A doctor whose service earned mentions in the Australian Parliament, editorial in a leading state newspaper and various news media deserves a properly referenced page in wiki. Wiki should not be merely for 'sensational' celibrities. True servants of the people should also be given a fair share. It is within the spirit of Wiki.
6billionth sapien (
talk) 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to AFD. Mentioned in the Australian parliament; this is a claim of how he might be important and is worth discussing.
Stifle (
talk) 10:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Undelete passed an AFD and therefore can't be speedied.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn per Starblind "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations".
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam was a speedy keep in November. Of note though it was to be merged with
Medical resident work hours which never happened, so I believe a second Afd is appropriate. J04n(
talk page) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overtern to merge. This was speedily deleted for being "spam" without mentioning a criteria but the one that applies to spammy pages is
WP:CSD#G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". However there was nothing promotional about the article at the time of deletion, so this criterion did not apply. Alternatively, the deleting admin could have been characterising it (with a poor choice of words) as a biographical article that does not assert the importance of its subject (
WP:CSD#A7), however a sourced statement that his death was discussed in the Australian parliament is a clear assertion of notability, making it ineligible under this criteria. Furthermore the article had been speedily kept (in favour of a merge) at a prior AfD and so would not have been eligible for speedy deletion, even if it did meet the requirements of a specific criteria (which it did not). As the consensus at the AfD was to merge, and there has not been any significant additional claims made to notability since then, my suggestion is that this deletion be overturned and the merge be expedited. I would not object to it being sent to AfD a second time though.
Thryduulf (
talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn Article makes credible claim of notability and was closed as keep at previous AfD, making it ineligible for speedy deletion.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to AfD per Stifle and Alansohn, ineligible for speedy deletion.
GlassCobra 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn as none of the speedy deletion criteria applied and the article had only very recently passed (albeit a weak discussion that seems to have resulted in a merge solution) an AfD. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn speedy, AfD at editorial discretion. As Thryduulf writes, the cached version seems to pass both G11 and A7. The AfD was correctly closed speedy keep (Criterion 1) without a decision on a merger.
Flatscan (
talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Interestingly enough, I did not close the AfD as a merge. I thought my close was fairly clear that merger should be discussed on the talk page, oh well. Also, I disagree that surviving an AfD closed under
WP:SK #1 or #2 prevents a future speedy in all cases. In this case, though, given the AfD and the state of the article, I agree that it is not speediable. Overturn, AfD at editorial discretion.
Tim Song (
talk) 08:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn articles that pass AfD can't be speedily deleted except newly discovered copyright violations. Though the AfD was closed as Speedy Keep, there were plenty of people there who thought the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the original proposer at AfD. I've looked really hard at merging, but given the "grueling" hours that Nagaruban Arumugam was working before his car crash was 50/week, and that the mention in the Australian Parliament was a one-liner in a multi-column question by a backbencher trying to make a point about health funding in his electorate (no parliamentary condolence motion, no further mention since), this is totally a
WP:1E and not worthy even of mention in
Medical resident work hours. There has been no coronial attribution of crash, particularly to exhaustion which would justify mention in
Medical resident work hours. In short, not notable due to
WP:1E and as best I can tell not worthy of even a mention in an encyclopedia.
Josh Parris 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Snow overturn, because I think the consensus is now clear; a normal AfD is of course permissible (and notability arguments properly belong there, not here).—
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
A doctor whose service earned mentions in the Australian Parliament, editorial in a leading state newspaper and various news media deserves a properly referenced page in wiki. Wiki should not be merely for 'sensational' celibrities. True servants of the people should also be given a fair share. It is within the spirit of Wiki.
6billionth sapien (
talk) 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to AFD. Mentioned in the Australian parliament; this is a claim of how he might be important and is worth discussing.
Stifle (
talk) 10:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Undelete passed an AFD and therefore can't be speedied.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn per Starblind "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations".
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagaruban Arumugam was a speedy keep in November. Of note though it was to be merged with
Medical resident work hours which never happened, so I believe a second Afd is appropriate. J04n(
talk page) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overtern to merge. This was speedily deleted for being "spam" without mentioning a criteria but the one that applies to spammy pages is
WP:CSD#G11, "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". However there was nothing promotional about the article at the time of deletion, so this criterion did not apply. Alternatively, the deleting admin could have been characterising it (with a poor choice of words) as a biographical article that does not assert the importance of its subject (
WP:CSD#A7), however a sourced statement that his death was discussed in the Australian parliament is a clear assertion of notability, making it ineligible under this criteria. Furthermore the article had been speedily kept (in favour of a merge) at a prior AfD and so would not have been eligible for speedy deletion, even if it did meet the requirements of a specific criteria (which it did not). As the consensus at the AfD was to merge, and there has not been any significant additional claims made to notability since then, my suggestion is that this deletion be overturned and the merge be expedited. I would not object to it being sent to AfD a second time though.
Thryduulf (
talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn Article makes credible claim of notability and was closed as keep at previous AfD, making it ineligible for speedy deletion.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to AfD per Stifle and Alansohn, ineligible for speedy deletion.
GlassCobra 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn as none of the speedy deletion criteria applied and the article had only very recently passed (albeit a weak discussion that seems to have resulted in a merge solution) an AfD. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn speedy, AfD at editorial discretion. As Thryduulf writes, the cached version seems to pass both G11 and A7. The AfD was correctly closed speedy keep (Criterion 1) without a decision on a merger.
Flatscan (
talk) 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Interestingly enough, I did not close the AfD as a merge. I thought my close was fairly clear that merger should be discussed on the talk page, oh well. Also, I disagree that surviving an AfD closed under
WP:SK #1 or #2 prevents a future speedy in all cases. In this case, though, given the AfD and the state of the article, I agree that it is not speediable. Overturn, AfD at editorial discretion.
Tim Song (
talk) 08:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn articles that pass AfD can't be speedily deleted except newly discovered copyright violations. Though the AfD was closed as Speedy Keep, there were plenty of people there who thought the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I was the original proposer at AfD. I've looked really hard at merging, but given the "grueling" hours that Nagaruban Arumugam was working before his car crash was 50/week, and that the mention in the Australian Parliament was a one-liner in a multi-column question by a backbencher trying to make a point about health funding in his electorate (no parliamentary condolence motion, no further mention since), this is totally a
WP:1E and not worthy even of mention in
Medical resident work hours. There has been no coronial attribution of crash, particularly to exhaustion which would justify mention in
Medical resident work hours. In short, not notable due to
WP:1E and as best I can tell not worthy of even a mention in an encyclopedia.
Josh Parris 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Snow overturn, because I think the consensus is now clear; a normal AfD is of course permissible (and notability arguments properly belong there, not here).—
S MarshallTalk/
Cont 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.