From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 October 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paras Tomar ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article can be undeleted for many reasons . Although, page was deleted due to less notability but it was noted that this person is a person who is a well known in India . And to be included in Wikipedia, this person have longer than a decade career compromises of RJ, actor, hosting and most recent a producer . Article can be improved much better if revived keeping in mind with more protection. Article will be improved based on WP:ENT,WP:NACTOR , WP:GNG in mind to improve the page to be more neutral & less promotion in every part of article . Do help

REFERENCES FOR THE SUBJECT FOR REQUEST UNDELETION. Hope these links are valid to prove that this subject has notability for the professions claimed. Do help in the process of undeletion of this article .Thank you and appreciating a lot

12:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse. There was clearly a consensus in the discussion to delete, and no evidence was supplied in the AFD either. The links above look like little more than passing mentions, so are not enough to establish notability.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Closing admin here. This IP has posted a long list of links to my user talk page which I'll replicate here:
Extended content
My impression was that most of these sources did not satisfy WP:SIGCOV due to e.g being too short or unreliable but I am not familiar with any of them to categorically rule it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. No indication that the discussion or close was flawed, and the provided links do not collectively form a compelling case to overturn. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jovialedit/Archive. -- Finngall talk 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - It isn't clear whether the appellant is requesting to undelete the article as a draft in order to phutz with it, or requesting to overturn the deletion. Part of the case for deletion is made by the throw-away Keep arguments; if you can't make a better case than a lot of sock quacking, you haven't made a case. This appeal, with a dump of links, is just more of the same. If the request really is to undelete the article as a draft to phutz with it, then say so, but it probably isn't even worth that anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

It is extremely devastating that with so many links, all could not understand . Requesting for the deleted article to be revived . The link are the main page for many news sources that the subject has worked previously. These are the Indian links that are noted. I saw many Wikipedia articles using these website as references but why this pleading is not valid. Why this double standard .i really plead for this article to recovered & amendments will definitely be made with pure understanding. Do help in this matter, searched everything that I could with the hope as I mentioned earlier based on many Official Indian websites as the subject originated from India . Thank you everyone & truly sorry for this extreme burden 2001:E68:5404:BC53:D986:95E3:CF9F:C359 ( talk) 16:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- I can't see that the closer did anything wrong here. Reyk YO! 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse A valid deletion, and looking at some of the sources which appear to be secondary, I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV which would cause me to think an error was made on WP:GNG grounds (especially given all of the socking.) SportingFlyer T· C 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closer did a great job of assessing the validity of the references and the ivotes. Closer then made the proper close. Lightburst ( talk) 03:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Given all the socking which was only recent the article was created by another person years prior which was valid by Wikipedia . Thus, unfortunate but I do believe as the socking accounts are closed now . Guess, the closing admin made a good decision previously but I do believe if this article revived temporarily upon discussion, we could improve the article with proper Wikipedia codings 60.50.61.160 ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment These links were searched and the subject had been part of these articles . References are seen which could give us the understanding the person is actually a person involved in showbiz. He seems to be involved in multiple web series from the Indian news based on these references & external links . Guess this article could be given a second thought to reconsider with more protection.

FOUR MORE SHOTS PLEASE (2019)

377ABNORMAL (2019)

BABY STEPS (2017)

See also the articles

16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1838:1D70:581D:D410:F6E8:3F29 ( talk)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 October 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paras Tomar ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article can be undeleted for many reasons . Although, page was deleted due to less notability but it was noted that this person is a person who is a well known in India . And to be included in Wikipedia, this person have longer than a decade career compromises of RJ, actor, hosting and most recent a producer . Article can be improved much better if revived keeping in mind with more protection. Article will be improved based on WP:ENT,WP:NACTOR , WP:GNG in mind to improve the page to be more neutral & less promotion in every part of article . Do help

REFERENCES FOR THE SUBJECT FOR REQUEST UNDELETION. Hope these links are valid to prove that this subject has notability for the professions claimed. Do help in the process of undeletion of this article .Thank you and appreciating a lot

12:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse. There was clearly a consensus in the discussion to delete, and no evidence was supplied in the AFD either. The links above look like little more than passing mentions, so are not enough to establish notability.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Closing admin here. This IP has posted a long list of links to my user talk page which I'll replicate here:
Extended content
My impression was that most of these sources did not satisfy WP:SIGCOV due to e.g being too short or unreliable but I am not familiar with any of them to categorically rule it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. No indication that the discussion or close was flawed, and the provided links do not collectively form a compelling case to overturn. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jovialedit/Archive. -- Finngall talk 15:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - It isn't clear whether the appellant is requesting to undelete the article as a draft in order to phutz with it, or requesting to overturn the deletion. Part of the case for deletion is made by the throw-away Keep arguments; if you can't make a better case than a lot of sock quacking, you haven't made a case. This appeal, with a dump of links, is just more of the same. If the request really is to undelete the article as a draft to phutz with it, then say so, but it probably isn't even worth that anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

It is extremely devastating that with so many links, all could not understand . Requesting for the deleted article to be revived . The link are the main page for many news sources that the subject has worked previously. These are the Indian links that are noted. I saw many Wikipedia articles using these website as references but why this pleading is not valid. Why this double standard .i really plead for this article to recovered & amendments will definitely be made with pure understanding. Do help in this matter, searched everything that I could with the hope as I mentioned earlier based on many Official Indian websites as the subject originated from India . Thank you everyone & truly sorry for this extreme burden 2001:E68:5404:BC53:D986:95E3:CF9F:C359 ( talk) 16:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse- I can't see that the closer did anything wrong here. Reyk YO! 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse A valid deletion, and looking at some of the sources which appear to be secondary, I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV which would cause me to think an error was made on WP:GNG grounds (especially given all of the socking.) SportingFlyer T· C 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closer did a great job of assessing the validity of the references and the ivotes. Closer then made the proper close. Lightburst ( talk) 03:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Given all the socking which was only recent the article was created by another person years prior which was valid by Wikipedia . Thus, unfortunate but I do believe as the socking accounts are closed now . Guess, the closing admin made a good decision previously but I do believe if this article revived temporarily upon discussion, we could improve the article with proper Wikipedia codings 60.50.61.160 ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment These links were searched and the subject had been part of these articles . References are seen which could give us the understanding the person is actually a person involved in showbiz. He seems to be involved in multiple web series from the Indian news based on these references & external links . Guess this article could be given a second thought to reconsider with more protection.

FOUR MORE SHOTS PLEASE (2019)

377ABNORMAL (2019)

BABY STEPS (2017)

See also the articles

16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1838:1D70:581D:D410:F6E8:3F29 ( talk)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook