Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 September 29
2011 October 1 >

30 September 2011[edit]

  • Mahan Mitra – Opriginal Close endorsed but new information means that this now merits an article so restored. Further relisting at editorial discretion. – Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mahan Mitra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Mahan Mj (Mahan Mitra) has got Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award this year. He is one of the leading topologists in India. His page should be restored as soon as possible! 59.93.247.38 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting admin's comment Although I was not contacted regarding this, I wouldn't have changed my decision anyway. I can't see how the AFD could be interpreted any different and I think the IP is misunderstanding what DRV is.--v/r - TP 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation . Without getting into all the ins-and-outs of the deletion process, it looks like the article subject indeed won the highest award for science in India earlier this week [1], pretty much rendering the earlier AFD discussion irrelevant. I'm assuming Mahan Mitra/Mahan Mj/Mahan Maharaj are different forms of the same name; the academic credentials seem to line up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore and add the new material. Obviously our checking was not sufficiently thorough. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore with no prejudice to a relist I think a discussion about this award might make sense, so no objection to an AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore/allow recreation New award makes for sufficient notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! 59.93.245.81 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • FWIW, I added articles this morning on the other recipients of the 2011 awards. There's a good deal of work still to be done for the earlier years. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Scott Dudelson – Deletion Endorsed as clearly no case has been made that the close or G4 deletions were incorrect. – Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Dudelson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

notable american executive / entrepreneur StanleyJean05 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-deleting admin's comment: The article in question was a recreation of an article deleted by unanimous consensus at AfD, without any siginificant changes in the article's content vis-a-vis the version that was AfD'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The page in question was at Scott Dudelson, not scott dudelson. I've corrected the link above to reflect this. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any new sources emerged that weren't discussed at the AfD? I would think that new sources would be the best way forward if we're to have an article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the article contains a host of new articles from notable business news sources / publications like New York Times, Inc Magazine, Bnet.com and others, that were not discussed at the AfD. The original page which was deleted was poorly presented and lacked notable sources, my intention with the new article was to clean up previous editors article using these new and reliable sources. StanleyJean05 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at those sources before deleting. They refer, as far as I could tell, to companies founded by Dudelson - not with any significant coverage of Dudelson himself, beyond a "here's how I do business" interview. If it's desired, I can restore the article for the sources to be assessed by others without any problem though. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bushranger, as mentioned before, the challenge here - and my argument of notability- is that one cannot separate the achievements of a company vs the individual when the individual was leading the company (and the source material credits the individual for leading the org).... When it comes to industry leaders / entrepreneurs their notability comes from the success of the organization they've created.StanleyJean05 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When it comes to industry leaders / entrepreneurs their notability comes..." erm nope, the point of the notability guidelines is to try and work out what the world at large considers notable and then we cover that. We get that indication from the coverage received. If your view that the world was taking note of the individual as a result of the success... then they'd still actually show some interest in that person and write about that person. There are many industry leaders/entrepreneurs for which that has happened, the world find the person interesting and so newspapers etc. write about the individual. For those who don't it does suggest that the world may well be interested in the creation but not in the person. (The same is true in many areas authors + books - book gets lots of press, reviews etc. and all mention the author but no real interest in the author as a person, film producers vs films... etc.). Given the low participation in the debate if any of the new references are up to anything I'd be tempted to let this be relisted, but if your argument is solely that, which has been rejected in many xFD discussions, It would seem a pointless exercise. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense, however, to the point that sources should cover primarily the individual, a number of the source material referenced in the article was primarily about the individual and not about the company per se. I would suggest referencing the IdeaMensch, BNET, Mixergy and Loyalty360 (byline article), as examples, which favor coverage about the individual over their creation. Although not on-line, i've seen this individual speak at a number of conferences about the general state of the loyalty industry and he is generally considered a thought leader. StanleyJean05 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest trying to make first an article for his principal companies, Prodege,orand Swagbucks.com or Music for Charity. for which it will be easier to show the notability. CEOs of sufficiently major companies are i think notable but it would be difficult to maintain the proposition that all companies that merit a Wikipedia articles are sufficiently notable for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The catch is Swag bucks has already been deleted five, count 'em five times. (three G11, one A7, one G7) and has been salted. It seems the article can never be made without being promotional... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is normally a problem with articles for people who have done several things, each of them somewhat under the level for notability. I don't really have any solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_30&oldid=1078422726"