Draft:Typical Gamer – WP:G11 speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 06:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Typical Gamer (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Typical Gamer just reached 10 million subscribers and he has credible claims of significance ([1], [2]). The draft used Infobox YouTube personality template. 36.85.216.114 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] The draft wasn't deleted because it made no claim of significance - indeed, we don't delete drafts for that - it was deleted as a G11, that is, for being overtly and irreparably promotional. I don't think it met that bar, even with the external link to his store in the infobox; and with the sources presented here (as opposed to the big fat nothing in the draft) I'm not even certain it would get deleted at AFD. Overturn. —Cryptic 10:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Undeleted for discussion here. – Athaenara ✉ 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't appear to come close to a G11. overturn speedy. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as per state of the article at that time, but overturn and restore to Draft given the new sources 36.85 presents above. 36.85, I'd strongly recommend you use and add those sources in the article draft. And anyone is welcome to send to AFD if still concerned about notability. This was a stale unsourced draft that was not egregiously overtly promotional, but in its state calling it "nothing but promotional" was a very reasonable read of the situation. I am not convinced the 2 new sources above are sufficient to meet our notability standard, but if they are added the article has a hope of surviving and AFD and deserves that chance if desired. Martinp (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - not remotely promotional in any way, shape, or form. There's absolutely zero justification for deletion here. Wily D 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore to draft space. If this were at AFC for review, I would Decline it as coming nowhere close to notability. I would not Reject it, because it might be capable of being improved. If this were at MFD for deletion as a hopeless draft, I would Keep if it didn't have a history of tendentious resubmissions, and Delete if it did. It certainly isn't spam, just a bad draft that needs either declining or improving. We aren't considering whether to trout the G11 nominator and deleter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Arguably notable, but there was no evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft. For that, independent coverage is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] SmokeyJoe evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft is not required to avoid G11 deletion, or even MfD if that had been brought up. Only to get a draft approved at AfC, or to survive an AfD after a draft is moved to article space is such evidence required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] DES, I had refrained from commenting on G11. If you want to draw comment, it would be: “G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts”. This is a hopeless draft. I think the best answer is to let AfC processes play out, and reserve MfD for escalation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] SmokeyJoe But the G11, and its propriety or lack thereof, is the only thing open for discussion here at this time. I will gladly agree that G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts. I do not agree that this is a hopeless draft. But whether it is or not is not really relevant to this review. I will agree, and indeed I said below, that this draft is not ready to be approved, and in fact it may never be. But that does not make it a G11, nor would even a pretty clear lack of significant chance of notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] I think this draft should have been speediable. G11 failing to cover it to the letter of policy is a failing of policy. The draft was self-gloating with no sources except for self-sources, and listing self-sources is promotion. The nominator here presents new information that was not present in the deleted draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Sources aren't there, no doubt. But self-gloating? It's pretty much pure facts. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn G11 speedy deletion. This isn't even close to a G11, especially for a draft, and any admin should know better. I would not even consider approving the draft as it stood, but it is not at the g11 level of promotion, and I would have !voted "keep" in an MfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy deletion. Move to draft. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Lightburst Unless I have missed something, this is already in draft space, and so does not need to be moved there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] I see a deleted draft. I did find it in the history however. I think it is only visible until this review completes. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Typical Gamer – WP:G11 speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 06:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Typical Gamer just reached 10 million subscribers and he has credible claims of significance ([1], [2]). The draft used Infobox YouTube personality template. 36.85.216.114 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't deleted because it made no claim of significance - indeed, we don't delete drafts for that - it was deleted as a G11, that is, for being overtly and irreparably promotional. I don't think it met that bar, even with the external link to his store in the infobox; and with the sources presented here (as opposed to the big fat nothing in the draft) I'm not even certain it would get deleted at AFD. Overturn. —Cryptic 10:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted for discussion here. – Athaenara ✉ 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to come close to a G11. overturn speedy. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per state of the article at that time, but overturn and restore to Draft given the new sources 36.85 presents above. 36.85, I'd strongly recommend you use and add those sources in the article draft. And anyone is welcome to send to AFD if still concerned about notability. This was a stale unsourced draft that was not egregiously overtly promotional, but in its state calling it "nothing but promotional" was a very reasonable read of the situation. I am not convinced the 2 new sources above are sufficient to meet our notability standard, but if they are added the article has a hope of surviving and AFD and deserves that chance if desired. Martinp (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - not remotely promotional in any way, shape, or form. There's absolutely zero justification for deletion here. Wily D 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to draft space. If this were at AFC for review, I would Decline it as coming nowhere close to notability. I would not Reject it, because it might be capable of being improved. If this were at MFD for deletion as a hopeless draft, I would Keep if it didn't have a history of tendentious resubmissions, and Delete if it did. It certainly isn't spam, just a bad draft that needs either declining or improving. We aren't considering whether to trout the G11 nominator and deleter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably notable, but there was no evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft. For that, independent coverage is required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe evidence of Wikipedia-notability in the draft is not required to avoid G11 deletion, or even MfD if that had been brought up. Only to get a draft approved at AfC, or to survive an AfD after a draft is moved to article space is such evidence required. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - DES, I had refrained from commenting on G11. If you want to draw comment, it would be: “G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts”. This is a hopeless draft. I think the best answer is to let AfC processes play out, and reserve MfD for escalation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - SmokeyJoe But the G11, and its propriety or lack thereof, is the only thing open for discussion here at this time. I will gladly agree that G11 is not an answer the the problems with hopeless drafts. I do not agree that this is a hopeless draft. But whether it is or not is not really relevant to this review. I will agree, and indeed I said below, that this draft is not ready to be approved, and in fact it may never be. But that does not make it a G11, nor would even a pretty clear lack of significant chance of notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this draft should have been speediable. G11 failing to cover it to the letter of policy is a failing of policy. The draft was self-gloating with no sources except for self-sources, and listing self-sources is promotion. The nominator here presents new information that was not present in the deleted draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Sources aren't there, no doubt. But self-gloating? It's pretty much pure facts. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 speedy deletion. This isn't even close to a G11, especially for a draft, and any admin should know better. I would not even consider approving the draft as it stood, but it is not at the g11 level of promotion, and I would have !voted "keep" in an MfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion. Move to draft. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightburst Unless I have missed something, this is already in draft space, and so does not need to be moved there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a deleted draft. I did find it in the history however. I think it is only visible until this review completes. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gitanjali-JB – Speedy deletion endorsed per WP:G11. Sandstein 06:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Gitanjali-JB (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) <Deletion conducted without proper evaluation?> Gitanjali-JB (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Even terrible attempts to write draft articles like this are explicitly not U5s, like it was deleted as. If attempting to write articles isn't closely aligned with Wikipedia's goals, then nothing is. But endorse as a G11, irreparably promotional, like it was tagged as. Some choice phrases for interested nonadmins: "The vision of Helios Books is bringing out quality books in various genres", "a people made that fabled tryst with destiny and liberated themselves from the yoke of British imperialism", "Gitanjali is a spiritual seeker with a deep interest in Indian Spirituality". —Cryptic 04:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as promotional (WP:CSD#G11). Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion- quibbling about whether an autohagiography in user space is promotional (G11) or misuse of WP as a webhost (U5) seems to be just splitting hairs. Reyk _YO! 10:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] If you not only don't tell users what it is they did wrong, but tell them they did something else wrong that they didn't in fact do, then there's no chance at all that they'll rectify their behavior. That's part of the reason for having a world-visible deletion log in the first place. Admittedly, there's usually hardly any chance of self-correction for someone who's intentionally writing promotionally; but sometimes, people just write that way because it's how they see other people writing. —Cryptic 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] So long as nobody is actually suggesting undeleting this pap, I don't really care. I think U5 isn't completely bonkers for content that's equal parts resume, advertising brochure, and nationalist propaganda but if you want to flip it to G11 be my guest. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Valid G11 -- promotional. I am sorry to say that while this was clearly not a valid U5 speedy, it would have been a valid G11, as Cryptic says above. I must disagree with Reyk -- the listed deletion reason does matter, to tell people what not to do in future. Therefore I cannot endorse the deletion. But I am not going to suggest undeleting only to re-delete with a corrected log entry. However, there is no bar to a new draft that is not promotional. This person may well be notable. I also not that the draft included a number of referenfces, but none were inline. Also, it was on a main user page and not positioned as a userspace draft nor in draft space. That should not be done if a new version is created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] A not-as-bad version of this was also in mainspace, at Gitanjali JB (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Leave deleted Article creation is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but articles in user space are a U5 criterion. (And so I draftify misplaced articles in lieu of deleting them when I can.) Having said that, promotion is definitely not what user pages are for. I will note that I have never seen deleting admin delete as WP:G11, even when I felt the page was clearly G11 material. Looking at this page, it could be about a notable subject, but is so overwhelmingly promotional as to be beyond salvage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Gitanjali-JB – Speedy deletion endorsed per WP:G11. Sandstein 06:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

<Deletion conducted without proper evaluation?> Gitanjali-JB (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even terrible attempts to write draft articles like this are explicitly not U5s, like it was deleted as. If attempting to write articles isn't closely aligned with Wikipedia's goals, then nothing is. But endorse as a G11, irreparably promotional, like it was tagged as. Some choice phrases for interested nonadmins: "The vision of Helios Books is bringing out quality books in various genres", "a people made that fabled tryst with destiny and liberated themselves from the yoke of British imperialism", "Gitanjali is a spiritual seeker with a deep interest in Indian Spirituality". —Cryptic 04:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as promotional (WP:CSD#G11). Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- quibbling about whether an autohagiography in user space is promotional (G11) or misuse of WP as a webhost (U5) seems to be just splitting hairs. Reyk _YO! 10:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you not only don't tell users what it is they did wrong, but tell them they did something else wrong that they didn't in fact do, then there's no chance at all that they'll rectify their behavior. That's part of the reason for having a world-visible deletion log in the first place. Admittedly, there's usually hardly any chance of self-correction for someone who's intentionally writing promotionally; but sometimes, people just write that way because it's how they see other people writing. —Cryptic 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So long as nobody is actually suggesting undeleting this pap, I don't really care. I think U5 isn't completely bonkers for content that's equal parts resume, advertising brochure, and nationalist propaganda but if you want to flip it to G11 be my guest. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valid G11 -- promotional. I am sorry to say that while this was clearly not a valid U5 speedy, it would have been a valid G11, as Cryptic says above. I must disagree with Reyk -- the listed deletion reason does matter, to tell people what not to do in future. Therefore I cannot endorse the deletion. But I am not going to suggest undeleting only to re-delete with a corrected log entry. However, there is no bar to a new draft that is not promotional. This person may well be notable. I also not that the draft included a number of referenfces, but none were inline. Also, it was on a main user page and not positioned as a userspace draft nor in draft space. That should not be done if a new version is created. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A not-as-bad version of this was also in mainspace, at Gitanjali JB (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted Article creation is not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but articles in user space are a U5 criterion. (And so I draftify misplaced articles in lieu of deleting them when I can.) Having said that, promotion is definitely not what user pages are for. I will note that I have never seen deleting admin delete as WP:G11, even when I felt the page was clearly G11 material. Looking at this page, it could be about a notable subject, but is so overwhelmingly promotional as to be beyond salvage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adeeb Ahamed – "Delete" closure endorsed. The appellant should use WP:AFC if they want to restore an improved version of the article. Sandstein 06:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adeeb Ahamed (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The page Adeeb Ahmed was wrongly deleted through deletio discussion. The two things respected reviewers, I would like to bring to your attention are The current draft of Adeeb Ahamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed is vastly different from the earlier deleted article in article for deletion process. A lot has changed and improved about as per recommendations including awards and credible sources. Secondly article for deletion discussion was faulty due to a mistake I made. I created the earlier article in the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed where as his actual name is Adeeb Ahamed. Since the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed does not throw up any sources it was deleted during deletion discussion. If the correct name was used instead, it would have given many independent sources to establish notability as Mr Adeeb Ahamed. Thank you for responding and reconsidering. (Kuruvillac (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] Could you help us out here by linking or citing three of the best of these many independent sources?—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes off-course. Please could you check https://www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/408686-indian-rich-list-2018-14-adeeb-ahamed https://gulfnews.com/business/remittances-go-digital-1.1597425005076 https://www.arabianbusiness.com/banking-finance/443348-abu-dhabi-stimulus-package-to-mitigate-panic-says-lulu-financial-boss https://www.arabianbusiness.com/business/425981-investing-in-the-future-adeeb-ahamed-managing-director-of-lulu-financial-group https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 https://www.arabianbusiness.com/retail/421501-turning-tablez https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/turning-tables-how-adeeb-ahamed-of-the-lulu-group-is-foraying-further-with-food-toys-and-fashion/articleshow/60136087.cms https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html (Kuruvillac (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] If those are really the best sources, this is going to end up being endorsed. The independence and amount of editorial oversight in the first source isn't immediately obvious, but it reads like the sort of minibio that's solicited from and submitted by its subject. The second and third sources aren't about this person at all, and tell us essentially nothing about him. Sources #4-8 > 3. —Cryptic 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 7 and 8 are fairly typical of notable businessmen in that part of the world, to be fair. Indian news sources always seem to read like that.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, what was I was trying to say is that #4-8 were more than three sources. —Cryptic 12:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] References 7 & 8 are not independent of the subject, the subject was directly involved in the creation of the references. If they were the best, the subject is not notable and the AfD found the right decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] endrose deletion and close. There is no cogent argument here that belongs at DRV. Praxidicae (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi Cryptic , Since I am not an experienced editor, I would not know which sources are very good and which ones are not applicable. This guy has a lot of sources. To put it in context it is like selecting sources for Bill gates, Elon musk or Jeff Bezos. They are too many of them. Hope you would overlook my inability to discern which is good and which is not. Thank you for your prompt response (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] This is a tricky one. The AfD discussion was in m y view not a good one, with little real analysis of the sources offered, and apparently noi WP:BEFORE search (the nominating editor was a blcoked sock). But the only voice favoring retention dumkped a huge number of very mixed sources as bare URLs, with no indication of what they demonstrated, and no selection. That is not much of a basis to retain the article, and i can't see overturning that AfD on that basis. The draft linked above has been rejected, which normally means that it will not be considered further. I don't think that rejection was justified, but that is not strictly in scope for deletion review. Based on the last three sources clinked above, I think this person is probably notable and a valid article could be written, but it would take some significant improvement on the current draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] This is the big issue with new people editing at Wikipedia. Understanding our inclusion guidelines is really really hard. But read WP:N carefully and try to identify sources which: Aren't controlled by the subject and aren't tied to the subject (his work place, etc.) and have reasonable respect as a news source. Cover the subject in some detail (biographical information, etc.) Don't feel like a press release. If you can identify 3 to 5 such sources we can probably evaluate them and give you feedback. [3] for example feels like a press release (no author credit, only praise). [4] is a bit better, but still feels like it was paid for (and there is a disclaimer at the bottom...). I just don't think you have sources yet. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi Hobit , As requested I have added 5 sources. Please see if it fits the bill. https://www.timeskuwait.com/news/gold-card-granted-to-adeeb-ahamed-md-of-lulu-financial-group/ https://www.gulf-times.com/story/635428/Adeeb-Ahamed-honoured-as-NRI-Businessman-of-the-Ye https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/nri-businessman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kbf-board/1822515 https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/business/qatar-business/388458/lulu-exchange-md-honoured-with-global-businessman-award-at-brand-icons-2016 Thank you (Kuruvillac (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] I'm afraid you then still have problems. These all appear to be press releases. There is no byline on most of these and they all read like a press release. It can be hard to find solid sources on business leaders. You are basically looking for actual reporting about that the person has done. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I Rejected a draft, Draft:Adeeb Ahamed, on 21 August, citing the AFD that is now being appealed. I said that the submitter should do one of: 1. Obtain a copy of the previously deleted article for the reviewer to review to verify that the new draft was substantially different from the article. 2. Point to new achievements by the subject since June 2020, the time of the AFD. 3. Appeal to DRV to overturn the deletion. So here we are. The submitter said something about the spelling of the name of the subject. We appear to have considered two possible transliterations of the name, so that doesn't seem to be a concern. Pinging User:Eternal Shadow and User:Timtrent, who also reviewed the draft before I Rejected it. When the appellant has been asked for three best sources, they have provided URL dumps with 8 and 5 sources. I have not reviewed the original AFD in detail and am not yet providing my !vote on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion and Oppose allowing this draft to move forwards I have looked again at the disastrous set of referneces on the draft. I stand by WP:BOMBARD and will not review them individually. I woudl not accept this draft as it stands today. Then I looked at the "three" references chosen by the appellant. Most are PR, Press Releases or regurgutated PR. Of the remainder: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 has commentary beside the ubiquitous interview with the pricipal, but is very advertorial. I would rate it as borderline acceptable, but on the wrong side of the border. There are no other references that I find even as credible as this one. This exercise of asking for the top three references has failed. The appellant is still bombarding us with trash instead of references. I find I have no interest in whether this draft is substantially different because it is simply not publishable. It requires a fresh start written around good references. Let me remind the appellant: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. This fails. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment Good grief. There are five more references. I looked at the earlier set! Ok, one is common to the prior set, so there are four more. I ran out of enthusiasm, but I looked at each of them. Seems he now has a gold residency card and has won an award. I know I should be marginally more charitable, but I am losing faith that the appellant understands how to edit Wikipedia. I would only be persuaded to change my opinion by a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi User:Timtrent, Hobit, As Timtrent mentioned he is a gold card holder of UAE. People familiar with Middle East know it’s a very select honor given to few few businessmen. I gave 5 sources since the respected reviewer asked for 2nd time best of 3-5 independent sources. As Robert McClenon mentioned , I stick to my stance that the initial article in Wikipedia space was deleted because instead of the correct name “Abeeb Ahamed”, I used the wrong name, “Adeeb Ahmed” which has no sources in search. If I didn’t commit this mistake, the article might not have been selected for deletion review in the first place since to the large number of sourced available and even if if was, it might have survived. So I humbly maintain the initial deletion was faulty due to my mistake, resulting in other reviewers not finding any sources on search (Kuruvillac (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] @Kuruvillac: I have told you what will persuade me to change my mind. From what I see from comments above it is likey also to persuade others. Set the past aside. Set the present aside. Write the future. Write a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Tell me, us, when you have, please. It will be a game changer if you acheve it. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Note this is way outside the remit of a deletion review. This is run of the mill AFC stuff. I suggest it be closed with advice to the appelant. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the close of the AFD. This isn't a request for permission to submit a draft for review, because the draft has already been submitted and rejected, so that this Deletion Review has to be an appeal of the close of the deletion discussion. (DRV is not used as a procedure to appeal a decline or rejection in AFC.) The issues with regard to the AFD can be any irregularities in the process, and the judgment of the administrators. The only procedural issue is that the nomination was originally made by a sockpuppet, but an administrator took note of that and stated that the AFD had merit, which was consistent with the multiple Delete !votes that had been cast when the nominator was blocked. The first would-be closer chose to Relist after multiple Delete !votes and only the author/appellant arguing to Keep, so the close was not hasty. The eventual closer looked at five Delete !votes, several of which raised concerns about paid editing. If the author is not a paid editor, the quality of the writing is similar to that of some paid editors. The close was correct. I respectfully disagree with one editor that this is outside the scope of a deletion review. It is just outside the scope of a sound deletion review. It is also no longer run-of-the-mill AFC stuff, because the AFC draft has been rejected. The appellant's argument that an error in transliteration has caused an incorrect result has been considered, but is silly. The appellant claims that because of the transliteration, the reviewers didn't find relevant sources. First, both spellings have been considered. Second, the responsibility is on the author to provide the sources. They have provided too many low-quality sources. The transliteration issue can be dismissed. The author didn't make the case with walls of text at AFD, and isn't making the case with walls of text at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi User:Timtrent, How can I prepare a crisper and Wikipedia compliant draft when Robert McClenon has put a stop on my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed Also as I had earlier mentioned by article on Adeeb Ahamed was wrongly deleted the first time through deletion review since it had enough merits to pass notability test. If a method of consistency, meritocracy and fairness was followed to evaluate the first article, it would have passed the notability test. Unfortunately I don’t have any affiliates as a new comer in Wikipedia to give voice to my opinion. Thank you for you suggestions. (Kuruvillac (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] Write a new one. Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Refer to WP:THREE. If you can’t count, we don’t think you can understand independent reliable secondary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Thank you User:Timtrent, As per your instruction I will prepare a crisper shorter new draft as best as I can. Hope Robert McClenon is okay with this idea. As far as earlier source count goes. There were two requests, one was for best 3-5 sources which I was complaint with. The first time I erred by providing more sources as there was a plethora to choose from and I thought it would better to err on more than less. As I had explained the reason earlier, I would not want to repeat myself but thank the reviewers in the thread who got what I meant and empathized with me. Thank you Again. (Kuruvillac (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply] Kuruvillac It is not an instruction. It is the only way you will achieve a decent draft (0.9 probability). No editor needs to approve your creating a further, and different draft. It is clear that the current draft is rejected, thus any new one needs to be substantially different, with better quality references, but not a vast quantity of them. If you need advice I am happy to help, but not here in this discussion. Your own talk page, or the talk page of the new draft are each appropriate locations. If I offer advice in either location I will recuse myself from revieiwng the draft. My final advice to you here is to write very tightly worded and brief text with three solid references in reliable sources that are significant coverage and are about the gentleman. Do not stray beyond establishing his notability and referencing it. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Hi S Marshall, As per the recommendation of reviewers in this forum , I have created a new draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). Please check (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Adeeb Ahamed – "Delete" closure endorsed. The appellant should use WP:AFC if they want to restore an improved version of the article. Sandstein 06:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page Adeeb Ahmed was wrongly deleted through deletio discussion. The two things respected reviewers, I would like to bring to your attention are

The current draft of Adeeb Ahamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed is vastly different from the earlier deleted article in article for deletion process. A lot has changed and improved about as per recommendations including awards and credible sources.
Secondly article for deletion discussion was faulty due to a mistake I made. I created the earlier article in the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed where as his actual name is Adeeb Ahamed. Since the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed does not throw up any sources it was deleted during deletion discussion. If the correct name was used instead, it would have given many independent sources to establish notability as Mr Adeeb Ahamed. Thank you for responding and reconsidering. (Kuruvillac (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Could you help us out here by linking or citing three of the best of these many independent sources?—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes off-course.

Please could you check

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/408686-indian-rich-list-2018-14-adeeb-ahamed

https://gulfnews.com/business/remittances-go-digital-1.1597425005076

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/banking-finance/443348-abu-dhabi-stimulus-package-to-mitigate-panic-says-lulu-financial-boss

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/business/425981-investing-in-the-future-adeeb-ahamed-managing-director-of-lulu-financial-group

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/retail/421501-turning-tablez

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/turning-tables-how-adeeb-ahamed-of-the-lulu-group-is-foraying-further-with-food-toys-and-fashion/articleshow/60136087.cms

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html

(Kuruvillac (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

If those are really the best sources, this is going to end up being endorsed. The independence and amount of editorial oversight in the first source isn't immediately obvious, but it reads like the sort of minibio that's solicited from and submitted by its subject. The second and third sources aren't about this person at all, and tell us essentially nothing about him. Sources #4-8 > 3. —Cryptic 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7 and 8 are fairly typical of notable businessmen in that part of the world, to be fair. Indian news sources always seem to read like that.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what was I was trying to say is that #4-8 were more than three sources. —Cryptic 12:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - References 7 & 8 are not independent of the subject, the subject was directly involved in the creation of the references. If they were the best, the subject is not notable and the AfD found the right decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

endrose deletion and close. There is no cogent argument here that belongs at DRV. Praxidicae (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic ,

Since I am not an experienced editor, I would not know which sources are very good and which ones are not applicable. This guy has a lot of sources. To put it in context it is like selecting sources for Bill gates, Elon musk or Jeff Bezos. They are too many of them. Hope you would overlook my inability to discern which is good and which is not. Thank you for your prompt response (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

This is a tricky one. The AfD discussion was in m y view not a good one, with little real analysis of the sources offered, and apparently noi WP:BEFORE search (the nominating editor was a blcoked sock). But the only voice favoring retention dumkped a huge number of very mixed sources as bare URLs, with no indication of what they demonstrated, and no selection. That is not much of a basis to retain the article, and i can't see overturning that AfD on that basis. The draft linked above has been rejected, which normally means that it will not be considered further. I don't think that rejection was justified, but that is not strictly in scope for deletion review. Based on the last three sources clinked above, I think this person is probably notable and a valid article could be written, but it would take some significant improvement on the current draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big issue with new people editing at Wikipedia. Understanding our inclusion guidelines is really really hard. But read WP:N carefully and try to identify sources which:
- Aren't controlled by the subject and aren't tied to the subject (his work place, etc.) and have reasonable respect as a news source.
- Cover the subject in some detail (biographical information, etc.)
- Don't feel like a press release.

If you can identify 3 to 5 such sources we can probably evaluate them and give you feedback. [3] for example feels like a press release (no author credit, only praise). [4] is a bit better, but still feels like it was paid for (and there is a disclaimer at the bottom...). I just don't think you have sources yet. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit ,

As requested I have added 5 sources. Please see if it fits the bill.

https://www.timeskuwait.com/news/gold-card-granted-to-adeeb-ahamed-md-of-lulu-financial-group/

https://www.gulf-times.com/story/635428/Adeeb-Ahamed-honoured-as-NRI-Businessman-of-the-Ye

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/nri-businessman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kbf-board/1822515

https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html

https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/business/qatar-business/388458/lulu-exchange-md-honoured-with-global-businessman-award-at-brand-icons-2016

Thank you (Kuruvillac (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid you then still have problems. These all appear to be press releases. There is no byline on most of these and they all read like a press release. It can be hard to find solid sources on business leaders. You are basically looking for actual reporting about that the person has done. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I Rejected a draft, Draft:Adeeb Ahamed, on 21 August, citing the AFD that is now being appealed. I said that the submitter should do one of:
1. Obtain a copy of the previously deleted article for the reviewer to review to verify that the new draft was substantially different from the article.
2. Point to new achievements by the subject since June 2020, the time of the AFD.
3. Appeal to DRV to overturn the deletion.
So here we are. The submitter said something about the spelling of the name of the subject. We appear to have considered two possible transliterations of the name, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Pinging User:Eternal Shadow and User:Timtrent, who also reviewed the draft before I Rejected it.
When the appellant has been asked for three best sources, they have provided URL dumps with 8 and 5 sources.
I have not reviewed the original AFD in detail and am not yet providing my !vote on it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and Oppose allowing this draft to move forwards I have looked again at the disastrous set of referneces on the draft. I stand by WP:BOMBARD and will not review them individually. I woudl not accept this draft as it stands today.

Then I looked at the "three" references chosen by the appellant. Most are PR, Press Releases or regurgutated PR. Of the remainder:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 has commentary beside the ubiquitous interview with the pricipal, but is very advertorial. I would rate it as borderline acceptable, but on the wrong side of the border. There are no other references that I find even as credible as this one.

This exercise of asking for the top three references has failed. The appellant is still bombarding us with trash instead of references. I find I have no interest in whether this draft is substantially different because it is simply not publishable.

It requires a fresh start written around good references. Let me remind the appellant: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

This fails. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good grief. There are five more references. I looked at the earlier set! Ok, one is common to the prior set, so there are four more. I ran out of enthusiasm, but I looked at each of them. Seems he now has a gold residency card and has won an award. I know I should be marginally more charitable, but I am losing faith that the appellant understands how to edit Wikipedia. I would only be persuaded to change my opinion by a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timtrent, Hobit,

As Timtrent mentioned he is a gold card holder of UAE. People familiar with Middle East know it’s a very select honor given to few few businessmen.

I gave 5 sources since the respected reviewer asked for 2nd time best of 3-5 independent sources.

As Robert McClenon mentioned , I stick to my stance that the initial article in Wikipedia space was deleted because instead of the correct name “Abeeb Ahamed”, I used the wrong name, “Adeeb Ahmed” which has no sources in search. If I didn’t commit this mistake, the article might not have been selected for deletion review in the first place since to the large number of sourced available and even if if was, it might have survived. So I humbly maintain the initial deletion was faulty due to my mistake, resulting in other reviewers not finding any sources on search (Kuruvillac (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Kuruvillac: I have told you what will persuade me to change my mind. From what I see from comments above it is likey also to persuade others. Set the past aside. Set the present aside. Write the future. Write a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Tell me, us, when you have, please. It will be a game changer if you acheve it. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is way outside the remit of a deletion review. This is run of the mill AFC stuff. I suggest it be closed with advice to the appelant. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of the AFD. This isn't a request for permission to submit a draft for review, because the draft has already been submitted and rejected, so that this Deletion Review has to be an appeal of the close of the deletion discussion. (DRV is not used as a procedure to appeal a decline or rejection in AFC.)
- - The issues with regard to the AFD can be any irregularities in the process, and the judgment of the administrators. The only procedural issue is that the nomination was originally made by a sockpuppet, but an administrator took note of that and stated that the AFD had merit, which was consistent with the multiple Delete !votes that had been cast when the nominator was blocked. The first would-be closer chose to Relist after multiple Delete !votes and only the author/appellant arguing to Keep, so the close was not hasty. The eventual closer looked at five Delete !votes, several of which raised concerns about paid editing. If the author is not a paid editor, the quality of the writing is similar to that of some paid editors. The close was correct.
  - I respectfully disagree with one editor that this is outside the scope of a deletion review. It is just outside the scope of a sound deletion review. It is also no longer run-of-the-mill AFC stuff, because the AFC draft has been rejected.
  - The appellant's argument that an error in transliteration has caused an incorrect result has been considered, but is silly. The appellant claims that because of the transliteration, the reviewers didn't find relevant sources. First, both spellings have been considered. Second, the responsibility is on the author to provide the sources. They have provided too many low-quality sources. The transliteration issue can be dismissed.
  - The author didn't make the case with walls of text at AFD, and isn't making the case with walls of text at DRV.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Timtrent,

How can I prepare a crisper and Wikipedia compliant draft when Robert McClenon has put a stop on my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed

Also as I had earlier mentioned by article on Adeeb Ahamed was wrongly deleted the first time through deletion review since it had enough merits to pass notability test. If a method of consistency, meritocracy and fairness was followed to evaluate the first article, it would have passed the notability test. Unfortunately I don’t have any affiliates as a new comer in Wikipedia to give voice to my opinion. Thank you for you suggestions. (Kuruvillac (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Write a new one. Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:THREE. If you can’t count, we don’t think you can understand independent reliable secondary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Timtrent,

As per your instruction I will prepare a crisper shorter new draft as best as I can. Hope Robert McClenon is okay with this idea.

As far as earlier source count goes. There were two requests, one was for best 3-5 sources which I was complaint with. The first time I erred by providing more sources as there was a plethora to choose from and I thought it would better to err on more than less. As I had explained the reason earlier, I would not want to repeat myself but thank the reviewers in the thread who got what I meant and empathized with me. Thank you Again. (Kuruvillac (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Kuruvillac It is not an instruction. It is the only way you will achieve a decent draft (0.9 probability). No editor needs to approve your creating a further, and different draft. It is clear that the current draft is rejected, thus any new one needs to be substantially different, with better quality references, but not a vast quantity of them. If you need advice I am happy to help, but not here in this discussion. Your own talk page, or the talk page of the new draft are each appropriate locations. If I offer advice in either location I will recuse myself from revieiwng the draft. My final advice to you here is to write very tightly worded and brief text with three solid references in reliable sources that are significant coverage and are about the gentleman. Do not stray beyond establishing his notability and referencing it. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall,

As per the recommendation of reviewers in this forum , I have created a new draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). Please check (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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