Ankit Love (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Background: The page was first created sometime before 2016 and was deleted by a first AfD. At the time, the issue was that Love generally failed WP:GNG: his claims to success in the music and film industry appeared to be unsubstantiated in a significant number of references.

Since that 2016 deletion, Love gained some further prominence as the leader of the One Love Party, contesting four parliamentary and mayoral elections. The article was recreated in light of his unsuccessful political career, and a second AfD had a significant consensus to delete, although scrolling through the AfD discussion itself, it's clear that Love was mentioned in a significant number of sources.

Now: As someone who contributed to neither of the two previous discussions, I started contributing to Love via the One Love Party article, which I am currently overhauling. The difficulty is that the One Love Party was largely a one-man band, with Love being the candidate in four of the six elections the party contested, so some level of biographical detail to Love was necessary - especially when some of the party's policies (e.g. reunification of India and Pakistan) directly related to his background in India and his ancestral claim from a provincial royal family and most of the sources of the party come from interviews focussing on Love.

Which is more, and this is the crunch-point, from what I understand as a non-follower of Indian politics, Love became the leader of his father's party, Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, which contests elections in Jammu and Kashmir, in May 2017. Like I said, I don't follow Indian politics, but I understand that this is a regional state party that has had some electoral success, having once formed part of the state government. In light of Love's extensive biographical coverage in articles during his time at the One Love Party and his present leadership of the state party, I think there is a case that WP:GNG can be met. (Honestly, the whole film-maker/musician thing is very unnotable.) So I would ask that we consider reopening the article. MB190417 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endose any proposed deletion of this grossly overblown article about a trivial subject with insignificant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"insignificant sources" => There are 47 currently on the One Love Party article I am editing (and I have not searched for new sources since I started editing the article), including from independent, fairly reliable websites such as The London Economic, local newspaper gazettes (e.g. Hackney Citizen, GetWest London), The National Student, Business Insider, London Live and Hindustan Times. Of these 47 sources, I estimate about a dozen of them are in-depth interviews with Love discussing his background and political campaigns. There may be further sources from India since his appointment as leader of the state party (not my area of expertise). That the article is "grossly overblown...about a trivial subject", I think I agree (it's difficult not to see him as an eccentric campaigner; many of his claims about being a musician/film-maker don't stand up to the test; and the extensive discussions, sockpuppetry and bludgeoning in previous AfDs speak for themselves); that there are "insignificant sources", I think is perhaps tenuous. MB190417 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this is not the place to re-litigate the AfD and there is no question that the consensus of the discussion was to delete the article. Pretty much every time I have dealt with anything to do with this person there has been over-the-top promotionalism and sockpuppetry involved. If anyone wants to write a new article with legitimate, independent sources then I strongly suggest it go through AfC to avoid the obvious CSD and/or AfD which will surely follow. Jbh ^Talk 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that the previous AfD had a strong consensus to delete and that there is OTT promotionalism and sockpuppetry involved whenever this chap comes up. I have no previous connection with either of the AfDs, nor a COI. I think it's sensible to suggest that any new article should go through AfC - this would also temper the concern about the number of sources available. But I don't think that this quite addresses my point that since the previous AfD, new sources have come out because of his continued political campaign in the UK (even if his political career in the UK on its own fails WP:POLITICIAN on grounds of his lack of electoral success and mere routine coverage of a mayoral candidate), and - more importantly - he is now the leader of a state party in India which, as I understand, has had some previous electoral success. Granted, on their own, these individual claims probably wouldn't meet WP:GNG - but together? MB190417 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – Last deletion was a snow close, I don't see what has changed since then. — JFG ^talk 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If a person's notability really has changed, then deletion of an old bad article does not prevent or forbid the creation of a new better version. Given the blatant conflict of interest sockpuppetry that infected the prior attempts, however, we have to be very careful here. So if the requester is really certain that the notability equation has changed enough, then they're more than welcome to try their luck at submitting a proposed new article through the WP:AFC process or in their own sandbox — but nothing about the process requires the deletion of an old bad article to be overturned before anybody's allowed to even attempt the creation of a new better article. An AFD deletion is not necessarily a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article — we have lots of articles about people for whom an early version got deleted, but then the article was allowed to be recreated later because the notability equation changed, and DRV does not have to overturn the original discussion before the article is allowed to be recreated. We already have a process in place by which a proposed new version can be submitted for review — and if it's good enough, then its quality will automatically override the AFD discussion without DRV needing to get involved at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whatever happens, given the overlap, I don't think there's justification for a One Love Party and an Ankit Love article. One Love Party can be described as a section within an Ankit Love article, or vice versa. At this point in time, I think an Ankit Love article probably makes more sense than a One Love Party article. What I'd do is add any new Ankit Love RS material to One Love Party, but if the material there about Ankit as a person comes to dominate, rename that article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Whatever the merits of having an article now, the deletion was clearly justified at the time it was done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patrash Hembrom/sandbox/Lucash Hembrom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Generally, Premeditated Chaos and I are able to reach a compromise when we disagree about a close; as we were unable to do so on this occasion, I thought I would bring it here for more input. See User talk:Premeditated Chaos#"now that we're here". I think the deletion discussion in question should have either been closed as no consensus, default to blank (as no one wanted to plain keep it) or blank (I believe the blank arguments could be seen as stronger in this case). Those advocating for a blank were doing so based on the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline while those advocating deletion were all over the place and did not have a solid foundational argument. I'll also note that one participant cast two !votes, one blank and one delete, and never clarified their opinion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep or Keep & Blank. There's the issue that, according to WP:STALEDRAFT, this simply does not qualify for deletion on those grounds (since it is not "problematic even if blanked"), but also the issue of a "now that we're here" close that I've seen a few of recently. For context, I started the section on PMC's talk page because of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2faction8/Lynn Nunes, not the present article (although it's equally relevant). These seem like "Let's delete not because there's a compelling reason to delete based on policies and guidelines, but because this page is in the place where we delete stuff, so let's delete it." PMC said there was numerical consensus to delete, which was not the case in either of them (most people supported keeping and blanking, as WP:STALEDRAFT recommends). PMC is doing good work in general with the MfDs, I think, but this "now that we're here" justification business is a bad idea. If something should've been blanked (or just left alone), but was brought to MfD instead, it should just be kicked out and blanked, not deleted despite the bad nomination (turning it into a functionally valid nomination rationale). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Silly mfd nomination, a better way is described at WP:UP, but it was a newcomer to mfd so not worth the fuss, and the closer’s closing statement covers it very nicely. Maybe SLAP the double voter, I don’t know. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? Bad nomination, but a newcomer to MfD so instead of showing them what they should've done, validate the bad nomination? That pages aren't supposed to be deleted in such scenarios is why it was a bad nomination. If they're deleted instead, then it's a successful nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I know. I think I said so. The person you want educated is User:Sam Sailor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe: Thank you for pinging me! @all: If there is something I dislike, it's having my time wasted, and if I have wasted yours with my MfD inexperience, please accept my apology. I can't see the page in question now, but I take your word for granted that it should have been blanked instead of taken to MfD. I'll make a note of this, and you will not see the situation repeated. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The page contained BLP violations and there is no acceptable version (other than the blank screen) to revert to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• ? @Newyorkbrad and Xxanthippe: As far as I can see, the only person who mentioned BLP was Joe, and he supported blanking. What sort of BLP violation was it such that this deletion review should be not about assessing consensus based on the arguments in the discussion but based on the introduction of new arguments? I cannot see it any longer, but I don't recall anything controversial such that it would be problematic even if blanked. I don't think I've heard it argued before that any statement about a living person without a citation is a BLP violation of the sort that needs deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not just that there were unsourced statements, but unsourced negative statements (as well as a few statements which, due to the non-native English, I couldn’t tell just what was meant). If you are looking for a test case for a blanking-vs.-deleting discussion, this isn’t the best choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • For a test case, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Death1276/sandbox would be much more interesting, not that I think there is any merit in spending time on it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um, what? The page that is the subject of this DRV is, at least, arguably borderline. The page you just cited was a vicious attack page against a minor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Maybe it was, but I sure didn’t read it as an “attack” let alone “vicious”, and also considered that no one was identified. Suitable for blanking I say. Procedurally, I note that three people did not read it as G10-eligible. A disconnect between senior admins and lesser Wikipedians on what constitutes an attack page is a reason for alternative opinions to be discussed instead of speedy closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Um, what? That page began This wiki is about this fat smelly kid named [teenager’s name] (stinky fatty) and went downhill from there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually, G10 is probably an excellent way to deal with that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I dispute that the page contained any BLP “violations”. Nothing contentious nothing of questionable verifiability. BLP “issues”, sure. Newyorkbrad has been tending to WP:BLP zealotry in mfd posts in recent years, I think adopting the very cautious approach that he noted (https://archive.org/details/nywikiconf_newyorkbrad_26july2009, as I remember, it’s not working at the moment) a while ago. I dispute that deletion was *required*. Checking a cache version, I don’t see the “negative”, as opposed to “sad”. However, it is obviously someone’s personal story and something never appropriate for mainspace. If it were the userpage of a contributor, it would definitely be acceptable. It was a NOTWEBHOST violation, the person mistaking Wikipedia for a free webhost like Facebook. I crossed the line to advocate “Delete” because we should not be creating precedents for keeping NOTWEBHOST material, but we certainly don’t want every non-contributor’s personal story brought to mfd for discussion. The content is definitely not for requesting WP:Oversight. So, people should just blank these things when they find them. Every so often, we get a Wikipedian who is over enthusiastic at nominating random harmless worthless stuff that should better be blanked, but this is not occurring currently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak to anything other than this one, but I'd like to think that with a bunch of experienced editors looking at this, someone would've at least suggested that it might be a BLP violation if it were. Could you restore the page so that this new argument, which we didn't have the chance to evaluate during the MfD, can be considered during the DRV? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last three sentences were the ones I found most troublesome. Granted, this was not the most serious BLP problem I’ve come across in reviewing MfDs, by a long shot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this is basically a waste of time: we're dealing with a draft article about an utterly non-notable person written by someone who's been indefinitely blocked. It doesn't make any difference whether such a thing gets deleted or is just blanked and left to sit there forever. The draft is so badly written that it's hard to tell what much of it actually means but there is some content which looks problematic from a BLP perspective, so deletion may be the best option to be on the safe side. Hut 8.5 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a mess of stuff that should never have happened. The article should never have been written, the MfD should never have been opened, the close should never have been delete, and this DR should never have opened. We create rules, guidelines and process to assist us, and they have been ignored in every step so far. So WP:IAR applies here - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." At this point we need to ignore due process. It does not serve Wikipedia's interest to undelete that nonsense in order to blank the page, just so we can say that due process has been followed. I like process as it helps us. But every bit of process has been broken here, so which part of the process are we trying to restore and keep faith in? Pretty much everyone involved in this mess needs a wet trout, including us here in the DR for taking part. Endorse with extreme prejudice. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If this were really just about this one example, I would agree with you. But -- at least to me -- the issue isn't really this page but multiple instances of bad nominations followed by dubious closes. The point for me !voting to overturn here is to say "because we're here" is not a good reason for deletion, not that I think the content is really valuable. If there were really egregious BLP issues, it should have just been speedied without MfD, but when nobody raises BLP issues in an MfD and there's no real policy-based reason given for deleting, deleting "because we're here" is problematic. None of us really care all that much about this page, I don't think, but people not arguing to keep it doesn't mean delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]