Bardhyl Selimi – Endorse, in large part because of the shoddy deletion review nomination. A better presented case that makes clear what is being appealed and why might have more success, although one has to consider that the additional references mentioned here apparently didn't convince anyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
improvement Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
presumably this was intended for User:Tone's talk page
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bardhyl Selimi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
Originally, this article was deleted on Sept 2-4, 2019, though due to my summer holiday I requested a delay on any final decision until Sept 7, 2019.
The main argument for deletion was that some of the 20 odd provided references led to the article's subject as an author or co-author. I improved on that adding 50 more references by other authors from Albania / Kosovo (in Albanian) and from all around the world (including China, France and Poland) in Esperanto, as a proof of the global-wide notability of Bardhyl Selimi in the spheres of Albanian- and Esperanto-language cultures.
I relisted the improved article on Sept 9, 2019.
The relisted article was removed with no explanation, let alone any discussion.
I request the relisting of the deleted improved draft of this article.
Endorse WP:G4. The re-created article looks vitually identical to the one deleted by AfD. The only difference looks like a carpet-bomb of additional references, but there's no indication that any of them are significant in terms of addressing the issues raised in the AfD. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The contention point that led to the deletion of this article on Sept 4, 2019 was the issue of notability as proved by sources not connected to Bardhyl Selimi. With the 'carpet-bomb' of 50 references I prove the subject's notability in the spheres of Albanian/Kosovan and Esperanto (global) culture.
I still have no clue why the relisted draft of this article was deleted without any discussion. Hyrdlak (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]
The reason why the re-created article was deleted "without any discussion" was that we had already had the discussion. We don't repeat a discussion, probably with exactly the same reasons as before, every time an individual editor disagrees with the outcome of that discussion. Personally, if there is even the slightest reasonable doubt about whether a recreated copy of a deleted page is changed enough to warrant a new discussion then I restore it on request, because there is considerable disagreement as to what changes are enough to invalidate speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted page, and I regard it as better to give the benefit of any doubt. However, in this case I felt, and still feel, that there isn't any reasonable doubt to give the benefit of. So that editors who are not administrators can judge for themselves I have restored the history of the article, and moved it to Wikipedia:Bardhyl Selimi/Temporary copy for deletion review. The version deleted as a result of the discussion is here, and the version which Power~enwiki tagged for deletion and I deleted is here. The text is virtually identical. A number of wikilinks were added, but that is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. A large number of new "references" were cited, but unfortunately, contrary to what Hyrdlak says, they do not by any means "prove the subject's notability". Most if not all of the 52 new "references" that were added to the new version of the article either don't mention Bardhyl Selimi at all or merely mention his name briefly in passing. At least one is a page which is marketing a book of his, and merely gives his name as author. Some of the references are pages on Wikipedia or forums, as well as scarcely mentioning him. And so it goes on... Not only do the new references fail to "prove the subject's notability", they fail to even provide a small step in the direction of showing more notability than was already demonstrated when consensus at a discussion decided the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is, in fact, a good example of what is described at WP:BOMBARD: the mistaken belief that simply throwing large numbers of references at an article adds evidence of notability, even if none of those references contain anything relevant to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although I am not sure whether this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, an appeal of a G4, or a request to re-create due to new information. The fact that this filing isn't clear is another reason to endorse. If this is an appeal of the original Close as Delete, all that is noteworthy is the wall of text by Hyrdlak, but it isn't clear what the meaning of the wall of text is. If this is an appeal of a G4, I have to rely on those who have seen the two pages that they are substantially the same. If this is a request to re-create due to new information, it isn't clear what the new information is. So for whatever reason, we can leave it deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
