Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 March 11
2021 March 13 >

12 March 2021[edit]

  • Adriana Chechik – Now moot; NAC self-vacated and AfD running again after input from multiple editors urging such an action Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adriana Chechik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nominator of the AFD disputes the validity of my closure, because I participated in its discussion. Per, WP:IAR and WP:RELIST, I closed the discussion because it had a WP:SNOWball's chance of it being closed otherwise. The AFD is a month old, re-listed numerous times, with the final one (with the re-lister stating it was likely going to be closed as non-consensus) not only producing nothing to build a deletion consensus, but being drawn out over its allotted 7 days. I also have concerns over the nominator's display of incivility during the discussion. --wL<speak·check> 10:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked wikileon to undo this outrageously out of process NC close from an involved keep voter but he refused citing IAR. Instead he choses to cast aspertions in my direction instead of accepting the challenge. This is the conversation Maybe an uninvolved admin could just undo this? Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there would be much of a complaint if they hadn't posted in the discussion immediately before closing it. This discussion will still probably be closed as no consensus, but someone who !voted should not have closed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just lost a long comment after an edit conflict. Basic theme: Closer shouldn't have closed. I'd urge someone else to do so.
Looking at the specific case: Numbers lean toward keep or NC. Arguments rely on Jezebel article (which appears to be great) and QC India article, which appears to likely not count (summary of a reddit AMA with no byline). Looking at the article and searching we see some notable main-stream interviews (Howard Stern) and a few paragraphs in LA Weekly as well as some more questionable sources such as The Sun (an entire article) and a lot of mentions/references in the DailyDot. But the big issue is the awards--most of the discussion focused on that. She's won one of the largest in the porn field and been nominated for the same a bunch of times. The AfD/DRV nom has indicated those don't count, but I can't find any consensus external to the AfD on that (I recall there being massive discussions on the topic, but I don't recall a decision to discard the best of these). All told, I'd say NC is the right outcome if there is a consensus to ignore *all* porn awards, otherwise we have a keep. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and trout Citing WP:IAR after a BADNAC? WikiLeon's eating trout for dinner every night this week. Closer should not have closed after voting, they shouldn't have closed had they not voted, and they definitely shouldn't referenced WP:IAR after being called out about it. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with all but one part. Why shouldn't they have closed after not voting? Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NACD Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. I consider this close. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on the "admin stats" on their page and long time in service, I'd assumed they were an admin. Tis my day for making mistakes. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was an admin. --wL<speak·check> 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I'm another ex-admin who wouldn't have closed it either--no upside to you doing it, and this DRV was an almost inevitable result. Vacate and reclose won't change anything, but we didn't need it closed fast, and we didn't need this DRV either. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - As the other editors say, this should have been left to an admin. I would probably weakly endorse a No Consensus close or a Keep close by an uninvolved non-admin, although an admin close would be better. But it wasn't necessary to ignore the rules. What was the rush? Is there any real difference between closing it as No Consensus and leaving it unclosed to wait for a closer? If you really really think that it needs to be closed, can't you list it at WP:ANRFC? Of course, that won't close it immediately, but neither does a BADNAC that gets appealed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout - I don't care whether the No Consensus is upheld, or if it's vacated so somebody else can close as No Consensus. IAR isn't license to ignore rules just because you don't like them, and there clearly was no urgency in closing the AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and a hover of trout. You never, ever, ever close a debate you participated in, unless you're closing it against your own view and the debate is otherwise unanimous. That's non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I voted "keep", and the closed it as "no-consensus" (a different view because of the effects on whether or not the article gets relisted). --wL<speak·check> 01:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus isn't against your own view if your own view is "keep", because both have the same effective outcome. Fix your mistake rather than doubling-down on it. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The nominator may not close, except to withdraw the AfD if nobody agrees with them (and even then I say I'm withdrawing it and let someone else do the actual close) . A person joining in the discussion may not close-- even its unanimous., a neutral closer might choose to continue the discussion. . I'm not big on following procedure exactly when the result is otherwise clear, but this is one the basic rules to prevent obvious unfairness. It's one of the places where we need to draw a firm boundary. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rt Rana – Where there's good faith doubt about a speedy deletion, it's our practice to overturn. This particular discussion is hung between "endorse" and "no consensus", so it's right to list it at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rt Rana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted , this page should not be advertising or promotion. because the article received Speedy deletion tag after notable Wikipedian and Wikipedia administrator contributed and they modified good shape and he is serving indian and srilankan government official notable programs. Subject of the article is notable enough and i also wrote the talk page for not speed deletion and no one was interested to go with bad comments to talk page and i have seen the previous afc nominator repeatedly nominated the article however after came article main space i didn't do any edting the article only i comments on talk page because notable Wikipedian are contributed good shapeRajuiu (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A temp undelete would be helpful here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, yes, sorry for the delay. WilyD 14:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks! Hobit and google has published his biography in its children safe browser kiddle https://kids.kiddle.co/Rt_Rana

and Facebook recovered his account because He couldn't access it and reported this to the cyber crime branch at Jaffna Rajuiu (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn and send to AfD. I don't think it should have been speedied as advertising, though it is close to that. Mainly it's badly written and the sources aren't clearly at the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the repeated creation to get around salt at RT Rana is a time sink, it's straight up spam and nothing has changed since it was last deleted nor all the subsequent attempts by multiple sock puppets. CUPIDICAE💕 14:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Praxidicae when you tag Speedy deletion , you also add previous discussion, i have seen previous discussion 2016

its huge has changed from previous article and i have seen in his announcing journey after 2017 he started doing announcing Indian and srilankan government notable program he serving 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamil_Announcer_Rt_Rana_Announcing_maha_shivaratri_Day_at_the_India_in_Sri_Lanka,_Consulate_General_of_India,_Jaffna.jpg

and you can see that date and someone vandalism on rt rana name example rt rana facebook hacked and when i eding this article some ip address and someone deleting sources Rajuiu (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this article came main apace this Hairy Seeker 176 user vandalism to this article and after i have seen this user contributions the first edit is vandalism on rt rana article .i think may be create this user id for deleting purpose of the rt rana article because after user id didn't any edit any article still .i think they may be created sock puppets . thanks Rajuiu (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the (most recent) deleting admin, my main concern is that this article was tendentiously moved to mainspace after being rejected by experienced editors at AfC, and that the requesting editor is likely working as part of a sockfarm on the basis that they started off their edit career with a series of edits at AfD, followed by the attempted recreation of this article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion, by moving it back to draftspace if an editor agrees to work on it. It's possible to see this as non promotional and possible to see it as meeting the GNG/N bar... but this isn't there yet, and if you want to walk around WP:SALT you get zero grace and zero benefit of the doubt. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD - Sometimes an article is tagged for G11 when the real problem is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or that there is an issue with the tone of the article. Although every article that is deleted for G11 spam has a tone problem, not every tone problem is G11. If there is the possibility of cleaning up the article, it isn't G11. An AFD can decide whether there is enough left keeping after cleanup. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: before article came main space an article not resubmit since 4 months. but article came main space experienced editors and administrator both are contributing for good shape . and we are also keeping same few tamil announcer article in Wikipedia example Yazh Sudhakar Yazh Sudhakar article has no reference as well as some few tamil announcer articles i have seen but all are not much well . but rt rana article is notable so that i moved to main space rt rana article . thanks Rajuiu (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_12&oldid=1039504486"