Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 726:
:::::: Went through [[Nadia Ali]], and trimmed the article. Less hype now. Removed award nominations, left actual awards, and removed much interview-derived info. Still has 58 references. [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::'''Comment''': {{ping|Nagle}} (and others) Worryingly this article is GA status, and [[Nadia Ali discography]] is FA – both may need a more careful check and possible delisting. [[User:Richard3120|Richard3120]] ([[User talk:Richard3120|talk]]) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: Have been the one who worked primarily on the Nadia Ali article few years ago. I noticed it has been trimmed down. Most of the work there was listed due to the comments made in the Peer Review and GA nomination on what makes her unique. While, I don't have any major issues with the edits but just wanted to point my objection to a few. Writing about her Pakistani-American ethnicity was important because it made her stand out in the industry and it was pointed out to me to add that because of her unique position (though obviously I'm not the expert at deciding if that is important enough to be left). Most of the nominations are for awards, which in big picture don't mean a lot but I think the Grammy nomination even if it was for the remixer should be significant enough to be left. Similarly, the fact that iiO released an album 6 years after she left and something she felt had to be clarified was without any involvement from her was notable in my opinion. However, I admit it could've been more brief. Other than that, I have not been active on Wikipedia lately so I can't comment on any spam users except the odd edit I have noticed changing whether she is Pakistani or Libyan over the years. I can't comment on anyone who has done edits on the Nadia Ali page in relation to her collaborations with Starkillers. My active contributions have been to the Nadia Ali related articles, which have not been many recently due to both a busy personal life and her being relatively quiet in the last few years. [[User:MHDH|MHDH]] ([[User talk:MHDH|talk]]) 20:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Nominating articles for deletion is an extreme measure, if the topic is notable enough to be useful to our readers. The proper cleanup here is to remove puffery and fluff, to greatly trim the articles and make them strictly factual. That is, unless the topic is truly not notable. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Binksternet}} No, PROD was not applied in a punitive fashion. None of the three articles PRODed above have references. One is three sentences long. In other words, it's not so much as a problem of removing fluff as adding something of substance. If you think they should be retained, go ahead and dePROD. [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 19:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
| |||