Hello sir
Ari T. Benchaim
Joined 4 June 2021
Hello! Why you want to delete Q107678352 ? Have I broken any rules?
For example:
- This page (User talk:Ari T. Benchaim) is your user talk page
- User:Ari T. Benchaim is your user page which should normally not edited by others (however, sockpuppet tags should places there instead of user talk page)
Ooops! Did I goof up somewhere? My apologies.
Thank you Ari! I was just doing some tests.... Still learning how this works ;-)
Please advise why you want to delete Q107394934 - I'm new here, but I basically followed the pattern for other sections of Q513666 so I don't see what I missed.
Sorry, my mistake! I might have accidentally clicked on 'delete' when I was actually trying to save my label entry (I've added the English label). Fixed now.
Still listed on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=prev&diff=1452688066 though...
3) Please sign your messages.
Ha! As Anais Nin said (borrowing from the Talmud, Tractate Berakhot): "we see things not as they are but as we are"!
Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)signed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Associated Press (AP) is a reliable source it is clearly mentioned that Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
Could you please tell me a reason now?
A 'syndicated report' in AP is press release. It is 'paid content'. It is not considered reliable content for notability purposes.
The links from Deepak Sharma (Q107356645) reads "Press release content from MarketersMEDIA. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation."
This is not an AP source. It's a press release put on the AP wire. As such, it does not fulfil WD:N.
Any discussion w/r/t this matter should be on the deletion motion, not my talk page.
nb. Wikipedia guidelines =/= Wikidata guidelines.
in your last message to a different user you mentioned - You'd want to consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources about what reliable sources are.
Again – this is not an AP publication. It's a press release, and a bit of a shambles at that (it's rather difficult to get any coherent sense out of it).
Once again, any discussion w/r/t this matter should be on the deletion motion, not my talk page.
You have posted this person's profile (which I assume is your own) several times. It has been RfD'd several times. It will continue to get RfD'd because the subject is not notable. Recreating the page a thousand times will not make the subject notable. Having notable accomplishments will make the subject notable. Posting press releases onto AP, which everyone with a credit card can do, is not a notable accomplishment, it's vanity journalism.
I hope this was sufficiently clear to avoid having to deal with this again and again.
could you tell me the page where wikidata reliable sources are mentioned then?
also it is clearly mentioned that Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
You are confusing syndicated sources with press releases.
Syndication is a newswire reposting something from another newswire.
A press release is a newswire reposting something it is typically paid to publish.
Syndicated content *may* support notability. Press releases generally do not.
You are getting combative on this subject, which makes you increasingly look like a biased SPA with a COI.
Once again, if you believe I am wrong, you are very much welcome to make this argument on the RfD. An administrator will then consider this and make an appropriate decision. In that sense, there's no point in trying to convince me as my opinion does not decide the matter.
could you tell me the page where wikidata reliable sources are mentioned then?
Please see WD:N, and please consider avoiding wikilawyering. The meaning of 'serious' sources means, in common practice, independent sources.
Once again, I would suggest you make this argument on the RfD page.
This revert was unnecessary. The cinematographer was double and Václav Hanuš (Q11985496) is a politican with the same name. I hope you work more proper next time. It might be that an editing IP does better.
Hey please check all the news publications here
none of them are branded or sponsored .
thanks
https://www.newsx.com/business/himanshu-mahawar-leads-with-dope-entrepreneurs.html
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/meet-himanshu-mahawar-digital-marketer-web-developer-833752
https://www.apnnews.com/himanshu-mahawar-is-creating-waves-in-the-industry/
Thanks one again
- This is not the right place to bring this up. You'll want to bring this up at the RfD so that others can make their own decision.
- All but the newstracklive articles have no byline, and sound like branded pieces.
- None of these are reliable publications.
- The user lacks any identifiers suggesting notability.
My conclusion remains 'delete', but it's not up to me. I don't think the case for notability is made out but others may disagree.
newsx is not a reliable publication?
ibtimes is not too?
in your last message to other user you have mentioned
'The closest to a 'well known and good ranking news website' is ibtimes'
Now you are saying it isn't?
You'd want to consult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources about what reliable sources are.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IBTIMES&redirect=no on IBTimes. What I said was that it was the closest to a reliable source, not that it was a reliable source.
check her articles again ,all are in the well known and good ranking news website. There is no branded / paid articles.
Thanks
Which specifically? The closest to a 'well known and good ranking news website' is ibtimes, and that's scraping the bottom of a fairly deep barrel.
The LA Weekly content starts out with 'Brand Partner Content'... i.e. branded. I see you've created a small number of highly biased entries for non-notable persons.