion should happen at Kichu's Talk page, and it was there that I offered my opinion and linked to Wikipedia policy and guidelines for your review. I also said there was no further assistance that I would provide after that, so based on what I have said before, I removed your repeated comment on my Talk page. I hope this clarifies why I removed your repeated comment and why I do not plan to respond further. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr Beccaynr, appreciate your response and I respect your choice of not involving in helping out. As an independent and seven year long clean editor-history in Wiki - you shouldn’t be worried about possible associations with editors who get blocked on this very platform. That’s part of an editor journey I suppose. And more so, people like me who seek help/guidance shouldn’t be left/avoided like this for no good reason. All I did seek was help/guidance since someone has rejected citing reasons that were based on mistrust and lack of research or understanding. With your vast experience in BLP/Authors; I thought your guidance could help us do the right thing and hence, sought your help. Nothing more and nothing less. Despite this sincere effort of explanation, if you still wish to avoid guiding - I understand thats your basic right but I’m afraid that’s a fair act123.201.248.65 (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can ask further questions at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr Beccaynr, we have already got enough guidance from you on the article and we thank you for that. Uploading it accordingly and hope you can find time to review it. Thank you again and our best wishes to your continued good work and success here.123.201.171.117 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you - your work was a very strong foundation for the article, so thank you very much for that as well. Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! I am finding it takes awhile to acclimate to Wikipedia, but User:Ritchie333's page has a wealth of information I've found helpful, including but not limited to the WP:SQUIRREL essay, which I certainly identify with, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to do so with regard to the Tara Downs article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The real props for WP:SQUIRREL goes to ; we were chatting about something or other, when she mentioned she was like "a dog who'd spotted a squirrel" working on some article, then noticed I'd started improving it as well and wondered if it was a more general theme amongst Wikipedians. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When you pinged me on the article, it definitely was a 'look! Squirrel!' moment for me! Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333's guide to extreme article rescue
I suspect some of you are wondering how I come across these articles, and here's a basic guide:
 * On my userpage is the following code : . Copy and paste that somewhere convenient, and you'll have a bunch of "dumpster diving" links which give you fast access to articles with speedy tags. The most likely ones to rescue are A7, then G11 and G12. I wouldn't worry about the others.
 * Speedied articles are sorted by date. If a new one appears right at the top, it means it's an old article tagged for speedy. That's usually suspicious.
 * If you are convinced an article does not meet the A7 criteria, improve the article to make it obvious and remove the tag. You at least need to have one independent, reliable source, or a link in the article that's an obvious redirect. I usually use the edit summary "decline A7, add source" and "decline A7 per WP:ATD-R" respectively.
 * For G11 and G12s, if the article's lead looks good enough to expand into an article, trim it down to the lead, preserving sources if necessarily. In the case of G12s, copyedit the entire lead so there's no close paraphrasing left.
 * Do this regularly for 3 years, then file a Request for adminship. (Well, it worked for me).
 * Important note : most CSDs meet the criteria. Don't expect to be able to rescue them except every now and again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neat! It took a couple of attempts, but I figured out how to get it working in my sandbox. And this: User:Ritchie333/Unreferenced women BLPs is a wide open field, filled with WP:SQUIRREL. Beccaynr (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Cheers! I am one of 's talk page stalkers, and I sometimes edit articles like a dog who has seen a squirrel, so I am happy to help where I can. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Beccanyr my friend, I would like to ask your assistance. This draft Draft:Rajaram Amrut Bhalerao seems to be about a notable person. But   I have concerns with its neutrality. Your assitance will be helpful for me to make it better so that I can move it to mainspace. Hope its fine for you. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have made some edits for neutrality, and please let me know if you think there is a need for more. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou Beccanyr. I just accepted the draft. It has been nice working with you. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Beccaynr, please have a look at this Draft:Supriya Menon, is it ok now?  Yogesh Warah Talk 04:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will review the article more after I have had some sleep, but I think a Career section should be created, with sources and information about her past journalism career, and detail about what she does now as a producer. Beccaynr (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

, the subject is not notable to have an independent article in my opinion. It can be merged into Prithviraj Productions Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am also concerned, because per WP:NOTINHERITED, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG, and without additional sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON, including because most of the films have not been released yet. However, it seems possible that in the future, there may be notability per WP:FILMMAKER, if sufficient sources discuss Menon's role, at minimum per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. But the main article can be developed in the meantime, per WP:PAGEDECIDE and the WP:NOTGOSSIP policy, Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. All that being said, I very much appreciate the theme of creating more complete encyclopedic content that I see developing in 's work; it will not always be immediately possible based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , thank you! For the recent one, I found the WP:BEFORE to be quite challenging because she is a journalist, and it took a long time to sort through her work as journalist to find sources about her. And then I am pretty sure I took a nap afterwards ;-) Beccaynr (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , You are amazing. --  Jammumylove  Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of Draft:Sameer Bhide
Hey, wanted to reach out to know your thoughts on this. Do you think this has potential? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed three separate citations with the same title 1, 2, 3, that when published by PTI, is marked with "Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with Business Wire India. PTI takes no editorial responsibility for the same," and when published by ANI, are marked with "This story is provided by BusinessWire India. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article," so per WP:SPONSORED, all three do not appear to be acceptable sources. The GlobalSpa source seems questionable, because in their 'About Us' section, it includes that they are, "Bringing updates on globally trending wellness vacations, practices, products, services and indulgences, GlobalSpa is for the self-aware and conscious urban readers who like to make informed choices," and this apparent promotional approach seems reflected in how Bhide's book seems to be used as a way to introduce products and services generally, instead of a more direct discussion of what the book says about them. On the other hand, The Mumbai Mirror article is bylined and focused on his biography and the book, so it seems like a start for supporting notability, at minimum per WP:BASIC. The Navabharat source is a broken link for me, and I am not able to copy and paste text out of the e-paper version of the The Lokmat Times into Google Translate to be able to assess it. This ABP source is more of an interview. On his website, it looks like the Media section tends to publish reprints, including the press release, so it will require some sorting to determine how much independent and reliable sourcing exists to support WP:BASIC notability. So my very long answer to your question is "maybe," because I cannot access all of the sources and have not reviewed all of the available sources. Please let me know if you have any questions, Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for this detailed analysis. Also to confirm, we are again assessing only for WP:BASIC and not going to the additional criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Right? I have also asked a question on teahouse for WP:BASIC . Would be interesting to follow. Please drop your insights if you would find time. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've replied at the Teahouse, and as a follow up to why I think it is helpful to focus on the 'quality' of what the source says instead of only looking at the 'quantity,' there is this AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/P.K. Firos. Also, WP:GNG is applicable to any topic, while WP:BASIC is specific to WP:BIO. As to our discussion here, I am more focused on WP:BASIC because not only is it the fallback for when a more specific notability guideline may not be met, it also seems particularly applicable when someone has written an autobiographical book, and coverage of their book may be difficult to distinguish from coverage of their biographical information. For this book, if the sources are not multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about the book as the primary subject, then WP:AUTHOR does not appear to be met (assuming the other criteria are also not met). However, if multiple independent and reliable sources provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas about the author, then WP:BASIC would appear to be met. Does this help clarify my view on the differences? Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me again, please (If you aren't busy)
Hi, Thank you for helping me in the last time. Can you re-review the same article again (link is Here). I had added new source in the biography and in the Honors and awards section, and also add Critical reception section again with new sources plus this source 1 as we discussed previously that this source can be returned, so I add it again in the article with the new sources. Thanks a lot in advance, In case of you are busy in another article/s, take your time and review it in anytime.Dr. Mustafa Ahmed (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thank you for following up. I have reviewed the article and made some copyedits; the new sources look good - Arabian Book Review publishes their editorial policies, Authors of the Middle East states it is an independent nonprofit organization, and ArabWorldBooks appears to be a well-established international organization. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that, I'm really grateful for that. I was planning to ask for a re-reviewing, but I shocked when I saw his situation. I wish that he will come back ASAP. Thanks again. Dr. Mustafa Ahmed (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Some help please
Hola! I noticed that you had worked on Rebecca Mammen John. Would really appreciate it if you could give a hand with Geeta Luthra. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 18:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I have a few sources from my attempt to create an article for John (before realizing she already had one) that I still plan to incorporate, and as this relates to Luthra, they both appear to be pioneers in the legal profession, so I expect there are additional sources and that there is more to be said about Luthra. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a similar experience. Went to create a page for Rebecca, wrote a draft and found there already was one with her middle name :D Vikram Vincent 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Also, I have been trying to find a source for when Luthra became a Senior Advocate, but have so far been unsuccessful, even at the Supreme Court of India website. If you have any ideas, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! :-) VV 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi VV! :-) Beccaynr (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

please see if this is useful
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/toolkit-case-on-activist-disha-ravis-arrest-friend-says-she-is-a-soft-target-2371295 Vikram Vincent 05:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This report seems to provide some balance to the Reuters report about the reactions of some of her friends. I think both reports can be added to the Reactions section in a separate paragraph, perhaps above the paragraph that begins with Apoorvanand's comment. Beccaynr (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) And there may be information from this Quint report that can be included; I need to rest and think on it, but thank you for bringing the link to my attention. Beccaynr (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not add it cause I have a COI. Look up his name on the wiki as he is notable. Vikram Vincent 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My follow-up question was going to be about notability besides having an in-depth news article, and this more than answers it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hola! I cannot comment on Vageshwari off-hand. I do know that the interpretations of GNG is going to contextually vary. On a lighter note, if we take Geenakumari as a baseline then I should have an article in my name :D Vikram Vincent 06:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally struggle with comparing AfDs because it is antithetical to my training and experience as an attorney - they seem like trial court decisions that are not binding precedent, and at AfD, I worry we could get bogged down in arguing about whether they are comparable or not. I do recognize they can be persuasive, but ultimately, it seems like the strongest arguments are made on the facts (sources) available for an article and the relevant guidelines and policies, so I try to keep focused on that aspect of the discussion. And maybe you should have an article ;-) Beccaynr (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2021 don't
 * With my limited legal education through practice, I agree about the legal thought process but feel that the Wikipedia approach has its advantages. W.r.t. article on me, hypothetically I am not sure how it would be positioned. Current sources don't do justice to any aspect :D Wait! Let me do something that crosses BLP1E ;-) Vikram Vincent 10:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr, would you be able to have a look at this essay I wrote while participating in a contentious discussion. I saw the discussion from the POV of contextual claims. Maybe you may be able to highlight improvements https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims Thanks, Vikram Vincent 15:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! I was just thinking about some of this, but in terms of composing a reply to your comment above. Through my work on various articles, I have been learning about some of what has been happening in the India legal system, and it somewhat reminds me of the substantive due process revolution in the United States, with the caveat that additional research is needed. Despite my increasing awareness of the contexts, I do avoid suggesting notability exists simply because of the context I could otherwise provide - in theory, the context could apply to an AfD discussion such as Geenakumari, but per Wikipedia policy, not without RS saying so, and I find it challenging to research this in depth with my access mostly limited to English-language sources. On the other hand, I am not sure how to address what appear to be assumptions raised in discussions that seem to be subjective 'not notable' claims based on what you describe as a "gold standard" context. My thoughts are in process on all of this. However, like I have said in AfD discussions, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and per the policies and guidelines that form the core of the encyclopedia, will replicate the systemic bias that has excluded marginalized topics from significant and in-depth news coverage, but, it also seems to be only a matter a time before RS may exist to better support notability claims. In the meantime, your Law section kind of reminds me of WP:CCC, and I am also wondering if there needs to be a section for BLPs specifically, because this seems like a particular application of the larger concept. It also may be helpful to first write smaller essays (the Marxism-Leninism section seems like it could become its own essay), and then incorporate them into a larger umbrella essay. I think if all of the current sections get built out, this essay could become massive, and it may be more easily readable and easier to develop and revise if various sections have their own forums for discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr, I'd suggest you adding your thoughts regarding the AFDs as a small example.. Vikram Vincent 04:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims#Articles_for_deletion_(AFD) Vikram Vincent 09:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I plan to try, but I want to assemble some sources to back up my points (there are specific WP:ARBPRINCIPLES I recall reviewing that may be relevant but I haven't yet been able to locate again) and better organize my thoughts before adding to the essay. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That was a detailed table :-) Vikram Vincent 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I think I am also going to make one here, but first I need a nap to recharge... Beccaynr (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And gentle reminder :-) VV 04:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation on Carly Wilford
Hi, thank you for making edits on the Carly Wilford page and improving it. I noticed that a few sources were removed and they were from big publications. I thought that they would help with meeting notability requirements. Can you please advise on why they were removed? They talked about Carly's launch of a mediation platform, this one: Stylist - I tried meditating for 10 minutes every day and found a method that didn’t involve sitting in silence and this one: The Telegraph - How to move, meditate and eat your way to health

Thank you! Tlatzotzontli (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thank you for following up - the Telegraph article has "paid for by Fitbit" above the byline, so I removed it per WP:SPONSORED, e.g. Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source, because it is paid for by advertisers and bypasses the publication's editorial process. The same author of the sponsored content writes the article for Stylist, and with that and the WP:G11 speedy deletion tag in mind, I removed it as well. On further review, Stylist may be generally usable as a source, but the same author appears to be promoting two of the same products (Wilford's platform and Fiit) in Stylist that they wrote about in sponsored content for the Telegraph. I think it would be better to find sources that are more clearly independent and reliable to support notability, but please let me know if you have further questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your response. I completely missed the fact that the article was sponsored by Fitbit. I appreciate the insight and review. --Tlatzotzontli (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers,, and in my experience, the 'sponsored' part of content often tries to hide itself from view. Also, as a general note, especially if more independent and reliable sources turn up, it may be possible to request a WP:REFUND of the article to your userspace or as a draft to continue working on it, because there was not much participation in the deletion discussion - I am not particularly familiar with the process, but wanted to mention the possibility. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adriana Gaviria has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Adriana Gaviria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Adriana_Gaviria help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Cynthia Graham Hurd
You did a great job improving this entry. Kudos. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, and kudos to you for your work to bring this article to mainspace. Beccaynr (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Cheers and thank you! And thank you very much for your help on Jane Ruth Angvik, including with the lead, which is an editing skill I am still working on. I look forward to seeing you on the catwalks, carrying picnic baskets full of nutritious snacks! Beccaynr (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Akil Kumarasamy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akil Kumarasamy, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Akil Kumarasamy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)