User talk:Nomadicghumakkad/Archive 6

BluSmart
Hi, Nomadicghumakkad! Thank you for reviewing my draft. As requested, please find below the three sources: 1. https://www.financialexpress.com/auto/industry/indian-ev-market-growth-blusmart-mobility-electric-cabs-electric-cars-mahindra-everito-hyundai-kona/2011244/ 2. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Cities-and-Mobility/Transforming-Urban-Mobility/Mobility-Decarbonization/Coalitions/News/Advancing-electrification-of-ride-hailing-in-India-A-case-study-on-BluSmart 3. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/deepika-padukone-invests-in-electric-taxi-start-up-blu-smart/article29492356.ece


 * Hello, WBCSD might work. Investment related news is considered routine coverage. Hindubusinessline is an interview. I suggest you carefully read WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.business-standard.com/article/automobile/electric-mobility-start-ups-promise-cheaper-rides-but-can-they-scale-up-119081800595_1.html Hi, please let me know if a source like this would work. Since BluSmart is India's first, one-of-its-kind mobility platform, there has been mostly a lot of news coverage.

BluSmart has been featured in LinkedIn's list of top 25 startups of 2021. Kindly review this as well: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedin-top-startups-2021-25-indian-companies-rise-/


 * Hey, Linkedin and such Linkedin lists are not very useful from what I know. The BS article, I can't read the whole article since it needs subscription. Can you copy paste the paragraphs about the company here if you have access to it? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, both of them don't have WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Please go through these articles as well and let me know if they work: 1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/last-mile-connectivity-a-daily-fight-for-new-sector-residents/articleshow/86540095.cms 2. https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/aftermarket/blusmart-mobility-appoints-ashok-bhasin-to-its-advisory-board/77105432

Re: Draft - Chris Parker (comedian)
Hi there Nomadicghumakkad, thanks for reviewing this article. I have removed IMDb as a source due to unreliability. There are a couple of sources still there from 3rd party media orgs which would be considered interviews - these are to inform the 'personal life' section of the article. In terms of notability, the subject has won the highest award in NZ comedy, has works in multiple museums, and currently appears on a television show called 'Celebrity Treasure Island' (as a celebrity). This seems to comfortably meet that threshold. Thank you!


 * Hey, can you give me the link to the award? That would put him under WP:NBIO. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you mean a link to the page for the award - which is the Fred Award. I have also added a source that refers to the announcement of the award. Thanks! PeterJackson69 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey PeterJackson69, looks like this might have merit. I will investigate more. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft Jake Allyn
Hello! Nomadicghumakkad I am just writing to check in again on how I can update Jake Allyn's wiki page to be approved? When we last spoke, you mentioned Jake sounds like he would be a notable figure! Is there anything else I can update or modify to make sure this article gets approved? Thank you! Emmachernandez (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Emmachernandez, I had asked a couple of questions which you didn't respond to. We can pick it up from there. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

M A Ganapathy, IPS
How I can submit for re-review my story "M A Ganapathy, IPS". I am waiting for its approval from a long time for adding more information's in the story board.--Maganapathy86 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC) M A Ganapthy, IPS


 * Hey Maganapathy86, there are multiple issues with this. First of all WP:VER - you need to source everything properly. Secondly, I am not sure if the subject meets notability. Would you like help with WP:THREE? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hai, dear Nomadicghumakkad, As per your suggestions, make some edit like, deleted unwanted links and also added some appropriate links in the para of early life and education & and sub-para Uttarpradesh as marked by you WP:VER. Also like to info on your kind attention that one more sub para added as Uttarakhand. Request to recheck my story at the earliest and approve it for publish in wikipedia. As I am served in various posts and territory of India as an IPS Officer and I would like to share my brief details in this wikipedia for future references of needy people and the subject is notable. An early action in this regard is highly appreciable.--Maganapathy86 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Maganapathy86, thanks for your work on this. Quick question - are you writing about yourself? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hai, dear Nomadicghumakkad, Yes. I am writing about myself for future reference for my Junior Indian Police Service (IPS) cadets and like to motivate others to choose Civil Service Cadre for Serve for the Country and the Citizens. Thank you. Now please post the story to wikipedia as soon as possible to view of others, as some others are contacting me to see my biography also.--Maganapathy86 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Maganapathy86, I request you to familiarize with WP:COI and declare accordingly. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hai, dear Nomadicghumakkad, Is there any other option to review or submit my story to wikipedia. Can you help me in this regard. Like to know how it is possible. If it is possible, please give me a video link in this regards. Thanks--Maganapathy86 (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hai, dear Nomadicghumakkad, For your kind attention that one more sub para added as Ministry of Home Affairs. I would request you to check the para for any important notification or changes. ThanksMaganapathy86 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Maganapathy86, WP:TEA is the best place where people can guide you more. I don't know too much about available video tutorials. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Youth Progress Index
Hello Nomadicghumakkad! Thank you for your suggestion on the lack of notability. I wrote in the Teahouse. They suggested to point out 3 major sources that you can consider when reviewing the Youth Progress Index draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Youth_Progress_Index). Here it is my list of sources. I decided to divide them into categories. I add a couple more if you want to have a look into them. Please let me know if that can work, in that case you might help me understand how to finalise the draft? Otherwise I think I would drop it, because I cited all the relevant sources I could find. I only thought the publication on wikipedia of this kind of instrument would be a powerful way to empower people through knowledge, enlightening them on their (measurable) condition. Thank you in any case for all your effort, FBMR94 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)FBMR94

- Affairs, Department of Economic and Social (2019-01-18). World Youth Report: Youth and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (PDF). United Nations. ISBN 978-92-1-363256-7 https://www.un.org/development/desa/youth/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/12/WorldYouthReport-2030Agenda.pdf - https://www.osce.org/odihr/399857
 * International Organisation Talking about the index (selection)

- https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-specialisti_deloitte-25028035-avem-planuri-mari-viitor-cine-implementa.htm - http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/unemployment-rates-jordans-youth-%E2%80%98discouraging%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94%C2%A0-jsf-paper - https://participationpool.eu/methodology/
 * Selection of newspaper and general articles

The Methodology is explained here - https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-ypi-report-2018.pdf - https://youthprogressindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/YPI-report-10062021.pdf

Methodology Based on this work (selection) - https://www.socialprogress.org/2020-Social-Progress-Index-Methodology.pdf - https://web.archive.org/web/20150526115610/http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi/methodology


 * Like I have told you in past, this is a particularly complex case and it might not fall into any SNGs which would leave us with GNG. The sources corresponding to such subjects won't be as straightforward and will be a mix of reports and news. I think the other space where you will find very specific help with is live chat . There are live very experienced editors who will give you a very good feedback. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for the tip. I deleted the table with all the references to the countries scores. I was suggested to avoid overkilling it and to focus on other kind of third-party sources. I rearranged the whole article and added few sources. Among the others: http://synthese.larim.polymtl.ca:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/319/Texto%20del%20art%C3%ADculo-338-2-10-2019%20Article%20de%20Jean%20Michel%20Charles.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, https://actmedia.eu/daily/young-people-continue-to-be-affected-by-unemployment-and-the-low-quality-of-job-offers/94035). I added examples of the index used as data tool by international organisation, academics, national statistical institutes and activists. I cited third-party sources as UN and UE. I resubmitted to you the draft, I hope we can work on this, otherwise thank you very much for your kind and rigorous support (It means a lot) and I will focus on something else! FBMR94 (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)FBMR94


 * Hey FBMR94, did you receive any feedback on notability? Well let me try to find it myself. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was lack of notability because the they reckon that not enough sources were third-parties. After few more attempts, I found other pieces of sources. I focused on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBMR94 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Military conflicts in Paddar
Hello, Nomadicghumakkad. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Military conflicts in Paddar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request 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. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Declined draft
Hi. You declined this article and commented 'Too soon.' What do you mean by 'Too soon.' Does this draft needs more citations? Or there is no problem with citation? Thanks. — Tajwar.thesuperman Talk • Contributions 04:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tajwar.thesuperman, WP:NFILM requires at least two reviews. This is not released yet and hence too soon. WP:GNG would still help it get through the mainspace now but I feel it's not being met yet. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh! Thanks! ||   Tajwar.thesuperman   💬  16:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Julio Rumbaut Draft
Parvenu58 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Hi,

I checked back on the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Julio_Rumbaut) and realized it was rejected by you. I've edited the page as requested and I'll like you to please help me take a look at it before I resubmit it for approval.

I've addressed the comment you left that Julio didn't seem to found WSCV. He led the acquisition of the TV station when it was WKID TV and relaunched and re-founded it as WSCV. I hope you understand. Thank you very much for your time.


 * Hey Parvenu58, I still think re-founded is the correct word. He bought it and changed the name - this is what I understand. The source 7 that you have cited doesn't talk about 'finding' or originating the channel. I have doubts on notability as well. Could you present WP:THREE or give me an idea on how you think the subject passes WP:BASIC? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I've checked and replace the source you talked about. Regarding notability, if you check the original WSCV page on Wikipedia, specifically the history section under WSCV, you'll realize that Julio Rumbaut was instrumental to the starting and growth of the channel. He was also the president of Telemundo after WSCV was amalgamated with other channels. If you get on the WSCV page, find Rumbaut and you'll see the work he did when he refounded the company. Thank you.


 * Thank, I would still ask for WP:THREE if you can. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. Below are two of the best I think satisfies WP:THREE :

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/83682647/julio-rumbaut-20-years-active/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/83694839/julio-rumbaut-early-life-and-education/

I look forward to your response. Thanks.


 * Both of them looks good. I think you have to discuss more of his journey rather than writing his CV. So for example, you can include how and why he acquired (all verified by third party WP:RS of course). I mean, give context to reader and not just list things one after another. Please use more of such sources that you have cited above. What is your connection with the subject? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll add to the article and cite them accordingly. I'm a paid editor hired to help him setup a page since none has been created for him. I've disclosed on my talk page too. Thank you.

I've added to the article, can you please check and share your thoughts.


 * Hi Parvenu58, Thanks for disclosing this. I will have a look. We need to be extra cautious when paid editors are involved so it might take time. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all, thank you very much for all the recommendations Parvenu58 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Parvenu58, is there an archive of all coverages? My prime concern is WP:NPOV and all perspectives need to be included - positive or negative. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You can find them here: https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/#user=11149467

Note that their are other numerous mentions of him elsewhere like in the Miami Herald and the LA Times but their mostly his personal short takes/opinion about TV topics being discussed.

Hi Nomadicghumakkad its been a while and I haven't heard back from your regarding my submitted draft. Thanks. Parvenu58 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, yes, I have been a bit irregular. For ease, I have created a new discussion at Tea house and tagged you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad thank you for the support. The page has been recently finetuned by a senior member since you posted in the tea house. Help me look at it please. Thanks once again. Parvenu58 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Parvenu58, that seems to some maintenance work. I see there is no feedback at WP:TEA which is sad. I suggest you try AFC Helpdesk. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Parvenu58, did you get any response there? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad I was told the page is under review and the first reviewer which happens to be you does not need a second opinion to accept an article into main space if it meets the requirement. In any case you're not inclined to do so, I'll have to be patient for it to be reviewed by another person.

There are currently over 1400 articles awaiting review, its been over a month that we've been going back and forth and you know that the page merits an entry. If I'm to wait for another reviewer, it might take up to 2 months to get a response. Your reluctance might be because I'm a paid reviewer but I'm assuring you, I'm not trying to game the system in any way. Please help me out, I beg of you. Parvenu58 (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link to the afchelp desk discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13%3A22%3A10%2C_11_September_2021_review_of_submission_by_Parvenu58

Hey Parvenu58, I will try to work on this in this week. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Parvenu58, I am reading it again and the major challenge remain same. Why anyone (including me) will shy away from working on this is because it requires enormous amount of time to fact check everything. Needless to say, a lot of claims are made in this article and since it is coming from a paid reviewer, they must be rigorously fact checked. Some of them are not even in English so we might have to assume good faith - something that's not easy to do in COI cases. I will give you an example, 'He was also responsible for discovering and hiring Ambrosio Hernandez and Maria Montoya, the longest local news anchor team in the history of US television.' The source you have given doesn't say longest local news anchor team. It took me 20 minutes to just read the whole thing and figure it. I mean if this has to move ahead, you have to be super sure that everything is cited properly and for whatever information that you don't have sources, it is removed. The other option is to really trim the article and keep it to basics, so that whomsoever is reviewing, doesn't have to invest too much time to ensure that this is good for mainspace. After that, you can use the talk page to request further additions to the content.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad Thank you very much for your input. Everything in the article is with good source but I understand your point and I've acted accordingly. I've removed the parts with hard to understand references. The claim you said in your last response is true and its even on the original WSCV Wikipedia page but it has no reference there and I'm having a hard time finding reference too so I took it out.

Please help me look at the edited article and if there's a part that needs to be removed, please let me know. I believe we should make this work as no other reviewer will understand the page like you do. Thank you very much for your time once again. Parvenu58 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Parvenu58, still no reference for below paragraph:

Rumbaut started out as a Celebrity Relations Manager for The David Frost Show in New York where he worked for two years. He oversaw and coordinated personalities for daily program studio production. He then proceeded to work as an Account Executive for WRIK-TV in San Juan, Puerto Rico and was responsible for new revenue development.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad I've removed the part. You can take a look at it now. Thank you very much for your time. Parvenu58 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, this is on my radar. Just wanted to drop by and let you know that I haven't forgotten about it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Nomadicghumakkad, thanks for keeping me in the loop. Parvenu58 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Nomadicghumakkad, honestly speaking I don't know what you need me to do. Paid editing is perfectly allowed and the subject in question won't probably get a page since the work in gathering references is much. With my little understanding of how wikipedia works, you can monitor the page for any edit after it goes to the main space and articles are routinely checked to see if all the criterias are met before approval. I've worked with you on the page for over a month and I seriously don't know what you want from me. Anyways, thank you very much for your support so far. Parvenu58 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, everytime I think I will accept it today, there is something that's not sorted (and you end up telling me that everything is fixed all the times). So slight inhibitions. I apologise for my inability to assist you on this as per your expectations. AFC Help desk, Tea house are all great ways to find more help. My best wishes. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Nomadicghumakkad, you said something is not sorted, please tell me what it is cos I've been fixing the page on your request for over a month now. Also please consider removing the comments about clever notability trick and refbomb on the page since they all have been sorted long time ago. Parvenu58 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Respected Sir please save this account
Respected Sir help us to save this account. I have high hopes from you, please save this account and don't let it get deleted. Please save this account. Please help me sir... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Kumar_Srivastava_(producer) talk 11:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad Respected Dear Sir please save this account talk 23:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey talk, there is already a consensus to draftify. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft citation comment
Hi there! Thank you for reviewing my draft and leaving a comment. Though as I am new to this and not native English speaking I am not quite sure what is expected from me. your comment was: Does that mean I should leave an inline reference of every one of those articles, book, conference paper on those 10 pages of google scholar results Oo? Or am I expected to add a list of papers on the bottom and link to them, basically copying what google scholar does? I went through the Referensing for Beginners Page but that did not quite help me. Any input would be welcome. Thank you :) Nanuqnuq (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Nanuqnuq, I mean that every information that you are providing, you need to add a source to verify that the information you have provided is correct. Does that make sense? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification Nomadicghumakkad I will rework that draft :) Nanuqnuq (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 12:08:36, 7 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hduncan mwe
Hi, I have improved Draft:Filtronic by adding new citations to The London Gazette and to Hansard, which are both official UK Government publications. These relate to the company being selected by the Government to receive the Queen's Award for Enterprise, and being mentioned four times in Parliament in terms of its importance to the telecommuncations industry. In your opinion, do these improvements mean that a further review might be successful? Thank you. Hduncan mwe (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hduncan mwe (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hduncan mwe, thanks for your work on this. I suggest you read two critical policies that will help : WP:THREE and WP:CORPDEPTH. Post that, present three sources that you think are best satisfying corp depth. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Phineas Kimathi on referencing and citation
Hi Nomadicqhumakkad, thank you for directing me to the beginner's page on referencing. I resubmitted the page Phineas Kimathi with citation and referencing. I hope it's was sufficient. If not, my request is if you could have a look at it and let me know if it is ready for publication or better still you could provide me with some extra information to help me, It's my first page. I've been searching a lot about what to do and what not to do. After searching I found https://en.everybodywiki.com/Phineas_Kimathi, Everybodywiki according to google saves articles which are currently marked for deletion on Wikipedia, could you offer more guidance on this?. They are so much to put in place that it's easy to overlook. --TeehGiant (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey TeehGiant, I am not aware of everybody wiki much. Best place to ask would be WP:TEA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomadicghumakkad will give WP:TEA a look. However, what are your thoughts and feedback on the Draft Phineas Kimathi, have you reviewed and had a look at the recommendations you requested?. let me know how we are looking. thanks --TeehGiant (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, this has massive WP:NPOV issues. And then WP:VER issues. For example, the below para is completely unsourced!:

''Most rally enthusiasts and stakeholders felt that it was not in order for an official to be awarded instead of drivers, riders, or navigators for their achievements throughout the motorsport calendar.

However, his leadership role and effort in partnership with the Kenyan Government to see the return of WRC Safari Rally Kenya was mentioned as the biggest feat in the motorsport fraternity in 2019 given his also positive dalliance with the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) which brought glory back to the country.'' Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Think-Film Impact Production
Hello,

I have made changes that I believe will satisfy the problems you had with the Think-Film Impact Production page.

I have tried to follow the example of other social-impact focused company pages on Wikipedia, so if there is any more issues, could you explain in more detail what these issues are specifically please.

Thanks!

Hello,

I have added reputable sources France24, La Vanguardia, and CineEuropa to this article. I hope this now meets referencing criteria. Thankyou!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact98 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Impact98, production houses don't become notable because they have produced notable work. Can you help with WP:THREE? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Being Neutral
Respected Nomadicghumakkad, I'm a new editor and I'm still learning on wikipedia from the editors like you. I might have made a mistake or said in favour of Bhuvan Bam because of the reliable sources dhindora had on diiferent platforms as you also said in the discussion space but I'm not from the competitor party nor I'm related to subject. I'm being neutral. It would be great if you guide me in my wikipedia journey as an editor. Would love to hear more from you.Divineplus (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

Thank You For Your Advice
Hello Nomadicghumakkad,

I would like to thank you for your advice and for pointing out to me the mistakes which have led to the circumstances of page deletion. I would just like to enquire if I would still be able to re-write the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Thousand.Wishes (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey A.Thousand.Wishes, which page was it? Can you re-share? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Optiontown
Hello Nomadicghumakkad,

Hope you are doing well.

Thanks for taking out time to review my submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Optiontown Here are citations about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and by no mean they have just passing mentions.

1. Publisher: The Hindu (Indian Daily Newspaper) Link: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/now-bid-for-air-india-business-class-seats-with-upgrade-lite/article25884705.ece The Hindu has been regarded as reliable source by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources

2.	Publisher: PC Magazine (American magazine on technologies) Link: https://in.pcmag.com/news/95906/get-up…

3. Publisher: WSJ Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/4-ways-to-save-big-on-flying-business-class-1426871996

4. Publisher: Manila Bulletin Link: https://mb.com.ph/2021/09/10/pal-launches-1st-custom-shareable-flight-pass/

5. Many flagship carriers including Rwanda Air, Vietnam Airlines, Oman Air, Air India, Egyptair, Royal Jordanian, Keny Airways and Alitalia are talking about their partnership and the benefit it brings to the flyers. Already included in the articles. Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Wisdomwiki 40, thanks for reaching out. One important criterion to remember for companies is WP:CORPDEPTH. Responding to your sources:


 * 1 - this looks slightly promising.
 * 2 - broken link
 * 3 - I can only read limited but from what I am seeing, there is no mention of subject.
 * 4 - A passing mention for sure

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comment
Your comment here seems to be about some film. Are you sure you posted on the right place? Deletion_review/Log/2021_October_7. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You are right; I thought the subject in discussion was an actor. My bad. Sorry! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nomadicghumakkad ok. You should update it then. Venkat TL (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see it's already closed now. Got late. I hope my confusing comment didn't throw the discussion off the course. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Write a new Article
Hi! Sir can you write this article Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" with this references  You know that Padma Shri is the forth highest award in India and he is nominated for Padma Shri in this year and As wikipedia GNG he is notable because see that many reliable website write article about him in a significant way which means he is notable so please create that page I will also help you to create that page 49.36.43.72 (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, simply being nominated is not sufficient for notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

GS Not returning anything sig, WP:NACADEMIC
Dear Nomadicghumakkad, Thank you for your comment regarding "Rahul Anil Pandit". Before I added additional references I wanted to seek your opinion. I will be brief regarding the same here: 1. If you kindly do a google search on "Dr. Rahul Pandit" instead of "Rahul Anil Pandit", it will return significant independent notable mentions of his work during COVID-19, in Maharashtra State Task Force & National Task Force for India. 2. There are various mentions about his work such as - This article on Mucormycosis, or this on Cocktail of Vaccines, His work with Task Force in Dharavi, Mumbai 3. His contribution to the COVID-19 protocols of the state of Maharashtra mentioned as significant Six Minute Walk Test for COVID was introduced by his research mentioned here Researched by him here. 4. Numerous book chapters by his name in Intensive Care Textbooks such as - Case Based Review in Critical Care Medicine or ICU Protocols 5. He is a fellow of various prestigious institutions - Fellow of the College of Intensive Care Medicine and Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians Here

I believe that these sufficiently satisfy the WP:BIO & WP:NACADEMIC and general notability guidelines. Please let me know your thoughts about this. Thank you for your valuable time in helping a new editor like me 2405:201:9:C804:3552:58:F9FA:B1A9 (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, these are all interviews which are neither helpful for WP:NBIO nor for WP:Academic. I suggest you read both carefully and get back. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Advice
Hello,

The page is deleted, but it was Dr. Krishna Mukherjee A.Thousand.Wishes (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey A.Thousand.Wishes, if you want to continue working on it, you can refund by . I can give some feedback. But, are you certain person is notable? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:NeedsList
Hi friend, you recently rejected the page submission for the above. Reading the rejection, it speaks about the quality of the sources. I spent the weekend familiarising myself with the rules about quality, independence and secondary nature of sources, so I'm learning, but am not sure where I went wrong, as most of these sources seemed good to me. Can you give me more specific feedback please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey CT55555, please see WP:RS and read about it carefully. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I did read that. I accept that I'm probably missing something. If you are willing to be specific about which links you consider good enough and which you don't, it would be gratefully appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey CT55555, reliable sources mean those websites who are known for fact checking before publishing content on their websites. This can be understood by looking in general about the nature of content. For example, Relief Web & Devx won't be considered reliable sources. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

CharterUP - request for three best sources
Hi Nomadicghumakkad, responding to your request for three best sources. I wasn't sure if I should edit the page and just include the three best sources or send them to you here. I'm sending them here but do let me know if I misunderstood your request.

https://hypepotamus.com/companies/b2b/charterup-feature/

https://www.ajc.com/ajcjobs/for-georgias-economy-path-for-the-next-few-months-is-precarious/PVGVFMWO4BAIXJKRP5S4MLGW3A/

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-region-cementing-reputation-as-tech-hub/FDEPCPAXRVG2XHOMXKPV3BZHBE/

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/fast500-winners.html

Mlevy1010 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Mlevy1010, I am not familiar with AJC but it looks promising. Allow me some time to read about it. Deloitte doesn't count though. Hypepotamus is also doubtful but let's see. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomadicghumakkad, rather than the Deloitte article would this feature by Erin Schilling for the Atlanta Business Chronicle be a better option? https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/inno/stories/news/2020/12/03/two-atlanta-software-companies-ranked.html

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlevy1010 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Mlevy1010, Bizjournal seems like an okay publication but this particular source looks like an announcement and won't work. I am yet to get back to you on AJC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Frans Vera
Hi Nomadicghumakkad. You previously declined my submission for this article with the reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", and the comment "Please cite all information. Topic seems notable otherwise." I have collaborated with the contributor in the Netherlands who wrote the original Dutch article, to cite the previously unreferenced material, and I believe the citations are now complete. The article is now at a stage where I believe it is ready for publication. Could you please approve and publish it? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Masato.harada, for example, the whole hypothesis section is blank. !!! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that section contains references 10, 11 and 12.Masato.harada (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nomadicghumakkad, I've not had a response to my previous observation. I don't understand your comment that the whole hypothesis section is blank: in fact, that section contains three citations. You like to help people and work with them collaboratively, so I'd really appreciate some help to get this article accepted.Masato.harada (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Masato.harada (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

CSD tag question
Hello, did you mean to tag .nk as G2? I've changed it to G3 because it's a hoax, but I can't see why it would be a test page. Feel free to revert me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Giraffer, when I tagged it, it didn't have any information and looked like someone wanted to sandbox but mainspaced it. Hence I had put test page. I see that after I tagged it, there were more edits on it and it didn't look like a test page anymore. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for your response. Regards, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 02:30:48, 30 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Caroline grossman23
Good evening. Respectfully, in your feedback on the page I created for Vin Gupta, you said it didn't meet even the basic guidelines on notability. That seems like a highly unusual interpretation, given that the subject has been multiply profiled in several national media outlets, was shortlisted for Biden's Surgeon General, and is among the most visible national medical analysts in the United States. There were several citations listed that corroborate this...if he doesn't meet the classification of notable, than many that have wiki articles currently wouldn't qualify.

These included sections speak to his notability at a high-level:

"According to the Seattle Times, Gupta "has become one of the most visible medical commentators on COVID-19, along with CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta (no relation)."[21]In response, Sanjay Gupta noted on twitter: "Yes! Would love to meet @VinGuptaMD ... or as my wife calls him — the younger, smarter and better looking Gupta..."[22]Gupta is a medical analyst for NBC News and MSNBC[23] and has been vocal on a range of issues publicly prior to the pandemic, including vaping,[24] gun violence,[25] and healthcare reform. [26]

During the 2020 election, Gupta was mentioned as a possible selection for United States Surgeon General.[27] According to reporting from Politico, Congressman Jim Clyburn, the 3rd ranking Democrat in Congress, endorsed Gupta for the role after the 2020 election.[28]"

I'd be glad to edit and provide more context, but this subject very clearly has substantial third party recognition in national and international media, academia and the private sector to qualify as notable. Could you please clarify?

Caroline grossman23 (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Caroline grossman23, you already have an ace editor like Hatchens willing to accept it. I don't have any objections on them accepting it. So we are good here. Just want to flag that you might have to take care of WP:NPOV. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Nomadicghumakkad, I'd greatly appreciate your edits on WP:NPOV to make this article stronger and as impartial as possible. Thank you in advance.

updated article
Hello, you gave me some tips to help my article for submission ([Auwarter] and I made the changes you recommended. I was wondering if you could check the article and approve it for me again? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodeddy (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Yodeddy, can you respond on the Grammy thing? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jan_V._Sengers
Hi Nomadicghumakkad, I saw you left a comment on my page asking to verify all the information and source things. Is there specific things that I shoudl source, but haven't already. For context, Jan Sengers is the one who gave me all the info for the biography section, so I'm not sure how I will source that information, if it is coming straight from him. Thanks, Mar-y-sol56


 * Hey Mar-y-sol56, information coming from the subject directly can't be put out without citations. Also, you should read WP:COI and declare your WP:COI. For any information that you can't find a source for, I suggest you get rid of it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 New Pages Patrol Backlog Drive
Hello, Nomadicghumakkad. You signed up for the November 2021 New Pages Patrol Backlog Drive, but you are not a new page patroller. Per agreement between two drive coordinators, users should have new page patrol permissions in order to participate. Therefore, I have removed you from the list of participants. If you wish to become a new page patroller, you can request the permission at requests for permissions. Sincerely, Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Tol, thanks for letting me know. I was asked to wait for a year before reapplying for NPP. I only meant to temporarily intervene and help to clear the backlog. But that's alright. Good day! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem; you're welcome! I just wanted to let you know. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:OmniVis
Hi, Nomadicghumakkad I hope you are well, I saw your reference to "Peacock terms" which was the first time I've seen that. I had aspired to write this article neutrally, and I was careful to include criticism where I found it. I'm trying to understand which peacock term you spotted. Was it when I described 30 minutes as "significantly" faster than a week? Is that not neutral? Or was it something else? I thought there might be a discussion about the quality of the sources, but didn't forsee any critique of my neutrality, so would welcome more specific feedback if you are willing. All the best CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * CT55555, appreciate you reaching out for clarity. When we talk about promotion, you don't need to look at just peacock term but also the 'purpose' of article. Right now, the purpose seems to be only promoting the company. Most of the awards cited are non-notable and key people section makes it worse. Will be good to establish WP:THREE before you do more work on it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, on that point I agree. I specifically created a discussion on the talk page to address that before your comments.  I'm honestly not sure if there are three good sources.  NPR = 100% yes.  WSJ, it's partly about them, not perfect, certainly more than a trivial mention.  As for a third *quality* source, that's why I kick-started the discussion if www.genomeweb.com is a high quality source?  I'm honestly not sure.  I am on the fence if I should give up on this one or not, it really depends if there is consensus around there being a third (or arguably even a second good source).  So I really do believe I've been neutral, but really am not sure if they are sufficiently notable based on WP:THREE etc.  Maybe TOO EARLY?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * CT55555, if you are unsure about notability, no point discussing WP:NPOV. If you are on fence, I suggest you find something else to work on. Companies need to follow WP:CORPDEPTH which is a far more strict guideline than others. If you like, you can put the sources here and I can tell what I think. For checking if something is considered reliable or not, you can post here . WP:TEA is always a good space to get more experienced and diverse feedback. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's exactly what I was needing (the reliable sources noticeboard) thanks! Also thanks for the sources review offer.  My top three for them are: 1 - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/07/749100484/this-handy-new-device-might-help-kayo-cholera 2 -  https://www.wsj.com/articles/race-is-on-to-create-rapid-covid-19-tests-for-the-fall-11590494400 (behind paywall, but I have reviewed) and 3 (this is where I am not sure, https://www.genomeweb.com/pcr/purdue-spinout-omnivis-commercializing-smartphone-based-cholera-test probably, but also https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/02/omnivis-could-save-lives-by-detecting-cholera-infected-water-in-minutes-rather-than-days/ but it seems a bit promotional, a bit like a blog.  I couldn't tell if the last two were good enough quality.  And just a final point, these guys make Cholera tests to save lives, if my words come across as "promoting" them, could it just be that they do stuff that saves lives, rather than any lack of neutrality?  Like when I neutrally write about mining companies polluting is probably seems negative and when I neutrally write about health orgs saving lives it probably comes across as positive?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey CT55555, NPR one seems to be written by an intern so I am unsure how seriously we can take that. WSJ is behind a paywall but might be promising. Genomeweb - we don't know if it is reliable or not and it is again behind a pay wall. Techcrunch for sure is unreliable. They publish anything from what I have seen. I am all up for public health related subjects to be on Wikipedia. I think it's a greatly under-covered area here. I wish they had better citations. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Vin Gupta AfC
Thank you very much for your edits to improve and strengthen my Afc. I made on small addition up top but kept the neutral voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Caroline grossman23, well I am already being bashed for failing to remain balanced on another article so I am unsure if I should give you any feedback anymore! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I saw your point after seeing your edits and you were correct, so thank you for making the Afc better. I'd value your additional input if you are willing to give it -- and perhaps even move ahead with accepting if you think its there? Best, Caroline.


 * Hey, no problem at all. I hope you were able to see my point. I would refrain from working on this for now. But, you can go to AFC Help desk to ask for more help WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. You will find a lot many much more experienced editors than me and Hatchens who will be able to help you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Military conflicts in Paddar


Hello, Nomadicghumakkad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Military conflicts in Paddar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can 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! 05:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking an explanation for controversial/doubtful AfC approvals
Dear, this thread is being opened at your talk page to seek an explanation for following controversial/doubtful AfC approvals. These approvals' details are randomly pulled out from your AfC records. These AfC approvals are independent of your current ongoing discussion on controversial AfC acceptance of Rattan India.


 * 1.Debashis Chatterjee
 * The article was deleted multiple times by multiple editors - 6 times in total. And, one time it was tagged "require extended confirmed access" by on January 24, 2021. But, anyhow...  it was passed (in AfC) by a user called  on September 27, 2021, who happened to be a sockpuppet of another user, and within a day I put it back to draft mode because it was failing WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NPROF and I took a screenshot at the time of "draft move" because of this entity's chequered history of unsuccessful attempts. My reason for denial was that he served at an institute that is not a university but an autonomous establishment providing an MBA-equivalent diploma and on top of that I was unable to find any consolidated data on his academic citations, h-index, etc. Now, here my mind boggles: what was the reason(s) for you to accept this entity's draft on October 27, 2021? And, that too... exactly after one month - without doing any edits or without noticing any substantial changes between the last rejected draft and accepted draft. And, surprisingly, you ignored 's comment which was clearly on the top of the draft - "Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NSCHOLAR, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The IIML website is a primary source".
 * The page was deleted by the following editors in the past: (On July 8, 2018),  (On September 2, 2018),  (On June 26, 2020),  (On January 24, 2021) and  (On September 28, 2021).  As I don't have any special rights, but I do have the screenshot with me and I'm ready to share it with the authoritative users as and when it is demanded.


 * Now, let's proceed to your second controversial approval;


 * 2.Draft:Anusha Rai
 * This entity is also a case of multiple rejections at AfC level. I, myself rejected it on September 15, 2021, and the reason for it is that it "reads like an advertisement". Within a day, the WP:SPA involved in the creation of this page started cosmetic editing and by September 16, 2021... you accepted the draft. At the time of acceptance, you just added the categories, and most importantly... you added "Category:WikiProject Women in Red" to it which was eventually removed by  on September 17, 2021, and finally, the page was moved back to draft by  on October 5, 2021, and finally, they tagged it to be "protected".


 * 3:Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair
 * The draft passed] by you on June 3, 2021. Which was later moved back to draft by and later, it was rejected by.


 * 4.Karan Tanna
 * The entity was moved to draft space by on May 13, 2021, and it was rejected twice by  and . In fact,  is the one who restored tags that were deleted by the creator (the author). Did you address the issues raised as a comment by Bonadea? I don't see anything. You simply passed it without doing any substantial edits. Classic Nomadicghumakkad AfC acceptance style.


 * 5.Arun K. Somani
 * The draft was passed by you without any Wikipedia-style references? What was the logic behind that move?


 * It's acceptable to ignore AfC mistakes of the initials days. But, how come you keep on repeating the same after 6 months?

What do I want?
 * I could have gone to WP:ANI with all these questions. But, I'm refraining from it because it's my duty to engage you on your talk page first and an opportunity should be given to you to come clean. And, at the same time, editors (like me) who have been engaged with you in past should also take this as an opportunity to understand your intent and capabilities behind Wikipedia editing. So, feel free to respond at your convinience.

P.S: Tagging all the editors who have participated at ongoing RattanIndia AfD for greater inputs -, , and.

Also, tagging as he has done the behavioral analysis of the following IDs in the past:, , and. -Hatchens (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here, so I might as well comment. First of all, I'm not sure all of these incidents are as malign as you're making them out to be: Arun K. Somani is a clear NPROF pass, while Renjit Shekar Nair was a self-confessed mistake. I'm not sure what the situation is with the others (I'm sure Nomadic will want to explain), but I will note that he does a lot of reviews (far more than I!), so an occasional mistake would be understandable. If you're implying that Nomadic might be a Kashmorwiki sock, I'll just say that I find that incredibly unlikely: I'm quite familiar with that individual, and the fields of interest and linguistic characteristics simply don't match up. I suppose it's possible that he's a sock of someone else, but there's no real evidence to that effect and a previous SPI (with CU) didn't turn anything up. There may be more here that I'm not aware of (and my supply of AGF has been abused in past!), but I'm so far unconvinced. I'll try to look into this in a bit more detail. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that Arun K. Somani is notable enough for a atisfactory article--the present article is however not really enough to show more than a minimal pass. It would  not be  unreasonable for someone not familiar with the intricies of NPROF from questioning it.
 * Except for questions about the article history, I consider RattanIndia acceptable
 * it is not clear whether a poorly sourced article should be accepted at AfC if it it nonetheless contains enough sources to pass AfD. For example, I just listed Articles for deletion/Karan Tanna  for discussion. The only way to determine   this will be to see what the comunity thinks.
 * after all, the articles for this geographic area have had quite a few accepted articles of lower level than these. But we need to improve adherence to the guidelines, and it has also seen quite a number of rejected articles at AfD. A key problem is the questionable standards of many of the customary sources.
 * I am not sure whether to take this as other than carelessness; and if it were necessary to proceeed furthr than here the next place would by AfC talk, not ANI unless there is serious evidence of puppettry,  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nomadic asked me at the ongoing AfD about RattanIndia that what else is expected from him. I'm still not fine with what they said about their edits on the article. I'm just pointing out two diffs - 1: At 02:35, they submit the draft of someone else who they themselves have declined few days earlier. Following the decline, all of a sudden they begin imroving the draft until they submit it on 02:35. What makes them to submit someone else's draft? Well it is okay for me if they have had submitted it to get inputs from other AfC reviews. But it is not the case, at the same time, 02:35, they approve the draft. Now my question is, what makes them do this all of a sudden when they had declined the draft several days ago? Is that a trick to fool us? Their AfC record might be high - but with such a record, why would someone make this silly mistake? Ain't it AfC abuse. I've seen certain examples in past where experienced editors submitted and approved the drafts - but it was after they did not receive any review in several days. Nonetheless, they were senior experienced NPP reviewers. The case isn't fit here. I still want to know the main reason behind all this mess. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  06:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Errors often occur when accepting a large number of articles. However, AfC participants should review articles very carefully to avoid mistakes in BLP and organisation-related articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here. I choose to take every editor at face value until bad intent is shown. Most are exactly as they seem, good editors with good intentions. The few that are not are dealt with. I am not going to do anything other than take Nomadicghumakkad at face value, and accept errors as errors.
 * I nominated RattanIndia for deletion without consideration of any edit history except its move record. My sole concern is the AFC strong advice that an acceptance should happen if the draft is believed to have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I believe it was an erroneous AFC acceptance and would not survive and, as such, I could not draftify (It had been draftified previously). That means AfD is the correct next step.
 * I think it is still very much borderline on keep/delete based on the discussion as it stands right now. However, whether kept or deleted, I see this as an erroneous acceptance at AFC with good intent.
 * I have submitted several editors' declined submissions on their behalf after editing them myself to make them pass (in my view) and then accepted them. I see nothing wrong with this practice, though I can see why it can be considered to be unusual. My rationale was the (then) queue length and the unfairness of a draft having to wait after I had polished it. Why did I polish it? Because it caught my fancy. Thus I do not see that particular edit pattern as malign, just, perhaps, unusual.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 08:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems quite strange to me too that an experienced AfC reviewer like Nomadicghumakkad would submit a draft for review and then accept his/her own submission straight afterwards, instead of just doing a normal page move to mainspace. The extensive campaigning by Nomadicghumakkad in the AfD for someone else's article is also most unusual. Normally an AfC reviewer would just make a single comment on the reasons they accepted the draft and then leave the AfD to take its own course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I second your thoughts. They could've simply moved the draft to mainspace without creating all this mess. "All of a sudden what makes them interested in someone else's draft that they had declined several days ago to the extent that they do not just AfC-submit it but AfC-approve it at the same time." This makes me doubt that they might be associated with the company or there is some link. I'm seeking a clarification for this. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to specifically endorse TimTrent's view: it's sometimes better to accept and send to afd  I put the level of doubt somewhat higher than 50%, but it shouldn't be 99%. There's no shame in having an afc acceptance then deleted, unless accepted  without any care at all.  We were very carefult o make sure accepted drafts then went to the NPP queue.   like any other article. AfC is just the first step, to deal with junk and coi.  DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping,. When I deleted Debashis Chatterjee it was as G12, copyvio, and not for any other reason. Nomadicghumakkad, there do seem to be some real concerns here, and I'll be interested to read your response. Meanwhile, may I suggest that you reflect carefully before accepting a draft that has been already been rejected or draftified by one or more of our most experienced reviewers (several of whom have commented, or have been mentioned, on this page); in those cases it'd probably be an idea to discuss with the other reviewer(s) first – something I think all of us could consider doing more often, by the way. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Here you go folks
Thanks for bringing all of this here. This is going to be long and looks like I will have to ditch my other commitments to deal with it but I hope it will be worth it. I am trying to summarize the questions asked by various editors and respond to them.

Fundamental question – why I accept any article? Because it is notable according to me. Period. If others would feel differently, I am sure they will AFD it and I will provide my defense to it.

Debashis Chatterjee: WP:NPROF is not a well understood criteria – specially in Indian context. So, I hold no prejudices for those who reject such drafts or wants to delete them on AFD. And yes, I might want to take time to educate others on this but I don’t think I have so much time to run an awareness campaign on WP:ACADEMIC. Best I can do is promote such drafts to mainspace. I have said this before and again, Academics are under-represented here and I take interest in them.

Subject is sure short notable as per C6 – administrative head of notable institute. Has said this often and will say it again WP:ACADEMIC is independent of WP:GNG and doesn’t require requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. So please don't mind me if I moved over comments of an editor who was ignorant of it.

Draft: Anusha Rai: I still think the person is notable as per the regional sources and as per WP:BASIC. Other editors have disagreed and I respect that.

But, the article had merit and that’s why it was restored to drafts by closing admin. And Beccaynr had also voted Keep (Not 50% at AFD but there was support for it). And I must say I miss AFD debates with Beccaynr that were honest and civil and where difference in perspective was dealt with rationales and not allegations! You have my heart Beccaynr.

Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair: Was a mistake. Posted at Teahouse and Bondea helped.

Karan Tanna: Notable per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I don’t remember what their comments were but I didn’t feel strongly same about them (I think it is okay to have a different opinion and feelings. That’s why, like others said, passing at AFC isn’t the end game. It’s just another step and there are more checks and balances. It was however reviewed by  Onel 5969  which means my accept was not as problematic as it's alleged to be here? Good this is at AFD, I will now try to defend it.

Arun K. Somani: Are you even kidding? This person qualifies multiple WP:NACADEMIC criteria! I think you need to revisit that!

Relation to Kashmor:, well interestingly Kichu guided me a lot in initial days and it is unfortunate that they were engaged at SPI. Some of my interactions with them can be seen here in my archives .But, I am not them or anyone else for that matter. When I saw another Mallu account, I sort of knew it was them but it wasn't my place to call them out. I just don't believe in this name calling and believe in doing more reviews (I see why I was fourth highest - perhaps because I keep myself away from all this and use that time in reviewing)

Submitting draft and accepting: I didn’t know it’s a practice not encouraged. To me it makes complete sense. Why does this option even exist otherwise? Good to know I am not the only one doing this. Like Fiddle Timtrent, they also do this I have submitted several editors' declined submissions on their behalf after editing them myself to make them pass (in my view) and then accepted them.

Why I am strongly defending AFD: Because I accepted it and I have a great track record at AFC. You will see my strong defense at Anusha Rai AFD as well. I have full right to defend and argue and others have full right to attack and argue. That’s what AFD is.

RattanIndia: Already gave complete history. The draft has more than 50% chance of acceptance if purely seen from notability point of view and not with a partisan approach. I was finally relieved to see DGG's comment who made an unbiased comment on subject’s notability.

The pain point is that I expanded the controversy in a way that you felt it was in favor of company. Let’s see: Indian Express article says. ‘’Not only is the policy itself flawed and contradictory to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) guidelines,which categorically state that competitive bidding route should be adopted for setting up power plants as it results in lower tariffs and therefore is in the interest of consumers,the government is contradicting its own policy by executing the MoU without getting the approval of the PSERC,” said All India Engineers Association president Padamjit Singh.’’

So there is no clarity. Government has one view point, company has other. I presented both. You feel that it was skewed towards company, I respect that and hence expanded more. Furthermore, I think it is already clear that submitting and accepting isn’t a practice as evil as it has been portrayed here so I hope no more explanations are needed.

Why not directly move it to mainspace I didn't know that being an experienced editor you could do that. Leave that, I don't think I should be classified as 'experienced editor' - the traditional definition of experienced that I saw here was more years and edits that I have now. If there is an AFC Box at the top, I believe, it should go via AFC. Makes perfect sense to me at least.

Why decline and then accept I do this pretty often. Declining/commenting, working on the draft and accepting it once I think it is fixed. Other latest example Frans Vera.

Why I am accepting articles that sometimes look unusual? My AFC acceptance rate is low and sometimes I start questioning myself if my time here is doing any good or not? Good would mean making more information available to people via Wikipedia which would technically mean working on drafts that are good and can be at mainspace rather than mass decline. I agree sometimes I get driven by this sentiment and if I feel that the article crosses notability, I accept them and not necessarily discuss with previous decliners/draftifiers etc – something that I should do but I hope that if my accept is wrong, it will eventually be crossed and someone will nominate it for AFD. For me, having a notable subject rot in draft space is worse than having a marginally non-notable subject stay in mainspace for a brief period of time. I wonder why that’s not our standard approach. That being said, I have seen multiple occasions of other editors accepting drafts declined by me and I have no objections to those.

I think that is all?

But yes, let’s now talk about the leader of this crusader, my dear friend Hatchens. They used to trust my decision and vouch for it but then there was a change of heart. And it changed after I declined Draft:Vin Gupta. They felt it passed notability in the form it was

Blatant promotion, undeclared COI I still doubt notability. How I remembered it, I had speedy the draft and had Déjà vu (happens a lot). Found evidence of me CSD it in my CSD log User:Nomadicghumakkad/CSD log. I am unsure if they find RattanIndia problematic, how they were ready to accept Vin Gupta.

And it was after I had differences with them on this, they started leading this Crusade. They have defended themselves by saying that they would prefer unbiased review from a third editor but I don’t think what they said matches with what they felt inside. Even if Rattan was a mistake, did it deserve to tag the entire universe in it? Regardless, key question is willingness to accept a draft which was promotional and also potentially non-notable.

Other interesting (I am not going to poorly invest time to dig their history like they have done for me and only remember recent stuff so this is last), their comment on Articles for deletion/CoinDCX said that this could be ‘draftified’. A clear promo, undeclared COI and non-notable. I don’t understand why they would feel this could be draftified but RattanIndia should be deleted? Not making allegations, but asking questions. And they can feel free to not respond to this if they find it triggering. Our mental health is more important.

Also, want to highlight that this had become personal. Hatchens ridiculed me by highlighting that I was 'probationary'. That was uncalled for. I might be probationary but that doesn't discredit my work. Even if I am probationary, I have done more work then them at AFD and have better stats (and hence better understanding of guidelines?) - if that makes any sense at all.

No prejudice against Aafi, MsSnoozyturtle – all great people but Aafi mostly speak in agreement with Hatchens. Mssnoozyturtle had draftified it so having it go in mainspace does smear their draftifying record. Again, no prejudices, we all can feel possessive about our editing records. We are humans after all. . Peace! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A mistake is made when one defends an article. A mistake is made when one attacks an article. One should never become invested in any article here for any reason because it usually ends in tears. I am using your talk page, but I am addressing this to anyone who gets emotionally attached to an article's existence or deletion.
 * I chose some long time ago to remain steadfastly neutral on any article I have accepted at AFC. I sometimes make that comment at AfD and sometimes make no comment at all. I commend that approach to anyone who sees an AFC article they accepted sent to deletion. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fiddle Timtrent, I will keep that in mind. And following your words, I won't defend Karan Tanna and let the community decide for it. Also withdrawing my allegations for Hatchens and collapsing them ( I tried to strike them but code isn't working) since I am not doing what I would have expected them or others to do - assume good faith. It's unfair on my part. They are probably being over protective of the project. However, this has surely shaken my spirit. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why it has shaken your spirit. However, something good has come out of this. You understand, now, the difficulties that arise when one is too invested. This means you will be a more effective editor. We have to care enough, but not overmuch.
 * Gather yourself together and move forward now with a different resolve. We all make mistakes. Why would we not? The mark of who we are is how we conduct ourselves when they are brought to our attention. I try to act as I hope others will act when my errors are brought to my attention. I do not always succeed. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith: When i posted my first comment here, i really didn't look at Karan Tanna. When accepting or declining a draft, it is common for AfC reviewers to make small mistakes, but accepting a draft about BLP with zero indication of notability is questionable. It needs to be addressed neutrally than defending a non-notable article. I am concerned about your comment "Good this is at AFD, I will now try to defend it". Source assessment table has been provided by that indicates this article is even not suitable to be redirected to General Motors or McKinsey & Company. It fails WP:ANYBIO as well as WP:GNG which means every AfC reviewer, including you and me should take additional care of the AfC script. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A minute before you posted this,, I had added sources to my comment and changed my !vote to neutral , which is not intended to detract from anything you have said here, but I just wanted to note the update. And I commend all of the AfC reviewers doing the hard work of sorting through the incoming articles and I very much appreciate all of your efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * TheBirdsShedTears, I appreciate what you are saying. I promised to not defend this page but just sharing my views. As you will see from updated analysis from Beccaynr, it isn't true that it had zero grounds for notability. The table has 5 sources that would contribute to WP:BASIC. And then there are few others that they cited below the table, if we count that, subject will meet WP:BASIC without doubts. I head learnt GNG and BASIC at Teahouse and I was so happy with the explanation, that I had decided to archive it . This is what I refer when I am in doubt and it says roughly 7 for Basic and 3 for GNG. If I accepted it, I am sure I found more sources outside what were cited. I hope you see now I didn't accept it blindly and subject has notability. I also would want to explain why I said WP:GNG and not just WP:BASIC. Second source in the table has 4 paragraphs that Beccaynr has classified as partial but 4 are enough for WP:GNG. So there are two sources in the table itself which are making a case for WP:GNG.  Even if we ignore that, there is a good case for WP:BASIC and a close case of WP:GNG which is why I felt confident to accept it. I hope you see my point of view now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Beccaynr, may I please request you to add the new sources you found also in the table so a clear picture emerges? Sorry to bother you with this but it will be very helpful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are four experienced editors advocating for deletion, and I have not been able to convince myself to !vote keep, based on my review of the sources, so it is not a typical situation for me to attempt a rescue of the article by adding content and sources. My preference is to wait for other editors to participate in the discussion and to allow myself time to continue to search for and consider the sources before attempting to revise the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nomadicghumakkad, I just realized it looks like I misread your comment about what you were asking for, and even though it is a moot issue at this point, I would still like to apologize for my rushed response. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a difference, noted also by TimTrent, between "defending a page" and discussing the reasons why it should or should not be accepted. I do not feel any obligation to defend any pages; I would consider that a sign of conflict of interest. The attitude should be, that if I accept a draft and I'm wrong, I should be glad thecommunity caught it.  I look for evidence, and report what I find and how I evaluate it. There can be reasonable diffences in evaluating specific factors, and also on what one's general level is for acceptance. There's the perennial question of how inclusive we should be in various fields (everyone has a different idea here, based usually upon their own personal interests & view of what should be in an encyclopedia). There is also the balance beween notability and promotionalism. At least in my opinion there is good reason why we should be especially cautious about accepting articles that ar ewritten in a promotional manner or appear  to be based on promotional sources. A simple guide is that if it would do for the subject's web page, it shouldn't be here. Ten years ago I would usually argue for rewriting in such cases; now I argue for this only if the encyclopedia would clearly be incomplete without the article. Small differences in inclusiveness don't greatly affect the value of WP; becoming a vehicle for advertising would destroy the purpose of the project.


 * I can understand, Nomadicghumakkad, why you might feel defensive considering the manner in which in which this discussion was started. There was reason to ask, for there have been instances of undeclared paid editors using AfC for various nefarious purposes. But it should have been more of a question, and less of an accusation.   -- DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you DGG for your experienced and informed opinion on this whole thing. I saw your comment on Karan Tanna article and it is surely a bit of an eye opener for me on how to look beyond what's obvious. And it has changed my perspective towards it. My own rule in cases like this is when there is no evidence of substantial accomplishments such as would generate a genuine news story, anything published is likely to be unreliable. This is going to stay with me and help me look if sources are PR driven even if they don't have clear signs of paid news. However, I would differ slightly and say they are not independent and not that they are unreliable. WP:BASIC or any other guideline relies on independence of sources and if they are all PR driven, they can't be independent and hence WP:BASIC is not met.  I also credit you and highking for my understanding of NCORP when we all participated in Simplilearn AFD long back (Funnily Hatchens and I agreed then but we both were wrong). And now this is a new learning from you; grateful! Also this A simple guide is that if it would do for the subject's web page, it shouldn't be here. Going to archive this for myself and for others to remember. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It is, of course, natural in the outside world to seek to defend one's work, one's reputation.


 * Wikipedia is different. The moment we publish words we agree to irrevocably release our text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. We may have written them, but they are no longer ours in the sense of ownership. If we have written good words they will remain for a while. If they are not good enough someone else will edit them, perhaps delete them. As a contributor to Wikipedia we must choose not to care. This is the set of rules we have chosen to work under.
 * Our reputation is built up over time. Those with the best reaction when their errors are shown to them get the best route to a good reputation. Those who react poorly tend to leave. Accepting a draft in error is fine. Sending an article for AfD that is kept is fine. We learn.
 * Far better never to defend. Explain things, yes.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Fiddle Timtrent, this is another golden rule that you have just said. I agree that I saw AFDs as intellectual debates and they had started to become more of a matter of pride to me. I see sense in what you have said. As a contributor to Wikipedia we must choose not to care - but I would also say it is hard and will take mental and emotional training to do so. But yes, good to start taking steps towards that goal. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a truism that those who say the most at AfD discussions are on the side that loses the argument.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been occupied with a number of responsibilities off-wiki since last few months which makes me very less to be active over here or to argue anywhere. I usually place my argument and stay silent to see whatever is the result, because I really care about WP:COAL, though it ain't any policy or guideline. We are humans and mistakes are human nature but honestly defending our errors, no, becoming "very much nervous when our mistakes are caught, no, when we are just told that there has been an error - and we start placing huge walls of texts in responses..." Can this be stopped? It is fine that you made a mistake, even a huge mistake, but standing there bouncing the damned ball and blabbering that you have so much of works in your credit that possibly no one else has, is nothing but an indication that your ego has been hurt. We shouldn't act like this. We simply make our argument and leave the place. That's it. We need not to be nervous. is a nice AfC reviewer who often seeks advices and suggestions from others whenever he feels that he is in doubt. I often find that the senior editors like  seek assistance from others when it is about things they are knowing less about. It is all okay. But being hugely nervous and instead of fixing errors, if one tends to "defend", it is really bad. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Aafi, there has been a lot of confusion here. I was not nervous but sentimental seeing this. I reacted the way I reacted because of they way everyone together bombed on me. Nonetheless, as highlighted by timtrnet, this was a good learning, if nothing else. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)