291:, all the SPA accounts should have indicated something is amiss, the mention of substantial coverage by major press should not be ignored, the history of PAID and COI editing in order to whitewash or delete the article indicates more care should be taken evaluating the AfD, and even the most basic attempt at checking shows the subject is notable. --
731:(no prejudice to Vacate) Now that I've seen the article itself, I'm beyond shocked at how this AFD was closed. Many of the references in the article easily met GNG. Both Keep votes noted that it had good references, while the deletes argue the opposite. But really - I only looked at four, and three meet GNG:
703:
adding this very late in the DRV discussion, but we could just pretend this incredibly odd AfD never happened. There were very few participants who seemed like they are acting in good faith, including the nominator, and the remaining votes would be a no consensus or relist. A relist would benefit the
488:
5 delete votes were cast. One incorrectly applies SNOW. Two claim a general lack of any sources, but as per this discussion, 34 sources had been included in the article. That leaves us at only two relevant delete votes, which claim that only the companies have notability. In fact, they are repeats of
377:
about a digital media company. Any consensus which relies on these is going to be deeply suspect. The article had plenty of references to decent-looking media sources, some of which are obviously mainly about the subject, and I would have expected delete comments to present some kind of analysis of
337:
OK, this is a very weird AfD. The nominator, appellant (at least initially), and one delete voter copied their rationales from the previous AfD, and 3 of the delete voters seem to be SPAs that might be sockpuppetry (won't make a SPI though, leaving that to someone else if they want). I also have my
924:
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Uploading a copyrighted image to
Peanuts Wiki, or any other site which makes its content available under a free licence, doesn't automatically make it available under a free licence. The original copyright still applies. This sketch was done by
421:
sources do not address the subject directly without any source analysis presented, I'm not seeing how the arguments were adequately weighed based on their merits. I see no benefit in immediately relisting if there is a current coordinated effort to remove its contents, in light of
400:. The deletion process has not been followed correctly, in that the closer failed to give appropriate (low) weight to delete arguments that were from very new accounts or that cited WP:SNOW, which manifestly did not apply either at the time of deletion or at any other time.
183:
Woah woah woah, calm down. Accusing people of whitewashing isn't doing anything. (That close was def ridiculous though. I was in the middle of an IAR unclose when you posted this to DRV, but since process is process and you beat me to it I'll let this run it's course.)
881:
555:
There appear to be numerous in-depth sources in the deleted article, which most can't see, because the article is deleted. Can the article please be temporarily restored? Hipal doesn't do themselves any favour by turning a simple routine request into a rant.
896:
470:
Something very hinky here. The SNOW votes are bizarre - both the keep and the deletes. The number of low-edit contributions is concerning. The lack of policy-related arguments. Need a thorough SPI check too, and a wider participation in the AFD.
704:
SPIs and a no consensus is probably correct, but I think vacating is a stronger result - I have no idea if he's notable, but a no consensus sort of implies notability is marginal, when we should be implying this was just a bad AfD.
630:
Great, create-protection then. After all, if the hypothetical aforementioned respected editor does present a case for deletion, that's easy enough to action. But our priority should be not to have our time wasted like this.
263:
151:
359:- there is clearly sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or external canvassing going on here. Of the 6 people who supported deleting the article, 4 had very small edit counts (17, 17, 19, and 56 edits).
584:
I've done a temporary undelete, however there isn't much point as this discussion becomes eligible for closure very soon and the deletion will almost certainly be overturned when it's closed.
168:
Another attempt to whitewash the article by deletion by a bunch of SPA accounts. Jain is notable many times over as shown by the many high-quality references that cover him in great depth.
493:, using no source analysis, which was closed as keep. Taking into account that no new well-grounded policy rationale has been advanced to delete, the close should be overturned to keep.
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
338:
suspicions against one other !delete in the AfD. With these suspicions, I don't think there is a true strong consensus to delete, and a relist to get more opinions is needed.
973:
might apply to
Peanutswiki's use but a) "might" is not "certainly" and b) Knowledge is much stricter with fair use rules. In which article did you want to use it?
808:– This will stay deleted as a copyright violation, but can conceivably be reuploaded with appropriate copyright information if there is a valid case for fair use.
48:
34:
510:
as this is worked out because of the extremely troubling problems around this, and the need to reference the article to demonstrate how deep the problems go. --
851:
490:
43:
847:
804:
539:
That a well-established, well-written, well-referenced, well-reviewed article was deleted due to paid editors making vacuous deletion arguments. --
607:
417:. Due to the suspicious activity from multiple of the delete !votes possibly stemming from sock or meatpuppetry, as well as their claims that the
740:
610:, without prejudice to it being renominated for deletion by an editor in good standing (a mildly unlikely scenario though that may be).
718:
736:
370:
139:
39:
949:
914:
456:
310:
632:
611:
528:? Admins are humans too, they screw up. Though screwing up after many years of doing it right may be a little concerning.
21:
909:, which states at the bottom of every page that "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted".
160:
945:
910:
452:
306:
1019:
831:
783:
448:
89:
17:
732:
760:- Definitely a mistake on the part of a well-intentioned closer not examining the quality of the arguments. --
978:
710:
1000:
982:
964:
953:
939:
918:
820:
772:
752:
723:
695:
674:
637:
625:
616:
594:
579:
570:
And right on schedule, a new SPA has appeared to create a new article whitewashed of the original content--
565:
548:
534:
519:
502:
480:
460:
439:
409:
392:
347:
325:
314:
300:
283:
253:
238:
204:
190:
177:
78:
988:
374:
364:
767:
682:
It does not appear that there was enough knowledgeable editors commenting to reach any consensus. --
959:
529:
248:
195:
There is a substantial history of whitewashing attempts by employees and family members of Jain. --
185:
974:
705:
688:
434:
343:
277:
996:
926:
670:
650:
905:
This and other files were speedily deleted as copyright infringement, but they were from the
743:, and we have significant coverage, in major media outlets, over a period of about 15 years.
305:
I agree with this, and as of right now there are more users that agree it should be deleted.
654:
498:
405:
360:
321:
Not to disparage your counting abilities, but I see only two editors who opined to delete. —
109:
761:
748:
575:
561:
544:
515:
476:
296:
234:
200:
173:
811:
658:
379:
288:
451:, which makes no sense in this context. This has to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
683:
429:
339:
271:
992:
932:
666:
662:
622:
587:
385:
322:
219:
WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again
75:
657:(another editor with few contributions), and the draft was moved to main space by
243:
I just realized I never did any proper !voting.. so, for the record, I'm all for
494:
401:
105:
70:
744:
621:
All the socks slept long enough to be well past the autoconfirmed speedbump. —
571:
557:
540:
511:
472:
292:
267:
230:
196:
169:
270:
voted to keep it. Including the nominator, that makes 6 to 2, for deletion.
247:
at AfD to generate a less scuffed consensus. (Maybe not overturn, though.)
906:
970:
378:
these sources, but instead they either made general statements or cited
223:
Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sleep_Country_USA
929:, who died in 2000, so it's practically guaranteed to be copyrighted.
848:
File:Only known sketch of the Little Red-Haired Girl by Schulz.webp
805:
File:Only known sketch of the Little Red-Haired Girl by Schulz.webp
608:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (3rd nomination)
264:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination)
944:(Does that mean that Peanuts Wiki has infringed copyright?
424:
987:
I do not speak for the original editor; but I would guess
215:
WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Naveen_Jain
211:
WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Naveen_Jain
227:
WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Just_odd
888:
874:
866:
858:
146:
132:
124:
116:
373:), for example, has no other edits apart from writing
661:
and later deleted as purely promotional at 18:16 by
447:. There are multiple delete votes that reference
262:Note as closing admin: The deletion consensus at
649:Since this hasn't been mentioned here so far,
8:
830:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
797:
63:
508:Requesting immediate, temporary undelete
382:(which is clearly not applicable here).
74:– Tainted AFD discussion cannot stand
7:
1022:of the page listed in the heading.
786:of the page listed in the heading.
989:Little Red-Haired Girl#Inspiration
28:
1018:The above is an archive of the
782:The above is an archive of the
266:was clear. Only one other than
653:was created today at 16:19 by
526:"extremely troubling problems"
1:
1001:12:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
983:21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
965:19:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
954:19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
946:Anonymous from Stack Overflow
940:19:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
919:19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
911:Anonymous from Stack Overflow
503:18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
481:19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
461:19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
453:Anonymous from Stack Overflow
440:13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
410:09:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
393:08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
348:04:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
326:03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
315:19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
307:Anonymous from Stack Overflow
301:03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
284:03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
254:03:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
239:02:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
205:02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
191:02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
178:02:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
1045:
821:13:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
773:22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
753:09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
724:20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
696:19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
675:19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
638:18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
626:18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
617:17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
595:17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
580:16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
566:08:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
549:22:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
535:19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
520:17:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
79:09:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1025:Please do not modify it.
837:Please do not modify it.
789:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
491:the original nomination
289:Consensus is not a vote
489:the arguments used in
209:COIN reports include:
834:of the page above.
92:of the page above.
1032:
1031:
927:Charles M. Schulz
819:
796:
795:
651:Draft:Naveen Jain
606:and semi-protect
346:
280:
1036:
1027:
962:
935:
901:
899:
891:
877:
869:
861:
839:
818:
816:
809:
798:
791:
770:
764:
721:
713:
686:
655:User:Mokorow1122
635:
614:
590:
532:
437:
432:
428:'s links above.
427:
388:
342:
279:@SUPERHEROLOGIST
278:
274:
251:
188:
163:
158:
149:
135:
127:
119:
97:
64:
59:24 February 2022
53:
49:2022 February 25
35:2022 February 23
33:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1023:
1020:deletion review
969:Theoretically,
960:
933:
895:
893:
887:
886:
880:
873:
872:
865:
864:
857:
856:
835:
832:deletion review
812:
810:
787:
784:deletion review
768:
762:
717:
709:
684:
633:
612:
588:
530:
435:
430:
423:
386:
282:
272:
249:
186:
159:
157:
154:
145:
144:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
115:
114:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1042:
1040:
1030:
1029:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
961:casualdejekyll
903:
902:
884:
878:
870:
862:
854:
842:
841:
826:
825:
824:
823:
794:
793:
778:
777:
776:
775:
755:
726:
698:
677:
659:User:Vikuvshah
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
568:
553:
552:
551:
531:casualdejekyll
505:
483:
463:
442:
412:
395:
350:
331:
330:
329:
328:
319:
318:
317:
276:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
250:casualdejekyll
207:
187:casualdejekyll
166:
165:
155:
142:
136:
128:
120:
112:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1041:
1028:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
975:Jo-Jo Eumerus
972:
968:
967:
966:
963:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
938:
937:
936:
928:
923:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
898:
890:
883:
876:
868:
860:
853:
849:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
838:
833:
828:
827:
822:
817:
815:
807:
806:
802:
801:
800:
799:
792:
790:
785:
780:
779:
774:
771:
765:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
714:
712:
707:
706:SportingFlyer
702:
699:
697:
694:
693:
692:
687:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
639:
636:
629:
628:
627:
624:
620:
619:
618:
615:
609:
605:
602:
596:
593:
592:
591:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
567:
563:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
533:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
484:
482:
478:
474:
469:
468:
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
438:
433:
426:
420:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
391:
390:
389:
381:
376:
372:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
336:
333:
332:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
285:
281:
275:
269:
265:
261:
255:
252:
246:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
189:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
162:
153:
148:
141:
134:
126:
118:
111:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2022 February
41:
36:
23:
19:
1024:
1017:
931:
930:
907:Peanuts Wiki
904:
836:
829:
813:
803:
788:
781:
757:
728:
716:
708:
700:
690:
689:
679:
663:User:Cryptic
646:
603:
586:
585:
525:
507:
485:
466:
465:
444:
418:
414:
397:
384:
383:
367:
356:
352:
334:
244:
167:
94:
87:
69:
58:
763:Orange Mike
361:Abukakata05
106:Naveen Jain
71:Naveen Jain
814:Sandstein
971:fair use
758:Overturn
729:Overturn
647:Comment:
604:Overturn
486:Overturn
445:Overturn
415:Overturn
398:Overturn
371:contribs
353:Overturn
340:Jumpytoo
273:Doczilla
20: |
993:Uncle G
934:Hut 8.5
897:restore
867:history
667:BusterD
634:SN54129
623:Cryptic
613:SN54129
589:Hut 8.5
449:WP:SNOW
387:Hut 8.5
380:WP:SNOW
375:a draft
323:Cryptic
161:restore
125:history
76:Spartaz
701:Vacate
685:Jayron
680:Relist
495:Dege31
467:Relist
436:plicit
402:Stifle
357:relist
335:Relist
245:Relist
958:Yes.
889:watch
882:links
745:Nfitz
572:Hipal
558:Nfitz
541:Hipal
524:What
512:Hipal
473:Nfitz
425:Hipal
293:Hipal
268:Hipal
231:Hipal
197:Hipal
170:Hipal
147:watch
140:links
52:: -->
16:<
997:talk
979:talk
950:talk
915:talk
875:logs
859:edit
852:talk
769:Talk
749:talk
741:2017
737:2010
733:2003
671:talk
576:talk
562:talk
545:talk
516:talk
499:talk
477:talk
457:talk
406:talk
365:talk
344:Talk
311:talk
297:talk
235:talk
201:talk
174:talk
133:logs
117:edit
110:talk
32:<
991:.
355:or
152:XfD
150:) (
22:Log
999:)
981:)
952:)
917:)
766:|
751:)
739:,
735:,
691:32
673:)
665:.
578:)
564:)
547:)
518:)
501:)
479:)
459:)
419:34
408:)
313:)
299:)
237:)
229:--
225:,
221:,
217:,
213:,
203:)
176:)
42::
995:(
977:(
948:(
913:(
900:)
894:(
892:)
885:|
879:|
871:|
863:|
855:|
850:(
747:(
719:C
715:·
711:T
669:(
574:(
560:(
543:(
514:(
497:(
475:(
455:(
431:✗
404:(
368:·
363:(
309:(
295:(
233:(
199:(
172:(
164:)
156:|
143:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
113:|
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.