24-Hour Vevo Record ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am uninvolved in this discussion. Anyways, this AFD was closed as keep by a non-admin. However, I notice a few problems with this close: a) the discussion was only open for 3 days, instead of the usual 7; b) the discussion only had 5 !votes, two of which were for deletion; and c) the closing non-admin !voted in the discussion (as a keep), violating WP:NACD. I request that this AFD be relisted for a more clear consensus. Prhdbt [talk] 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Manas Madrecha ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article is of a BLP, which, when published was in creation by User:AlwaysHappy by adding the {{ increation}} tag, when it was deleted using Speedy Deletion by citing spam and insignificant. However, the person being dicussed abides by the notability guidelines of BLP, and had sufficient third-party references to prove the facts claims. It had more than 30 edits, edited by more than 5 distinct users/bots. The person is a public figure of Thane and Mulund cities (suburban areas of Mumbai, India). Relevant references were made while claiming his representation of notable college under Mumbai University. Moreover, the lead introduction was "Indian poet, writer and blogger". The article had over a dozen citations to validate itself and was patrolled too. I had put a {{ stub}} tag, and some {{ citation-needed}} tags for maintenance, which were rectified accordingly. So, in all, the article was notable and could have been improvised, and discussed on its talk page, before directly jumping for Speedy Deletion by a user who has been discredited in the past for hasty tags of Speedy Deletion. So, after futile debate with the administrator, I request here that the article be restored back, and instead of deletion, a maintenance tag be put on its top, upon restoration. AlicePeston ( talk) 12:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keeping. Yes, I agree with AlicePeston ( talk). No reason exists to delete the article speedily. Maintenance tags could have been put. Even some sections of the article could have been deleted, but the entire article should'nt and needn't be deleted so hastily. The article could have been even proposed for deletion, and then discussion could have ensued. But, speedy deletion should definitely not be used. So, my opinion is to have the page back, and then improvements could be made on it. AlwaysHappy ( talk) 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  Restore- Over a dozen references, that are independent and reliable and belong to third-party sources have been cited to validate that the person is notable. It is sufficient to at least initiate a BLP article. In course, the article could be improvised and irelevant claims be removed, but deleting it via Speedy Deletion, without giving chance to be heard, isn't assuming good faith. And as for a sock puppet, I'm an active bonafide Wikipedian user for over a year. I don't request the article to be kept intact. I request the article to be restored, so that only relevant parts can be kept and rest deleted. AlwaysHappy ( talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

  You get to make one endorsement here. I moved your comment under the previous one. And no, the sources are not what we would consider reliable and independent. They look like mostly blogs, self-published, or brief mentions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strongly Delete It's not significant article on Wikipedia and the references provided by creator are only about a Blog (created by Manas Madrecha itself) and Facebook, Twitter. Also there is no search results for Manas Madrecha on Google News. Also i have some doubt regarding whether the AlicePeston and AlwaysHappy are sock-puppets. Wikipedia admin's are requested to see ^[1], where the reasons are already discussed on Jimfbleak, and the reason is already clarified within the talk page. Josu4u ( talk) 12:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Only I am a resident of Mumbai city and have heard of Manas Madrecha. It is not my position to opine on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but the person is definitely notable. PoojaM1996 13:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoojaM1996 ( talk • contribs)
• Argument Merely endorsing someone you agree with doesn't make you a sock puppet, sir, Josu4u ( talk). If you want to know me, check my user page, however it's in my discretion to not to reveal my identity. I may have been determined on the restoration of this article, for there lie valid reasons, including notability, independent reliable references and article of a BLP. But I find that my plea falls on deaf ears, and now my only request is to restore the article to the extent of its relevance and reliability. AlicePeston ( talk) 13:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sock-puppet issue which i raised is just only a doubt. The references that provided within the article are not significant, you can also see the previous discussion about the article on ^[1]. And I would like to explain about the references that you mentioned, the references that provided are from Blogger, Facebook and from some websites where anyone can be created just by signing into with an account. If he's notable there should be a single article which mentions about him on Google News, but when i search Manas Madrecha on Google News, i cannot find any results. So how are you saying that he is notable and all. Josu4u ( talk) 14:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting that doubt clarified. Google news isn't a prerequisite for being notable; already the person has other online reliable citations. Being an internet public figure, blog reference is certainly going to be there. As for Facebook, it was a page reference dedicated for him and not an account's reference. Apart for references that appear doubtful, there were still a dozen of them plainly depicting his works being featured all over, making him notable. These were the references of him being "Indian post, writer and blogger" which is undeniable as these references validate the fact. As to his student leadership, he is more notable. So, from the list of reliable and independent citations I mentioned in that discussion, you may choose at least one of your own reference, that warrants the article's presence on Wikipedia. As to the administrator who deleted the page, has stubbornly stated he will not restore it and even delete it, if created again; the attitude reeks of Indophobia, as the person being discussed belongs to India. So, sir, Josu4u, I request you to restore the article as you being an admin yourself, and then using tags of maintenance, clean ups, blp tags, stub tags, removal of unreferenced claims, keep only those sections, that meet guidelines. AlicePeston ( talk) 14:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I would like to say the admin Jimfbleak is 100% correct on the deletion of the article and he is not a Indophobia. He stands on the Rules of Wikipedia and you should respect him for his service. Josu4u ( talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Temporarily undeleted for deletion review. JohnCD ( talk) 17:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This is a classic example of WP:Bombardment - piling up trivial or irrelevant sources to mask a lack of notability. The WP:General notability guideline looks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and says ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity" i.e. some sort of editorial control; so blogs, social media like Facebook and fansites are not reliable sources (see WP:USERG) because anyone can write anything there; nor is Wikipedia, for the same reason.

To say the references in this article are "independent and reliable" is nonsense. Let us look at the sources listed:

• 1, 2, 6 and 12 are Manas Madrecha's own blogs
• 5 and 10 are his Facebook fan-page
• 11 "Best poems of all time" - its homepage is full of his poems, and it has a link to his "Simplifying universe" blog, so its seems to be another of his sites.

None of those is independent, or reliable.

• 3 is Wikipedia - not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. Someone has been pushing mention of him into the article about his school, but I would expect that normal editing will shortly remove that as WP:UNDUE weight on one pupil.
• 7, 8 and 9 do not mention him at all, they are about other people

That leaves:

• 4, 13 Poemhuntercom. I don't know this site, and at least it seems not to be Madrecha's own site, but if you compare the glowing praise in its page about him with what it has to say about, say, Shakespeare or Milton, it is very hard to believe that his page was written independently.

Conclusion: what I see here is energetic self-promotion, but nothing that indicates notability in Wikipedia's sense. Speedy-deletion was absolutely correct, to avoid wasted time deleting it at WP:AFD. JohnCD ( talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: no reliable sources - poemhunter.com appears to be a site to which anyone can add poems of their choice. Note that the article appears to have been written as an autobiography, although the editor has recently attempted to remove mention of their original username by editing other editors' posts on their talk page. Pam D 22:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. After examining the sources, I don't see anything that would confer notability to the subject. The number of sources don't matter as much as the quality. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and protect against re-creation. I note the claim in the appeal here, that the person is notable in two neighborhoods of Mumbia. Even as a claim, that's very far from notability in an encyclopedic sense,and does not even amount to an indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Despite claims that there is no COI, AlicePeston, AlwaysHappy and now PoojaM1996 have edited only the same small group of articles about him, his school and his college, and have explored every route except finding proper references to keep this article. They are obvious socks. The lengthy discussion on my talk page has already been linked to above. Since Indiaphobe was mentioned, I should perhaps mention that I've visited the subcontinent three times, most recently to Uttarakhand and Delhi last year Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Endorse whilst accepting the importance of having fair processes I can't help but think allowing things like this to drag on does anything but encourage frivolous requests. The article meets the speedy criteria. If it went to AFD the sources fail to be independent (FWIW I can confirm that the bio on poemhunter.com is something contributing poets get to write for themselves). The " "playing the race card" just shows the lack of any real substance here. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 10:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation @ JohnCD ( talk · contribs) I thank you very much sir for your such an elaborated reply. I assume that those references which you mentioned were of the article, and I agree that some of them don't comply as reliable. And, for that matter more were found. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]} As to WP:Bombardment, quite a number of references were mentioned because the admin or any one else wanted independent reliable references. No one said about using them all in the article, but since even one such reference is sufficient to imitate a BLP article, the appropriate admin/other editor may choose from the following, so as to deem the article fit for being on Wikipedia, and restore it at least as a {{ stub}}, with other maintenance tags.

• 1 - refers to an independent site that has featured his images, on its own.
• 2 - it's a fan page, though independent of his own intervention.
• 3 - the only blog that he has is the Simplifying Universe, that was, but now isn't being used as reference. This 3rd reference is of an independent site that features his poems, on its own, along with that of other notable Indian poets like Ramdhari Singh Dinkar.
• 6 - refers to the college to which he belongs, to cite his educational facts in the article
• 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 - refers to the independently reliable sites to have mentioned the person by featuring his poems, articles, images, or any other quote of his for that matter.
• 13 - refers to an independent directory of India's blogs, and the person is listed over there

Conclusion: The original article had certain misleading references, maybe added hastily to not to keep the article as stub as it had been tagged. The lead description of the person was "Indian poet, writer and blogger", and the student leadership was merely secondary things. But now, the newfound references which do not break Wiki guidelines, adds to the person's notability being discussed, thereby validating article's restoration.

• @ PamD ( talk · contribs) Mam, with due respect, the reason as to why it is not an autobiography or WP:COI has been justified on my talk page.
• @ Amatulic ( talk · contribs) Sir, the reply would be same as given to JohnCD above, though thanks for your intervention.
• @ DGG ( talk · contribs) Sir, the notability isn't confined to those regions, but those areas are specifically mentioned for the as his leadership of respective city' students. As to protection against recreation, this review is for restoration for article. If my request is accepted, there won't be any need to do so. If it isn't, then I request you to transfer the deleted article to a draft, so that I can get the source code and more work can be done and references be found for it to be notable, and only then publish it after a year or two. Or better, restore it now as an article, as I have replied to JohnCD above.
• @ Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs) I don't know about AlicePeston or PoojaM1996, but surely if you scroll down my contributions, I have edited several Indian pages since a year. That surely doesn't make me a sock puppet, just because our views differ, sir.
• @ 86.2.216.5 ( talk) Sir/Mam, the poemhunter reference may be dependent, but the others aren't, as explained to JohnCD above.
• @ AlicePeston ( talk · contribs) Mam, the admin Jimbleak is doing great service to Wikipedia, and just because you both aren't on the same page, it was unceremonious of you to unnecessarily accuse someone of Indophobia, or as said, "playing the race card". AlwaysHappy ( talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have struck your bolded sentiment, as previously noted above, you only get to !vote once. Repeating the same failed sources time and time again is not constructive. You really need to try and understand what a WP:RS actually is, and user generated crap with no fact checking from random people who we have no reason to believe their opinion to be worth anything is certainly not it, any fool can collect 1000s of those and it doesn't make them notable. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• If you have read the discussion keenly sir, you may notice that the enumerated arguments proposed by JohnCD were of the references placed in the original article, whereas my list of references in the above discussion were "newfound" (as stated above). So, instead of "repeating the same failed sources time and time again", I have presented new references, with their explanation to independence and reliability. And, I have no idea of what kind of language is "user-generated crap", but if you mean for me understand WP:RS, then I have scrupulously been through the article, along with " Biographies of living persons", " Neutral point of view", " Verifiability", " Independent sources", " Notability" and " Notability (people)".

So, as per WP:BASIC, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Moreover, as per WP:AUTHOR, the person being discussed is notable as "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", in addition to "the person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So, none of the "fool" have "collected 1000s" of references. Also, as explained above to JohnCD, there is no WP:Bombardment.

Plus, as per WP:WPNOTRS, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere."

As per WP:RS, "the term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."

As per WP:BIASED, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Conclusion: As per the provisions of Wikipedia quoted above, the person and the article meant for restoration are duly notable and worthy to be on Wikipedia. Merely calling it "user-generated crap" or a "fool to collect 1000s" references showcase lack of gravitas for the article, and does nothing to refute my claim for restoration of the article. References (newer ones) have been mentioned as against the old questionable ones and certainly the relevant Wikipedia guidelines have been complied with. So, the request remains to restore the article. AlwaysHappy ( talk) 12:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Once again I have struck your additional !vote, you only get one bolded sentiment here, your restoration of that again is getting to the point of disruption. That you can selectively read policy whilst ignoring that the sources are user contributed and fundamentally unreliable is not something to be proud of. Please keep deluding yourself that the sources show this person to be of note to the world, but it isn't going to change the outcome here. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The first of that set of references, to http://tofo.me/manasmadrecha is interesting: it's a collection of photos, one of which appears to be identical to the one in the article, File:Manas Madrecha at Suraj Water Park, Thane.jpg, which is recorded as "Own work" by User:AlwaysHappy, who has no COI. Pam D 22:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• endorse deletion Put simply, there is no chance of notability, and an afd on thiswould certainly lead to deletion. There's no point restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

@DGG Your bolded sentiment has been struck, as previously noted above, you only get to !vote once. Merely stating the same sentence with no renewed evidence, is not constructive, sir. Instead of repeating same previous statements, it would be better to prove them, as I have done to counter the endorsement of deletion, and further cement request for restoration.

@PamD With due respect, the explanation is provided on my talk page.

@86.2.216.5 It would have been an additional vote, had I repeated what I stated before, which is not the case here. If new information is found, then it renders the possibility to a new comment of Recreating Article, which is disrupting without you complying with Instructions on Deletion Review, As to the Wikipedia policies, it seems you've deliberately decided to ignore them, just because they clash with your view to keep the article deleted. In case of me, albeit, instead of deluding myself, I have stated the policies word to word, and if you seem unable to comprehend the meaning because of their legal language, then some other editor might. The policies are to be read as law, and thus, words like or & however are as much part of the policies as to what precede or follow them. In addition, merely stating something to be fundamentally unreliable doesn't make so, unless the evidence is presented. In case of me, I have thoroughly enumerated the references, with presentable explanation, that validates my evidence that the 'references are independently reliable. And, as to being proud, there's nothing about being proud of creating some article on an encyclopedia; but, if it's about pride for you, sir, then it's unfortunate for that's where ego ushers in and you conflict " neutrality". Thus, evidently uncontested, my request for restoring the article remains outstanding. AlwaysHappy ( talk) 01:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the duplicate !vote. Pure forgetfulness. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply