792:. This person is a billionaire and is clearly notable. It does appear that the article whitewashed some matters, but an article not being NPOV should not be a reason for deletion for notable people. NPOV and Notability are two different matters. Making an article more balanced is a lot more efficient than starting from scratch. People go to Knowledge to find information about notable people and expect to find articles on these people. Putting a NPOV template until an article is made more NPOV makes a lot more sense than hastily lighting AfD and delete torches.
513:
web content, not a film, and thus eligible (I did check, and the source was a
Russian animation website). Ball of Wool, you're right, I thought it was web content because the sole source was again a Russian animation website, so I undeleted it, thanks for pointing out my error. Marc Dennis may or may not be notable, but this article was basically a PR bio. I don't have a problem with people reviewing these things though.
611:
problem sitting back and letting other people judge. I try not to feel ownership here. I saw the article as egregious puffery, others don't, that's fine. However, I might be a bit burned out after the Vipul business, so maybe it's time for a break from focusing on abuse of the wiki. That does tend to induce paranoia over time. I will go back to read-only for a while I think. That is usually the best way.
1015:. I'm not sure this needs to get dragged through the heavyweight DRV process (especially since the AfD was five years ago). Discussing it on the article talk pages and gaining consensus there seems like it would be sufficient, and certainly less administrative overhead. Be that as it may, I suggest that the best way forward would be to write the article in draft space (i.e.
180:
delete a page directly and in fact when its the case about a highly reputed person. If something was promotional he could have highlighted that section or could have informed the modifier to look after it. Page has more than 80+ highly reliable sources including Forbes and many other international and national level publishers. Please restore it.
272:
were met with terse non-helpful non-answers. Spam? Where? As a general rule, admins shouldn't take unilateral action to delete an article except in the most obvious circumstances, and this wasn't it. The community, not JzG, should have an opportunity to decide if deletion is justified. What justified
86:
deletion is overturned, that results in the article being sent back to AfD as part of the DRV closing action. In this case, however, I don't see a consensus to do that, so I'm just going to restore (and unprotect) the article. If somebody else wants to bring it to AfD, they are free to do so. – --
512:
Intralase SBK was an article on a commercial brand for a specific type of optical laser procedure, entirely written by two people who sell the treatment. The main sources for
Countable included iTunes and Google stores. To You, Moscow, appears, from the tiny amount of text in the actual stub, to be
1088:
User: SmokeyJoe is a veteran AfD participant. He indicates the article has new good sources. The AfD was close. There is no need for a draft in draftspace. User: SmokeyJoe is confident that the article will be turned into a good article immediately. The creator of the article Rich Hickey is the
610:
Well, the issue is that has been an outbreak of spamming - the article below was written by a PR person about a book authored by a friend of his and who he promoted widely on
Knowledge, and DGG concurs that it's spam, so I don't think it's at all reasonable to conflate the two. But I don't have a
587:
I think 'pitchforks' is unnecessarily inflammatory. JzG has another DRV open on this page for a similar G11 deletion, just two days ago. Trends in poor administrator tool use are best addressed directly and promptly, and in a factual manner, focusing like you just did on the difference between
179:
This page is about one of the richest billionaire in India. Suddenly the user @jzg put it to speedy deletion under G11 policy. We are requesting continuously for a justifiable reason from him but most of the time he is not replying and if he replies its all a dismissive response. How can someone
809:- I had stated in the AfD that the article has problems but should be kept--my opinion has not changed here. The article is still in need of cleanup and needs to be closely watched for the re-addition of hagiographic content, but the article in its current state is not G11 material. --
531:
Try to remember that a conflict of interest is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Thanks for correcting, but in the future please avoid unilateral deletions like this. And when you are asked to explain on your talk page, please reply with details and civility for a change.
629:
Highly preferable to burning out! Been there, started seeing everything as vandalism... Be sure to go do something you enjoy, rather than needing to 'protect the wiki'--it's good to feel pride in ownership, but bad to let the vandals steal your joy.
588:
expected and actual processes. This is not ANI or RFArb, but rather a forum in which feedback is focused on getting the outcome and process right. I know firsthand what DRV pitchforks look like, and these aren't them. Cheers,
576:
as an open and shut case of ineligibility, considering it survived an AFD. But I don't see any indication that this was anything other than a minor and correctable error, lets put the torches and pitchforks down shall we?
487:
That's just from a brief look. I know JzG has been combatting articles from a particular band of paid editors, but these (especially the A7 ones above) don't seem to have been deleted for any valid reason.
559:
as G11 is not a speedy criterion applicable to previously-kept articles. The plethora of inappropriate speedy deletions is concerning, especially from an administrator whom we all know knows better.
1093:
which meets
Knowledge’s notability standards. The editor has a good track record so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that the article will be improved and have good sourcing.
1019:) and then start a discussion of it (either here, or on the talk pages). If there's a concrete article for people to look at and evaluate, it'll be easier to gain consensus. --
482:- deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, not unambiguously promotional but needs cleanup; I would have moved this to draft space instead of unilaterally deleting it.
334:
264:
has unilaterally speedy-deleted a fully-fleshed out and well-sourced article without explanation, nomination, or review. His responses to polite requests for explanation
378:- deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, COI but not unambiguously promotional, and likely notable, although it has one edit from a confirmed paid editor.
1038:
didn't show much independent notability, but there's no harm in creating a new draft and submitting it, especially as some extra sources appear to have surfaced.
1050:, based on new sources, and the old AfD decision being a very close call. No need for drafting in DraftSpace. Devin will bring it up to scratch immediately. --
785:
442:
944:
691:
48:
34:
300:
should know far better than this, and the non-response is unjusifiable. 'm wondering if they continue to hold the community's trust as an administrator?
293:
43:
646:
how did you figure out that it was written by a PR person and his relation with the author of the book and all. Really didn't get your weird logic
985:
was a mistake, and that in light of additional notable work by Mr. Hickey, it is appropriate to have a page that references not just his work on
790:
753:
734:
697:
366:
398:
470:
434:
727:
The deleted page was not "exclusively promotional", and the deleted page did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with
932:
204:
39:
155:
721:
21:
326:
953:
687:
227:
Agreed. The article has a couple of instances of promotional language which can easily be fixed. This isn't a case of
170:
997:, his persistent hash-array mapped trie implementation which was picked up by other language communities, and so on.
961:
Additional sources added to Talk page, though there are more out there to be sure. In addition, he is the creator of
320:
746:
1110:
882:
830:
728:
713:
265:
105:
17:
965:(which meets notability guidelines, though I will admit the article as it currently stands needs some work) and
738:
213:
Not really a G11, as it survived an AFD debate. It could be sent to AFD again, but G11 no longer applies. -
200:
1002:
358:
390:
538:
494:
462:
279:
237:
1080:
1068:
1059:
1042:
1026:
1016:
1006:
871:
819:
801:
767:
677:
655:
639:
624:
597:
581:
568:
543:
526:
499:
426:
309:
284:
242:
222:
208:
189:
94:
1039:
717:
674:
352:
346:- deleted as G11 without nomination or explanation, and not unambiguously promotional or non-notable.
384:
1055:
742:
456:
305:
420:
1023:
817:
759:
635:
593:
564:
196:
91:
1071:
is the best solution given that the sources need to be evaluated in terms of their reliability.
1076:
998:
797:
670:
651:
185:
1098:
981:
page. I am not a frequent wikipedia contributor, but I feel that merging and redirecting to
902:
763:
533:
489:
274:
232:
218:
125:
859:
Opinions are divided between restoring directly and creating a draft first for review. –
1051:
862:
578:
301:
788:
1020:
994:
966:
810:
631:
619:
613:
589:
560:
521:
515:
88:
83:
79:
686:
I have the same view here as the one I expressed regarding JzG's speedy deletion of
1072:
974:
793:
647:
181:
273:
the hurry? It isn't all that hard to put a db-g11 or afd template on an article. ~
195:
Temp undeleted, but it reads as really promotional - and thus as a G11 candidate.
973:, but is also potentially a debatable redirect given precedent set by pages like
1094:
898:
851:
754:
Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
698:
Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
214:
121:
70:
692:
Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 12#Selfish
Reasons to Have More Kids
450:- another article about a film, deleted as A7, but A7 doesn't apply to films.
737:
notes, the criteria for speedy deletion "specify the only cases in which
720:
and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with
297:
261:
749:, at their discretion, and immediately delete Knowledge pages or media".
296:- so it is ineligible for speedy deletion, regardless of anything else.
1090:
990:
986:
982:
978:
970:
962:
314:
I'm wondering about that myself. Glancing through JzG's logs, I find:
977:). As such, it no longer makes sense to simply redirect to the
1035:
939:
925:
917:
909:
474:
466:
438:
430:
402:
394:
370:
362:
338:
330:
269:
162:
148:
140:
132:
414:
that he deleted as A7, but A7 doesn't apply to films.
1034:. I closed this AfD nearly 6 years ago - the
8:
756:, so the speedy deletion must be overturned.
881:The following is an archived debate of the
104:The following is an archived debate of the
78:Overwhelming/unanimous consensus here that
844:
294:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Balkrishna
63:
735:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
784:5000 crore company Patanjali Ayurved.
724:, this is preferable to deletion. ...
7:
669:. Probably should be redirected to
1113:of the page listed in the heading.
1089:the creator of Knowledge’s article
833:of the page listed in the heading.
787:. & in news not just for that.
292:. It was previously kept at AfD -
28:
708:promotional and would need to be
688:Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids
82:did not apply. Normally, when a
231:promotion, which G11 requires. ~
1109:The above is an archive of the
1086:Allow reversion of the redirect
1048:Allow reversion of the redirect
829:The above is an archive of the
704:This applies to pages that are
969:(which currently redirects to
752:The deleted page did not meet
321:Marc Denis (radio personality)
1:
260:-- this isn't the first time
1136:
1081:03:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
1060:01:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1043:16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
1027:13:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
1007:04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
872:13:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
820:21:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
802:21:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
780:: A 94% stake holder of a
768:04:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
712:rewritten to conform with
678:16:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
656:13:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
640:22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
625:07:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
598:03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
582:03:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
569:01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
544:05:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
527:07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
500:01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
310:23:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
285:19:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
243:19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
223:13:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
209:08:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
190:07:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
95:12:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1036:version that existed then
729:Knowledge:NOTFORPROMOTION
714:Knowledge:NOTFORPROMOTION
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1116:Please do not modify it.
888:Please do not modify it.
836:Please do not modify it.
776:I read this in the AfD:
667:Overturn and Send to AfD
111:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
726:
722:neutral point of view
702:
412:article about a film
1065:Use draft solution.
885:of the page above.
747:deletion discussion
108:of the page above.
774:Overturn and keep.
716:. If a subject is
1123:
1122:
1069:Draft:Rich Hickey
1040:Black Kite (talk)
1017:Draft:Rich Hickey
870:
843:
842:
807:Overturn and keep
675:Black Kite (talk)
671:Patanjali Ayurved
623:
542:
525:
498:
283:
241:
1127:
1118:
956:
951:
942:
928:
920:
912:
890:
869:
867:
860:
845:
838:
815:
783:
617:
536:
519:
492:
481:
478:
449:
446:
409:
406:
377:
374:
345:
342:
277:
235:
175:
173:
165:
151:
143:
135:
113:
64:
53:
33:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1114:
1111:deletion review
952:
950:
947:
938:
937:
931:
924:
923:
916:
915:
908:
907:
886:
883:deletion review
863:
861:
834:
831:deletion review
811:
781:
479:
453:
447:
417:
407:
381:
375:
353:Countable Corp.
349:
343:
317:
169:
167:
161:
160:
154:
147:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
109:
106:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1133:
1131:
1121:
1120:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1083:
1062:
1045:
1029:
959:
958:
948:
935:
929:
921:
913:
905:
893:
892:
877:
876:
875:
874:
841:
840:
825:
824:
823:
822:
804:
771:
739:administrators
680:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
644:
643:
642:
603:
602:
601:
600:
571:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
505:
504:
503:
502:
485:
484:
483:
451:
415:
385:To You, Moscow
379:
347:
287:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
177:
176:
158:
152:
144:
136:
128:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1132:
1119:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:Start a draft
1030:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:Start a draft
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:Devin Walters
996:
995:ClojureScript
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:ClojureScript
964:
955:
946:
941:
934:
927:
919:
911:
904:
900:
897:
896:
895:
894:
891:
889:
884:
879:
878:
873:
868:
866:
858:
857:No consensus.
854:
853:
849:
848:
847:
846:
839:
837:
832:
827:
826:
821:
818:
816:
814:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
789:
786:
779:
775:
772:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
755:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
730:
725:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:fundamentally
707:
701:
699:
695:
693:
689:
684:
681:
679:
676:
672:
668:
665:
664:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
626:
621:
616:
615:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
583:
580:
575:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
545:
540:
535:
530:
529:
528:
523:
518:
517:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
501:
496:
491:
486:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
457:Intralase SBK
452:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
416:
413:
410:- this is an
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
380:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
348:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
316:
315:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
286:
281:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:relist at AFD
255:
252:
251:
244:
239:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
206:
205:contributions
202:
198:
197:Jo-Jo Eumerus
194:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
172:
164:
157:
150:
142:
134:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
93:
90:
85:
81:
77:
76:Overturn G11.
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:15 April 2017
57:
50:
49:2017 April 16
45:
41:
36:
35:2017 April 14
23:
19:
1115:
1108:
1085:
1064:
1047:
1031:
1012:
975:CoffeeScript
960:
887:
880:
864:
856:
850:
835:
828:
812:
806:
777:
773:
758:
751:
732:
709:
705:
703:
696:
685:
682:
666:
612:
573:
556:
514:
455:
454:
421:Ball of Wool
419:
418:
411:
383:
382:
351:
350:
319:
318:
289:
257:
253:
228:
178:
110:
103:
75:
69:
58:
989:, but also
899:Rich Hickey
852:Rich Hickey
778:Strong keep
741:have broad
706:exclusively
534:Anachronist
490:Anachronist
275:Anachronist
233:Anachronist
229:unambiguous
865:Sandstein
745:to bypass
122:Balkrishna
71:Balkrishna
44:2017 April
1052:SmokeyJoe
743:consensus
683:Overturn.
579:Lankiveil
302:Thryduulf
268:and then
1021:RoySmith
813:Finngall
632:Jclemens
590:Jclemens
574:Overturn
561:Jclemens
557:Overturn
298:user:JzG
290:Overturn
254:Overturn
89:RoySmith
20: |
1091:Datomic
1073:Knox490
991:Datomic
987:Clojure
983:Clojure
979:Clojure
971:Clojure
963:Datomic
954:restore
918:history
794:Knox490
718:notable
648:Didgeri
182:Didgeri
171:restore
141:history
1095:desmay
1024:(talk)
760:Cunard
700:says:
92:(talk)
84:WP:CSD
80:WP:G11
940:watch
933:links
620:Help!
522:Help!
475:watch
471:links
439:watch
435:links
403:watch
399:links
371:watch
367:links
339:watch
335:links
215:Bilby
163:watch
156:links
52:: -->
16:<
1099:talk
1077:talk
1067:The
1056:talk
1003:talk
926:logs
910:edit
903:talk
798:talk
764:talk
652:talk
636:talk
594:talk
565:talk
539:talk
495:talk
467:logs
463:talk
461:· (
431:logs
427:talk
425:· (
395:logs
391:talk
389:· (
363:logs
359:talk
357:· (
331:logs
327:talk
325:· (
306:talk
280:talk
270:here
266:here
256:and
238:talk
219:talk
201:talk
186:talk
149:logs
133:edit
126:talk
32:<
945:XfD
943:) (
733:As
690:at
614:Guy
516:Guy
469:|
443:afd
433:|
397:|
365:|
333:|
262:JzG
22:Log
1079:)
1058:)
1005:)
993:,
855:–
800:)
766:)
731:".
673:.
654:)
638:)
596:)
584:.
567:)
480:·
473:|
465:|
448:·
441:|
437:|
429:|
408:·
401:|
393:|
376:·
369:|
361:|
344:·
337:|
329:|
308:)
221:)
207:)
203:,
188:)
74:–
42::
1101:)
1097:(
1075:(
1054:(
1001:(
957:)
949:|
936:|
930:|
922:|
914:|
906:|
901:(
796:(
782:₹
762:(
694:.
650:(
634:(
622:)
618:(
592:(
563:(
541:)
537:(
532:~
524:)
520:(
497:)
493:(
488:~
477:)
445:)
405:)
373:)
341:)
304:(
282:)
278:(
240:)
236:(
217:(
199:(
184:(
174:)
168:(
166:)
159:|
153:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
124:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.