Mitanshu Kawlekar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe this article should be restored, since I find the action taken by the nominator and closing admin as "hasty". I completely disagree that the article is promotional or if had any WP:Peacock text, it could be trimmed and not speedily deleted. Initially when I questioned the closing admin, I did not get a sufficient answer but an alternative method to push it to draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation as Draft - On the one hand, the article probably was spam. On the other hand, the author should have a copy on their computer, and should be allowed to restore it to Draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response, Robert. I still do not believe the article was spam and hoping it is restored completely into article space, maybe you could had gotten a better detailed insight if it was {TempUndeleted}, hence I ask the admins for the same so that the editors can have a better insight towards the speedy deletion. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 21:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second speedy deletion of an article about Kawlekar. @Bbb23 offered restoration as a draft which is probably the best outcome here. Text such as This initiative aimed to redefine the way people experienced live events by bringing them directly into their homes. is promotional and if this were at AfD, I would not hesitate to !vote delete. Star Mississippi 21:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've picked one sentence from the article. I do not disagree with you, it might sound promotional. But don't you think a WP:NPOV tag would had been more sufficient? It's not like whole article is promotional. It seems like a case of deletionists involved in this matter. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 21:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is 100% promotional content. If a sentence in an article is 100% promotional, the other sentences usually range between 0% and 100%. No, a tag is not sufficient. Wikipedia is not for promotion. If the article is restored, it should only be restored to draft space. We should all be deletionists when it comes to advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many sentences would you like? I count exactly two, out of the fifty in the final revision, that might survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, and cutting it down to those two ("Mitanshu Kawlekar was born on 3 March 1999. As of 2022, he is a final year Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering student at Goa Engineering College.") would leave it an A7. 96% of an article being in need of revision does not call for an NPOV tag. —Cryptic 00:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm stil finding it hard to believe. I might have been too lenient to check over the article's neutrality or the sources I used had a lot of peacock statements which maybe I failed to trim down. Do you also think the "Personal views" section too was promotional? 96% seems pretty bad. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is undue weight, though not in the sense that's usually meant by that term on Wikipedia. By including it, especially at the length you did, you're saying that this person's (laudable) opposition to ragging is a much larger part of his life than it is. The same is true, for example, for the paragraph about the beach cleanup in the Career section - a two hour beach cleanup is not an appreciable part of anybody's career; that you were able to find an ostensibly-third-party puffpiece about it doesn't mean it belongs in a neutral biography.

I do want to make the point that, though the promotionalism was pervasive, it was mostly on the mild end of what's speedy-deletable. Bbb23's offer to restore to draftspace was exactly the right call to make; this article is salvageable, even if it's not at the point where just tagging and leaving it in mainspace as-is would be tolerable. —Cryptic 01:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, based on User:Cryptic's assessment. Do not restore any part. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this discussed with the deleting admin? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bbb23#Mitanshu_Kawlekar seems to be the totality of it, @SmokeyJoe Star Mississippi 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this. —Cryptic 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Refer User:Rejoy2003 back to that. Support Bbb23’s offer:

I am willing to restore the article to draft space so you can work on it, but only if you promise to use WP:AFC, meaning you will not move it to article space on your own but instead allow experienced reviewers to evaluate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Endorse the G11 speedy deletion. Rejoy’s follow up points appear to be timewasting. Either accept Bbb23’s offer, or give it up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey, the deleting admin's offer is good. Seems like this article will mostly be moving there. But the "AFC" part was something unexpected. I don't want my article to stall over there for months, I've had similar experiences in the AFC in the past. Can't I just take it to draft space and work on it and then move back to article space? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The offer is that you don’t move it yourself. You can ask for a variety of things, but I strongly recommend that you take the obvious advice to have it draftified and then fix it in draftspace, before asking anything more. Otherwise, you’re asking on the hypothetical that you’ve done a good job fixing an unacceptable page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean technically you can as the title hasn't been salted, but you shouldn't. You don't understand the problems with the article, and restoring it without addressing those would lead to yet another deletion. That turns into tendentious editing and you risk being blocked. AfC is the better choice. If you accept that, one of us will probably restore the draft in fewer than the seven days here. Star Mississippi 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. based on what I can learn about the deleted content from those who can see it. G11 works the same in both namespaces so, if restored, the page would just be G11-eligible in draftspace. Upon restoration, the draft could be tagged by anyone, and an administrator should delete it, and we should want that to happen. It is a good thing when pages eligible for speedy deletion are identified and deleted. So if this DRV leads to restoration, it will only have led to an outcome that begs for that good thing to happen. The same good thing that we're already enjoying by the page being deleted. About AfC specifically: I don't think that DRV can impose AfC, as it isn't practicable to make this optional process function like that on an ad hoc basis. The well-disposed offer of one editor to another only worked before DRV as an informal deal of sorts, based on trust. DRV is a formal process and can't reconstruct this unrealized agreement by readding strongly undesirable content onto the site. It would have been much better for Rejoy2003 to have accepted the offer as it was a "generous" offer. The offer should be considered wasted. Just keep deleted.—Alalch E. 01:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I had made my mind about taking this article two days ago, like I had highlighted to it to Smokey. I'm grateful for everyone that has been involved in this DRV. Especially the admins for helping me understand about this much better since I didn't really understand what "tone" was that the article seemed promotional. I'm willing to have this article rather draftified than completely salting it. I want to improve and add encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia, this was completely not my intent to write down promotional content. I hope the admins will continue to place their trust in me and having fix this salvageable article, as stated by Cryptic. Thank you Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

See this version, the article is now worthy of being reinstated. 202.134.8.129 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - Wrong forum. The IP is edit-warring to restore an article, or a version of an article, that was recently cut down to a redirect, and the AFD that cut the article down to a redirect was endorsed by a recent contentious DRV. If the IP is a good-faith unregistered editor, they should submit a draft for review. Semi-protecting the redirect might be a good idea, but this is Deletion Review, and we already reviewed and endorsed the deletion close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four Golden Princess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn and restore or delete: A redirect to M-Girls seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different music groups. I am unable to provide more than an anecdote about the popularity of Four Golden Princess vs. M-Girls, but you can find Four Golden Princess' page on Spotify here, and M-Girls' page on Spotify here.
Anecdotally, they are famous for children's songs in Malaysia; their Spotify page would give a sense of their discography. Due to the nature of their songs, it would be difficult to qualify them under MUSIC or GNG. I am personally perplexed by the lack of official channels as well. It might be due to the fact that the group and its disbandment somewhat predates the boom of Internet in Malaysia/Singapore. However, my point is that these are distinct groups and the decision to redirect is not well-supported by the discussion. Adding this as a redirect to a completely different group is misleading. RagnaParadise (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Any action other than an endorse is a little strange a year-and-a-half later, but the redirect was a little strange also. There was no consensus at the time of closure, and a third relist was still possible, and is now an even better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It’s too old, there was no deletion. As per the close, it can be recreated if better sources are found. The proponent mentions Spotify, so refer them to AfC. DRV is not the gateway for recreating articles with better sources. They were formed in 1994 and disbanded in 2008. So what could be new? There is no case for “overturn” or “restore”.

”Delete”? Yes maybe. Take it to WP:RfD, but only when you’ve decided what you want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Discussion is more than a year and a half old. If you want to delete it, go to WP:RFD; if you want to restore/spin it out, you don't need permission from here to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Discussion was correct. There's no problem with re-creating the article with better sources per the closure. SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and explicitly allow restoration (restored article is obviously subject to another AFD). Due to limited AFD participation, the close was essentially the redirect equivalent of a soft delete as there was only one user outside the nom who made arguments against keeping the article. In this case an article should be restored upon any good-faith request (e.g. this DRV). Since the page is not protected, the DRV is not technically needed but we are here anyway. I believe either (soft) redirect or no consensus would have been viable options, and Sandstein opted for the former. Frank Anchor 18:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rarri Dream (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just thinks he needs a wikipedia given he has press and news articles like I said If It isn't clear that deletion of the draft is the most appropriate way to deal with the resubmission then why has it been done. This is a legitimate up incoming music rapper which it says by his title on google he has many References they just have to be inserted correctly. If you put the draft back up I will assure that the excessive submissions won't happen again unless the page is ready and he has been posting on so really notable news outlets. He has also has had new press articles since then. JoshKaine (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion of the draft, which was the only possible conclusion by the closer after all of the participants in the MFD, including myself, had !voted Delete. The draft was nominated for deletion after a long history of tendentious resubmission including 5 Rejections and 5 declines. The appellant is taking my words out of context. In the MFD, I had written:

  It isn't clear that deletion of the draft is the most appropriate way to deal with the resubmission, because a partial block may be in order, but it is an appropriate way to deal with the resubmission, and this is a content forum.

  Deletion of the draft was an appropriate way to deal with it, and there was no error by anyone except the submitter. The title was not salted, and the appellant is free to create and submit a new draft, but would do well to ask for advice at the Teahouse first, and should be aware that tendentious resubmission this time will almost certainly result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.

But, restore to draftspace on condition that it does not get tendentiously submitted, assuming this is a reasonable request by an editor in good standing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this user's edits have been to this draft or its variants, and all but the first two revisions were either by this user, an occasional ip, afc decliners, and removals of what one user aptly described as "ridiculous black-hat SEO". I don't think any of "reasonable... editor in good standing" applies. —Cryptic 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suspicion, yes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I would normally support restoration to draft space, but given that consensus was clear that the draft wasn't ready and this was disruptively resubmitted by an SPA, I think that would just lead to more disruption. If Kaine is p-blocked from the draft, which I would support, this likely turns into a G13 so suggest waiting on restoration until an uninvolved editor is interested in working on it. Star Mississippi 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Star Mississippi.—Alalch E. 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This was variously at, hm, Draft:FF Rarri, Draft:Malik Shakir Aziz, FF Rarri, Draft:Rarri Cash, Draft:Ff rarri, and Draft:Yes Man, for those keeping score at home. Perhaps more; those were just the titles of versions edited by this user. —Cryptic 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Aberffraw (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:RS, WP:OR House of Aberffraw article deleted to redirect for Rhodri Mawr a medieval Welsh King, the article stood for over a decade and needs more presence than a redirect. Issue arose from my outdated sources, but that can be amended. Thanks, Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation, the article is not fiction, there are sources albeit older sources recreated by authors such as John Davies (historian), and John Edward Lloyd (1911 book re-released in 2004) giving exact details of the dynasty of the house. It would be unfair to have a blank space when other dynasties from around the world still have Royal House articles with inadequate referencing, e.g. House of Dunkeld, Emirate of Nekor and plenty more on Wikipedia's List of dynasties article. Cltjames (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - There has been no deletion. There was a WP:BLAR. Where an editor objects to BLAR, the remedy is the revert button. That will likely trigger a deletion discussion, but that has not happened yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow recreation - There is significant historical information about the House of Aberffraw available in literature. Titus Gold (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am of the same view, there is significant historical information about Aberffraw. Not sure I understand what happened on the Aberffraw page, but the behavior was exaggerated on both sides. Academia45 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close I've boldly restored the last version before the redirect as this wasn't a DRV issue. Next step is to discuss on the talk page or for the article to be taken to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close - Wrong venue. This is a contested blank and redirect. As SportingFlyer says, the article should be restored, and then taken to AFD with redirection as an alternative to deletion. We often say that DRV is not AFD round 2, but DRV is also not AFD round 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wales (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:RS, WP:OR King of Wales article was deleted and replaced by the same user who deleted House of Aberffraw. The article links to King of the Britons and the List of rulers of Wales articles, but now there is a gap between articles because the information was deleted in one article but not the other and this have created inconsistencies. Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close - There has been no deletion. There was a WP:BLAR. Where an editor objects to BLAR, the remedy is the revert button. That will likely trigger a deletion discussion, but that has not happened yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close The article was not deleted but the text was drastically changed. Revert the text and take it to the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow recreation -, I have reverted the article as requested. Again same issue as the House of Aberffraw article which was deleted in it's entirety. However, at least this time the user created a few paragraphs of explanation, only referring to the Latin use of the title King of Wales, whilst it actually has 3,000 years of history (2,000 more than described in the rewrite prior). Please refer to connecting articles, List of legendary kings of Britain, King of the Britons, Kingdom of Gwynedd, List of legendary rulers of Cornwall (direct connection, yet article hasn't been challenged based on the same research, Book of Baglan c. 1600), and also look at List of High Kings of Ireland starting at 1934 BC. Wales has history, so why try to hide it is my argument e.g. use older sources if necessary. Cltjames (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - Wrong venue. This is a contested blank and redirect. One right way to resolve a contested blank and redirect is a deletion discussion, which there has not yet been. Restore the article that was cut down, and then send it to AFD with redirection as an alternative to deletion. In this case, DRV is not AFD round 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article was neither deleted nor blanked-and-replaced. Further discussion on the talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]