- Vivek Verma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Previously The page has a bad history and have been created multiple time, But the latest version which got deleted had enough References which was making it pass wp:gng and wp:musicbio.
1- The Hindu-(https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/indie-artiste-vivek-verma-is-set-to-release-his-single-aashiyana-post-lockdown/article31638965.ece)
2- Rolling Stone-(https://twitter.com/RollingStoneIN/status/1278215078089646081?s=20)
3- The Times of India-(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/exclusive-there-are-three-songs-which-i-am-doing-for-dhwani-bhais-movie-vivek-verma/articleshow/76264627.cms)
4- Bollywood Hungama-(https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrity/vivek-verma/filmography/)
5- The Diplomat-(https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/how-bollywood-discriminates-against-playback-singers/)
and there are many others too, the nominator left a message on my talk page stating that "THE ARTICLE WHICH I CREATED IS NOMINATED FOR SPEEDY DELETION" although I havent created the page, its seems he was in so much hurry to get the page deleted without checking its authenticity. Stonertone (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hindu and Times of India are good sources for WP:GNG. If you can write a solid, non-promotional draft, I would accept this to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah @SportingFlyer: I can write a non-promotional draft but only if someone here can restore the previous version of it into draft section so that it will be helpful for me to decide what to keep and what to not and reconstruct it properly, as currently the Draft and the Main page both are creation Protected. Stonertone (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has such a history I don't necessarily support that, but I also can't see the draft. SportingFlyer T·C 01:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd be very reluctant to accept even supposedly reliable Indian media sources in circumstances where self-promotion may be an issue. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminita Blosenco. However, that's an issue for AfD when and if the article is recreated. Sandstein 08:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done a temp undelete for discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those favoring keeping this in the AfD cited at least one source and mentioned (or at least claimed) the existence of others, which were not addressed by those favoring delete. One editor who favored delete apparently did a fairly through WP:BEFORE search, but the others generally asserted "not notable" with no evidence cited. Besides, the AfD was 2 1/2 years ago, an entertainer can easily become notable in such a time even if s/he was not previously. The speedy deletion cannot stand as per S Marshall below. G4 does not apply when new sources long subsequent to any AfD are added, such sources must be evaluated in a new AfD. In any case the passage of years makes the existence of uncited new sources plausible. The original creator was not blocked until long after the creation, so G5 does not apply, and the recreation was not by a blocked editor so G5 wouldn't apply anyway. As for G11, the latest version is not fundamentally promotional so that a total rewrite would be required -- ordinary editing could deal with it, if the sources gain approval. In view of all that -- Overturn speedy and move to draft space to allow Stonertone and anyone else who wants to to attempt to create a non-promotional well-referenced draft. Once such a draft is available, it can be reviewed for mainspace acceptability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (revised DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- The above modified comment now combines my views from July 2, and those from July 4 when I re-read the later discussion, but forgot that I had placed a balded comment earlier. In both I had opined that the text would wind up in draft space, so there is no real conflict, I had simply focused on different parts of the article's history and different sets of reasons, both now expressed above. @Nick: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Permit restoration in draft space as has rs coverage and extra roles since the AFD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn speedy. New sources overcome a speedy for recreation and I don't see it as overly promotional. It still might get deleted at AfD, but it's not a speedy. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a few facets to this one, so I'll go through them in order:-
- 1) I endorse Sandstein's "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma in 2017.
- 2) I can't tell whether I endorse RHaworth's G4 of Vivek Verma singer on 6 August 2018, as I can't see whether there were fresh sources.
- 3) I'm content to AGF on RHaworth's G8 of Vvek Verma on 6 August 2018.
- 4) I endorse Ponyo's G5 on 4 September 2019 of the version created by the sockpuppet.
- 5) I think GeneralNotability's use of G4 and G11 to delete it on 28 June 2020 is highly problematic. It's unreasonable to use G4 to enforce a deletion discussion when the article cites sources from more than two years after that discussion was closed, and I'm unable to agree that the article text at that time was irretrievably promotional.
- I'm unfamiliar with GeneralNotability and I presume he's new. As he hasn't been informed about this discussion I shall ping him.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Vivek Verma singer was created by User:Ecstaticmind, so at minimum it's a proper G5, and I very well might've speedied it if I came across it in CAT:G11. It cited [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], plus m.dailyhunt.in (now blacklisted), IMDB, Instagram, and Facebook. Vvek Verma had only the redirect created when Ecstaticmind moved his recreation from there to Vivek Verma singer. GeneralNotability's a recent namechange, see history. —Cryptic 19:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm no longer concerned about RHaworth's speedy.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse if this is an appeal from the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify if this is a request for permission to create in draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not think that any of the new sources actually addressed the lack of SIGCOV - the articles in TOI and The Hindu are basically interviews and I don't believe that they overcome the previous deletion discussion's consensus. That said, I won't object to recreation in draft if that's what you all think is best.
Separately, I'd like to point out that the article is G5 eligible, though the sockpuppetry was discovered following my deletion (so of course it doesn't justify G4 if people feel that was applied incorrectly) - other than script-assisted cleanup and edit-warring over the deletion tags, the only significant changes were by the original author. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, DRV usually finds that G4 expires by passage of time. There's no consensus about how much time, but we usually find that if the recreation cites plausible sources that post-date the AfD, that inoculates it against G4.The first limb of G5 says
To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion . I don't think that criterion will wash.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the G4 note, that's good to know. Re the G5: I thought for some reason that it was a sock block rather than a UPE block. Guess I've been working SPI too much. Dumb on me, disregard, struck. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with User:S Marshall that the version of article which got deleted on 28th of june 2020 by @GeneralNotability: was not promotional, moreover if we go through the history it seems like User:GeneralNotability did not even checked weather the article meets a G4 or G5 or G11 before deleting it, as when the speedy tag was placed on the page I Contested the deletion (as i am not the page creator and I felt like contesting it so I did it as per the guideline and removed the tag keeping the RS in my mind) then @Praxidicae: kept on reverting it, at first User:Praxidicae tagged the page with G4 and when I reverted it back S/he left a warning on my Talk page with three-revert rule which I feel is irrelevant, and User:Praxidicae again tagged the page this time with G4 and G11, S/he was such reluctant to not even check the criteria of the page and was so eager to get the page deleted that User:Praxidicae left a Message on my talk page stating (It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Vivek Verma, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page) and the fact is the page was not created by me and minutes later User:GeneralNotability came and deleted the page, this makes me think more like a COI or Edit war. Stonertone (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stonertone Please enlighten me as to what my supposed COI is. And as I said before, you weren't qualified then to assess whether it met G4 or not since you couldn't see the history. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Praxidicae as you could see the above discussion by User:S Marshall where he stated how G4 is not applicable to this and I could not see the history but i assume you could clearly see it where wp:G4 clearly states "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). then what made you feel that the page is subject to Deletion!? And you also added wp:G11 to it, what made you thing the page is written in a promotional language? as it can be seen clearly in the history now, It doesn't at least meets G11. Thanks Stonertone (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stonertone I made my reasoning abundantly clear. This was paid for spam (and I submitted such evidence to the appropriate functs) sourced to absolute garbage masquerading as legitimate journalism. See WP:ARTSPAM. Now please enlighten me about this COI you've accused me and other editors of. Praxidicae (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stonertone: Any further allegations of COI made against any other user taking part in this discussion without robust, substantial evidence will result in you being blocked, Stonertone. Nick (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick: I apologize for using that sentence Stonertone (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it wasn't promotional. I said it wasn't irretrievably promotional. Praxidicae, why did you edit war to restore the tag when the removing editor wasn't the article creator?—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Praxidicae ohh so you saying that source to The Hindu which is one of the most RS from India is an absolute garbage masquerading as legitimate journalism?? I oppose that, and HOW you feel that the its WP:ARTSPAM??, Now you when I am defending it will you name me as I am getting paid too for all this? I agree that the page History is bad but i Disagree that its a Paid Journalism. Recently Sushant Singh Rajput died and that is one of the biggest news going on in India, and You can Clearly see Times Of India stating in a publication that Vivek Verma, a popular singer and music composer expressed his grief and shock as he left a comment that read, “Bhai yarr kyuuuuuuu...” here (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/blurred-past-evaporating-from-teardrops-sushant-singh-rajputs-last-instagram-post-for-late-mother-is-leaving-fans-teary-eyed/articleshow/76369190.cms) its an article on Sushant's Death so do you think that statement comes from a paid Journalism too?? I disagree with that. and when i say I feel its a COI i apologize if you assume that I am Blaming you, its the same way you are assuming these publication like The Hindu to be absolute garbage masquerading as legitimate journalism 'Although I am Sorry for using the word COI'.Stonertone (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI engages in churnalism more often than not, so yeah, I don't trust them when it comes to areas where promotionalism is at play. However that TOI piece isn't even about Vivek Verma. So my statement that the rest of the sources are garbage still stands and is accurate. More than half of the sources in the g4'd article are literally fake black hat SEO sources and sources which have no editorial oversight and just republish whatever garbage is sent to them with a check. The Hindu piece might be okay but that's it and on it's own it wasn't enough to say that it's substantially different. Praxidicae (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you think about [10] and [11] and also [12]?Stonertone (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The diplomat is a guest author, a tweet from Rolling Stone is cool for his street cred but completely irrelevant to coverage for the purposes of establishing notability and this is just a listing and the same as imdb.Praxidicae (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Praxidicae well I fail to find out that The Diplomat is a Guest or a contributor post, and about this Bollywood Hungama is one of the most Authentic Source when it comes for stuff related to Bollywood, as i can name 1000+ Good Article and Featured Articles Refering this multiple times to it like Imran Khan (Bollywood actor), Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards and Salman Khan filmography. Thus the Listing of an Artist to it can't really be compared to IMDB because IMDB is a Self published source which Bollywood Hungama is really NOT.Stonertone (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of "listings aren't coverage" is unclear to you? It isn't coverage of him. It's the equivalent of a resume. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well This really doesn't makes any sense, You are telling that International Magazine like The Diplomat is writing a resume on an artiste lol, and You are also opposing that Bollywood Hungama is not reliable and its like IMDB, and here you are telling that Bollywoodhungama may have some pieces which are reliable but links to filmography are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability or much of anything else for the same reason iMDb isn't. it doesn't clearify any thing, You also not answered on WHY you Edit War on The page Vivek Verma despite it wasn't created by me. And You seem to be Confused yourself as i see that you have proposed Dhruv Rathee for afd, stating that it has No significant coverage, while it clearly passes wp:sigcov as it have [13] [14] [15] [16] and many others, if sources like NDTV and The Hindu, Bollywood Hungama according to you are not reliable then please explain what you think is reliable ?? I request you to kindly update the info about the Relaible sources from India, as afd'ing pages like this would create useless extra load for the admins and editors Stonertone (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you discussing an AFD that is completely irrelevant to this discussion? And I cannot possibly explain to you any better than what our policies say about coverage a list of films someone has appeared in is not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- because That AFD is a similar case with this page deletion, both have sufficient wp:sigcov,
And despite that both are unnecessarily being deleted or nominated, and The purpose of references are to justify the subject and the statement what do you mean by a list of film?? Its a reliable website where in the list of celebrities they have the whole work of Vivek Verma what else does a reference do? They are there to justify and in this case it is clearly justifying!! So arguing on this doesn't makes any sense. Stonertone (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy and list at AfD. Speedy deletion outwith criteria can't stand, Praxidicae's edit-warring to restore the speedy deletion tag was ill-judged, but equally, wild accusations by Stonertone are inappropriate and I'm not confident that the article meets community standards. Let's restore order and follow the process the community has set out. Anyone mind if I hat all the uncollegial wrangling above?—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, unfortunately the wrangling is inextricably mixed with serious discussion of the quality of the sources used, so it should not in my view by hidden.
I urge Praxidicae, and Stonertone, to discuss more temperately, concentrating on content, not other editors, in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DESiegel Could you perhaps point me to where in this discussion I commented on a contributor? My entire argument here has been about the quality of sources and the discussion itself. Praxidicae (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, Praxidicae, you did not comment on Stonertone or any other contributor, although I think the way in which you commented on the sources and went back and forth with Stonertone was intemperate. I should have written: "I urge Praxidicae, and Stonertone, to discuss more temperately, and Stonertone to concentrate on content, not other editors, in future." DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion as per S Marshall. G4 does not apply when new sources long subsequent to any AfD are added, such sources must be evaluated in a new AfD. In any case the passage of years makes the existence of uncited new sources plausible. The original creator was not blocked until long after the creation, so G5 does not apply, and the recreation was not by a blocked editor so G5 wouldn't apply anyway. As for G11, the latest version is not fundamentally promotional so that a total rewrite would be required -- ordinary editing could deal with it, if the sources gain approval. Then draftify for improvement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) See revised comment above DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DESiegel You've already commented on 2 July concerning this article, could you place all of your comments together and decide precisely what it is you would like to occur with regards to this article. Nick (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy and keep. As per S Marshall, Praxidicae's judgment for the page seems non substantial, as The last version of the page seemed ok, apart from that the subject passes wp:rs and wp:sigcov too adding to The Hindu and The Diplomat there are others too like [17] Zee News and News18 [18] so i don't think that the page anyhow was the subject to Speedy. and the Bollywood Hungama is one of the Reliable news website among few legit one like Pinkvilla and other. Shubhi89 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Send to AFD. It looks as though there have been changes since the last AFD sufficient to make G4 inapplicable. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
