Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 June 8
2014 June 10 >

9 June 2014

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Naveen Jaihind (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AFD1

With no consensus/biased opinion we can not delete page even in first discussion result was Keep. So in second deletion review we may have wide opinions instead of two weak. So request to administrators to please open Articles for deletion/Naveen Jaihind (3rd nomination) or proceed to restoration of page. GKCH (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither was a great discussion, though the delete arguments in the second seemed more clueful. I'll suggest that we relist the discussion anew and notify all (6?) participants from the two previous discussions. So endorse but relist is what I'm thinking here. Depending on the article and its source (which I can't see) a pure endorse might also be appropriate. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the underlying reason for deletion was correct, and I see no possibility that the article will be kept. Being a member of the executive committee of a party has never been considered sufficient notability at WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There is no way the debate could have been closed any other way. The nomination and delete votes were well thought out and grounded in common sense and policy. Reyk YO! 04:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including the unanimous keep from the first AfD, I think there were other ways to close it. That said, now that the article has been restored and I've read it, I think deletion is likely the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Relist, if anyone google/ explore more about person, definitely notable. Yes article need to be cleanup, I agree. He is a National leader of a Aam Aadmi Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.75.30 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that Naveen Jaihind is notable as most of the leading reliable sources has written about his. I would like to request that please keep article for some time to improve/cleanup the page.GKCH (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse/Comment - there's no way to close that discussion other than how it was closed. The article might be userfied, fixed up, then sent to the mainspace, but as it is, another AfD would result in the same outcome, so relisting would be a waste of time and effort. WilyD 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The first AfD mentions a speedy deletion.  This may be [1]. 
  • 2013-12-16 Oldest diff in the edit history, article has zero references, diff.
  • 2014-01-19 The first AfD closes as keep.
  • 2014-03-19 The article has 25 references, diff.
  • 2014-03-24T08:30 This edit begins 21 consecutive edits that each removed text, up through
  • 2014-03-24T08:51, with the article taken to AfD at
  • 2014-03-24T09:08 with 3 references, diff. [2] shows that the article was deleted at
  • 2014-03-31T06:13
Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy  I am concerned to see editors removing references, in this case 22 references, and then taking an article to AfD.  I checked one of the removed references, [3], and it seems legit.  The analysis of 22 references, the editing to remove them, a WP:BEFORE, and the preparation of a deletion nomination, took place in 38 minutes.  Since the AfD was closed early, the entire process from the beginning of the removals to the deletion of the article was less than seven days.  One clue that the closing admin should have seen is that this was a 2nd nomination barely two months after a "keep" result, when normally six months should elapse.  I have not seen any comments from the closing administrator, which is normal for a Deletion Review.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR. This seems more like a criticism of me than a review. You may not understand what was going on. I'd posted stuff at, for example, WP:AN about the spamming etc that was going on in the run-up to the recent Indian elections and that we needed more eyes on India-related political articles in general (I'm not Indian and I had no horse in the race). The specific concerns regarding AAP-related articles was that this new-ish party was attaining an almost messianic status among a group of people and they were quite clearly, in my opinion, making use of every outlet available to promote their candidates etc, despite WP:NPOL. WP:GNG is broader in scope but, for example, a candidate in an election always gets press coverage - if we accept that as sufficient then we may as well bin NPOL because it would be pretty much pointless, at least in the context of most democracies. There had been a shedload of semi-protections etc across a swathe of AAP-related articles as a consequence of those tribal, fervent feelings and I'll challenge anyone who suggests that I have done anything other than follow policies regarding neutrality etc.
If a source is poor, for whatever reason, then it should go and you'll likely find that I do that many tens of times every day here. It is extremely rare that someone of good standing challenges an edit that I make. But, sure, I'm not infallible. The 38 minutes thing is a red herring and I suggest that perhaps you review how I edit generally. If you can't see that the original keep was poor then there is nothing I can do about that: it is well-known that regulars on WP shy away from anything to do with India-related subjects, leaving the minefield intact. A minefield that, incidentally, includes a vast number of socks, meats and threats of violence etc. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct & I can pretty much guarantee you that my gut is right on this sort of stuff, although obviously I do the research also: the one leads to the other. When it comes to an awful lot of Indian politics and social material, I'm at worst the "one-eyed king". If people think that shows signs of arrogance or whatever then so be it but there are many who would agree with the gist. The topic area is plagued with problems and I'd be more than happy to see you and others take a greater interest in it. I'm not claiming to be perfect.
I have no opinion regarding the close. Yes, it went the way that I expected to do but I think I've only ever challenged a close once and I really don't usually care that much. I'm on record somewhere as saying that I find this particular noticeboard to be an absolute pain and I'm only here because the comment following this pinged me. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recall your name, but it has been a long time.  You say you have no opinion about the close, state "TLDR" to launch a rant that has nothing to do with my Userfy !vote, and egotistically claim that you are the center of attention.  But this is not a noticeboard and I did not mention your name.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per User_talk:Hahc21#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jaihind (2nd nomination) review., the closing administrator states, "...I'm not willing to review my close as of now."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is troubling to me. Looking at the AfD in question, I agree that it's a clear Delete consensus, and thus I can't but Endorse that close. But, it's unsetting that we had a overwhelming Keep consensus at the first AfD, followed by an overwhelming Delete consensus at a second AfD just a couple of months later. Yes, I know that consensus can change, but this radically, and this quickly? The scientist in me says this has to be measurement error, i.e. we're not seeing a true change in community consensus, all we're seeing is the random effects of different people participating in the two AfDs. I'm also a little concerned that the closing admin blew off a request to review their close. It's one thing to review it and stand by your decision, but to just say, "Nope, I'm not going to review"? That's bogus. I also agree with Unscintillating that Sitush making major edits to the article and then immediately proposing it for deletion was kind of bogus too. Anyway, assuming you've read this far, I think we should Userfy the latest draft, give Gokulchandola a chance to address the issues raised in the second AfD, and then resubmit the draft to main article space. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out my jab at Sitush; that was peripheral. The main point I was trying to make was that with two AfDs so close together in time, each getting minimal participation, and resulting in dramatically different results, it's likely that neither accurately measured the consensus of the community. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judicious editing, including the removal of sources, is fine, even if preceding an AfD. Sometimes it's pruning that leads one to realize that AfD is the way to go. I just spend a fair amount of time looking at the first nine sources found in the pre-Sitush version. They are all bogus: they don't verify in the slightest what the article text had. I don't know what to call it since I haven't looked further into the history, but it's a complete scam. So lay off Sitush, who, from what I can tell, did what should have been done a long time ago. Having looked at the previous version I see no reason to not endorse the close of the AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about source #1, which states, "Jaihind, a PhD scholar at the Maharshi Dayanand University in Rohtak, has been associated with the agitation from the beginning."  This was the reference immediately following the material "...Naveen is a Phd. Scholar"  The material was removed here with the edit comment "(not in the sources)".  This was again a sample of one, but it is sufficient to disprove your conclusions that "they don't verify in the slighest" and "complete scam".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (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/2014_June_9&oldid=1138440332"