- Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Hello, to explain the reasons for this request, I will repeat textually part of my messages to the editor who deleted the article; this article (about an Arab minister) was deleted directly because it was uploaded by a banned user. I work with the subject of the article, and some time ago I contacted a freelancer to make an English version of the article (Arabic version was established some time ago). We turned to a qualified editor, with extensive experience in Upwork, who supposedly knew what should be done and what should not be done in Wikipedia. The article was published and was three months online, and it was even reviewed (by user Doomsdayer520). We never assumed that the editor would act illegally, we always thought that the publication had been made transparently. Paid editions are contemplated in Wikipedia rules, but now I know that certain requirements must be met (and that obviously the editor we did not meet at all). But the notability of Bin Butti was not discussed at any time, the article (according to the editor who deleted it) was deleted by the mere fact of having been uploaded by a banned editor, who violated his ban by publishing the article. But I did not do anything against Wikipedia's rules, and I did not tell the editor to hide the condition of paid article. I understand that if the editor had identified the article as a paid edition, the article would be online today. It is not about going over the editor who deleted the article, I understand the spirit of his responses and the voluntary work in Wikipedia, but if paid articles and COI articles are regulated, I think that this should be taken into account. Thanks! Myounes22 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted (as the deleting admin). G5 does not require notability to be considered. Page was created on 19 September 2018, earliest Japanelemu sock to be blocked was 5 July 2017 (predates Japanelemu but has the same naming convention). Anyway, this request is vexatious and should be summarily dismissed because the filer is not here to improve the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse clear G5, created by User:Canamumsiolo on 19 September 2018, Japanelemu has been blocked since November 2017. The other edits were accepting an AfC submission and minor tweaks to categories, which are not significant. The revelation that it was undisclosed paid editing on behalf of someone who didn't want to break any rules is not a reason to restore it. Quite the contrary, if anything. Hut 8.5 20:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone surprised to learn that the user who accepted it at AFC is also a checkuser-blocked sockpuppet? Show of hands? Anyone? Well then. —Cryptic 21:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the speedy deletion - This is a case where ignorance does not excuse. Ignorance doesn't excuse when trying to do something that is only marginally permitted (using paid editors) at best. At first I assumed that this was a request to unsalt the title. But the title isn't salted, so the editor can still submit a draft to be reviewed by a real neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this is the right place to comment; Now I know what I should have done is read about the reality of Wikipedia, about paid editions, editions with "COI", regulations, and I should have published it as draft, stating my relationship with Bin Butti. According to your comment, I understand that I can still do it, right? I also did not know that the article had been approved by a banned editor (I would not be surprised if he's related to the editor I hired), and that makes things worse; but the article was later reviewed by the user that I mentioned, who is active, and the article stayed on Wikipedia. I understand clearly why the article was deleted, but I can not understand why the article can not be reconsidered according to its own characteristics, sorry. Anyway, if you think I can upload a draft, I have no problem doing so. Thanks.Myounes22 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Myounes22 - The title has not been create-protected (salted). You can create a draft and submit it for review. You are working against yourself. The more aggressively you push to establish that you have the right to submit a draft for review, the more you will annoy the editors who can review and approve your draft. It is unlikely that your draft will be approved, and you are making it even more unlikely. You are also increasing the chance that you may annoy the community enough so that the title will be salted. To answer your question, the draft can be reconsidered according to its own characteristics, unless you continue to be tendentious and get the title salted. My advice would be to drop the subject and wait at least a few months, but I know that you will not take that advice, because it is clear that you are in a hurry. You can't rush Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... I'm not pushing to establish a Draft, I just wanted to confirm if I understood correctly (I did not know about the possibility of doing a new draft until you mentioned it). I do not want to impose anything, I am not in a hurry, I will rewrite the article, I will take the time necessary to learn in the process, I will include better references, and submit it to the will of those who review it, reaffirming my relationship with the subject so that everything be clear and transparent.Myounes22 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the WP:CSD#G5 deletion. Trust User:MER-C completely on his detection of a banned editor, or flagrant promotional WP:COI editing. The subject may well be notable, but are there any sources. Suggesting listing the references from the deleted article, here. This DRV is raised by Myounes22 (talk · contribs), a suddenly new, confident, wiki-aware WP:SPA. Myounes22, please disclose previous accounts, and your connect to Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I firmly confirm that I don't have any other Wiki accounts - I have never used Wiki before this incident - ever. As for my relationship with Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed, I work for him. Willing to provide proof of my identity and relationship if required. Thank you.Myounes22 (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof shouldn’t be required. You have a WP:Conflict of interest, meaning that you must assume you are incapable of writing unbiased. You are not allowed to edit the article directly. You may write a draft, using WP:AfC, and after submission and acceptance, you can then only make suggestions for improvements on its talk page. To begin with, you need to find *independent* sources on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, what we need are sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. If such sources exist, we can have an article. Can you link to 2 or 3 sources that cover the topic to a significant degree and are independent of the subject?
- Sure -
- [1] https://www.thebusinessyear.com/abu-dhabi-2019/a-sustainable-force/interview
- [2] https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/interview/new-ground-sheikh-abdulla-bin-mohammed-al-hamed-chairman-regulation-and-supervision-bureau-new
- [3] https://www.thenational.ae/uae/dh30-million-pledged-to-support-health-care-patents-in-uae-1.728967
Additional references are available if required. Thank you.Myounes22 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] & [2]. Both are interviews of the subject. An interview is not independent of the subject, and does not count towards the WP:GNG for this reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- [3] does not have significant coverage of the subject. The only information about the subject is the line "The chairman of the Department of Health Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Abdulla bin Mohammed Al Hamed". This only says that he is the chairman of the Department of Health, which is only a fact, it is not secondary source information on him. What is wanted is a source that says he is, for example, a "good"/"bad"/"indifferent"/"enthusiastic" chairman of the Department of Health (i.e. some adjectives), and then for it to have at least a paragraph of comment on the person. Clearly, I think, this is an important person, but these sources could have been identically written about comments that could have been given by his spokesperson. Has anyone, anywhere but not connected to this person, written a few paragraphs of biography on this person? Wikipedia does not want to host original biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, thank you, I will investigate the regulations.
- At least we have the recognition that Bin Butti is a notable person. It is a big step.Myounes22 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Before attempting to write about this person, you should improve the article Department of Health (Abu Dhabi). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally don't object to interviews to the extent that SmokeyJoe (and many others) do. But in this case, these interviews don't really, well, interview the subject. Short questions, no real follow up. Feels like a press release. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Perfectly well matches G5. Besides that, is this a case of undisclosed paid editing (based on nom's comments)? --MrClog (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse what's perfectly within policy. And the revelation of hitherto undisclosed paid editing troubling itself. The best thing now is to rewrite it in draft and submit for review and you don't even need any paid editor for that. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
