Kalki Avatar and Muhammad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was deleted in a hurry without proper analysis of the given 68 sources, I can prove the notibility of the article. 202.134.10.141 ( talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion) reply

• The most recent discussion was open for nearly a month - 7 days is usually considered sufficient - and previous deletion discussions date all the way back to December 2014. There was nothing hurried about this. — Cryptic 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Thanks Cryptic. I have to say, of all the AfDs I've seen, few have come with this much history, including four previous AfDs. I stand by my comments at the AfD: a bunch of people voted to keep, but none provided any evidence: "The discussion of the book is described in many sources", "because the article itself says it's passed WP:GNG" (speaking of cryptic), "Obviously this article passes WP:GNG according to above reference"--etc. Drmies ( talk) 20:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Strong overturn due to admin’s failure to read the whole wall of text, especially the stuff posted after the 3rd relisting.

  @ Drmies, I can’t believe you wrote your comment above ( 20:09 17 August, 2023)

  I don’t even care about this stupid book but because it had been relisted 3 times, because it was so contentious and because the last relisting admin requested a source review, I spent 2 hours on a detailed review which I said I posted at:

  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

  Did you even look at this??? I said in my comments on the AfD page that I had posted my source analysis on the talk page because it was so long.

  I said the book was notable but recommended merge and delete (merge to author’s page.

  I came to this page to support your decision even though I disagreed with it. In general, I support closing admins in tough cases even if I disagree with them.

  Now that I see how cursory your decision was, I strongly oppose it.

  This is so demoralizing. I just wanted to help and you stepped all over my work.

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as 1) I'm not seeing anything improper in Drmies' close and 2) this nomination addresses none of the points at WP:DRVPURPOSE. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 20:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ The ed17: the closing admin has said above he didn’t see any real source analysis. See my comments above. There was an extensive source analysis after the 3rd relisting. Agree with my specific assessments or not, it was detailed and so extensive I put it on the talk page to avoid overwhelming an AfD that was already a wall of text. In my AfD comment I specifically said to look at the talk page.

  In light of this, Drmies’s comments above indicate his review was hasty and cursory.

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  P.S., @ The ed17 the irony is that I came here to support the admin since this was a big, difficult AfD and admins need support when dealing with these, even when I disagree with the outcome. I was an admin myself before a long wikibreak.

  When I read User:Drmies’s comment above I realized this was actually a flawed, cursory close.

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• If you gave me the deleted version, I could give a source analysis of 68 sources. I request you to give the most broad version of the article as draft page so that I could give a source analysis. In the afd source analysis, they avoided these points, one voter said reference of the Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies of World Islamic Sciences and Education University can not be taken as it is a fringe Islamic university but it is a public govt. University of a state owned by Jordanian national prince Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad and the Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is many times cited by google scholar [1]. ref 14 was reliable when it is in Noormags and Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi of source 2 was former high comissioner of pakistan see here many estalished publishers used "Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad" as reliable source. And as for source 12, one voter said that undergraduate phd thesis is not acceptable but WP:RS says: "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.". and that's what the ref 12 meets. And ref 13's author Hafiz Muhammad Naeem is in scopus.com. see here. And the writer for the ref 14 (Sayed Mohammad Rouhani) is an assistant professor of University of Religions and Denominations ( see it), it, it, it and [article_86920_5c7cc43d6110a9... https://www.entizar.ir/article_86920_5c7cc43d6110a9a5d6975f2add71f6c8.pdf it] by google lens translate). I can give analysis of all the other sources too. See here in Daily Jang and here in Urdu Point by google translate, and here in English in The Nation (Pakistan) and here in Turkish in OdaTV, the book has been discussed there broadly.Also there is media coverage of being converted to muslim by reading this book. ^[1] 202.134.10.141 ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion) reply
  • I'm not willing to temp restore the article; the amount of quoting in it is so great - almost three quarters by length, with multiple passages of ten paragraphs or more from individual sources - that it constitutes copyright infringement. I may be convinced to paste the sources - just the links, not the absurdly excessive quotes from them - here, but before I do: are you the same person who previously edited the article from addresses 202.134.8.137, 202.134.10.138, and 202.134.13.130? — Cryptic 21:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    No. 202.134.10.141 ( talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion) reply

    The final revision of the article cited 65 (not 68) sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65. — Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    Not, btw, that anybody is going to be willing to wade through an analysis of all of those at this point. If you want any hope at all of convincing anybody, the way to do it is to pick the three (and only three) best sources that haven't already been rebutted at the afd. — Cryptic 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    @ Cryptic: I already did an extensive source review per Liz’s request in her 3rd relisting comment:

    • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

    I got through about 25% of them in 2 hours. I noted the talk page material in my AfD comment.

    I’d be willing to look at more but only if I was assured that someone would read them. From comments elsewhere at this DRV about the lack of any source analysis, I don’t think they have.

    I have tried to help out by digging for and analyzing sources in tough AfDs, especially 3rd relistings, even if I don’t care for the topic. I am beginning to think this is a fool’s errand and not worth the time.

    — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    this, this and this. 202.134.10.141 ( talk) 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion) reply

    If anything, it ought to be an IP sock of Lazy-restless, who originally created an article on the subject and seemed to use socks to recreate it. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    The ips I mentioned above are all currently blocked as open proxies, so, yeah, take it how you will. — Cryptic 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    I was interested on that topic, that's why I noticed the matter, otherwise I don't know the user you mentioned above who it is. And thanks to cryptic for giving the references. 202.134.10.141 ( talk) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (IP sock blocked for block evasion) reply

• Endorse Good close, nothing really to review here. SportingFlyer T· C 21:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with a formal warning to the appellant. I was about to say "with a trout", but a trout is normally for good-faith silly stuff. This appears to be a bad-faith use of DRV. User:Liz asked for a source analysis in the second relisting, and again in the third relisting. Why didn't the appellant provide a source analysis at that point? The article wasn't deleted in a hurry without proper analysis of the sources. It was deleted after the request for an analysis of the sources was unanswered for two weeks. As User:Cryptic says, the only recourse now is to provide three sources that haven't been refuted. This appears to be a bad-faith use of DRV. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon: I don’t see how you can say this. See my comment above. In response to Liz’s request for a source analysis after the 3rd relisting, I spent 2 hours and got through about 25% of them. My write up was long enough that I posted it on the talk page so it wouldn’t overwhelm the AfD. I then noted in my AfD comment to refer to this.

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse correct close. No prejudice against recreation (preferably via WP:AFC process). I oppose any formal warnings to the appellant. Carson Wentz ( talk) 14:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Well, the appellant was blocked for socking, so this point for not warning them is moot. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note the AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [2] [3] [4] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections [5], then speedy closed, then told The ed17 he closed since there were no objections [6]. If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems.

— A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That user has now been blocked from editing the AfD or the DRVs on this day. SportingFlyer T· C 23:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I restored WP:SOCKSTRIKE because it is necessary to preserve here. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 03:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the close is within reason given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfD ran for more than 3 weeks. I don't see any reason to overturn the closure. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I had not initially read the explanation in the AFD by User:A. B. that there is a partial source analysis on the back side (talk page) of the AFD page. It appears that the closing administrator also had not taken note of that statement. I have struck part of my above statement, because there was a partial source analysis. However, because it was placed in an out-of-the-way place in order not to clutter the AFD, it was mostly not noticed. Putting the source analysis in an inconspicuous place was a good-faith error by A. B. I have a question for A. B., who has called for the close of the AFD to be overturned. What do they want it overturned to: a fourth Relist, or a Redirect to the author? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon, thanks for asking.

  Merge some of the book material to the author’s page, then redirect this book article to the author’s page:

  • Ved Prakash Upadhyay
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay

  This was my recommendation during the AfD. I demonstrated the book is clearly notable and in theory we could keep the book article.

  However, there is a similar, later book by the author for which we don’t yet have an article but which the same reliable sources would support. We could thus end up with 2 articles about similar books plus one about the author. It’s better to consolidate all this into one article and reduce the opportunity for forking.

  That’s if the author’s article survives AfD. My earlier analysis showed the author was notable; the 2 refs found for the book just further reinforce the author’s notability.

  Otherwise, just keep this book article if the author’s article is deleted.

  I suggest you look at that AfD for yourself and see what you think.

  I’m ready for this Hydra-headed drama to resolve itself.

  —04:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 04:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  The author is also headed for a delete, he fails the notability standards. Merging the book wont help with that. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 16:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  After that AfD closes, I’ll start a new, “clean start” version of the author’s article and use some the references from this AfD’s talk page and the author’s page to establish notability.

  Thanks for giving me the heads up!

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  CapnJackSp, I just looked at that AfD - it’s been relisted twice with a lot of keep !votes from non-involved editors.

  There’s a chance it could be deleted or formally kept. My best guess is that it will be relisted a 3rd time then closed as no consensus.

  We’ll see! In the meantime, I’ll start next week on a re-write of Ved Prakash Upadhyay in my user space “just-in-case”.

  Thanks again,

  — A. B. ^{( talk • contribs • global count)} 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I struck part of my statement above endorsing the closure, but I am not striking my Endorse. The good-faith appellant, A. B., has failed to make a case that the closer was in error. The actions that the appellant says should be taken can be done through normal editing if the author article is kept. If the author article is deleted, the community has found that he lacks notability. There is no need to overturn the close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply

FC Zbrojovka Brno B ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reasons listed in the discussion for deletion are not true. The reserve team FC Zbrojovka Brno B played in 3 consecutive seasons of fully professional Czech National Football League ( 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06). Based on these facts, I find redirecting to FC Zbrojovka Brnoto be unjustified and propose the creation of a separate page as before. Thanks to all! Pospeak ( talk) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation of the page - new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation. Pospeak ( talk) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close but potentially allow re-creation. Nothing wrong with the close. The nomination was probably technically mistaken considering the team did play in the second division in the 2000s. There's been a team name change since so this may not have been obvious. However the article was out of date and sourced only to the club's official webpage. I have absolutely no problem if a new article which passes WP:GNG is created here - alternatively information on the B team can be included on the main Zbrojovka Brno page. SportingFlyer T· C 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. All of the participants agreed that this should be either deleted or redirected. While one of the claims by the nom might be technically incorrect per OP and SportingFlyer, the arguments that this fails GNG by the nom and another editor was not refuted. In this case, the AfD hence could reasonably be closed as delete or redirect; the latter being a reasonable and unrebutted ATD. If the OP demonstrates more sourcing to meet GNG, that may be grounds for recreation, but right now they do not present that significant new information justify a creation of a new page. VickKiang (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the only possible close of the AFD. The appellant may create and submit a draft, and is free to create a new article, but a new article may be tagged for G4, and, if that is declined, for AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Draft was created Draft:FC Zbrojovka Brno B according to the original page, information about competitions and references were added. Pospeak ( talk) 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (involved). First, I want to apologize for the false information in the original nomination for deletion. The information that the team played in the Czech National Football League was not included in the original team page or the club page, nor is it found by search engines when searching for "Zbrojovka Brno B" (perhaps because the club changed its name in the meantime). However, essential was the first argument in the proposal (does not meet WP:GNG criteria) and a consensus on deletion (redirect) was reached in the discussion.

Notability of the team is not proven even by the current draft. Two refs are from the website of the club (information about the roster and technical staff of the amateur team of the 4th league is redundant from an encyclopedic point of view anyway) and two sources do not deal with the team, only general changes in the Czech football system. I moved the only useful information regarding the history of the team in the CNFL to FC Zbrojovka Brno. Btw, judging by the history of the user, he is either a die-hard fan of the club or works in it (potential COI). He is not objectively able to assess notability according to GNG and prefers his own view. I'm sorry that he takes my efforts to maintain articles within Wiki rules personally. FromCzech ( talk) 10:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As the reason for deleting the original page, you incorrectly stated that the reserve team of Zbrojovka Brno, unlike Sparta B and Slavia B, has never played in a professional competition. Now you admit a mistake, but you still insist on the original decision. Taken from this point of view, the Sparta B and Slavia B pages should also not exist and be redirected because they have less references or are not currently playing a professional competition. This is clear evidence that you don't measure up to everyone.

Judging by your history, I'm not the only one who has a problem with your arrogant and reluctant behavior.

BTW accusing me of working for the club is just cheap talk. Unlike you, I don't brag about being a fan of a particular club.

I have nothing against anyone who works on Wikipedia, I respect everyone's work. But I am strongly opposed to immediately deleting articles instead of pointing out the lack of references or sources. Pospeak ( talk) 11:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ad 1: It makes no sense to propose deletion of Sparta and Slavia's reserves, they often appear in the media. If I don't see the point in something or don't believe I can succeed with it, it's not worth proposing.

Ad 2: I don't understand. But again, please refrain from personal attacks.

Ad 3: Sorry if this offended you, but I see a clear case of advocacy in your relationship with Zbrojovka Brno. And everyone who is a fan of football also supports a particular club; there is nothing wrong with informing which one.

Ad 4: I am also opposed to immediately deleting articles. Therefore, before the deletion, we hold discussions where everyone can oppose the deletion and find new sources. All the pages you created that have AFDed in the last 6 months have been discussed, consensus reached, and no one has found new sources for any of them, not even you. If I can find reliable sources before suggesting deletion, then of course I won't even suggest it for deletion, but if there aren't any, AFD is the only way to go. I also respect other people's work, but if your work does not respect WP:GNG, you can't be mad at me or others that your pages are deleted. FromCzech ( talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's a pointless view to compare which team has or doesn't have more media coverage. Do you have any data for this? There are a lot of teams from the fourth or even fifth tier of Czech football that have their own pages (marked as Wikipedia:Stub). Slavia B plays in the third division, how much more watched is this than the fourth division? In Germany, it is quite common for reserve teams playing in the fourth division to have their own pages. I don't want to keep comparing things, but the principle is the same.

This discussion is about the redirected reserve team page, so don't run to the other pages that have been deleted (I don't have a problem with those). It is clear that if you write in the discussion about AFD that the team has never played in a professional competition and all evaluators know nothing about Czech football, they will vote for deletion or redirection. That can happen and that's why Deletion review is here. I was hoping you would approach this fairly, but unfortunately I was wrong. Pospeak ( talk) 12:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cannot be assessed as a whole, each page is assessed individually. I don't know the history of the individual clubs; some are amateur today and play in the 5th league, but for example they have a long history and have appeared in literature. If you feel that there is a page here without jusitification, AFD it; I support this attitude. I don't understand German football into deep, I don't know to what level the competitions are professionalized and how the reserves appear in the media there. But each country is individual, for example Italy has only two reserves here on Wiki. The Czech Republic only has Sparta and Slavia here. You must have noticed that there is not even Olomouc, which has a much more significant reserve team than Brno.

I think you may have misunderstood the deletion discussion. The main argument was that it does not meet the GNG criteria. Usually, every responsible user participating in an AFD discussion does their own research on sources, etc., so my mistake could hardly have affected the outcome of the discussion. You also misunderstand that a discussion is a vote.

If you feel wronged, you can go work on your draft and convince us that Brno B is notable enough to have a separate page from FC Zbrojovka Brno. For the reasons stated in my first post, this is not the case yet. FromCzech ( talk) 13:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Pospeak: I've written a few articles about teams in lower divisions before and the best way to make sure they survive a deletion discussion is to make sure they have good sources, typically local and national media writing about the club. Some teams may have pages without this sourcing and they may be deleted if no good sources can be found. B teams are strange too because they need to show they are notable separate from their professional team which can be difficult! SportingFlyer T· C 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The mistake in whether the team played professionally is irrelevant, as the actual argument for deletion is the failure to meet GNG. No new sourcing has been presented here to justify overturning, therefore the close should stand.

JoelleJay ( talk) 23:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The DRV nom points to some facts that were not mentioned in the deletion discussion, but this is not the type of information that would justify recreating the article.— Alalch E. 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC) reply