- Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Article deleted as attack page by Bishonen with whom I had discussion about the deletion. Bishonen admitted having missed the fact that this article went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan where it was almost WP:SNOW Keep, but has refused to restore the article claiming that it had been edited by a number of socks but AFAIK this article involved enough contributions by editors who weren't blocked for sockpuppetry any recently. Tessaracter (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. From my own recollection, this article was a complete mess. I don't see how restoring it would benefit the encyclopedia. But starting it over again as a draft might be a worthwhile compromise if serious intent on bringing it up to standards arises. El_C 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I explained my position rather better on my page than Tessaracter gives me credit for above, please see [1]. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- AFAIK, a single admin is not allowed to override community consensus to keep the article. The correct procedure to override an AfD is WP:RENOM. Tessaracter (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The article should have been deleted as a WP:G5 violation, long before it got to AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the comments below from Sitush, I have read the deleted article, and I confirm that in my view it is indeed very much of that nature. So very much a G10 too, I'd say. And if it hasn't gone exactly according to protocol, I think this is an example of what IAR is for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with the caveats from El_C above --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse almost all of the edits to the page were by 9 sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jishnusavith. In total 12 sockpuppets edited the page. It should not be restored, although that does not mean that it could not be recreated. The article was originally created by a Jishnusavith sock and deleted, then recreated by the same sockmaster. Almost all of its content has been added by sockpuppets, some copied from another now deleted article created by a Jishnusavith sock. Since the last sock only about 1000 bytes have been added. @El C: I don't object to starting it over as a draft but I will put it under ECP if that is done, given the problems in the past. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Community consensus at AfD > single admin CSD. The original WP:G10 "attack page" rationale was way off: a page detailing human rights violations of underaged girls being kidnapped and forcibly converted was an attack on... the Glorius State of Pakistan? Yikes. Meanwhile WP:G5 isn't as pressing, and anyone can remove these tags. The community can vote to keep sock articles. This was done for Sagecandor's contested G5 articles, for example. In any scenario, this needs to be de-salted as a valid topic. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not understand why such an article, written insensitively, would be an attack page then I think you need to educate yourself about Hindutva, a philosophy which the current government of India supports & which is as dangerous, if less publicised, as the radical jihadism that is better known to people in Europe & N America. The "fake news" coming out of OpIndia & similar sources is inflaming a popular sentiment that, if the world is not careful, will lead to genocide & tet another war between two countries both of which now have nuclear capability and excitable, often ill-educated populations. I haven't seen the article but even those supporting it at AfD seemed to acknowledge it had major problems. Since it appears that those have not been fixed in the interim, IAR seems ok to me and G5 should have happened anyway. Few of the people commenting at that AfD seemed to understand anything about the subject, rather like you. This is where the emotions of the ill-informed liberal West completely screws up our mission. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, absolutely. First, this is essentially a G5. Second, a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but the one that was deleted wasn't it; it was full of egregious original research and POV nonsense; the lead image caption is a perfect example (quoting for non-admins:
"Dargah pir sarhandi, a frequent crime scene of forced conversion and marriage of kidnapped underage Hindu girls." ). Needless to say, when you dig into the sources, most of the exceptional claims do not check out, and require either outright removal or qualification. The spirit of G10 is absolutely applicable here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Although the AfD in February rejected the argument that the article breached WP:Advocacy, the participants were unaware of the extent of the sockpuppetry involved. The AfD was silent on the issues of deletion on the grounds of G5 "Creations by banned or blocked users" and of G10 "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" and therefore cannot be used to overturn a deletion based on either of those grounds. I believe both G5 and G10 apply to the page and it should not be restored in its current form. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn WP:CSD is really quite clear. If you are going to speedy something that survived a deletion discussion, it can't be done for G10. It can be done for G5 but is "subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion." In general "in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion". You can't delete this as at attack page. You *maybe* can delete it as a G5, but it would need to be clear that "this page was created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.". That seems unlikely. So yeah, bad speedy. Admin tools should not be used to short circuit a discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It took a while to unravel this, but yeah, G5 would be legit. The article was created on 2019-11-20 by Minicoyamini, a sock of Jishnusavith, who was orignally blocked on 2019-06-19. Looking over the history, I see various other non-sock editors, but they're all just doing routine maintenance. I agree with Doug Weller above; a legitimate user should be allowed to create a neutral article at this title, but some sort of protection will almost certainly be required. I don't know if I'd go with WP:ECP from the get-go, but I'd certainly be watching carefully and have my finger on the trigger. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While I'm not a big "delete it all if it was created by a sock/banned user" etc., the G5 is valid. However, for me a bigger point is WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. — Ched (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid G5 deletion per the above comments. The G10 was incorrect based on the AfD. Feel free to recreate. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse G5, IAR. Maybe no G10, but the AfD was still wrong since WP:DELREASON#3 is absolutely a thing, so Kautilya3 is absolutely not correct, WP:TDLI is not a valid keep rationale and Notability has nothing to do with the deletion rationale... and I may have just convinced myself that the AfD should have been closed as no consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. An article which has survived AFD is exempt from speedy deletion under G10, and enough non-banned users have contributed to rule out G5. Deletion process has not been followed. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should host an attack page for another week? Out of interest, how many of the unbanned editors made substantive edits? How different is it to the version that was submitted to AfD and which even then people acknowledged had real problems? SOFIXIT, sure, but seemingly no-one did. Enough is enough: blow it up and start again. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate with different content, per WP:TNT. The article is not inherently an attack – it should be covered on Wikipedia if it is a notable subject. Either the original article was completely wrong, and the subject is entirely non-notable, or it was a sensible subject, just the article was badly written. I haven't seen the article myself, and thus checked the reliability of its sources to prove its notability, but it sound to me like it was just badly written. Thus the subject still deserves an article, just a new one, written better with better sources. WT79 (Speak to me | account info) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV's role is to see the deletion procedure is correctly followed, but in cases like this there's room for some creativity in how we do so. Restore it to draft and then MFD the draft, transcluding this DRV so people aren't required to repeat themselves, and we'll end up with a procedurally sound deletion without having an attack page in the mainspace for a week.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there is a general agreement here that the article can be recreated, I went ahead and created the article on Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan without looking at the earlier version of the article. I would say we can move this draft space to article space and close this DRV now. Tessaracter (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (I moved this comment from the section above, where it had been placed erroneously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
|
