Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5

Darkover (TV series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Involved NAC, discussion only open for 16 hours. Withdrawing an AfD and redirecting would have been acceptable and within process, but presuming that this action gives redirection the imprimatur of AfD is not. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Literally everyone in the AFD was calling for a redirect. This was a clear cut WP:SNOW case and I don't see why it should be contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for substantiating the issue. Again, per my discussion on your talk page, the fact that you think this was acceptable is clearly part of the problem. No one, ever, gets to close their own nominated AfD as delete, redirect, merge, etc. They can withdraw it, but not close it. What is more problematic is that you currently have your own ANI open about alleged poor behavior in deletion, and did this anyways. That would constitute a lack of insight if you hadn't already been admonished you for such conduct last month. Now? Failure to accept appropriate feedback at a minimum. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. WP:NotEarly was violated.

1. Discussion did not run for 7 days, which is literally the first thing mentioned "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)."
2. No viewpoints were expressed as "Keep", which is the only way a nominator is supposed to close the discussion. "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. "
3. TPH is neither an administrator or an uninvolved editor, therefore has no right to close the AfD that they opened. "An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances"
4. I do not feel WP:SNOW applies because it states "This clause should not be used to close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement." Having the discussion open for only 16 hours doesn't give very many editors a chance to review the discussion and research it.
5. TPH has opened and then closed their own AfD's multiple times, which can be viewed as circumventing the discussion process in order to push their own agenda for deleting any articles they don't like.

DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I'm sure the closure was in good faith, and I understand why someone might want to close a straightforward AfD sooner rather than later, but "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion" is a pretty ironclad rule, and there's no good reason for ignoring it in this case, particularly since there's been a good-faith request to reopen the discussion. Process is important; there's no deadline; etc. I hope an uninvolved sysop in their own capacity simply reverts the closure per WP:NACD; it would be ironic if a measure intended to speed the AfD up only served to drag it out for another seven days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is clearly process for the sake of process. What would be gained from reopening it when four other people called for redirection? I would literally bet money on it closing as "redirect" if the discussion is reopened. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing gained is it might educate you on what not to do. You don't close discussions that you opened. Period. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. From WP:DEL and WP:AfD perspectives, that was a perfectly reasonable nominator withdrawal and speedy keep. Probably the close should be modified to that. Subsequently, it was a perfectly good bold redirect, given argued support for that from multiple others, in the AfD. Post bold redirection, you can revert and contest on the talk page, or propose re-spinning out at the target talk page, Talk:Darkover series.

A relist could be justified on the basis of Jclemens’ protest here, if he has articulated a !vote of “Keep, do not redirect”. I support the close as OK, but a good NAC-er will always revert their close if it is contested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This effectively ended in a merge, which is what it should have been before it was even AfDed. As a courtesy withdrawing and then redirecting would have been preferable but I’m seeing little benefit in arguing the toss after the fact. That said, I would still appreciate greater accuracy and care from TPM over the deletion process and if they’d just done the obvious thing first per BEFORE we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Artw (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, which I have done as any other contentious NAC, ANI aside. Can someone else please close the DRV? I broke the formatting last time and don't want to again. Star Mississippi 13:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purshottam Lal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Subject: Request for review of the deletion decision dated 26 April 2022 of Mr Sandstein- Case of Purshottam Lal

Dear Reviewing Authority,

(1) The Article on me - Purshottam Lal- created by Ms Sneha and approved by Wikipedia for publication on 27 January 2022 was deleted under the orders of Mr Sandstein ( herein after referred to as the  deleting administrator , or DA in short)  dated 26 April 2022 following a deletion discussion lasting 2 weeks. The final order said that  there was lack of notability and not enough secondary sources.

(2) Normally, the creator of the page-Ms Sneha-should have made the review petition. However, since she is blocked for reasons presumably nothing to do with the  Article on me, she cannot communicate , and hence this review request by me.

(3) As per advice on Wikipedia site , I first took up the matter with the DA  and sent him a note on 20th May  2022 on his Talk Page. He very kindly responded and wrote  : "Mr. Lal, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purshottam Lal was that there is not enough significant coverage about you in reliable secondary sources that are independent of you. That is needed for an article about you. Could you please read our guideline page WP:BIO and then tell me what the three best pieces of such coverage about you are? Sandstein 17:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)"

(4) Thus, in his response, he did not mention the " notability " aspect which was the main reason for deletion.

(5) Since three independent References had been asked for and since most of my work as a writer and as a police officer had taken place in pre-internet era, I searched for feedback and comments of READERS of my articles in the print media since 1992 ( the year I started my writing endeavour ;  more than 115 articles have  since appeared in important newspapers, and four books published , all released by two different Governors of Punjab state ), and also newspaper reports of my work as a senior police officer , and after scanning them ,  sent the same  to the DA  on 25 May 2022 in PDF format,  uploaded on Wikimedia. It , inter-alia, contained 31 feedbacks in respect of 20 articles of mine.( The link to these additiinal scanned References uploaded on  Wikimedia is as follows:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADDITIONAL_LINKS_DGPIPSLAL.pdf).

I had the impression that the Wikipedia's first efforts are to retain the Article by making improvement etc if possible. However, the DA finally replied on 26 May  2022 vide  which he did not touch upon this aspect at all, and commented that the three most important References mentioned by me in the deleted Article were not sufficient to justify an Article on me.

(6) I understand AfD (Article for Deletion )is concerned with the substance of the Article whereas DR ( Deletion Review )  is concerned with  the process by which the decision was reached.

(7) The following breaches of due process took place in my case which deserve consideration .

(A) During the deletion discussion , the creator of the Article , Ms Sneha, was not allowed to participate on the ground that she had been  blocked. In fact, two posts made by her from her mobile data ( which was not blocked at that time, since only her IP address was blocked ) giving clarifications on points raised by certain esteemed members of the Wikipedia community were struck off. Thus, the creator of the Article, went totally unrepresented and unheard. This is a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. At least, for this case, her block should have been removed so that her view point could also have been available for consideration.

(B) Mr  Bonadea started the deletion discussion on 11 April 2022. He later blocked IPA address of Ms Sneha, creator of the Article, for the so-called sock-puppeting . When she put her viewpoints - twice- during the discussion through her mobile data, Mr Bonadea blocked her  mobile data connectivity, too. He also struck off posts so put by Ms Sneha. Thus, in this case an inevitable clash of interest took place  leading to denial of the opportunity of being heard , by virtue of both actions - deletion discussion and blocking- having been initiated /ordered  by the same party i.e. Mr Bonadea. This is against the principles of natural justice in any society/country governed by the rule of law. The blocking decision should not have been taken by Mr Bonadea as he knew that he had already  initiated the deletion discussion. He ought to have referred the blocking decision to some other Administrator. Thus, due process of fairness and unprejudiced discussion have  been violated in this case.

(C ) At least two members who participated in  the discussion majorly misread the Article. They presumed that I had been the Head of the Punjab Police Force. No such claim was made in the Article. It rather said in the Introduction : " ....retired from the rank of Director General of Police". Thus, it was the rank which was mentioned, and not the actual post. There are a few posts in the Punjab Police  , all manned by DG rank officers. Though the two gentlemen spoke in my favour, yet their impression was wrong , and I pointed it out at the very first instance to Mr Geoffrey Lane of the Wikipedia in an email dated 28 April 2022 ) .  Such a misreading by not only these two esteemed members of the WP community but by some other participants also- like the one inquiring about the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service in respect of which clarification was provided by the creator of the Article ,the same , however,having been  being struck off-  shows lack of proper understanding and appreciation of the contents of the Article  by some of the esteemed  participants. The number of participants , most of them not well-informed about the Indian system of policing except two, was also too less, about 5 or 6. This  type of discussion amounted to a process not germane to a meaningful discussion , laying too much stress on the so-called independent References which , though present among the list of References, were not found adequate by the participants and ultimately by  the DA. Instead of looking at the totality of the material available , they rather looked only at a part of it resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(D  ) The DA's  final note dated 26 May  2022 on his Talk Page says that the first two  References mentioned speak  of  my book , and not of  me. This is, to say the least, not a very correct interpretation. When somebody is talking about my book ,  he is naturally talking about me also as the book is my creation. About the third Reference, he mentioned it was by an organisation to which I belong and hence was not independent. First of all, he could not appreciate that the Reference was picked up by the creator by the  internet search and mentioned as such  just to show my qualities as a senior police officer ,  and referred to my past association with the organisation ,  and not the present one as I am no longer a member of it. Secondly, I was associated with it but had no control over it. The Reference also mentions the names of the former Governor Punjab and former Chief Secretary Punjab just to show that I was, at one time in the past,   in the category  of highly notable persons in the administration of the  Punjab government , thereby supplementing my notability.

(E  ) The DA's  final note dated 26 May 2022 is silent on the suggestion to allow, for improving the Article,  the use of  31 feedbacks provided in respect of 20 articles of mine in PDF format uploaded on Wikimedia ,   as  independent secondary sources for my writing work, which PDF file  contained some References for my police work also ( all relating to pre-internet era). Perhaps these or some of them could have been considered for addition so that the Article could have been  improved and saved , as I understand that the first endeavour of the Wikipedia , as a positive step, is to retain the Article by improving it. Pre-internet References would naturally be in paper format, and only their scanned copies can be attached. Some 58     References ( out of which some might be common to the list already in the deleted Article)  also sent for my articles and TV discusdions for possible use in improving the Article were also not touched upon by the DA in his final note of 26 May 2022. ( Please see the link and list  of  scanned References and other 58 in paragraph (5) above).

(F )  The Article was approved on 27 January 2022 by Wikipedia ( Mr John B 123- more than 1,89,000 edits and more than 248 active Articles to his credit) after satisfying about notability and References. No new facts came to light  after that. No falsity of any information was ever alleged. Hence, in the absence of any fresh material, it is not fair to declare the same Article as ineligble on grounds of lack of notability and inadequacy of References, though later the DA  in his note of 20 May 2022 on his Talk Page did not raise the issue of notability , and only of secondary independent References. Thus , there has been an apparent lack of consistency . I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator  should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available.

(G )  I have suffered loss of face by the deletion effected 3 months after its publication after due approval . I am now more than 75 years of age. My endeavour to write the fifth  book- Origin of the Aryans-  which was half-way through, is stalled due to this upsetting development.

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it. 

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely, Purshottam Lal Sukhmanik95 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original consensus.

• This is a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. At least, for this case, her block should have been removed so that her view point could also have been available for consideration. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, as blocked users are not allowed to edit anywhere else on Wikipedia other than to appeal their block on their talk page.
• See @Sandstein's response to the sources at their user page.[1]
• I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available. @John B123 marked the page as reviewed, but they are not an administrator. The consensus at the AfD was to delete.
• it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it. If you would like to improve the article by adding more references, you could request it to be restored as a draft by going to WP:REFUND. Ms Sneha, whom you have paid to edit your article, will not be allowed to edit the draft since she is blocked from editing. 0xDeadbeef 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the wall of text was causing a side scroll. If someone else has a better suggestion, feel free to modify. Star Mississippi 13:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion was “delete” and then User:Hemantha 09:28, 20 April 2022 nailed it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to try and address some of your "due process" points

  (A) Wikipedia isn't a system of laws etc. Ms Sneha apparently had their editing rights removed over an alleged breach of some of our policies, so they weren't allowed to participate further e.g. don't play by the rules and don't expect to be heard. The article isn't the property of the original creator, and articles should stand on their own e.g. it should be clear how they meet the relevant guidelines etc. so the creators presence really isn't required for a fair defence of the content - indeed others did try and search out additional material to try and support the article. This is totally in line with normal process and would apply in any case where the creator was blocked, so in terms of fairness you are aligned with everyone/everything else here.

  (B) Being blocked is the removal of the right to edit as applied to the individual, as such any admin would have done the same action in blocking the evasion. Maybe it wasn't ideal who did the blocking, but the outcome would be the same for anyone and so again no change in the real outcome here.

  (C) This probably suggests the article didn't present the information well if there was such a confusion. However as the argument was that there was no special carve out for senior police officials and there was nothing else supporting notability, remove the former and you are still left with the latter point that there is nothing supporting notability. That would still have needed to be adequately rebutted and wasn't.

  (D) That wouldn't be the standard meaning and understanding on wikipedia. If I talk about "Harry Potter" say, what facts does that tell me about JK Rowling? Can I discuss Harry Potter without knowing anything about or even considering the author. Of course I can, it's totally possible to have interest in the work and little real interest in the person behind it - I would say that's the case for the vast majority of newspaper columns etc. It's also wrapped up in our guidelines on creative people WP:AUTHOR merely writing works even many works is not the yard stick. Likewise on a more general basis the general notability guide requires that the articles discuss the subject directly and in detail. So this is totally in line with normal wikipedia practices.

  (E) The PDF seems to have been deleted for copyright problems, I had a look at some of your links above but they were similar to what had already been reviewed, and I don't intend to go through all of them, you are better picking out the best few which talk about you directly and in detail.

  (F) This is again in line with standard practice, one editor doesn't get to bless an article.

  (G) I don't see this as a due process issue, though it does suggest you've go this the wrong way around. Wikipedia serves as a tertiary source covering things which the rest of the world has already found significant/notable. Your notability stems from those things, not from having a Wikipedia article. In real terms there will be articles on wikipedia about things which are of little real world notability and many of those will be deleted at some point, there will also be gaps in coverage of things/people which are genuinely notable - this can be for a range of reasons, but not being here doesn't change their genuine real world notability. And finally there are many people who decidedly don't want an wikipedia article and indeed argue for removal (we don't always do this, but are sympathetic to those of lower notability), they don't necessarily like that the articles are not owned by anyone and can be edited by anyone, including adding coverage which may be considered negative (assuming that's well referenced etc. and not just made up) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse first of all I definitely suggest that the OP try writing more concisely - walls of text rarely get read in full and put people off participating. The AfD was closed correctly, the only argument in favour of keeping the article was that the subject was notable just for being a senior police officer, and as that isn't found in the notability guidelines for people it doesn't carry much weight. We usually determine notability according to the general notability guideline, which says that subjects are notable if they have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I haven't read most of the huge pile of citations above but they appear to be to things the subject wrote for a newspaper (or letters he sent them), e.g. this is a letter praising the customer service of an Australian company. As a result they aren't independent. I agree with Sandstein's evaluation of the three sources picked out as the best [2][3][4], one isn't independent of the subject and the other two are very short book reviews.
  Of the other arguments: the fact the creator was blocked doesn't affect the legitimacy of the discussion, and they seem to have evaded the block and participated anyway. The fact that a new page patroller reviewed the article doesn't automatically make it suitable, that just means one person didn't immediately think it needed to be deleted. I don't think it would be a good idea to restore it to draft unless someone other than the (blocked) author or the subject of the article wants to work on it, since we strongly advise against people writing about themselves. Hut 8.5 17:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I do want to acknowledge the huge amount of work the subject has put into tracking down offline sources and attempting to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think that's at least deserving of detailed responses to some of his concerns. Other editors have addressed most of the points raised, but one minor aspect that may have been confusing to Mr. Lal is the designation of "independence": any organization with which a subject is or has been affiliated is not considered independent of that subject. This is not (just) because the subject could have control over what the org says, but because material published by the org about the subject will (a) be in the context of that subject's involvement with or relationship to the org, and potentially only be of interest to the org; and (b) only be presented in a way that reflects positively on the org. Re: (a), we cannot evaluate such a publication as indicative of wider noteworthiness or impact because an organization will promote any positive news that relates to itself, regardless of whether it is of any interest to anyone outside it. This is why, e.g., college newspaper profiles of candidates for the college's student body president election cannot be used to demonstrate notability of a candidate. A related concept is the Wikipedia policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Re: (b), Wikipedia articles must be written in a WP:neutral point of view, and therefore cannot be based on sources that have a clear interest in highlighting only the best and most organization-relevant aspects of a subject. This also plays into the DUE WEIGHT issue above. If all we have on a person is a glowing profile of him winning an award, by the awarding body, who of course want to portray recipients of their award in the best light possible, then there is no way to build a neutral biography.

I hope this explanation clarifies that piece of wiki-jargon. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]