Sandeep Maheshwari ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Earlier in 2017 this topic was deleted under G11 and administration put on it. But I want to make article on it as for the new creation in 2020. Kashish pall ( talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Over the past eight years, this has been deleted seven times; twice for WP:A7, four WP:G11s, and most recently, WP:G5. It was after the last one that this was protected. My recommendation is to write a draft and get that reviewed at WP:AfC. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Neutral to allowing a draft to be reviewed. In other words, I am not even sure that it is worth allowing a draft to be reviewed, but go ahead and waste the reviewer's time. It is my understanding that partial block has been implemented, and partial block sounds like a good way to deal with tendentious resubmissions of crud. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Endorse deletion, speedies and salting. Endorse requirement to produce a draft via WP:AfC before seeking a review. Advise following advise at WP:THREE. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

* Undelete Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari as CSD#A7 doesn’t apply to draftspace. Maybe it will be re-deleted per G11. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'd have G11 speedied the most recent revision of Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari too. And revisions from 24 May 2015 and earlier must not be restored, since they're copyvios (and also speediable as G11, including the ones I deleted as G13 without further comment at the time). I haven't looked at all the revisions in between; maybe there's a tolerable one in there somewhere. — Cryptic 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe RHaworth used the wrong CSD button. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • He pushed the right button when deleting it. I'm not concerned that he cited A7 when salting; it's one of the few standard options in the dropdown, and gets the message across. — Cryptic 04:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, I misread the log. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and salting of the mainspace page, but I believe that the user has made an error in their request. The page that provoked this request was my deletion of Draft:Youtuber Sandeep Maheshwari. After the deletion the user posted a long list of mostly unusable sources on my talk page. But after I explained the requirements for notability they came up with this Hindi language newspaper article. Although the draft is very poor quality and needs a lot of work, I now think that the subject might actually be notable. I was considering unilaterally restoring the draft, but as the user has opened this discussion, I'll wait for it to come to a conclusion and just recommend overturn my own deletion and move to Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari. Spinning Spark 12:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Are saying this user's got to write a draft, get it reviewed via AFC (which is backlogged), then submit a request for page unprotection before it can be moved to mainspace even though the deleting sysop thinks there are good grounds to consider this person notable? In the circumstances I would question whether it's appropriate to require that much procedure.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that drafts need to pass AfC before being moved to mainspace, it's just that passing AfC will protect the new article from a future AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  User:Chalst, AfC doesn’t protect an article from AfD. AfC is where we send COI and other troublesome editors who are more likely to waste peoples time than contribute. For all others, see WP:DUD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  What I meant is that when it comes to judging articles, XfD !voters bear the history of the article in mind. An article with this past history would very likely attract a swift AfD and ill-disposed !voters if it had not gone through the AfC process and so be a waste of everyone's time. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  The issue is really moot and not worth discussing. The draft is so awful that there should be no question of allowing it into mainspace without serious improvement first, and AFC is the place to get that done. Spinning Spark 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

  What's worth discussing is how DRV should interact with AFC and salting. There's a conversation on WT:DRV that might benefit from your input?— S Marshall  T/ C 12:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• allow restoration of draft. Given it's salted, the draft is going to have to be pretty solid to get someone to unsalt. So it may not be the AFC process, but perhaps reaching to the deleting admin (SS) would be the right move once the draft is actually in good shape. Hobit ( talk) 05:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and unsalt article to permit restoration of draft per User:Spinningspark. The author should be aware that the road to getting this article in namespace is not completely straightforward: passively waiting for an AfC takes ages, and given the deletion history of the article, an AfD is likely to happen if an AfC is not passed and likely to be rigorous in looking for conflicts of interest in sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and change create protection to ECP. That way any experienced reviewer can move an acceptable draft to main space. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think unsalting mainspace is a good idea. That will most likely result in more poorly sourced, promotional-sounding attempts being deleted. It is unlikely that any admin would refuse to remove protection once a draft had been accepted at AFC. Spinning Spark 20:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sajad Raad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Not long before it was closed as delete, I added what I believe to be a GNG source to the article, which no editor had a chance to see. Earlier I had added a link to many news article to the AFD discussion, which no one had commented on, and I had expanded most of the references in the article to include translations of the titles. I believe that given the active work on the article, that this should have been relisted, not closed. Nfitz ( talk) 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - as closing admin. Nfitz is correct, there had been some ongoing work on the article. However, regardless it was 4 votes to one, with all the delete votes of the view that this player did not satisfy GNG and that the sources added were merely routine match reporting, transfer talk or stat sites, an opinion I felt carried great weight when I considered the close. An additional source was added 10 hours or so before the close which Nfitz claims satisfies GNG. Aside from the fact that the addition of one source that might satisfy GNG would be insufficient on its own when the existing sources were already rejected as routuine, the source added was simply the player himself denying rumours that a transfer was imminent. This source is clearly not only routine, but also, essentially WP:PRIMARY given the article is the player himself issuing denials. This AfD had already been relisted once and there was no indication that there was going to be any progress in identifying genuine GNG-satisfying sources. Fenix down ( talk) 15:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I've tempundeleted this for review. I believe you're talking about this edit, which was added about 14 hours before the AfD was closed. I have no opinion on the source itself, but my general philosophy is if somebody provides one or more sources very close to the end of a discussion, I'll relist it to allow time for the source(s) to be evaluated. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Primarily that edit - but now I can see the edit history, it appears there were no comments at AFD since I'd tried to improve the existing references a few days earlier - the sum total of changes since the previous AFD comments is here. Also note that there is a well referenced article in the Arabic Wikipedia at ar:سجاد رعد حاتم. Nfitz ( talk) 15:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as somebody who !voted delete - this edit would not make me change my mind re:GNG/notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – there was already consensus that the sourcing thus far was routine; with the late-added sources also being routine, there is no reason to think it would have affected the outcome. (It would be different if someone had found a full length biography at the last minute.) Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the most recent edit didn't establish compliance with the GNG (the added Arabic-language source is routine coverage). Jogurney ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There doesn't appear to have been an error by the closer; and the delete was correct because the league in which the subject played is not on the list of fully professional leagues anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• How is it routine coverage? Routine is transfers reported locally. This is very different. When foreign sources are speculating about a player, it's because they are notable. If this were simply the local Iraqi media reporting this, I can see the point. There's also a LOT of supposedly 'routine' coverage. The sheer quantity of coverage suggests notability. This is really a point for the AFD discussion - however I thought the existing 10 references were more than sufficient. But here's some more, from just the last 2 months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10! Nfitz ( talk) 01:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• So what do they say? The AfD was quite clear that the coverage received so far was thought to be routine. As you know, there is long standing consensus that transfer articles and match reporting are not suitable for GNG as they are often speculation and almost never involve significant coverage of the player himself. Looking at the sources you have presented, I am not seeing anything that indicates the decision to delete was wrong:

1 - no significant coverage, brief denial of a transfer rumour then wider discussion of his current club.

2 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief five sentence article.

3 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

4 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

5 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1

6 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.

7 - won't google translate for me, can you let us know what this says. Not seeing significant coverage though in a very brief six sentence article.

8 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

9 - no significant coverage, brief comments on a couple of quotes by the player himself on a recent match his club was involved in.

10 - four sentence article reporting the denial of the same transfer rumour reported in source 1

The problem with all of these is that there is nothing you could use to write an encyclopedic article, bar possibly the use of one of these sources for a brief mention of the transfer rumour, but that would be nowhere near GNG. Mentions do not equal significant coverage. Can you please explain how the presence of google hits indicates that the closure of this AfD was wrong? Fenix down ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Most seem routine - though the report in the article from a different country speculating about a transfer isn't. The point is, that is 10 articles in variety of publications, some national, in only 60 days - and more than just match reports. There are literally hundreds of articles, if you you extend the search back beyond 60 days, to the last 2-3 years - and I certainly haven't reviewed them all. While the coverage is routine, it's more than a trivial mention in many of these reports. There is significant (though often routine) coverage. The sources are reliable. The sources are secondary (many of them at least) and independent of the subject. WP:GNG is easily met. There is no exclusion in GNG criteria for "routine" coverage. If a king were to die, it would be routine to have national coverage. Routine doesn't mean trivial. Nfitz ( talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse After a little review, I also feel this was correct to delete, It's harder to establish GNG in other languages than English at times, although it seems the correct decision to me. Govvy ( talk) 12:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Nfitz and RoySmith. WP:ROUTINE was shown last year not to apply to people, so WP:GNG matters the most, especially if the sources are cumulative with respect to WP:SIGCOV, and it is indeed met to a degree that allows a non-stub article to be created. ミラ P 20:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, can you provide a link to consensus saying articles on people could meet GNG simply through routine rather than significant coverage. I'm not aware of that and it would seem to go against the principle of GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 21:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Fenix down: Here. ミラ P 14:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• That AfD closed as no consensus, so it's not the evidence for your opinion that you think it is. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• relist I hate GNG arguments for SPORTs people because the rules are so unclear. My sense is that if the SNG isn't met, the GNG requirements are generally much higher than for most people/topics and it isn't clear that the player meets the heightened expectations of the GNG here. But sure, it's a reasonable request for a relist per Roy. Hobit ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist Given the late addition of sources which potentially satisfy GNG, a relist to generate additional discussion would have been appropriate. Smartyllama ( talk) 01:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- I agree with Govvy here. And I'm also wary of chucking out !votes at AfD because someone drip-feeds a marginal source into the discussion at the last minute. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

How would !votes be chucked by relisting - no one is suggesting that the vote be overturned. I'm not sure what User:Reyk implies by "drip-feed", but it has a lack of AGF feel to it. Nfitz ( talk) 14:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Talking in general and not about this AFD, Wikipedia does have an issue with COI, promotional and paid editors, and others who don't share our goal. We wouldn't want to establish a principle that adding another marginal source very late in an AFD means a relist when the consensus is otherwise clear, because we want processes that are robust against attempts to game them. I'm sure this is what Reyk meant and I agree with him.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Correct. I have seen quite a few instances of dropping in a dubious source at the last minute, both in good faith and as a strategy for nullifying a clear consensus. Usually, like here, there's nothing deliberately sketchy about it but, as you say, we want processes that are robust against attempts to game them. Yes, I realise this creates a tension with WP:HEY article improvements but I would not want to see an inflexible rule either way. This is why we pay closing admins the big bucks. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Did the "thank" thing, but thought I should make it more obvious to others. Reyk (and S Marshall) have it exactly right. I'd err more than probably either of them on relisting here, but we also do want to watch for abuses, especially from COI editors. I think here relist is the better call, but that's a matter of degree and situation. Hobit ( talk) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I think despite the fact all of the sources are in Arabic, that Raad pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. Going full overturn because in my experience we do a terrible job of analysing GNG for non-English language sources generally. SportingFlyer T· C 21:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close is unquestionably correct in judging the consensus of the discussion. While a relist is fine in general, there was already one relist with no additional keep votes. -- Enos733 ( talk) 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Good God (musician) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

< My article was deleted under rule A7 No indication of a claim of significance. The article had just been created a day ago and I hadn't even been given a chance to provide information showing the artist's importance. This artist is currently a local artist living in Cleveland,OH that has many listeners in Kosovo and the surrounding areas that asked me to create this Wikipedia page. His song that I mentioned in the article titled "I Hope You Know Your Alone" has over 134,000 views on Instagram and one of his songs has even been featured on the radio on 106.1 Real Homegrown for local artists in Cleveland. When you enter his stage name "Good God" on YouTube he is the first search result that appears and he is currently featured on Mic Check Global's Spotify Playlist. What type of information must I include in the article to show the significance of this artist so that the article can be restored? > Derrick Will Write ( talk) 01:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Before I answer anything else - why were they asking you, in particular, to write this article? (Note for those who haven't clicked the log link yet: I was the deleting admin here.) — Cryptic 02:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I am also a fan that found his music on Instagram. When I clicked on it I thought he was an artist in Kosovo because of all the people living there that were commenting and engaging on his post. I talked with one of his fans in Kosovo that informed me he was also trying to figure out where the artist was from and other information on his music. He asked that if I found out anything if I could make a Wikipedia page to get rid of confusion and so that anyone else with information on the artist would easily be able to add to what I found. I also write blogs and other informative articles from time to time which is why I'm assuming he asked me to write about what I could find. Derrick Will Write ( talk) 02:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia's general inclusion criterion is the WP:GNG ( simplified summary). It's entirely source-based. Musicians in particular have a longer list of more specific criteria here; but even for them, the article must document that one of the criteria is true by referencing reliable sources. Nowhere on that list are the sort of things you wrote about above (even had any of it been in the article; it wasn't), and for good reason: you can buy bots to artificially inflate views, and Google uses deep magic to determine YouTube's search rankings. He's not first for me, or even anywhere in the first five hundred, after which I stopped looking.
  The A7 speedy deletion criterion is somewhat laxer and a whole lot murkier than either the general or music notability criteria. One of the broader interpretations, as given at WP:CCS, is "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability". The closest the article came is saying that he'd released his first album in January under the 2316 Tha Company label, which, charitably, isn't the sort of indie label that WP:MUSICBIO #5 is talking about. But just passing A7 doesn't do you any good if you want this article to survive more than a couple weeks, and you'll have to provide reliable, independent sourcing sufficient to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC to do that. — Cryptic 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, having not seen the deleted article, if this is an appeal, based on trust of the administrator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Allow Review of Draft if this is a request to create a draft for review, since A7 does not apply to drafts. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Well can you at least turn the article back into a draft until I can create a claim of significance that is backed by a reliable source ? After I add that to the article it should be fine right ? Derrick Will Write ( talk) 06:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

We can restore it to draft space. Adding a sourced claim of significance would stop it being deleted immediately under WP:CSD#A7, but ultimately if the subject doesn't past WP:NMUSIC then the article is going to get deleted one way or another, so I strongly advise against putting the article back in the main article namespace until it shows that. I agree with the call made by the deleting admin here, there was no claim of significance in the article. Hut 8.5 18:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. That was an advert. Guy ( help!) 23:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Okay Hut 8.5 that is fine until I have information to the sources that will allow the article to pass these guidelines and I have a claim of significance backed by a reliable source I will not move the page to the main articles section. This time I will ask for a review of the page by an admin using the appropriate code before having it moved from draft space. Derrick Will Write ( talk) 07:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC) reply