Miskin Abdal – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Sandstein 04:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Miskin_Abdal (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Endorse No consensus is really the only way to close that deletion discussion. Those who advocated for keeping made good arguments that the topic might meet GNG, even though it was sock-created, and most of the unsourced content has already been removed. This is not the second round of discussing whether an article should be deleted, but is rather reviewing whether the closer acted correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Even after the unsourced content was removed, the first paragraph contains false statement. By simple citing a book, which does not cite any other sources, the person in the article cannot be appointed as a head of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. So, the article contains false information. Regarding GNG, the same content was published in multiple mediums to create notability. None of them cited any Safavid literature. Therefore, they cannot be considered as if the article met GNG. HeritageGuardian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] One more thing. I noticed that en.wikipedia.org already has separate pages for persons who was in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Najm_Zargar_Gilani. In there, there is a link to his successor and so on. Therefore, even if the person in the article for deletion was one of them, then there is no need to create duplicate pages for the same person. hth. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] I have checked condition for GNG one more time. One of the requirements is "Reliable-- means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ..." I have already discussed this in the deletion page that this requirement was not met. Therefore GNG was not met for this article at all. I also asked and commented on suggestions of those users who stated that it meets GNG. I am not going to repeat them here. Please be objective and pay attention to arguments put forward. Please avoid simple counting votes. thx. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Hello @HistoryofIran I thought this discussion could be interesting to you since you created pages for persons who were in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. Please add your suggestions comments if any. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Endorse no consensus was the correct close here. The vote was numerically split with three delete (including the nom and removing one of HeritageGuardian's two bolded delete votes). More importantly, the keep side reasonably responded to the delete side's arguments by cleaning up some of the unsourced material, posting sources which I will consider borderline-GNG at worst, and correctly pointing out that, while the article was created by a sock, substantial content was added by users in good standing. The delete side was given the illusion of additional support by HeritageGuardian's bludgeoning of the process and posting 15(!) times in this debate. A third relist would have been a reasonable outcome as well but was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] So you counted votes? I believe that is against the rules. None of the sources are reliable, so the article does not meet GNG. I posted 15 times in the debate, because responded to users who wanted to keep it, asking them for evidence. I do not see anything wrong with that. That article is a hoax and admins try to keep it by counting votes or avoiding the fact that citations are not reliable. I did not think Wikipedia was such a place. HeritageGuardian (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] AFD is not a vote, hence why I clarified the substance of the keep votes was more important than a numerical split. Frank Anchor 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I do not see how keep votes were more important. For example the user @Psychastes voted to keep by pointing to a citation of the article that he found in google books. Presence of a citation in google book does not mean it meets GNG. I found pdf of that book, examined it and pointed out that it did not have any references to any sources related to Safavids. I spent a few hours on it. You considered my attempt as if I was bludgeoning. On the other hand, if we approach from credibility point of view of a vote, then we should not count vote to keep by Psychastes because it was not based on the content of the citation rather on observation that it existed in google books. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. There was no consensus reached among participants, and no additional comments after the second relisting, so this was the correct interpretation of the discussion result. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] It seems to me now, that it is useless from my side to convince any admins, because they evaluate votes giving more weight to opinions of those users who has more edits in whole Wikipedia, rather than paying attention to arguments put forward. I believe it is against the rules, but that is the reality. Basically admins make decisions based on ego rather than on logic. The previous endorser wrote "substantial content was added by users in good standing". By good standing he means number of edits, although that user did not add any content, but deleted most of the content after my contribution to debate, which the same admin considered as if I was bludgeoning. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] By users in good standing, I meant users that are not socks, which successfully refuted argument that claimed the article should be deleted due to being created by a blocked sock. Frank Anchor 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] It seems to me that we going on circle here. There were two users who voted to delete including me. The main reason put forward was not that it was created by sock puppets. The main reason from my side was that none of the citations had any references, which means they are not reliable, which means article violates GNG. This was not refuted by any users who voted to keep. Instead, one of them gave the same or additional citations that had the same issue. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Either No Consensus or another Relist were the best readings of a messy discussion. The nominator and appellant seems to make the mistake that I too often see at DRV, and at the AFDs that precede the DRVs, of mistaking length of argument for strength of argument. It is true that the nominator and appellant has had the longer argument, and that they think that is the stronger argument (but it isn't in this case). In this case, the nominator's bludgeoning of the AFD made it unlikely that there would be a consensus either to Keep or to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] IAR Idea - Although the close is correct, an Ignore All Rules closure could be to Relist one more time, after this DRV has publicized the AFD to a new set of reviewers, but preferably with the appellant topic-banned from arguing with the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Anyone is welcome to renominate the page immediately. While WP:RENOM recommends waiting two months, we don't need IAR to ignore this recommendation, if there's reason to believe a new AfD will reach a different outcome. And as much as I despise the type of bludgeoning we see here, we shouldn't topic-ban without issuing a final warning. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Miskin Abdal – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Sandstein 04:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I noticed that deletion of this article was closed with no consensus. This is very surprising to me. I have spent three days to investigate it and came to conclusion that it was a hoax. Moreover, the statement in its first paragraph is completely wrong. Please reconsider your decision or provide reason(s) for keeping that article which is full of false statements. HeritageGuardian (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Endorse No consensus is really the only way to close that deletion discussion. Those who advocated for keeping made good arguments that the topic might meet GNG, even though it was sock-created, and most of the unsourced content has already been removed. This is not the second round of discussing whether an article should be deleted, but is rather reviewing whether the closer acted correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the unsourced content was removed, the first paragraph contains false statement. By simple citing a book, which does not cite any other sources, the person in the article cannot be appointed as a head of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. So, the article contains false information. Regarding GNG, the same content was published in multiple mediums to create notability. None of them cited any Safavid literature. Therefore, they cannot be considered as if the article met GNG. HeritageGuardian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One more thing. I noticed that en.wikipedia.org already has separate pages for persons who was in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Najm_Zargar_Gilani. In there, there is a link to his successor and so on. Therefore, even if the person in the article for deletion was one of them, then there is no need to create duplicate pages for the same person. hth. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have checked condition for GNG one more time. One of the requirements is "Reliable-- means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. ..." I have already discussed this in the deletion page that this requirement was not met. Therefore GNG was not met for this article at all. I also asked and commented on suggestions of those users who stated that it meets GNG. I am not going to repeat them here. Please be objective and pay attention to arguments put forward. Please avoid simple counting votes. thx. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello @HistoryofIran I thought this discussion could be interesting to you since you created pages for persons who were in charge of foreign affairs in early Safavid dynasty. Please add your suggestions comments if any. thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Endorse no consensus was the correct close here. The vote was numerically split with three delete (including the nom and removing one of HeritageGuardian's two bolded delete votes). More importantly, the keep side reasonably responded to the delete side's arguments by cleaning up some of the unsourced material, posting sources which I will consider borderline-GNG at worst, and correctly pointing out that, while the article was created by a sock, substantial content was added by users in good standing. The delete side was given the illusion of additional support by HeritageGuardian's bludgeoning of the process and posting 15(!) times in this debate. A third relist would have been a reasonable outcome as well but was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you counted votes? I believe that is against the rules. None of the sources are reliable, so the article does not meet GNG. I posted 15 times in the debate, because responded to users who wanted to keep it, asking them for evidence. I do not see anything wrong with that. That article is a hoax and admins try to keep it by counting votes or avoiding the fact that citations are not reliable. I did not think Wikipedia was such a place. HeritageGuardian (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
AFD is not a vote, hence why I clarified the substance of the keep votes was more important than a numerical split. Frank Anchor 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how keep votes were more important. For example the user @Psychastes voted to keep by pointing to a citation of the article that he found in google books. Presence of a citation in google book does not mean it meets GNG. I found pdf of that book, examined it and pointed out that it did not have any references to any sources related to Safavids. I spent a few hours on it. You considered my attempt as if I was bludgeoning. On the other hand, if we approach from credibility point of view of a vote, then we should not count vote to keep by Psychastes because it was not based on the content of the citation rather on observation that it existed in google books. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no consensus reached among participants, and no additional comments after the second relisting, so this was the correct interpretation of the discussion result. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me now, that it is useless from my side to convince any admins, because they evaluate votes giving more weight to opinions of those users who has more edits in whole Wikipedia, rather than paying attention to arguments put forward. I believe it is against the rules, but that is the reality. Basically admins make decisions based on ego rather than on logic. The previous endorser wrote "substantial content was added by users in good standing". By good standing he means number of edits, although that user did not add any content, but deleted most of the content after my contribution to debate, which the same admin considered as if I was bludgeoning. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By users in good standing, I meant users that are not socks, which successfully refuted argument that claimed the article should be deleted due to being created by a blocked sock. Frank Anchor 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we going on circle here. There were two users who voted to delete including me. The main reason put forward was not that it was created by sock puppets. The main reason from my side was that none of the citations had any references, which means they are not reliable, which means article violates GNG. This was not refuted by any users who voted to keep. Instead, one of them gave the same or additional citations that had the same issue. HeritageGuardian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Either No Consensus or another Relist were the best readings of a messy discussion. The nominator and appellant seems to make the mistake that I too often see at DRV, and at the AFDs that precede the DRVs, of mistaking length of argument for strength of argument. It is true that the nominator and appellant has had the longer argument, and that they think that is the stronger argument (but it isn't in this case). In this case, the nominator's bludgeoning of the AFD made it unlikely that there would be a consensus either to Keep or to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Idea - Although the close is correct, an Ignore All Rules closure could be to Relist one more time, after this DRV has publicized the AFD to a new set of reviewers, but preferably with the appellant topic-banned from arguing with the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Anyone is welcome to renominate the page immediately. While WP:RENOM recommends waiting two months, we don't need IAR to ignore this recommendation, if there's reason to believe a new AfD will reach a different outcome. And as much as I despise the type of bludgeoning we see here, we shouldn't topic-ban without issuing a final warning. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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