Closer neglected to look at & analyse any oth the sources from "The New London Day", there are many articles about this school in "The Day", and should have been analsised. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Closer comment) Firstly, very disappointing that the editor who filed this DRV failed to follow the instructions clearly listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions and a) discuss with me (recommended, but not required) or b) notify me of filing this (mandatory). Secondly, the applicant seems to have a total misunderstanding of the role of someone closing an AfD - it is not my job as the "closer" to "look at & analyse the sources", that is the job of the people who participated. My job is to analyse consensus of those who participate, within the framework of our P&G's. The applicant had multiple attempts at finding sources (along with the source assessment table) and in each case, according to the consensus of editors in the discussion, failed to produce sources which were independent and cover the subject in-depth. The applicant's last submission to the discussion was on 1 November, and there was further contribution to the discussion after this point which dismissed the sources as routine or not independent. There was no other way this debate could have been closed. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Daniel. No other way this could have been closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Daniel, not the closer's job to analyze sources. And... it was correctly pointed out in the discussion that WP:NCORP applies, so if The Day articles had been "analyzed", the only conclusion would have been that WP:AUD applies.—Alalch E. 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The delete side has a substantial numerical majority, and each vote is equally strong compared to the OP's perspective. Given this, there is need to override the numerical count given the OP's reasoning is not substantially stronger, and the closer correctly closed as delete. VickKiang(talk) 02:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The Day is a very good local newspaper. Its coverage should count as a reliable source. Too bad it's paywalled.
(As a side note, The Day has the best submarine coverage of any news site in the US, so it gets online readers from all over, not just Connecticut.)
Source evaluation is not the closer's job -- it's the job of the participants. The situation is analogous to that of a judge and jury. Daniel had no choice but to close it the way he did.
Endorse - The close reflected the consensus of editors, and their opinions did refer to the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Note: User:Parbon attempted to create this DRV but messed up the syntax. I have fixed it; I was also the deleting admin so I do not need to be notified. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by me in 2023 and was proposed for deletion within weeks on the ground that the article fails the WP:PROF or WP:GNG. It was deleted after discussion. I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia article titled "Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)" which was recently deleted. I believe the article has the potential to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:PROF and WP:GNG) with the right improvements. I have carefully reviewed the article and made necessary changes to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines. I have added additional reliable sources and citations to establish the notability of Zakir Hossain Raju, addressing the concerns that led to the deletion. I kindly request that you review the updated draft and consider its reinstatement. The article now conforms to Wikipedia's standards and provides valuable information about an accomplished individual in academia and filmmaking. If there are any specific guidelines or criteria that I should address further, please let me know, and I will make the necessary revisions promptly. Thank you for your time and consideration. User:Parbon. — Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment There was a majority for deletion here (7-4 if I'm counting correctly) but more importantly (a) the Delete comments were in the main far closer to policy regarding whether the subjects passes our notability policies and (b) some of the Keep votes were unconvincing. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the complaint/challenge, adding more explanation to the close would be a good idea.
Would you advise using draftspace to present a better draft (not using IMDb etc?)
Parbon appears to be mentioning an improved version in draft. Do you know what he is talking about? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, but couldn't find anything remotely similar in draftspace, deleted or existing, nor in Parbon's contribs. Unless they mean the edits they made to the article between the afd listing and deletion; its size was increased from about 9.5k to 14k bytes. —Cryptic 00:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse decision. Closer's decision related to policy. (I was a participant in the AfD). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion, as supported both by numbers and by guideline-based arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – can't find any fault with Black Kite's reasoning here. Of course there's nothing preventing recreation (in mainspace or in draftspace) if better sourcing is available, but since there's no actual evidence that that's the case (despite the claim above, which I hope wasn't written with artificial intelligence), I don't think recreation would be a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
