| Revision as of 14:53, 27 September 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (del. endorsed)← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:08, 27 September 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[], [], [], []: closing (del. endorsed)Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ====], ], ], ]==== | |||
| Deleted by JzG. Should they have been deleted without any kind of discussion or vote? I know that some things are speedy deleted, but why were these? The only message I got was ] 00:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion, keep deleted.''' From the front page of ]: "''If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so.''" That sounds like it fits your situation for all four articles. Also from the front page of ]: "''This process should '''not''' be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning.''" --] 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*The problem is that there was not a deletion debate. My understanding is that you have processes that you follow to ensure that there is a debate, unless they fit into the narrow "speedy" criteria. If there was a debate that would have been fine, I and other could have contributed but there wasn't. That is the reason I have raised this. Is it correct that they were deleted without any debate? ] 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Admins have the discretion to delete single-line articles on sight. Your best option would be to take the few extra minutes to write actual stubs when creating new articles. Why not write three or four sentences for each of these topics instead of just one, and eliminate the problem entirely? --] 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I forgot to add: Your articles '''did''' fit into the narrow speedy criteria, specifically ] A1 and/or A3. --] 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I deleted these as part of a series of extremely short stubs created by the user, and leaft an explanation on his Talk page. Rationale in each case: | |||
| :*'''Kept woman''': a dicdef, already at ]. | |||
| ::*Is this a valid reason to delete without debate? I can't see anything that says so. 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Yes. <b>]</b> 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Is there a policy that says this is a valid reason, or is it just your opinion? If there is a policy can you please point me to it? ] 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* ] a dictionary. <b>]</b> 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* ] is not a speedy criteria ] 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* ]. <b>]</b> 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*I could just as easily counter w/IAR too in this case if need be, you know. I won't repeat it all the way down, but just as strong an argument can be made that ignoring IAR (IARIAR?) improves the encyclopedia more than ignoring the processes. --] <small>]</small> 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Dr. E von Wolf''': One sentence, facts already stated at ], title incorrect per ] and claim to fame is speculative anyway | |||
| ::*Is this a valid reason to delete without debate? I can't see anything that says so. 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Yes. <b>]</b> 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Is there a policy that says this is a valid reason, or is it just your opinion? If there is a policy can you please point me to it? ] 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* See ]. Empty article, lacks context. No references, speculative. Have you ever considered writign articles of more thanone sentence in length? You have now expended around ten times the effort arguing over this as you did on the article. <b>]</b> 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* It wasn't empty and it had sufficient context to allow expansion. Is there a limit on debating, that is proportional to the size of the article? ] 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* ]. Wrong content, wrong title, no point wasting time with process. Feel free to create an article at the right title and including more than the single sentence already contained in ]. <b>]</b> 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Kootenai Valley Press''': One sentence, lacked context or evidence of significance | |||
| ::*What context was lacking? "One sentence" is not a criteria for deletion without debate and, as far as I can see, "significance" is not a relevant criteria for a newspaper 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* See ]. <b>]</b> 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*As far as I can see WP:CORP is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion. Can you please explain your reasoning? ] 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* See ]. Try creating an article with at least a full pararaph, including some references. Also consider putting more effort into your articles than into arguing about them in project space. <b>]</b> 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* SNOW is also not a criteria for speedy deletion. ] 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* ]. <b>]</b> 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Portal gun''': Redirect to speculative article on future game, no evidence the term will ever require a redirect | |||
| ::*Is that a valid criteria for deleting a redirect without any debate? ] 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Yes. <b>]</b> 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Is there a policy that says this is a valid reason, or is it just your opinion? If there is a policy can you please point me to it? ] 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* ]. <b>]</b> 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* I presume JzG actually meant to link to ]. ] 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* IAR only applies if not following it prevent you from "maintaining or improving Misplaced Pages", how is that the case in this instance? ] 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* IRA works just as well - blow the sucker up with ]. See ] for why I think removing it consitutes an improvement. <b>]</b> 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The creator's User page has a "look at all the articles I created" list, pretty much all of them being one-sentence stubs like this. A couple of ''Foo is a town in Bar'' style entries, that kind of thing (see ]). ] was a redirect to ] which I turned into a dab for TFT and plasma display, but have now redirected to ] after a quick search. So: a slight excess of enthusiasm on this editor's part, and a failure on mine to give adequate explanation due to time pressures. <b>]</b> 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it a problem that I have a list of articles that I have created on my user page? I have seen other people do that. Many of the articles have been expanded by others. Is there a policy that these articles should be deleted just because they are short? I have looked through the speedy criteria and can't see anything there. Apparently you guys don't even delete hoaxes without a vote, so why a short article. What problem is that solving? Also, even if I do have a list on my page, is that how you judge each article, or do you judge them all on their own merits? ] 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Like I said on your talk page, with over a million articles already extant, it's a good idea to check before starting that the subject is not already covered, and to make sure that you have enough information for more than a one sentence stub. The debate on these articles is now several tens of times the size of the articles themselves. <b>]</b> 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why does that mean that they should have been deleted without a debate? There is nothing in the speedy deletion criteria that says articles should be deleted more readily because we have a lot of them. Is this just your opinion, or are you following a policy/process? Also, please explain the relevance of you mentioning the list on my user page. ] 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Undelete''' ] as a that should redirect. --] 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' deletion of the newspaper and the spinach guy; both lack of context and biographies not asserting significance are ] for deletion. No opinion on the other two. ] 22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*A newspaper is not covered by the "asserting significance" speedy criteria, and the "spinach guy" article did have an assertion of notability (if there is an assertion, it should not be speedy deleted). ] 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ]'''. A very short dicdefs that already exists at Wiktionary, per the spirit of CSDs A1, A2, A3, and arguably A5. ] 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*As far as I can see "Dicdef" is not a valid criteria. If we are talking about intangibles such as the "spirit" of a criteria, wouldn't it be better if others could see the article and debate it (e.g. AFD)? ] 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*A dicdef in itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but in the normal course of events it would be transwikied to Wiktionary. However in this case there is no point as it does not add anything to the already existing entry. What I mean by the spirit is that it nearly meets the criteria of the criteria listed and it is clearly not an encylopaedia entry so would not stand a chance at ] (see also ]).] 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ]''' per Radiant! and JzG. ] 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse ]''', clearly meets CSD A1, also meets the spirit of A3. ] 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*How does it meet A1? Limited content is not a criteria so I assume you mean "little or no context". Could you elaborate on what kind of contextual information was missing, that prevents it from being expanded? Also, regarding A3 - why does it meet any of the criteria? It was more than a rewording, wasn't a communication attempt and was more than a link elsewhere. If it fails to meet an intangible like the "spirit" of the criteria, shouldn't it be seen and debated by others rather than just deleted? ] 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It meets A1 because there ''is'' no context to the article, and although it technically does not just rephrase the title it does not give you any significant information about it. Why do we need an article on it? What sort of newspaper is it? When was it established? Has it got any notable journalists? Has it won any awards? Has it been involved in any controversies? Has it broken any major international news stories? Did any major journalist start their career here? It makes no claims to notability and has no sources - it doesn't even have any statements ''needing'' sources. See ] for a good article on what appears to be a similar-sized newspaper. ] 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete ]''' per ]. This does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. ] 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* It was a redirect, ] if you like. Quite why we need redirects to articles on games which don't yet exist is a bit beyond me, mind. <b>]</b> 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If I were to be bold, how would I know that you wouldn't delete it again (before you apparently said so now)? --] 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Trevor, you're not helping your case by responding to all other editors here to tell them their comments are wrong. Just a thought. ] 10:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm only trying to debate this - by responding to the input. Is that the wrong thing to do here? Should I be debating it somewhere else? ] 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Although they technically might not have been speedy deletable, none of the articles would stand a chance at AfD (it would be hard to write a nomination reason that was not longer than the article) so there is no point in wasting everybody's time and effort. Your time would be much better spent collecting information to write ''at least'' a decent stub article on the topics - from ] "A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to provide no useful information. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences.". ] 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Who gets to decide that these wouldn't stand a chance at AFD? What criteria do they use for deciding this? Do short articles that are nominated as AFD '''always''' get deleted, or is the subject of the article an important consideration? If the correct policy was not followed here, I would like these article to be restored so that they can be reviewed by people who are not administrator and debated properly (my understanding is that, once deleted, only administrators can see the old content). At least, could somebody please give me the content so that I can restore them myself (and not delete them until such deletion has been debated)? ] 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Knowing what doesn't stand a chance at AfD comes only with experience - I've been on Misplaced Pages since late 2004 and an administrator since mid-2005, in this time I've seen countless AfDs and I've got a good idea of things that just wont survive. Take a look at some old AfD pages and have a look at what gets deleted and what doesn't, and the reasoning behind people's reccomendations. It is ''extremely'' rare that very short "sub-stubs" get kept as is. A few get siginificant expansion, but this is not common, and even some that do get expanded still don't get kept. Some will get merged into other articles, but in the case of these articles this wouldn't happen: | |||
| *****] was a dictionary definition and so doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages - anyone who doesn't know what it means can look it up at Wiktionary, where it already exists. | |||
| *****] - all the information in the article is already in the ] article so there is nothing extra ''to'' merge. | |||
| *****] - again all the information in this article is already in the ] disamib aritcle. | |||
| ****Regarding the content, any user can request that the content of a deleted article be temporarily undeleted if they want to merge the content elsewhere or check that a deletion was correct. Admins will then look to see if this is apropriate, in this case there is nothing worth undeleting because there is no point - all the content already exists elsewhere and is nothing that cannot be recreated from scratch in less than a minute. Everybody who has commented so far agrees that these deletions were poper, and has explained in great detail why. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained by them spending a few days on AfD just to be deleted again. ] 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****None of the reasons given match the speedy criteria, or at least it is debatable that they match the criteria. I don't think that an administrator has the right to decide that items should be deleted/stay deleted just because they believe it won't succeed in an AFD - if there is such a policy please direct me to it. From what I have read about the speedy criteria, they should be applied very narrowly and if there is any doubt an article should be debated at AFD. You have already stated that they may not "technically" meet AFD, so surely there must be some doubt and the articles should at least go to AFD. One of the articles that was deleted has already been recreated as part of this review. I don't want to just recreate these articles when there is strong feeling that they should remain deleted, and would rather convince people that these should go to AFD. But, the only reasons that people are giving me for keeping them deleted are down to things such as "the spirit" of the criteria, saving people's time and IAR (raised by JzG outside of this thread). If these don't match the speedy criteria then doesn't it naturally follow that they should be restored , at least temporarily. ] 14:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ******Regarding existing comments, my understanding of this process is that it decides whether the correct process/policy was followed - not whether the item should be on Misplaced Pages. I can't see a strong argument that the correct process/policy (i.e. speedy deletion) was followed here - rather that it wasn't followed but a small number of administrators think that the articles wouldn't survive an AFD discussion. Surely that it the wrong thing to argue - if the correct process/policy wasn't followed, they should be undeleted. ] 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So make a better article instead of filling talk pages with arguments. ] 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *What has that got to do with whether these articles should be restored and debated properly? What the correct process/policy followed here, or not? If not, these articles should be undeleted. Isn't the point of this page to debate this? I am not trying to "fill talk pages with arguments" I am trying to debate this properly. ] 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **]. Yes, process is important but not the detriment of the encyclopaedia, and there is no point going through process just for the sake of it. Of the four pages concerned, people who have chosen to comment here have agreed with you about one of them and it is now a working redirect. Everybody but you agrees that the other pages are not worth undeleting and sending to AfD, primarily because it would be a waste of time. If they had been sent to AfD they would have been deleted, so the outcome is the same. Also, remember that all the time that people spend here, at AfD, etc. is time they are not spending writing or improving articles. **Particularly with regard to the newspaper, if you had invested as much time and energy into researching more information about it as you have this discussion then we could have a decent article on it by now. ] 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' of the first three. No opinion on ''portal gun''. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' kept woman, '''overturn and list''' Kootenai Valley Press, '''endorse''' Von Wolf, no opinion on portal gun. Kept woman could easily be expanded, and Kootenai was, at best, a contested A7 (which should go to AfD) and can't possibly qualify for a snowballing if that was even legitimate. Judging by the rest, Von Wolf was probably a valid A7, and portal gun i have no clue. --] <small>]</small> 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Jeff, ] was a dicdef with no more substance than was already at ], feel free to create an encyclopaedic article on the topic if you like. We have already expended immensely more effort arguing over these one-sentence substubs than Trevor Saline expended creating them. <b>]</b> 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A stub has to at least be a dicdef to start out, no? --] <small>]</small> 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion of all'''. If ] had expended a mere fraction of the energy and words into actually writing actual stubs instead of tedious argumentation to gain credit for non-work, perhaps this discussion wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. --] | ] 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could you explain why you feel these match the speedy criteria? I'd think to debate with you but need a bit more info on your reasoning. ] 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] was not an article but a redirect. Why are you endorsing its deletion? --] 15:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' need not have been speedy deleted IMO. ] 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist as out-of-process speedy''', then '''speedy close per ]''' and then '''block the author for disruption'''. In this way, everyone will be happy. No, I'm not serious (except for the last part). ] 11:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* BNow ''that's'' what I call ''thinking''! <b>]</b> 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''', perfectly sensible deletion of substubs. ] ] 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 27 September 2006
| < September 21 | September 23 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
22 September 2006
Nandini Rajendran
Votes were 2-2. But the consensus, including the comments, was to keep the article not to delete it.
I only stumbled upon the AfD now. Nobody from the Coimbatore area (including myself) seems to have seen or participated in this AfD. Hence I am listing this article here.
I am from the Coimbatore region and can vouch for the validity of this article. The person discussed here is indeed a social worker known for her work related to women's issues. And she was the Chairperson of the TamilNadu Social Welfare Board. Her work has been well covered in the local media and television (I have seen at least two of her interviews on the Doordarshan - the state-run television network.) In fact she was so well-known that when PepsiCola made its debut in Coimbatore, she and G.K.Moopanar (who was known all over India as one of the most senior Congress leaders - please see G. K. Vasan) were the dignitaries that were asked to inaugurate the release of Pepsi and 7-Up. I don't see any reason to delete this article.
Let me also quote User:Hornplease who commented on the AfD since he/she has come up with some interesting information that I did not know previously:
"It's not as if we totally lack the ability to verify anything. We can at least verify that the body she is supposed to have headed, the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, definitely exists, and in 2003 had a budget of Rs. 5,58,17,90,000, or US$119,946,653.07, which is a non-trivial amount in India. They also are well-known as the progenitors of the wildly successful Mid-day meal scheme that's been discussed ad nauseum in NGO circles. Some notability there, perhaps."
Also, I urge members to be considerate of the differences when in comes to judging pages related to India. For instance, many big Indian institutions (such as the Social Welfare Board under question), in spite of their actual social footprints, may not even have a homepage. That should not be misconstrued as "insignificant" or "unverifiable." Likewise many big Indian personalities cannot be googled. Try, for instance, googling any past Union minister - you typical won't get any hits. If verifiability only means "google-able" then more than half the pages on India would be questionable.
Thanks for all your time. And hope this page is restored.
My vote is to
- Overturn the original decision and to undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriColor (talk • contribs) 19:41, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Per the admin the page had WP:V problems. WP:V is one of the main pillars here at Misplaced Pages. If you want to write a page that passes WP:V have at it. Whispering 00:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
*Endorse closure, keep deleted. As the closing admin said, WP:V is nonnegotiable. And given that this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, it is preferable that those sources be in English. In any case, regardless of the language, WP:V is clear: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Also, looking at one of the remaining copies of the article , I must say that it was a WP:NPOV-violating mess ("renowned and popular"? "fondly referred to"? Says who?) that arguably wouldn't have survived AfD even if every single sentence had a separate reference. Finally, I will note that being named an honorary chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board is just that, an honor. It does not mean she heads that board, or controls one single rupee of its budget. --Aaron 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Changing vote based on new information; see below. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Undelete Seems like a fairly innocuous article was deleted without reaching consensus to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallasathena (talk • contribs) 22:51, September 22, 2006 (UTC)
- overturn and undelete The afd shows 2 votes for keep, 2 votes for delete, all the 3 comments leaning towards keep. Consensus should have been to keep rather than delete. HorseShoe 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion without prejudice against creating a properly sourced article. I will userfy this if anyone wants to work on it. AFD is not a vote, and Sam's closure is precisely correct per policy and therefore per process. Claims like "renowned and popular" are always hard to verify, and individual social workers rarely have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to be verifiably neutral, so this may well prove challenging. I suspect that if the subject had been of more obvious significance, with sources therefore more likely to be available, Sam may well have closed it differently. Here the fact that none are cited may be taken as a reasonable indication that none exist. Maybe this should be covered at Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, which is probably sufficiently verifiable. Guy 08:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I note that sources for her being the head of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board have now been presented. Whoopee-doo. I still think that (a) the article as deleted was not properly sourced, and I will userfy it if anyone wants to work on it to fix that; (b) that the article contained egregious editorialising and (c) her notability seems to be entirely bound to the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board, which I note is still redlinked. So, as I say, I am happy to userfy if someone wants to take the few worthwhile bits of the old article, but I suggest that any new article is on the organisation, not the person, in the first instance. Guy 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure and uphold deletion I'm with JzG- if something is unverifiable, it doesn't matter if there are 100 "votes" to keep it. I would have no problem with recreation, but if and only if proper sourcing exists. -- Kicking222 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Endorse closureWP:V is non-negotiable. Borisblue 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Undelete. WP:V is non-negotiable, but too many people believe that the internet is the only source of citations. In this case in particular, I think the claims to notability are high enough that the article should be given time to stand while people attempt to locate offline verification. The closure was only doubtfully correct, in my opinion: the question of online verifiability was raised and, in my opinion, insufficiently answered. "More obvious significance" is a little hard to understand - please google "Mid-day meal scheme", ideally in g-scholar. None are cited is not a "reasonable indication" that none exist in all cases. That statement is precisely what WP:Bias discusses. Further, 'honorary chairpersons' have different levels of responsibility in India, depending on the board in question. What is strictly means is that they are not paid for their effort; it is sometimes useful to not be seen to be holding an 'office of profit'. (Google that if you dont believe me.) Hornplease 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Undelete per Horseshoe. It should have been closed as NO Consensus. See here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Currier_House The article was closed as No Consensus. Another example of No Consensus was http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cabot_House I agree that Verifiability is an (the most) important issue. See here for making sure that she was the former chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board
(3rd Link is subscription site) The problem was very simple. THe search on her name had been conducted with "Nandini" Rajendran, where as she has been covered by the media as Nandhini Rajendran. This is the problem in Indian Language names. Please note that Google (or Web) does not in any way ascertain notability. This should be undeleted for the simple reason (the reason it was deleted) that the article has been now verified Doctor Bruno Talk 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Since all the sources list her name in english as "Nandhini" then it the article should be moved to Nandhini Rajendran. Borisblue 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Relist. The DRV instructions above are quite clear: The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. As Hornplease and Doctorbruno have presented us with new information, the only logical thing to do at this point is to temporarily restore the article (under her properly spelled name) and rerun the AfD. If, during the AfD, the article is properly cleaned up (e.g. the WP:NPOV issues would still remain), then it will survive the AfD and that will be the end of it. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: To Doctorbruno: While I realize that English is not your native language, I must say that I found your note on my user talk page to be somewhat offensive. First, it is clear from my first vote above that WP:V was not my only contention about this article. Second, you do not have the right to "expect" any particular vote from any Misplaced Pages editor on any matter whatsoever. I will consider the evidence and I will vote as my conscience guides me to vote. --Aaron 03:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- My remarks above were interpreting the original information that I provided at AfD, not new information. Please do not misrepresent my comments. I merely suggested that when citations are thin on the ground (a) people should understand why they might be and (b) make a little effort to check up on other things, such as the definition of honorary., (Which, essentially, means without payment), and the importance of the schemes undertaken by the Board in question.
- Finally, while I didnt make the point here, anyone who reads AfDs on a regular basis must know that Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit names are rendered into the roman script with little or no consistency. About Aaron's vote above, he pointed to Wp:V, NPOV - which, as has been established a million times, should not affect a subject's notability - and the definition of 'honorary', addressed above.
- And, since we're doing dictionaries, someone look up 'expects', please - it can be to "look forward to the probable occurrence of", "to consider reasonable", or "to require". Isnt it a violation of WP:AGF to choose the worst of those options? Hornplease 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:I'll be more than happy to change my vote back to Endorse closure, keep deleted if my explanation does not meet with your approval, Hornplase. --Aaron 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You miss my point. I was objecting to your misrepresentation of my remarks. I did not claim that others may not have brought new information to the table. And it's Hornplease. Spelling can sometimes be important. (grin) Hornplease 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- The AFD was closed properly; people voting Afd have no obligation to hunt for obscure sources. The burden of sourcing lies with those who created the article- and no sources were provided at the close of the Afd. Now we have sources, and so the main objection of the original AFd has been met. As for the script asserion, it is not unreasonable for an AFD voter to expect that at least one source, if sources exist spells the name in English the way is it spelled in the article. As it is, the article was simply mispelled- so I see no negligence in the part of the original opposers of the AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 09:43, September 24, 2006 (UTC)
- About your second point: perhaps. However, what you call 'simple mis-spelling' is endemic to the romanisation of names from certain languages, so I urge AfD voters to keep this in mind be a little cautious when nominating articles that claim notability but with no sources. About your first point, you say "people voting AfD have no obligation to hunt for obscure sources". You are correct. However, to believe that obscure sources do not exist when the strong supposition is made by established editors that they do is vaguely insulting.
Hornplease 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why exactly should encyclopedia articles be based on hearsay? The AFD was up for 8 days and not a single person could come up with the source. "Strong supposition" isn't enough, everything in WP needs to be sourced. Just take note of this when creating new articles. No insult was meant by the voters or the closing admin. Borisblue 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse per Whispering above. Tom Harrison 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Undelete Per Doctorbruno and Hornplease
Vadamalayon 02:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)