Shuchir Suri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Article Shuchir Suri was neutral and completely based on the reliable sources which are fair enough as per Wikipedia Policy. There was no promotional word in Article and also there was a Criticism Section added which shows that the Article was completely neutral, not promotional Article. Being an experienced Wikipedian, I also don't understand why this article was deleted. By respecting Wikipedia Policy, I strongly believe that each and every detail should be checked before deleting an article as many editors have worked for each article. some time reviewer also makes the mistakes. (( My best understanding of what Radadiyageet attempted to raise at 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ... Please note I am instating a DRV raised by Radadiyageet incorrectly on this page (see history) and cleared by a BOT Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Requesting temp undelete. If Radadiyageet wishes at this point that this DRV should not continue I am most happy also to go with that decision at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This appeal doesn't state a reason based on purpose of DRV, because it appears to be an effort to re-argue the original merits of the article, rather than any error on the part of the closer. However, if the filer is claiming an error by the closer, either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid closes, so the Delete can be sustained. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a correct reading of the discussion. I'm not even sure no consensus is a viable outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (Please note I assume I am the filer). My minor grumblings would be I dont have a temp undelete and the closer did not give an explanation). I note Radadiyageet has been active but has neither supported nor withdrawn this filing. I observe there appeared to be no attempt to discuss the outcome with the closer before rather a message to closer indicating a DRV had been raised and an attempt to do the same. I tend to agree broadly with RCs' reasoning of the closer action above. I also noted when partaking of a notification to those involved in the AfD there had been canvasing for the keep !vote in the final round. I cannot comment on this example in particular but on glance of scans of Radadiyageet's other works I have concerns about failure to understand WP:RS in particular interviews and press releases; this is particularly important if relying on non English language sources and particularly non Latin alphabet sources where trans-title and language parameters are not being utilitised; and a failure to clearly present the WP:THREE best sources by the AfD defendants. I also note concerns about arguably possible WP:COI and promotionalism within other articles but I cannot viewpoint this here due to no temp undelete. Given unsurprising overwhelming endorsement so far and lack of participation by Radadiyageet I withdraw my call for a temp undelete. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I apologise for hijacking this discussion, but since we're in grumbling mode, I'd like to grumble about the quality of the AfD discussion. It was relisted with the comment, "This needs a more detailed discussion of the sources to see if any of them satisfies WP:GNG". What that means is the relisting admin looked at the existing discussion and decided there wasn't enough there to make a valid close. He left explicit instructions for what kind of future discussions would make it possible for the next admin to come along to do a better job. Sadly, that didn't happen. We got three almost meaningless comments. All of which failed to discuss the sources, as requested in the relist.

  So, for people who participate in these discussions, the strongest argument (on either side) you can make is to list some sources, and go through each one explaining how it supports or doesn't support WP:N. Now you have the secret to winning AfDs. Go forth and argue with strength. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get a temp undelete please? Based purely on the discussion and not looking at the article, this should have been an NC outcome IMO. The arguments for keeping and deletion were both poor and there wasn't a clear numeric consensus either. So unless the sources were clearly great or horrible, this really should have been an NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, and neither relist was necessary. Sourcing is not not not the only valid reason to delete an article; being irreparably promotional - which this was, despite the "Criticism" section which was really a coatrack for PR damage control - is another, even if it's not quite horrible enough for an administrator to speedy G11 on sight. —Cryptic 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Having now seen the article I am having a self debate if I understand it correctly that as far as I can tell the photographic image taken on 1 February 2019 by the creator of the article which seems to have incarnated on 1 February 2019 may have indicated too close a relationship between the creator and the subject for it not to be declared as it appears consensual. I guess this point is arguable and anyway it wasn't raised at AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd still claim that NC was probably the better outcome, but yeah, delete was within discretion. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am not sure what the reason was for the temp undeletion. I didn't !vote in the AFD and don't plan to express an opinion on the original AFD, but the Delete !votes outnumbered the Keep !votes, and Delete was a valid consensus. The article does read like a typical vanity article on a marginal person. My Endorse is unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I tempundeleted the article because it was requested. In general, articles under deletion review get tempundeleted upon request, unless there's some good reason not to, which typically means WP:BLP issues or copyright violations, but possibly other reasons. None of those seemed to apply here, so I complied with the request. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Okay. Thank you for answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I do not see anything remarkable about this closure other than this being routine afd closure. The consensus to delete appears to be reasonable. I standby my reasons for nomination, the subject has not been covered in-depth in reliable or independent sources. Hitro talk 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An additional reason to Endorse the closure is sockpuppetry by Keep !voters. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Irvoas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the previous deletion discussion, the following reasons for deletion were already mentioned:

• The individual is not notable.
• Wikipedia is not a memorial.

Some of the arguments for keeping or merging the article included:

• The article will be expanded as the media gains and releases new information.
  • This never happened. In fact, the original and only citation in the article is to a web-page which now returns a 404 error.
• The article should be merged with 2005 French riots since the man was a victim.
  • The information on him listed at 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec is already more descriptive than what's currently in the article.

On top of these reasons for deletion is all the things I listed in the very large "cleanup" template I left on the page a little bit ago.

After having sat in limbo for 14 years, I think it's time the article go. -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]