User:Disha Gahlot/sandbox/Dr Sumer Sethi – Withdrawn by nominator, with all other !votes to endorse; the nominator is apparently ragequitting Wikipedia. The page remains available for the time being to enable reuse of this content somewhere that does host promotional biographies.—S MarshallT/C 14:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Note: now deleted again as the nominator says they have saved the information. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The page has been speedily deleted citing ambiguous promotions by 3 people and some hidden paid work. With all due respect, I was working on the page and it was only in the middle of work. I still had to add all the references. Kindly read the full page, you will get to know that I have only given third-party links for all media work from published sources. The facts and figures were verified from different sources before mentioning anything. I'm a third party person and I intended to create this page because he's a significant person in India ans when I wanted to read about him, I couldn't find any wikipedia page. It's a painful task to search for different sources especially for someone's biography when wikipedia has no page for that person. So I collected all the information for several days when I was not seeing any patients to devote time to this page. I'm not related to him in any way as one administrator has said, so there's no Conflict of Interest whtatsoever. You are free to chcek every possible source on Earth to verify everything. This work was purely for the sake of creating a good biography page and I had no hidden agendas like "promotional work" as wrongfully accused by a person. And there's certainly no paid work going on, I'm well-settled as a doctor and this page is a creative pursuit rather than some source of filthy money making as accused by a person.
I strongly oppose all 3 people for their impulsive acts of taking extreme actions of speedy deletion of the created page. Who gives such rights to these people? If at all someone sees a mistake in any user's page, it should be mentioned very clearly about what they see as a problem and ways to rectify the problem. Deleting someone's work is very easy, giving constructive suggestions is hard. Probably that's why these people go towards these extreme steps. Only people with a good level of experience should be given such higher permissions of overruling a user's work, not random people who are simply looking for time pass and dopamine high through sadistic practices. Hire professionals instead with expertise.
Irrespective of the outcome of this review, I want to have all the information in the sandbox back so that I can either a fresh page or create it on some other platform where someone's time and hardwork are appreciated. Kindly look into the matter at the earliest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disha Gahlot (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
(Misplaced nom copied from WT:DRVDES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Weak endorse The pagfe as written was celarly promotional, with phrases such as umer Sethi, MD is an eminent Radiologist, Entrepreneur, Blogger, Innovator, TedX Speaker and motivator, who has not only done pioneering work in his field, but has mentored lakhs of medical graduates in the last two decades. In article space I would ahve done a speedy deletion without hesitation, But in a User sandbox, one apparently under active editing, I would have engaged with the creator first. However no policy or practice requires that, and I understand that the admins involved suspected UPE or COI, although the creator has now firmly denied any COI or payment. There should be no prohibition on creation of a more neutral draft. I would advise the creator to work with an experienced Wikipedia editor, if possible. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was speedied by both me and Enterprisey and I'd consider Ponyo's comment of Wikipedia and its volunteers are under no obligation to host or maintain blatantly promotional content, which is what you created on the user's talk page to be a tacit endorsement. That's sufficient for me to stand by my deletion. On a side note, I'm getting a little tired of the page creator's personal attacks (and yes, I would consider Only people with a good level of experience should be given such higher permissions of overruling a user's work, not random people who are simply looking for time pass and dopamine high through sadistic practices to be a personal attack on the three of us), and would encourage the page creator to have a look at WP:NPA before engaging with anyone in this discussion. creffett (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DES's comment of "no prohibition against a more neutral draft" (this was a speedy, after all), though I remain skeptical of the creator's lack of COI. creffett (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I express no view on the creator's motives, I merely note that COI was denied, and I choose to WP:AGF. I will say that I have seen equally florid promotion inspired by nothing but personal and professional admiration, and that could IMO be the case here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion with no prejudice to a neutral draft being created in its place using the available sources. I question whether the draft creator is the right person to recreate the article if they still maintain that it was, from their perspective, written neutrally in the first place.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is just a very promotional resume. I suspect that the subject may be notable, but apart from the lists of publications there's practically no prose here that would be useful to a neutral article, so the essay WP:TNT might well apply. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per User:Black Kite. The subject probably is notable, but there is very little in this page that will survive being trimmed down. If the author is not being paid by the subject, then the author clearly didn't read the second pillar of Wikipedia and doesn't have a clue as to what Wikipedia is (and some people don't). If the issue is whether multiple admins were right in deleting this pile of flattery as G11, then multiple admins were right in deleting this pile of flattery as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, hopelessly promotional article, even after applying considerable latitude with respect to draft/userspace content. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just need all the information back from the sandbox since a lot of editing was directly done there. Once the entire page is retrieved to copy paste the work done, you are free to delete the page. I will use some other platform. No interest left in creating any article on wikipedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disha Gahlot (talk • contribs) 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Tara Reade – Endorse. I was going to write my boilerplate, "The history is still there under the redirect, so people are free to continue to merge material", but I see that's not true. For reasons that I don't understand, User:Hodgdon's secret garden moved Tara Reade to draft space while this DRV was running. That seems borderline disruptive to me, but I'm going to leave it be. The bottom line is that the AfD consensus to merge into Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is endorsed by a wide margin. And, the history is still available, just not in the place you would expect. Please form consensus at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation about what material is appropriate to merge into that article. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes a majority of AfD participants believe content ought to be merged but it's too difficult a task to accomplish. In such cases, the article in should remain until it does end up being merged. As it was, despite there being no consensus to delete, the blp namespace page was turned into a redirect without its contents successfully merged. Additionally, there's no consensus at the target to accept the content there and according to guidelines it was already so long even without the merger as to require subdivision. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not sure what the point of this deletion review really is. The close was proper. The merged article should not remain while editors sort out exactly what information should be merged and what should be discarded. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (AfD closer) Actually, what happened was the relevant information was merged, then some of it was deleted, then there was an argument. Having said that, we can't keep unredirecting and then redirecting the article while people squabble about what belongs at the target article and what doesn't. The history is still there for information to be merged. And none of this is relevant to a DRV anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was a clear consensus in the AfD that we shouldn't have a standalone article on the subject. That's what should be implemented. All "merge" closures are subject to editorial discretion, people editing the target article can absolutely remove or rewrite the content as they would with any other content on any other article. Disputes over that should be handled the same way as any other content dispute and the AfD result doesn't give the content any magic protection. Hut 8.5 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this doesn’t even make sense, the entire history of the article is available for people to merge stuff from, you do not even need the redirection undone to merge info. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Hm, not at all how it appears to work. Editors decided that the person is not notable enough for an article, and that content should be merged into the assault article. How much or how little actual content is eventually in the assault article is another discussion altogether. If its a single sentence or 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with the merge result. Zaathras (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the close was a reasonable reading of the discussion and keeping it merged is reasonable given the situation. But how the #$%$ does someone who has been on the front page of nearly every major newspaper not overcome "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"? The event has had many many front page articles in major newspapers. It doesn't get much more highly significant than that. One could argue (and I would) that it shouldn't be significant, but that's not what the media is doing. And not only is her role "a large one", she's had entire articles written about her in major newspapers. Like serious reporting from multiple authors in major papers. I seriously think one of them (by Natasha Korecki) has a chance at a Pulitzer. The outcome is insane. IAR overturn to NC as the removal of the article is contrary to our guidelines and common sense. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a highly significant event. It's a story about something that may or not have happened for under a minute in 1993, which may or not still be mentioned at election time. The significant coverage made it an article, but as so with every event here, big and small. Has her picture really been on the front page of nearly every major newspaper? If so, could you share just three pages from the biggest cities? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her picture? Not that I know of, but that's not what I said. [1] has her name on the front page of the NYT. I tried the LA times and Chicago Tribune (neither of which I read regularly) but their front pages are behind a paywall. I can't find an archive of the washington post front pages. I'm not sure how to prove that. But I read a lot of newspapers and stories about her have been front and center. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. When I read of "someone...on the front page", I picture a face (on physical paper). I agree the story is out there prominently enough, stop searching on my behalf, our article about her telling of it should not be deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is being alleged is not the event. The event is the ongoing allegation itself. Also, for under a minute in 1993? No context could possibly justify such a characterisation of any sexual assault. Usedtobecool☎️ 06:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the time it allegedly took is just one aspect, not the defining one. I want to define it as unwanted vaginal fingering. That was deemed too clear. And yeah, the current event is the short story about a brief encounter of the old kind. But the sexual assault in the allegation is relevant enough to describe somehow, too, and duration sets it apart from the more significant cases, sometimes spanning generations. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that just after Hobit's quote WP:ONEEVENT mentions Gavrilo Princip as an example of someone who meets the standard of playing a large role in a highly significant event. That's a much higher standard than just getting front page articles in newspapers. While the sexual assault allegation is going to get a lot of coverage in the immediate future it's far from clear that it will have much lasting impact. Will it get mentioned, say, a decade from now? Hut 8.5 06:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned? Most certainly. Deep biography? Probably a 5% of any coverage of the presidential race of 2020. If someone writes a book about the race (and they will), it will be most of a chapter. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the OP: The close and immediate turning into a redirect, followed by the removal of the content, equates to a deletion in all but name only.
Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee.[1] From December 1992 to August 1993, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office. She resides in Nevada County, California.[2][3][4] She has changed her name for protection due to domestic violence in her past:[5] claims her former husband, Theodore Dronen, denies.[6][7][8]
An alleged victim of domestic violence,[17] Reade divorced in 1996.[18][19] Her then-husband has denied the domestic violence allegations in part.[20]
Reade studied law, first in California and later in Washington state at Seattle University School of Law, receiving a Juris Doctor in 2004.[17] She was featured in the school's alumni magazine within its Summer 2009 feature article "Escaping Abuse, Law School Helped Domestic Violence Survivor Start a New Life: Alexandra McCabe Arrived in Seattle with a New Name, A Young Daughter and $40."[21]
During the 2010s, Reade lived in a number of locations along the Central Coast of California, where she assisted non-profitanimal rescue groups. Politico reported in May 2020 that Reade's landlords, as well as a horse sanctuary owner where she had volunteered, described her as often needing financial help. The author of the article, Natasha Korecki, described that two themes emerged from the stories of Reade's acquaintances: Reade firstly "spoke favorably about her time working for Biden", and secondly the acquaintances felt "duped" by Reade. Some of those who had interacted closely with Reade from 2008 onwards stated that she had asked for their help, then "took advantage of their goodwill to extract money, skip rent payments or walk out on other bills", Korecki wrote. One of the acquaintances who has publicly made such claims was Lynn Hummer, the owner of a horse sanctuary where Reade volunteered with from 2014 to 2016. Reade has denied Hummer's accusations, stating that there were false and defamatory.[25][26] Responding to these characterizations, Reade's lawyer Douglas Wigdor said to a reporter, "If the assertion is that someone who has lied to their landlord because they don't have the money to pay rent so then they lied about a sexual assault, I don't think that is fair journalism."[27][28]
Reade has published opinion pieces featuring praise of Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Reade has said they were motivated as a correction to "anti-Russia sentiment that we have" and xenophobia.[32][33]
Reade, who sought a 1996 restraining order[34] against her then-husband (whom Reade met while both worked for different members of Congress), has written the 2009 essay "Defying the Rule of Thumb: A Domestic Violence Survivor's Story".[35][36]
--and ended like this (without even an image of her in the target/ event article; diff):
Tara Reade, (née Tara Reade Moulton) (born February 26, 1964) is an American blogger and nonprofits' employee who lives in Nevada County, California.[1][2] From December 1992 to August 1993 at age 29, she worked for then-Senator Joe Biden as a legislative assistant in his U.S. Senate office.[3][4]
Yet, of course, as just one example of media coverage of the subject's biography, today CNN reports[2] about her biographical details, with one subsection of this article headed "Growing up in the Midwest and a tumultuous marriage."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest any editor who believes any of that content should be included in the article, should take it to the talk page. These types of discussions are supposed to happen after a merger. Unfortunately, initial discussions in that vein were not productive, at least in part due to an editor who has now been WP:INDEF blocked for disruptive behaviour there, at ANI, and on other editors' talk pages. Hopefully, subsequent discussions will prove more fruitful. It would be helpful, if editors identify specifically what content they think is relevant and why in a new discussion section. Focusing on all of that content together, has not proven productive, and unfortunately some of the discussions already open there contain some personal language which was not helpful. I suggest we try to start fresh.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Close DRV as moot - this is not really a DRV, but rather a content/editing/potentially an RfC issue for the talk page of the merged article. SportingFlyerT·C 03:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:SportingFlyer, if there, by established practice, is a default in such cases, when merging has proved untenable, to either keep or delete, I'd attempt to close this deletion review myself. However, if it's on a case-by-case basis, then I believe it should remain open.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If merging has proved untenable after the close, that's an editing issue, not a defect with the deletion discussion. Merge means the content should exist in Wikipedia, but not as a standalone article. If that's proving controversial, the way to deal with it is to hold an RfC, or if the editing against the merge is tendentious, maybe ANI. There's not really anything I can recommend here apart from endorse the close to give you what you're asking for. SportingFlyerT·C 02:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse / procedural close - this really isn't a close challenge, it's a disagreement with merger procedure. The closer read consensus correctly. W/r/t "redirecting without merging is effectively deleting", no, it isn't. The content is in the history, and anyone can access it in order to perform the merge. Frankly, if the problem is that the content is absent from Wikipedia, the best course of action would be for anyone bothered by that to go into the article history and perform the merge (a good use of editor time), rather than challenging the close (not a good use of editor time). The answer to Hobit's question above (why not a stand-alone article when this topic clearly meets notability even under BLP1E) is right in WP:N at WP:PAGEDECIDE: Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.Levivich[dubious – discuss] 17:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, user:Levivich, just as soon as additions become added to the biographical sub-entry, they become deleted (as is understandable. With the page already so long, its wp:OWNers must resort to such Procrustean measures as narrow readings of wp:DUE WEIGHT and more-Catholic-than-the-pope extensions of wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY as applied to even such a sub-entry). Thus, as a practical matter, Read's biographical info becomes absent from the entirety of Wikipedia, despite the AfD close stating that there lacked consensus from the community for it to be deleted.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hodgdon's secret garden: I agree with you about the OWNership problems at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, but I don't think that's a reason to overturn the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade. I don't see anything wrong with the close, and I don't really see you making an argument that there was anything wrong with the close, which is the only thing at issue at a DRV. I do see your broader arguments about merger, ownership, etc., and I agree with some of them, but if you genuinely don't see a policy problem with the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade, I think you should consider withdrawing this DRV (because it solicits the time of other editors to evaluate the close, which I suggest is not necessary, and thus not a good use of other editors' time) and taking up the other issues at an appropriate forum. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:@Black Kite: Well, I was able myself to navigate one of my concerns, how to continue work on her biography, by moving its editing history that Black Kite had kindly preserved, back into draft space: Draft:Joe Biden sexual assault accuser. (The namespace @ Draft:Tara Reade is already occupied.)
I'll hold off on withdrawing this discussion, though, because IMHO certain recent RSes about this individual would remain inapplicable for wp:DUE inclusions in an article specifically about her accusation against Biden. These processes take time. Even though opinions offered in good faith within the first days of the AfD register with roughly equal sway with those given just prior its close, sometimes they're simply not apace with what's the evolving and significant coverage that's available. In Reade's case, discounting the accusation for which she became of note, there's citations with regard to, for example, her work with non-profits: (1) She'd advocated on domestic violence issues via: writings; her assistance within college-level workshops; her position at her local Y where she helped domestic survivors in navigating the system; her serving as an expert witness in court (which work is being subjected to legal challenges, begetting yet newer RSes, due alleged puffery within her CV). (2) She'd started and ran a charity giving the central CA-coast homeless pet food for their ubiquitous emotional-support animals and had volunteered for a 'mare'-rescue group (that allegedly remains stiffed for her personal vet bill, incidentally).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, a new source about her on a different topic. [3]. Top of the page on Politco right now. Hobit (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note from OP. If background section at the event article sticks (see current version here; diff), I'll come back to withdraw this review. So far, it hasn't though. It does now reference her domestic violence work, now, however, reading, "Reade had served as an expert witness on multiple cases involving domestic violence in Monterey County, California" (the sole line of her pre-Washington background in Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Background).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one other than user:SportingFlyer (here: diff) among commenters so far (users Cryptic, Rreagan007, Black Kite, Hut 8.5, Devonian Wombat, Zaathras, Hobit, InedibleHulk, Usedtobecool, Darryl Kerrigan, SportingFlyer, Levivich, and User:Lightburst) have addressed it as of yet, I'll rephrase the premise of this review, using a hypothetical. Premise. Say there are news reports of a new caliph among holy warriors in the Levant and Wikipedians create a blp for this putative entity. The article gets challenged in an AfD as a pseudo biography. (Do these news reports reflect mis- or disinformation from the Western intelligence or else from Turkey or else from the warriors themselves? etc.) 33 1/3% of !voters there say delete; 33 1/3 say keep; and the remainder are thrown out for wp:Everybody knows type pronouncements or what have you not referencing any guideline, etc. Thus is defaults to being kept as content on Wikipedia. However, over half of its !voters suggest it be merged with the omnibus about the holy warriors there. Well, this article is lots long and, after this merger is effected, mention of this new alleged caliph is compressed to a single line of text. Question. What is the established protocol here? Does the redirect remain at whoever-is-this-fighter Abdul--- Ben Curaish (ABC), even though there's only a single line about him at Levantine holy warriors (200X–present)"? Or does the blp return at "ABC" until there's a target that accepts more of its biographical information that's ersatzly not deleted from the encylopedia? Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, User:Cryptic. Notwithstanding the loads of Ms. Reade's significant media coverage existing, because of the truly insurmountable logistical difficulties involved, WP must resign itself to the inevitability of her blp's edit history's remaining destined to oblivion, if regretibly. I call "crocodile tears"! (or--much more likely in fact: "Mark Twainian disingenuous naivete." Kudos!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:BLP1E is a relevant policy that would justify the close in any case. Coverage of Reade's credentials as an expert witness has come on CNN and other news sites, but none of that would make her notable. Redirecting to the case is a reasonable resolution, merging some parts sparingly is still an option. Sjakkalle(Check!) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are what make someone meet WP:N. In this case, there are a huge number in the top tier sources, including international sources. So yeah, additional coverage of her not directly related to a claimed sexual assault from years and years ago (a bunch of cases likely getting appealed because she lied about her qualifications) is getting us past BLP1E. And those sources too are in top-tier places and quite in-depth. Hobit (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
.png)